Time That Was So Hard To Find

Anon, I am also a full-time procrastinator. (but I often procrastinate real work with fandom stuff which may give the false impression that I have me life, how you say, together)

I don't really know if I have many tips past trying to keep in mind that doing a little bit of work with the time you have left today, or this week, or whatever, is better than throwing your arms up and deciding "it's too late".

Otherwise I guess it depends what sorts of tasks you mean? I might have a few more tips but they don't necessarily make sense in every work context.

While I adore Revolver, Here, There and Everywhere isn't quite top tier for me. I think mainly I find Paul's vocal range awkward in it. I sort of find the Broad Street version nicer.

But I think it's sooooo cleverly structured. The way verse 1 starts with "Here", verse 2 with "There", and then it lands on the "[I want her] Everywhere" on the first measure of the middle eight. Chills. I also really like the guitar runs during the middle eight, how they first sound almost dangerous and then come and harmonize with the vocal.

Man. So many Revolver thoughts. Contains my favourite (Eleanor Rigby) and second favourite Beatles song (I'm Only Sleeping) BACK TO BACK. It's also so unapologetically THEM. Whatever tickles their fancy, in terms of song subject, of instrumentation... A bundle of uncompromising ecclecticism!!! Sort of like the White Album but more... yknow together. And compact. It's so fun to listen to it in order.

Also my favourite album cover. Perhaps ever.

I kind of have a headache so just know I could say a lot more about Revolver but :(

Hellooooo, sorry, I got distracted playing guitar

that passage in May's book is definitely notable and I do think John and George had an interesting dynamic which probably warrants more analysis. it kind of feels like there was a bit of a disagreement over what they were to each other at the core of it, hence George being so mad and John seeming kind of taken aback by the whole thing.

Regarding your speculation: I'm lowkey a lennison (as a ship) hater so you've somewhat come to the wrong place lmao. I know there's that alleged wet dream John had about George, but other than that I don't know that I think something happening between them is more likely than between John and Paul. I do see what you mean, re: closed off-ness and the nature of John and George's specific bond, and I also think it's quite possible George was interested in experimenting (and I sort of see it more with him than with Paul) but I don't know if I think that would make a specific John/George sexual encounter very likely. but you know Who Knows, they just don't really give me that vibe (and even that wet dream description, to my memory, sounds like John was like "wtf with HIM????" lmao)

no definitely beatles disk horse lmao. B)

I don't know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he doesn't go Bonkers bonkers tho, I'm trying to keep the story grounded. I'm just under 10k into it but there's still looooots to go. Do not expect it before sometime in the new year (especially since it's on hold until my secret santa duties are complete)

Hi anon! Sorry for taking a while to get to this

This is kind of hard for me to answer.

Firstly, because the definition of what counts as neurodivergent seems to vary widely (I feel like I for a long time saw it used basically just for ADHD and autism, but some people also use it for mood and personality disorders)

I know why a fair amount of autistic and ADHD people relate to him on some level; and also why his struggles with anxiety are relatable. I think it's valuable to talk about one's specific experiences and how Paul's behaviour might be similar, because it can help everyone understand each other better and approach situations in a more nuanced and empathetic way.

That being said, I doubt Paul has a diagnosis for any of these things and I feel like you can't really say that he's immensely struggled socially. He's a star and a known charmer, and while he did spend time on his own as a kid, it doesn't seem like he ever specifically struggled to maintain relationships… My point is, whatever he may or may not have, I don't think he struggles a ton with it, at least not when his life is on the whole going well.

Personally, I don't really have any interest in proving Paul is any specific type of neurospicy, partially because I don't find his behaviour difficult to follow (in contrast to John, who I think can easily seem completely irrational without the framework of two or three mental health issues he likely had) – but then again, I am someone who has spent years thinking she probably has at least mild ADHD(and done next to nothing about it) who has a bit of a pattern of bonding with ADHD and autistic people. So idk. maybe other people do need that framework to get Paul more?

I don't recall this either but I don't doubt it for a second. Was it maybe when he got together with Linda maybe? I know his squaters didn't like that.

I Know!!! I take it seriously because it's all genuinely interesting to me!!!

I've watched this before.

My opinion is that it's quite funny, I like the deadpan delivery. Personally though – and I know this is largely a me thing – I find it hard to deal with this sort of half-serious, half-joking speculation outside personal conversations with people I know well.

Like, if you want, I can engage with this whole video as a serious argument, but I don't think anyone actually wants that, even though the format of the video strongly suggests it. I find it hard to believe the presenter doesn't to some extent believe (reciprocated) McLennon Is Real, but presenting the evidence in this jokey way sort of makes arguing against it impossible without being called a killjoy, which is frustrating if you don't agree with all of it.

I wanna say one thing: the Pyramus and Thisbe thing is in my opinion so utterly irrelevant lmao. And the way it's being framed here – completely devoid of context, like the fact that the entire gag of that bit of Midsummer Night's Dream is that it's two men, the fact it's a gag at all, or the fact that John and Paul did not decide to do this play – is a thing I find kind of annoying about this type of "I will prove to you, average person, that my theory is true." Because non-fans watching this have no context to respond to any of it with anything but agreement.

I agree he could just lie. (although personally I find it weird he'd be bringing up his sexuality at all like he does in the Robert Fraser quote. I feel like if Paul was closeted he would avoid the topic as much as possible, but who knows I guess)

However, calling someone a liar to bolster a theory is a slippery slope. It lets you dismiss literally anything you don't agree with. Now, there's times I've also concluded someone may be lying without having direct evidence to prove it, I don't want to say it's absolutely forbidden – but I just feel like people should be conscious of what they're saying.

You know, I'm not 100% sure. But if someone has a quote handy where he specifically refers to himself as straight or hetero that would be neato.

However, To Be Frank, reading the times he called himself not gay as him playing coy instead of just engaging in bi-erasure-tinged heteronormativity feels like… trying to make fetch happen.

Like, for instance he says it in the context of his and Robert Fraser's relationship (ignore his cringe wording lol):

"If there was to be gayness it would be a quiet phone call that Robert would go and take in the bedroom or something. That was one of the good things, actually, because I knew he was gay and he knew I wasn't gay so were quite safe in our own sexuality. We could talk to each other."

If you ask me, this quote becomes near nonsensical if Paul is actually saying he was "a secret third option", as opposed to simply assuming he – as a man born in the 40s – is using "not gay" and "straight" synonymously here. The reason one even could be coy in that way is because people do make that assumption.

I'd sooner believe he was just lying than that he was playing 3d chess here.

Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but my impression when I joined bug tumblr was that there was no consensus re:Paul's sexuality. It was an open debate and most opinions were seen as valid even if there was disagreement.

At some point, there started to be weird backlash against the concept of Paul being straight – it was seen as "defending" his heterosexuality (rather than defending the concept of taking people at their word in general?), as an inherently "lame stance" (rather than a conclusion one could draw about him like any other), or even directly called homophobic because it opposed the idea of "two men being unapologetically into each other" (no matter how much people actually tried to explain why they thought the way they did).

"No hetero explanation for this" used to be kind of a joke but it isn't much anymore – and it's certainly not actually an invitation to provide an alternative reading of stuff (which is why I find it incredibly frustrating).

Now, it appears to be deeply unpopular to simply say "the things Paul has said about himself ring true to me". Maybe it's not actually the majority opinion that Paul was definitely not straight, but voicing any other stance is definitely rare at this point.

Hi, sorry for forgetting to answer this. I haven't been having a great time.

My answer to this remains Taylor – I always feel the need to caveat that, because in Beatles circles people are very often putting her songwriting abilities down. I'm not here to argue she's objectively the best, because that debate is exhausting and would end in me feeling forced to throw songwriters I LOVE and have immense respect for under the bus in order to bolster an argument that has no definite answer anyways. (also how I feel about John v Paul debates)

So to answer why she's my favourite: I'd be lying if I didn't say a lot of it is down to me discovering her at a very formative period in my life and her subsequently having been with me so long, which all adds up to her being incredibly special to me personally. Although, the fact that so many of her fans have a similar experience with her is definitely notable and a testament to her voice and perspective as a writer, I'd say.

But here's some more reasons:

According to Paul (and Barry Miles) in Many Years From Now, yes it was before she met John, but I've seen @pleasantlyinsincere call this timeline into question based on when Yoko and Paul were both actually in London at the same time before the gallery opening. I doubt it would be a straightup lie and not just an honest mix up, which to me indicates probably these things happened in relatively close succession. There's also a story in Norman's John bio from Yoko about John and Paul meeting Yoko together at a different gallery, some time after her meeting John, where Paul tried to speak with her a bit. Here it is.

My answer to this ask is I think my best explanation to date of why I think John may have had obsessive negative feelings towards Paul.

On the whole, I do agree with you concerning Paul becoming a proxy for "bad things" (and the above ask elaborates on why Paul was that person).

I'm not sure I agree with you on John and Paul being bound to be adults with very little in common. I think Paul found John's interest in the occult off-putting and difficult to navigate, but I don't think that was always going to be as pronounced as it ended up under Yoko's influence. And as elaborated above, I agree with you that John was negatively fixated on Paul to the detriment of their relationship, and while that would have been difficult to resolve, I don't think it was impossible.

I also struggle with the idea they necessarily needed to have more in common than their love of music to be friends – that's already a lot IMO! And clearly they always shared a sense of humour and were able to have conversations about bread and babies. I know some think that was worthless, but tbh, a lot of parent-aged adults like talking about what they cook and their kids.

Back to the Egg is that dorky theatre kid-turned punk cousin who is bad at putting up a tough front. He tries to sneak me into movies I'm legally too young for.

send me a Paul album and I'll tell you what family member it is To Me

Off The Ground is a beloved uncle who is very fun to go on hikes with but gets a bit tiring when he starts ranting at the dinner table, even when I technically agree with him because he won't let you get any word of nuance in.

send me a Paul album and I'll tell you what family member it is To Me