Shout! by Philip Norman

[Caton4]

Norman's book is a before and after of the official story. Until his appearance, everything was Hunter Davis and a lot of copy / paste. Shout was an explosion of information that we did not have until that moment. And I think, I just think, that at that time it wasn't crucial whether the book was anti-Paul or not. The information was what was important. With Monday's newspaper and several books with which to compare it, perhaps the suspicion of an anti-Paul whiff arises. At the time, that was totally irrelevant. I was 22 when it was published and John had only recently left for infinity. I agree with Lord Reith, I did not find (at the time) a hint of anti-Macca in him either.

[stereohysteria]

Yea I reread the book a few years back and it was a quick very entertaining read, but I really, really, really didn't like the anti-Paul vibe of the whole book.

Paul didn’t like it either. His referred to the author in interviews as Norma Philips. I think they’ve since buried the hatchet

Around the time of Shout's publication, he also was fond of referring to the book as Shite!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSebxaVz-I8&t=460s

[Fast lucky]

Norman's book is a before and after of the official story. Until his appearance, everything was Hunter Davis and a lot of copy / paste. Shout was an explosion of information that we did not have until that moment. And I think, I just think, that at that time it wasn't crucial whether the book was anti-Paul or not. The information was what was important. With Monday's newspaper and several books with which to compare it, perhaps the suspicion of an anti-Paul whiff arises. At the time, that was totally irrelevant. I was 22 when it was published and John had only recently left for infinity. I agree with Lord Reith, I did not find (at the time) a hint of anti-Macca in him either.

Hunter Davies is the official story. Like you said, - and that's what still makes the book a good read - there was plenty of unheard info, - not the first book of that kind, but maybe the first with such a volume of info - but some of it is untrue and still presented as fact even though it has later been prooved false. The author removed some unpleasant info on Brian Epstein to please Brian's mother but failed to correct his false assesments. The other very important factor is that it was written - or released - after John's death. Once again, for those who read tons of Beatles books, I can only advise to read 'The Beatles and the historians'.

[Lord Reith]

Shout is still a superbly written book though. For my money, one of the two best Beatles books ever written, the other being The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Shaffner. Both authors had the writing chops to be able to put the reader right back there in the moment. That's pretty rare among Beatles books. Many of them are factually loaded but the writing is dry and workmanlike. I find those sorts of books very tiresome to read.

Paul had a problem at the time with John being depicted as "Martin Luther Lennon" as he described it. Unfortunately he described it all too well in a phone conversation with Hunter Davies, who proceeded to stab him in the back by publishing the whole thing in his revised biography. It reveals Paul being upset about being portrayed more or less as a square by the media whereas John was always the working class hero who flouted convention. Of course, Paul flouted convention too and sang wild rock and roll, but nobody's interested in that because the roles were set very early on by the media with John as the sarcastic wild card and Paul as the wide-eyed, eager-to-please media-friendly Beatle with the matinee idol looks. I don't think any of the stuff Paul has complained about was particularly unflattering, it's just that in the world of rock and roll it wasn't considered cool. Being careful with money is not something rock and rollers brag about.

[Fast lucky]

Paul gave Norman a chance to rebalance things when he gave him the go ahead for his biography but Norman miserably failed. I almost threw the book through the window a dozen times.

Why? I read this book and it was fine. Nothing really new, but still it's quite a good biography.

May I disagree ? New things - thanks to Paul giving the official go ahead - but not really fine. So do you really think that Paul did nothing since Penny Lane ? Nothing worthy in his solo career ?