A few nights ago I watched part of a PBS program about John Lennon—about his post-Beatles days and life with Yoko. In one news clip, John and Yoko sit at a table while being interviewed by the press in London.
John criticizes them (in a playful way) for writing mean things about Yoko and calling her “ugly.” He said she wasn’t ugly. His defense of her was sweet. Yoko sat demurely next to him, looking younger and more innocent than I remember her back then. But unlike John, she never struck me as “sweet.”
Yesterday Diane Rehm had three guests on her show to commemorate the 30th anniversary of John Lennon’s death. One guy’s comments, Richard Harrington (former music critic for the Washington Post) bugged me.
First, he defended Yoko as the person who “allowed John to become John instead of Beatle John…” and “was the most empowering person who ever came into his life…”
John Lennon never struck me as the type of person who required the impetus of another person to be able to do what he wanted to do. As far as empowering goes, seems to me John Lennon was happiest when being Daddy to Sean. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say it was Sean who “empowered” John the most to lead the life he wanted.
Ironically, it was Yoko who told John she did not want to carry her baby to term unless he became a househusband. Her “empowerment” seems more along the lines of controlling and manipulative.
Mr. Harrington also said Yoko “did not break up the Beatles. She awoke John Lennon.” If John Lennon hadn’t met Yoko, would he still have left the Beatles when he did? Who knows?
But does a person make a break as life changing as leaving the most popular rock band in the world without having a place to go to? Yoko provided John with that place — and I’m sure she provided encouragement, too – because she could have her meal-ticket all to herself! (Ouch)
Whether or not John leaving the Beatles was a good thing or not is debateable. But Yoko does have a role in the Beatles’ breakup.
Mr. Harrington continued: “But if you look at what she’s done in the 30 years since his death, she’s done nothing but celebrate his legacy and reintroduce his concepts of world peace and brotherhood and all those other positive things that he stood for…” Oh brother.
Yoko has to champion John because if she were championing herself, no one would pay attention. Yoko craves attention. She used John to promote her own celebrity and “artistry”—except the vast majority of people don’t care about her “artistry” as it does not appeal to them or connect with them. Dead or alive, John gave Yoko credibility—not the other way around.
Here’s where I really disagree with Mr. Harrington, when he said, “…she’s really a marvelous, marvelous person…” Oh brother #2.
First of all, a “marvelous, marvelous” person doesn’t start an affair with a married man with a child. She doesn’t telephone him and drop by his house. She doesn’t shack up in the marital house when the wife is on vacation and sit at the kitchen table wearing the wife’s robe when the wife returns home.
Yoko’s relationship with John was about what was best for Yoko and not what was best for John. She had adulterous relationships. What man likes that quality in a wife?
Yoko orchestrated John’s hook-up with May Pang. She wanted to see other people so she gave John a “companion” with her blessing.
Ironically, May Pang was better for John than Yoko (IMHO). She encouraged John to mend fences and reconnect with Paul, Ringo, Harry Nilsson, and most importantly, his son Julian. During the time John was with May, he was highly productive and energized creatively.
John and Cynthia divorced when Julian was 5 years old. Julian has stated in interviews that he saw his father once a year after that. But when May Pang popped on the scene, she arranged to have Julian join John and her in L.A. Julian describes this time as the happiest days of his life. (I’m extrapolating here, but I imagine that John enjoyed spending time with his son.)
After John and Yoko reconciled, Julian again became estranged from his father.
A “marvelous” person in this situation would say, “Gee, this father-son relationship seems to be good for both of you, you should continue it. If you’re happy, John, then I’m happy for you!”
A non-marvelous person isolates the father from the son—for reasons I can only assume are selfish: she wants all John’s attention for herself AND a person is easier to control if he has no other meaningful relationships.
A non-marvelous person doesn’t give a rip about a child wanting to have the love of — and time spent with — his father.
A non-marvelous person rips off the child in the inheritance department when the father dies. She gives the child a measly 1/12 of 1% (if my math is correct) of the worth of his father’s estate. Does a “marvelous” person think the father would want to leave his son a paltry ½ of 1% of his worth?
Does a “marvelous” person then auction off the father’s personal belongings instead of giving them to the son who wanted them? (The son then had to BUY his father’s stuff for a large amount of money to get back those things that had sentimental value for him—like postcards.)
This so-called marvelous person could not give her stepson some postcards for cryin’ out loud? I see that as really ugly behavior. Maybe that is what the London press saw in Yoko all those years ago—an ugly soul glaring through every pore of her face.
Does a “marvelous” person spend ten years fighting the son in court before settling on giving him a more equitable inheritance?
Marvelous, my ass!
I can’t believe Diane Rehm did not call Mr. Harrington on his fawning gushiness over Yoko and his absurd characterization of her. She usually catches that crap.
But the real clincher of the pathetic comments by Mr. Harrington was this statement about Yoko:
“And anybody who has negative feelings towards her really should be ashamed.”
Ashamed, my ass! I have one comment for you, Mr. Harrington: STFU.
Here’s my other blog about John Lennon on what would have been his 70th birthday last October:
http://fuchsiawoman.com/blog/listen/remembering-john-lennon/
