Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: December ::
Re: John Lennon
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2308  Tuesday, 11 December 2000

[1]     From:   Paul S. Rhodes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 11 Dec 2000 14:32:23 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2291 Re: John Lennon

[2]     From:   Belinda Johnston <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000 23:06:50 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2291 Re: John Lennon


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul S. Rhodes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 11 Dec 2000 14:32:23 -0600
Subject: 11.2291 Re: John Lennon
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2291 Re: John Lennon

Mike Jensen wrote:

> Yes it was, and I have learned my lesson.  I was wrong.  I've been
> hoping Terry would learn his lesson.  Not yet, I'm afraid.

Mr. Jensen, Terence Hawkes is a good post-modernist, and as a good
post-modernist,  he is skeptical of all magisteria--even yours, Mr.
Jensen.

Pax,
Paul S. Rhodes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Belinda Johnston <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000 23:06:50 +0800
Subject: 11.2291 Re: John Lennon
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2291 Re: John Lennon

>Take it off line.

Please no, it's been such a fun thread!

>While he lived we loved
>his songs despite the fact that we didn't understand his behavior, and
>now that he's gone we rejoice to honor him on the day he left us. God
>bless you, John, wherever you are, and thanks for all you gave us. How
>much more drab and dull our lives would have been, would be now in fact,
>without you.

We? Us? Our?  Isn't that the problem with Lennonism?  I quite liked his
songs, was never particularly perplexed by his behaviour, don't "rejoice
to honour him on the day he left us," don't feel he gave me much, and
feel my life would have been duller and drabber for lack of oh say
Morrissey or Ian Curtis, which marks me very clearly as a former
Eighties adolescent. So the We/Us/Our doesn't really speak for me, just
as I suspect it doesn't speak for a large chunk of the global population
for various reasons.  Which brings me back to the question, Isn't that
the problem with Lennonism?  which, to drag this back to some attempt at
relevance, is surely a problem with Bardolatry as well?
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.