Do You Think Yoko Loved John When He Died? Do You Think When She Says She Misses Him Or Says She Gets

do you think yoko loved john when he died? do you think when she says she misses him or says she gets choked up hearing his voice still sometimes that it is genuine or just what she has to say and do as his widow(tm) (not necessarily maliciously but she is very brand and image obsessed.) she seems very cold and stoic so i cannot tell if any emotion on him is genuine or something she forces out to fit that narrative. i guess i just get sad because you can really feel the love when olivia talks about george for example, but with yoko im always wondering if it's just her saying what she thinks people want to hear. he has been dead longer than he was even alive so im not saying she has to be grieving still or anything but i do hate that i feel like i cannot trust anything she says because she says everything so emotionlessly.

Hello anon.

I wasn't going to discuss this but couldn't pass the opportunity of addressing some issues that have been bothering me. People act like I go out of my way to start discourse but it's not my fault I get questions like this. Sure, I could ignore the message but I don't see any reason to hold back.

(I'm not going to put this under a cut, you scroll it down, your finger won't fall off, I promise.)

You've worded your point respectfully and I can tell you don't mean any harm but I need to touch on some of those bizarre stereotypes and misconceptions.

For starters, WHY do tumblrinas think it's not only ok but cool dismissing John and Yoko's marriage as Not Valid™ and questioning the extent of their love?

Oh wait, I know the answer. It's because acknowledging Yoko (or Stu or Brian) goes against their cosmic soulmate McLennon dreams.

Yoko was John's wife, mother of his child, creative partner and manager. One might love or hate her but she exists. Show some basic respect.

It's fine to discuss the JohnandYoko brand, their publicity stunts and manipulation of the media but what I often see is people using that as an excuse to further their shipping preferences.

To be honest, if they were as straightforward as your average boyband fan I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. I might even get amused. It's the self righteousness and "correcting the record" bullshit I can do without.

Contrary to popular belief, it's unlikely John and Yoko were total sociopaths pretending to be in love. I know it might come across as a shock but sometimes people just like each other! It's irrelevant whether they bonded for the "wrong" reasons or even if their dynamics was healthy. It's not up for the public to decide what is acceptable between two consenting people. It might seem toxic, insane or plain abusive to you but sometimes people get a kick out of being miserable together. That's nobody's business.

Maybe if they had circulated more footage of them and their blonde children in the tour bus their choices would've been taken more seriously, who knows.

Now straight to your question: did Yoko love John by the time he died? It's hard to say. Depending on who you ask you'll get very different perspectives. But it doesn't matter. Regardless of the motivations, there was a mutual agreement between this couple and it seemed to be working in their terms. It doesn't have to make sense to the rest of us.

In my opinion, she did love John. For all his serious flaws, he wasn't that hard to love. I doubt Yoko was enough of a Bond villain to be indifferent to a man who was cherished by millions for his humor, brilliance and sex appeal. Which is not to say there wasn't envy, resentment and possessiveness on her part. All of these things can coexist.

It's not out of line wondering whether Yoko's public grief has performative elements. It does. But keep in mind that after December 8, 1980 she wasn't speaking just as a wife or manager anymore but as the beneficiary of John's will. She had a product to sell. Of course she'd promote herself and say things people want to hear sometimes.

Which brings us to Paul McCartney. I wasn't going to drag him into this but since everybody assumes he was the reason John existed (and in total equality with his wife), I don't see why not. Why doesn't anybody ever question HIS intentions?

Do you really believe he's not aware of the cultural obsession with Lennon/McCartney and doesn't use it for his own purposes as well? He cherry picks stories and plays for the audience all the time. But it's considered almost sacrilegious suggesting this might be the case.

Now it's totally fine implying he was just as affected by tragedy as the woman who watched her husband getting shot four times right next to her, when they were returning home to have dinner with their kid.

What THE FUCK is wrong with you people?

Fans project a lot of strange things onto this woman. They'll excuse every thing John and Paul ever did because Dead Mothers™ but Yoko being stoic because she grew up in the middle of Japan's WWII's bombings and almost starved to death is not even considered. She didn't come from background where what we consider appropriate displays of affection were common. Yoko might've been a bad influence on John in many aspects but she was as messed up as him, not a Blofeld mastermind attracting a lamb to slaughter. He walked into the "trap" because he saw something he liked and could relate to.

I'm not above contradictions, I have made some of these mistakes myself. After more careful research over the years and reading some of the most ridiculous takes one could imagine, my opinion on the subject has evolved a lot. I still find most of her business decisions questionable and I'm just as annoyed by her occasional attention seeking behavior. But I always had respect for her as an artistic partner to John. I genuinely enjoy their work together and never hid my opinion that he made his most interesting music after she came into the scene.

Does that make me a JohnandYoko stan? No, because I'm not a fucking weirdo. I look up to people for inspiration but I don't live vicariously through their relationships. I don't need JohnandPaul or JohnandYoko or PaulandLinda to be the fairytale of the century in order to believe in love nor I want a celebrity couple to be my parents.

And before anyone accuses me of shaming people, I wanna say that all your crazy ideas are perfectly acceptable on a fan fiction level. Direct all this creativity to entertaining your fellow fans instead of annoying them with rancid takes. We're starved for content!

(yeah that also includes myself, i'm trying! When I finish my fics it will be all over for the rest of you.)

More Posts from Sadplampgun and Others

sadplampgun

1 month ago

john lenny

566 notes View Post

sadplampgun

2 weeks ago

I think your tags on the post about Paul's song Suicide got cut off. I was invested, and want to hear the rest of your thoughts :) Maybe you could put it all in a separate post if you don't want to add it as a reblog?

hey, thanks for this ask! It's always nice to have someone that wants to know my thoughts. I'd love to know yours on the subject too!

Okay super long text post under the cut

On “Suicide” 1956 and 1970

My interpretation of the meaning of Paul’s early song “Suicide” and its purpose on his debut solo album

The verse Paul had written in 1956 goes,

“If when she tries to run away

And he calls her back, she comes.

If there’s a next time, he’s okay

Cause she’s under both his thumbs.

She'll limp along to his side

Singing a song of ruin. I’d

Bet he says nothin’ doin’

I, I’d call it suicide.”

The song’s protagonist can’t leave an abusive relationship. The abuser knows it doesn’t matter what they do, the protagonist will always come back. Even when they’re limping, even when they vocalize their knowledge that this relationship is damaging, they’ll always come back, and the abuser is nonchalant. In the end,the singer likens the protagonist’s return to the relationship to suicide.

Just as the woman in the song is under her husband’s thumb, around the time this was written, Paul was very much under his father’s thumb. This was not due to any lack of self-direction or courage on his part. Jim was physically abusive (like the husband in the song) an addict, extremely controlling, and emotionally both unavailable and volatile. Still, in the same way that the woman in the song always goes back to her husband, Paul loved his father. It’s likely that Paul’s unusual degree of deference to his father was a combination of self-preservation and a genuine desire to help and please his father. Jim was also honest and well-liked, a lot of fun, intelligent, talented, a buyer of wonderful presents, and a supporter of Paul as a musician, and Paul felt great admiration and gratitude to Jim. And yet, Paul is not only the protagonist of “Suicide.” He’s also the singer. And the singer knows this relationship is destructive – bad enough to be likened to deadly.

So, “Suicide” is about Paul’s relationship with his father.

Enter John Lennon. Based on John’s perfect knowledge of “I lost my little girl” a full dozen years after being first shown it, I’m inclined to believe John was fully acquainted with the song “Suicide” and though I think pigs would fly before Paul would discuss its meaning with John, it’s not unlikely that he had his guesses.

It is also my tentative belief (based on the wording of the quote in which John talks about Paul and Jim and the issues with control and violence, the fact that John hit a lot of people, but never Paul, and the documented fact that John Lennon is intensely perceptive when it comes to Paul McCartney) that John knew Jim hit Paul. John hated Jim for all the same reasons Paul obeyed him. He hated that Jim was abusive, and he hated that Paul loved him. But. And here’s where I might be stepping on some toes. John and Jim share some important similarities.

Positives first. Both men are praised for being honest to a fault (Jim owning up to gambling debts and John being open and brash in interviews). Both are well-liked by almost everyone who knew them (People go on and on about what a gentleman Jim was, what a stand-up guy. People always think they’re John’s best friend after spending three hours with him) Both recognize Paul’s talent and give him the support he needs to pursue it (John obviously to a much higher degree) Both are described as being the life of the party and the center of attention.

Now negatives. Both men are highly susceptible to addiction. Both men pressured Paul about his lifestyle. Both are known to have been violent toward people they loved (although John was never violent toward Paul. This is important, and will be revisited). Both men had difficulty controlling their emotions or expressing them in a healthy way.

John eventually won his battle with Jim, as he states very proudly that Paul chose him in the end. He stood up to his father, as John claims he constantly begged him to do, and cast his lot with John, their partnership and their music. And, obviously, it was the right decision. Not only because it resulted in the greatest musical collaboration of all time, but because with John, Paul exchanged violence for softness. John was capable of a shocking level of care and tenderness, and for many years that was absolutely lavished on Paul. And I think they were both privately proud of that fact.

Jump to late 1969 / early 1970. John’s actions during the divorce (forcing Allen Klein – another violent and controlling man – on Paul, manipulating – self-admitedly – George and Ringo into turning against Paul, threatening – accidentally or on purpose – to treat Paul the way he’d treated Cynthia in their divorce, etc.) were hurtful enough to Paul that he was, in fact, suicidal (barely finding the strength not to suffocate himself in his pillow, taking way too much of everything, half-hoping he’ll overdose) and when he is finally pulling himself up again, he’s ignoring all John’s attempts to get him to come back (songs, interviews, letters, post-cards).

He puts out his debut solo album, the content of which makes John angry, though to an outsider, there doesn’t seem to be much there in the way of messaging.

Here’s what we get of “Suicide” a the end of “Glasses”, right before “Junk”

“ . . . song of ruin, I’d

Bet he says nothin’ doin’

I’d”

The part Paul chose to include was the abuser’s shrugging lack of surprise that the protagonist has returned, yet again, despite their knowledge that they’re walking back into abuse. I believe Paul’s message to John here is this: You were the one who taught me that there is a certain level of treatment I should expect from people who say they love me. Now that you’re the one who’s hurt me, you have to deal with what you’ve created. I’m not just going to come back to you with my tail between my legs and act like nothing happened. You taught me better than that. I’m really leaving. We’re really over.

133 notes View Post

sadplampgun

1 month ago