Post by melody on Aug 12, 2008 14:56:04 GMT -5
So, John, there's something wrong with being old and cynical? It occurs to me that the "old" have earned the right to be cynical!
Having previously been on a board where members were intimidated into censoring themselves--or not posting at all--I'm impressed when any person says what he or she actually thinks and risks the ire of the true believers. I really bristle at the characterization of someone's comments as being "correct" or "wrong." Who decides that? Opinion can't be right or wrong, and everyone should be able to express his or hers without being attacked. It sounds like you have stood your ground through many slings and arrows--believe me, I can identify. I'm happy to consider any viewpoint that makes rational arguments, and I'm sure you are, too. People should feel free to be themselves, to be spontaneous, analytical, humorous, whatever. Your calling C-Moon "lame-ass" made me laugh (as did a similar comment I recently saw--"why does Paul play that shit?"), but no one would have dared to ridicule Paul's music on that prior board. Or refer to him as an "old fart." A columnist was derided in post after post for getting snarky about his hair dye--like she was the only person to ever do THAT? "What a hypocrite she is, I bet she dyes her hair!" Where are our senses of humor? The Beatles are the greatest group ever, but none of the individual members are/were deities (despite John's misinterpreted claim). People who worship celebrities are driven to excuse, rationalize and/or defend their idol's every act, and God help anyone who isn't singing from the same hymnal. But it sucks the life right out of a discussion forum. So, John, what DID you say about the older kids? I could make some choice remarks about Mary right now if that would spur you on...
I'm a first-generation Beatles fan who also listens to Paul's solo music more than any of the others. I'll always enjoy the bulk of his music...with the exception of that lame-ass C Moon. But he's really lost me with his personal behavior. As someone who has now been married longer than Paul and Linda were (which does indeed make me both old AND cynical), and has likewise raised a family, I had a lot of regard for their relationship, their priorities, their grounded lifestyle, and the way they brought up their children amidst enormous fame and wealth. While I didn't approve of their drug use, I believed that, as a couple and as parents, they were the real deal. Then Linda unfortunately dies, and Mr. Grounded makes the same idiot move every other old guy who can't accept the aging process makes--gets himself a busty blonde young enough to be his daughter, and fathers another baby. When it unsurprisingly all goes south, he assesses the wreckage and concludes that the problem was...Heather's paltry bank account. WTF? You really can't make this stuff up. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. As disappointed as I was in Paul's behavior during the divorce, I was willing to give him a mulligan on the Heather mess, until he decided to chase after a socially and politically well-connected New York heiress, months before his divorce was final, and while she was still legally married. That, to me, represented the definitive repudiation of all those down-to-earth values he claimed to hold so dear during his years with Linda. Paul has always been the consummate PR guy, but the image no longer matches the reality--if it ever did. He may be a nice person, but he's not the same man who was married to Linda. So much for the "real deal." And from some of the comments bandied about during the divorce, and just this week in the Daily Mail, it's clear I'm not the only one who thinks that is the case. I still give him some leeway because I'm not sure he KNOWS he's become a phony. And because old habits die hard, perhaps? But, in the "doth protest too much" category, he is still pushing that "ordinary guy" narrative, as recently as the Quebec concert. So I suspect that, on some level, he does know he's sold out.
Nancy isn't horrible, although my naturally suspicious nature does go into overdrive whenever a younger woman gets all hot and bothered over what the Chicago Tribune described as an "old man with dyed hair and a beaded Indian belt holding up hitched-too-high pants." Ewww. Maybe she is as focused on protecting her fortune as Paul is on protecting his, post-golddigging Heather. At least she isn't Rosanna Arquette (breathes huge sigh of relief). She's not a model or an actress, or the "blow-up doll from the fringes of Hollywood" that one guy predicted Paul would marry next (such is the extent to which his image has been damaged--ah, The Heather Effect). She's certainly no gorgeous and glamorous bimbo. Plain and rail-thin, her wardrobe choices are almost as strange as his (where DID Stella get her fashion sense?), and she seems smart and classy. I just don't think she has longterm relationship potential, and her age isn't the half of it. Having just rid himself of "look at ME" Heather, I'm sure Paul does find her aversion to his fame charming. For the moment. He was also totally besotted with Heather at this point in their relationship, remember. I may not know what his core values are these days any more than he apparently does, but I do know this--he thrives on the attention of his fans, loves to perform, and has repeatedly stated that he doesn't see himself ever "retiring" as such. But unless he reneges on that promise, Nancy's attitude will become a source of ever-increasing friction, as will their political, educational, and lifestyle differences--not to mention the very basic fact that she is a New York socialite born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and he's a "working-class scruff" from Liverpool. I see that they are on a road trip together, only the two of them, at her suggestion. Very sweet--and transparent. As a woman, I've got to hand it to her. She's a gal with a plan. And Paul is an easy target, just like he was after Linda died, not that he understands that. His cluelessness, impatience and neediness will be his undoing yet again. Plus, the poor schlep has now acquired the ex from hell. What woman would want to put up with Heather and her interference? But Nancy and Paul do have all that money in common, although I once heard it can't buy you love. Oh, and did I mention she is wealthy? An heiress? She's "not on Paul's payroll." Yep, that should make ALL the difference this time around. I hope he has Fiona Shackleton on retainer.
Barbara, I find your comments about Linda curious. If you are arguing that her electing not to leave is de facto evidence that Paul was never abusive, the perfect husband, I'm sorry, relationships are not that black and white. The best marriages succeed because they are grounded in shared values and experience, which was obviously the case with Paul and Linda--and which, btw, is also why the big age-gap pairings seldom work. Those shared values and experiences create a strong bond that see you through the tough times. Of course there are different thresholds for different people as to what they will and will not put up with in a marriage, but Linda clearly prioritized her family. That suggests she would have been more motivated to hang in through thick and thin than many others might have been. I don't know what actually went on in their marriage, and neither do you. What I do know is that Paul regularly abused both alcohol and drugs--I remember reading that when he was at home, he would walk around all day with a glass of scotch in his hand, which he would periodically replenish under Linda's concerned and disapproving eye--and what any Beatles fan would know through observing the group's history. That is, Paul is driven, stubborn, egotistical, overbearing, and almost pathologically perfectionistic. Looking at those facts, I can guarantee you he was no box of chocolates to be married to. What Linda's co-author, Mr. Cox, personally thought of Paul, and how Cox conducted himself, is immaterial. Linda must have needed to vent to someone, and her collaborator was evidently a close and trusted friend. I'd wager there is some very interesting commentary on those tapes, not all of it flattering to Paul. If you want de facto evidence of something, Paul's eagerness to shell out big money to acquire them is more revelatory than anything Linda or Mr. Cox did.
I don't see any mystery in why Paul and Heather agreed to joint custody. They both have skeletons in their respective closets, and Paul's age would have been a major strike against him. Even the judge tactfully addressed the old fart issue (if you're still here, that Bud's for you, John) in his divorce judgment. I think they realized it would have traumatized Bea not to have equal access to both her parents, and sensibly wanted to avoid a Brinkley/Cook-type smackdown. Paul may have failed to be a stand-up guy during the divorce, but at least he didn't mortify Heather any further by trying to take her daughter away from her. I don't like Heather, but honestly, I understand her motivation for some of the things she did. Paul hung her out to dry, and she must have felt like a cornered animal. Barbara obviously sees her as pure evil, but Paul is no angel, and certainly no babe-in-the-woods. At the risk of repeating myself, no one forced him to marry Heather. He doesn't have the moral high ground, especially in his behavior with his girlfriends, and in his actions around Bea. He and Nancy and Bea stayed together in a resort in Morocco, and reportedly will spend some of the month of August together. Both Paul and Heather have behaved immaturely and selfishly in the example they set for that little girl, and have exhibited questionable judgment. Which reminds me, my previous question remains unanswered--why is Heather fair game for her errors in judgment while Paul, who made the biggest error of all in choosing her, gets a pass?
Sorry, sexysadie, but being old is no excuse for being bitter, cynical, harshly judgemental, and narrow minded, and it's certainly not traits I would brag about if I were you. I'm a first generation Beatle fan too and tend to focus on the positives in people, rather than looking for skeletons and negatives. I don't worship any idols, and believe I have a pretty fair and balanced assessment of Mr. McCartney's strengths and weaknesses. He's certainly flawed and very human, but essentially a good man.
Since you appreciate frankness, I'll be frank with you. I wouldn't care to have you as a friend or family member. I couldn't possibly live up to your lofty and rigid standards of behavior. Would you turn so harshly against a friend or family member because they made a error in judgement at a vulnerable time with respect to a suitable marriage partner? All my 3 siblings are divorced and remarried (one of them more than once) and they are all good people who made mistakes on the rebound, like Paul, and millions of others.
And in what way has Paul been given a pass? He was certainly heavily criticised by fans and the British media for hooking up with ex *glamour* girl Heather in the first place, for ignoring the reservations of his children, for not having her investigated when rumors of her shady past surfaces prior to the marriage, for leaving himself so financially vulnerable, for looking like such a bloody fool for letting his pants override his common sense.
But most compassionate and reasonable people can understand and are sympathetic to how Paul got himself into his mess with Heather, and most who have taken the time to read that 58 page Court Judgement and don't have a personal axe to grind with Paul, admire the dignified manner in which he handled himself through-out his very public and horrifying divorce ordeal with a proven liar and fraud. Paul did not hang her out to dry. Heather is 95% responsible for her own soiled reputation and piss-pure PR. She's an exceedingly unself-aware toxic personality who falls out with EVERYONE eventually (except for her equally devious sister). She doesn't know when to keep her mouth shut, and continually puts in foot in her mouth, over and over again. They might as well put a big neon sign flashing 'PERSONALITY DISORDERED" over her overly inflated head.
Her behavior was simply appalling. His was not. Most of the right minded people think this way, IMO. Remember, Heather claimed publicly that her chances of getting pregnant were virtually nil because of her prior health problems (including uterus cancer). Another lie. Another trap. If she had uterus cancer the only treatment is a hysterectomy.
Let's review the divorce rate (it's about 50% of marriages and higher with second ones, isn't it?) which, btw, is statistically no greater among age-gap relationships than any other. Look it up. It still comes down to love, maturity, and compatability, and many age-gappers DO IN FACT work out just fine. Not all are mercenary in nature.
That there were rough patches in Paul and Linda's long marriage is a known fact. Both have coped to it in interviews and one only needs to scan the lyrics to Press to Play and Flowers in the Dirt to come to the reasonable conclusion that the mid to late 80's was a rough time for them. But they persevered and worked it out and all I see is the love between them when I view them together in 'The World Tonight' DVD. Let's not assume ALL the problems in that marriage were Paul's fault. Just because Linda is dead she doesn't automatically become a totally blameless saint.
That co-author, Mr. Cox, who sold his story about the cookbook Linda tapes to the Daily Mail, was himself a shady character to say the least. I did some googling to see what I could find out about the guy when this story was running, and there were some very interesting discussions in a couple of writers newsgroups about him being sued by an author of another book, whom he had double-crossed and stabbed in the back (figuratively speaking). This female author regretted ever trusting the guy, assuming stupidly that he was a good guy because of his animal rights stance. My assumption at the time was that Mr. Cox needed some quick cash for his legal troubles. And remember, Cox said via the Daily Mail article that there was NO EVIDENCE OF ABUSE on those tapes. BTW, the term *abuse* is itself abused and mangled to an insane level. Heck, if someone merely yells at their dog these days, the guy is accused of abuse by the overly accusatory and PC obsessed.
Simply put, you can't hide true abuse from grown children in a household. Paul has the love and support of all his grown daughters for a reason. If anyone thinks his kids are just worried about their inheritance, then the cynicism in that view point is beyond appalling. End of story.
As to the custody issue, unlike Heather, who refused to take good advice from anyone, Paul did take his attorney's advice, who no doubt advised him not to go for full custody because 1) he can't be a father and a mother, 2) his age would work against him, and 3) British courts always favour the mother, especially when young children are involved, and he'd have to prove Heather was an unfit mother in order to have a chance in hell of winning, and 3) Judges don't normally look kindly on one parent trying to smear the other. The judge certainly didn't have a good opinion of Heather's tasteless, greedy, inconsistent, less than candid, devoid of reality, explosive, behavior and testimony. In sharp contrast, he found Paul to be honest, consistent, and generous.
Finally, we don't know much about Nancy Shevell to decide if she's horrible or not, do we? We know that they have known each other for awhile, she is not a limelight seeker, she's a successful and well educated woman in her own right, and if news reports are correct, his children seem to like and approve of her. The fact that Paul went for something other than obviously ravishingly perfect looks when he choose Linda and now Nancy (although I consider both to be attractive in their own ways) is a good thing, and says to me he is far less phony, shallow, and PR obsessed, than some of his *so-called* fans.