Can you tell me about Lewisohn and why he’s so hated? I’m a bit new here and I was recommended a blog that is solely dedicated to hating this guy. Was he a homophobe or did he do something rude to the boys?
Hello anon! I feel your pain. Lewisohn is a controversial figure, and it can be hard to get a read on what people think of him and why.
Lewisohn is writing what he hopes will be the definitive history of the Beatles. He has so far completed volume 1 (which covers from before they were born till 1962), as well as several other books from before he started working on the series.
He is very popular with some parts of the fandom because he has done really extensive research and is considerably better than other authors I could name.
But, there are some serious issues with his work.
First of all, his author bios tend to call him "the acknowledged authority" and his wiki article refers to him as a "historian". I would be slow to apply either of those terms to him. His training and experience are in journalism, and he does not apply modern standards of historical research to his work.
Secondly while his writing is engaging (I read the extended version of Tune In and missed it when it was over) his analysis is often lacking in empathy. For example, he tells us (ad nauseam) how "mean" and "cheap" Paul was, but doesn't take any time to consider the money and family issues Paul was facing that a) didn't apply to the others b) might have caused such behaviour. If the most ambitious and diligent musician in the group won't buy himself a new guitar, maybe he has a reason, you know?
Thirdly, he's weirdly dismissive of oral accounts. Liverpool locals figured out where Paul had his paper round, but it wasn't on a piece of paper, so as far as ML was concerned it didn't count.
Fourthly (this list is getting long) he had some kind of falling out with Paul (and Apple Corps) around 2009. He went from being invited to write Paul's biography to being dis-invited. It's not clear exactly what when on between them, but ML has not acknowledged that it might impact his objectivity wrt his writing.
Fifth he completely ignores queer issues. There's a part where he sort of darkly hints about George's sexuality, but in a childish heternormative way. His treatment of Brian's sexuality isn't completely terrible, but neither is it fantastic. I'd be amazed if he ever addresses the evidence for, eg, John's bisexuality.
One of the most difficult things for me is that he's overtly racist against the Irish in the worst self-satisfied Brit way (apologies to my British readers if that sounds harsh, but it is A Thing).
I would still recommend reading it, but as with all books on the Beatles, you must take it with a pinch of salt. Go in aware of his bias against Paul and his hero-worship of John, and there's a lot to be gained from reading the book, in my opinion.
And I really hope that he'll eventually pass on his extensive research collection as a public resource for actual historians to comb over and analyse.
@wingsoverlagos and @mythserene have done some detailed analysis of specific problems with his work, especially his terrible citation "style". (He merges quotes from different contexts, adds words in square brackets that change the meaning, chops out relevant information, and more). Some of those posts might seem a bit vitriolic if you're coming at them cold, but once you know the context the ire makes sense.
For a really in-depth analysis of the problems with his treatment of Paul in Tune In check out @anotherkindofmindpod's series Fine Tuning.
