He kept talking about John Lennon in the present tense. It was ‘John says this’ and ‘John thinks that’. Very weird.
And he spoke about that reference to The Beatles being more popular the Jesus. He said: 'Do you realize how much power we could’ve had if we’d gone to the dark side?’
Peter Cox, who was working with Linda on her vegetarian recipes in the late 80s, about his first meeting with Paul
The article I got this from was actually a pretty interesting one about how accurate the “fairytale-ness” of Paul and Linda’s marriage was, or wasn’t really. An interesting read that I recommend and my thoughts on it are below. However, I decided to share this quote because damn, this poor man is so traumatized and he talks about it all so much (which we already knew but more examples are always fun)
While it seemed to have a rather noticeable anti-Paul, or maybe more of a pro-Linda, bias, it brought up good points. While you should probably take it with a grain of salt just because with an obvious bias in place who knows how accurate the article itself is, it does do a good job of pointing out (if you can get past the exaggerations) that their marriage wasn’t perfect and had its ups and downs and really was just a normal marriage.
Now, when I say it paints Paul in a bad light, I’m not saying they’re wrong about him. He was possessive over Linda, he had a pretty large ego, had a tendency to be rather arrogant and self-absorbed, and didn’t like to shell out big bucks to anyone, including, apparently, his wife. Now, all of these things are valid, BUT the article then turned around and painted Linda as doing absolutely nothing wrong and being so wonderfully passive as to bend to all of Paul’s needs over her own, grudgingly at that. While Linda was certainly a wonderful woman I’m sure, by saying that the marriage was a normal marriage between two normal people who both had high and low points and then in the same sentence saying Paul was all bad and Linda all good negates the former. Both had their flaws and both had their strengths. Sure, some of the issues were inflated by fame and all that, but then again the problems brought up in the article are also being inflated by that same fame. Most couples have issues very similar to these, they aren’t unique to Paul or Linda. Also, by insinuating that Linda gave up her own interests and herself to serve Paul because she was just that good of a wife sells her short really because, on one hand, I’m sure a good amount of the time she was helping Paul because she cared for him and wanted to help, not because he demanded it or she felt obliged to do so. On the other hand, the article suggests that she would rather side with him than fight for her own interests, but I feel like that completely insults her strength as a woman, because she was very strong and if there was something she absolutely did not want to do, I believe that she wouldn’t have done it no matter what Paul said.
Something else that struck me, just food for thought, was the claim that Paul didn’t like Linda spending time away from him or doing her own thing and her feeling somewhat trapped. While this problem is again not unique to Paul and Linda and may have an equal chance of being true as it does of being false, one has to wonder how this played into the fairytale image. The famous claim that the couple only every spent 11 days apart in 29 years of marriage suddenly becomes a lot less wholesome in this lighting. Did this occur because they truly wanted to spend every waking moment together, or because they wouldn’t let it be any other way even if one of them wanted more time apart?
Another interesting tid-bit to pick at is the idea that Paul apparently doesn’t like to spend money (a claim also somewhat backed up by this article about Paul’s hair-dying adventures and his apparent refusal to pay too high prices for dye and services). Is it a good or a bad thing that he seems to adhere to his modest Liverpool, working-class upbringing when it comes to spending and saving money? Finding deals and saving money can seem like an art when it comes from a regular-income family, but when its being done by a multi-millionaire (billionaire???) does it just come off as stingy, or is it commendable? On one had, his decision to apparently not shell out huge bucks on regular things such as hair dye or buying a more modest house comes as sort of refreshing in contrast to celebrities who buy 50 room mansions for just themselves. In a way it sort of matches how I feel I would be in that situation. It doesn’t matter if I’m making $100 or $1,000,000 a week, I would still find the idea of paying over $100 for a shirt ridiculous and wouldn’t ever do it. However, the author here does make a good point in terms of where this sort of attitude stops being commendable and just becomes stingy. Paul came from a community who did everything themselves and never hired people like nannies, but that’s also because they couldn’t really afford them. In his situation now, he has no trouble affording a nanny, so wouldn’t it just be easier on the whole household to hire one? Different situations and circumstances call for different action. This portion was not specifically about Paul or his life choices as they don’t involve me, but just more of a study on decision-making and values/morals with Paul as a subject.
TL;DR its a very interesting read in my opinion despite the negative attitude of the writing. You have to remember that these people being quoted know that the more scandalous and anti-Paul they make their statements, the more attention it brings. Basically, they had a normal marriage with normal problems between two normal people that was all blown up by fame and press (in both positive and negative ways).
