|
|
Post by pennylane on Apr 25, 2005 9:17:01 GMT -5
I read she has 3 novels:
The Longing
The Question
Losing it
Has anyone read them? Could they possibly contain any clues....
|
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Apr 28, 2005 15:51:25 GMT -5
Holy sh**! I'm going to look for them at the library! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Apr 29, 2005 12:17:26 GMT -5
They may very well have clues. That's an angle noone has thought to take PL. She has to get *it* out somewhere and maybe it's in the books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jai Guru Deva on Apr 29, 2005 14:48:11 GMT -5
There could be something to this. I haven't read any of them either, but let me just give you a synopsis of each of the novels...
THE LONGING
Michael and Juliet long for a baby but are forced to resort to endless trips to private clinics and medical jargon. All they can do is wait which threatens Juliet's already fragile sanity. Then Anna, a young single mother comes into the picture.
THE QUESTION
John Hamilton didn't want children with his wife, but that was because he had led a secret life for 20 years, in the shape of a mistress and a 19 year-old daughter. Now, following a car crash which has left him in a vegetative state, the three women that he deceived decide his fate.
LOSING IT
A man who has everything, a girl who has nothing, and a woman who has to fight to keep what's hers. Everyone has something to lose.
Judy Thornton thinks her husband must be losing his mind. How has Charlie's casual friendship with the fat, lonely girl in the local supermarket become an obsession that turns the mild, bumbling barrister into an unpredictable stranger?
Stacey Salton needs to lose half her bodyweight. Until then she can't begin to live, and she'll do anything, and use anyone, to succeed.
Suddenly, in the chaos that turns the Thornton family upside-down, it's Judy who has everything to lose.
In this compassionate and compelling story no one remains unaffected - and it takes some surprising revelations to help them see what one has to lose in order to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 20, 2006 16:59:53 GMT -5
I've read the first 40 or 50 pages of "The Question", so far not too much that rings a bell. (It's pretty cheap on the used book market) Kinda hard to read, the Harlequin Romance genre is not my thing..  (but I will soldier on)  I keep asking myself: Why does this woman, who enjoys all the trappings of an upper class lifestyle, whine and complain about every little thing? (as I said, it ain't my type of book..) |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 20, 2006 22:14:25 GMT -5
The story of the man who has led a secret life for 20 years, had a car crash leaving his left arm in vegetative state...
sounds like an interesting theme..I wonder where she got that inspiration?
|
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Sept 21, 2006 13:23:03 GMT -5
I'm going to read "Losing it" now!
|
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Sept 22, 2006 20:17:32 GMT -5
"...compelling story no one remains unaffected - and it takes some surprising revelations[/b] to help them see..."[/color]  Hmmmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by astro4 on Dec 9, 2014 6:42:27 GMT -5
The poor woman has deeply buried trauma from losing her beloved Paul long ago and not being allowed to grieve.
Then being made to look a complete idiot by Faul proposing to her then breaking it six months later.
Then her Father's 'suicide' which shut her up.
Here is from her novel Losing It (pp.4-10):
A Telegraph journo did an interview with her, being dazzled by her brilliantrly successful life and how beautiful she still was, and was startled when she came out with:
Uh? The poor woman needs someone to help her open the Gates of Memory instead of blocking it out - to process all the glorious stuff she's lived through. (David Thomas ‘The Darkness Behind the Smile’ Telegraph 19.8.04)
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxleys_halo on Dec 9, 2014 9:38:34 GMT -5
Does anyone know why "Faul" married Linda and not Jane? I would have thought from a PR perspective Jane was a much better match, she was English upper-class, pretty, all the fans loved her, and she no previous serious attachment.
Whereas Linda was an American divorcee with a child and famously much hated by the fans. Why was Faul allowed to dump Jane? It raises suspicions as well, surely better to have him marry Jane as Paul planned to.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Dec 9, 2014 15:56:23 GMT -5
Does anyone know why "Faul" married Linda and not Jane? I would have thought from a PR perspective Jane was a much better match, she was English upper-class, pretty, all the fans loved her, and she no previous serious attachment. Whereas Linda was an American divorcee with a child and famously much hated by the fans. Why was Faul allowed to dump Jane? It raises suspicions as well, surely better to have him marry Jane as Paul planned to. I think it is because Faul knew and was involved with Linda BEFORE he became "Paul". I actually think the "Beatles" were FAMILY MEN! They were allowed to marry who they wanted too! Except YOKO, lol! |
|
|
|
Post by Huxleys_halo on Dec 9, 2014 17:38:20 GMT -5
Oh, hello Hotman. Yes, I think Faul was too (there was speculation he came from Canada, and her family was from upstate New York, so geographically they were close), but they still could have made him marry Jane anyway - like, as you say, they did with John and Yoko.
They may have been family men, but, with the exception of Paul/Faul, they ALL left their first wives, John and Ringo when they had children. Allegedly Ringo was an alcoholic wife beater as well, and we all know John was no angel towards the women in his life.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Dec 9, 2014 21:43:19 GMT -5
Oh, hello Hotman. Yes, I think Faul was too (there was speculation he came from Canada, and her family was from upstate New York, so geographically they were close), but they still could have made him marry Jane anyway - like, as you say, they did with John and Yoko. They may have been family men, but, with the exception of Paul/Faul, they ALL left their first wives, John and Ringo when they had children. Allegedly Ringo was an alcoholic wife beater as well, and we all know John was no angel towards the women in his life. The REPLACEMENTS left their 1st wives. Ringo married Mureen because she was pregnant. John married Cynthia not because he was forced too but because he loved her (IMO). From what I have read about the 1962-66 Beatles is they were not crazy party guys like the Stones or the Who but family men. Even after the replacements John only married once, Ringo has only been married once and George twice. Faul had three wives but Linda died and Heather Mills figured out he was a fake so even Faul had a relatively stable home life compared to most rock stars. Considering that the Beatles may not even "existed" they seemed like good family men too me. Of course I could be wrong! |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Dec 11, 2014 21:16:44 GMT -5
Does anyone know why "Faul" married Linda and not Jane? I would have thought from a PR perspective Jane was a much better match, she was English upper-class, pretty, all the fans loved her, and she no previous serious attachment. Whereas Linda was an American divorcee with a child and famously much hated by the fans. Why was Faul allowed to dump Jane? It raises suspicions as well, surely better to have him marry Jane as Paul planned to. You also have to take in account that Cynthia & Jane were EVERYTHING that "Yoko"/Foko & "Linda"/Finda were NOT, one of those things being physical beauty. This is also the Illuminati's subliminal ways of reversing things -- think of it as a "As is above, so is below" sort of deal -- making good out to be bad, bad out to be good... and portraying evil as being good & good as being evil. Y'all get the point. |
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Dec 12, 2014 15:20:48 GMT -5
Does anyone know why "Faul" married Linda and not Jane? I would have thought from a PR perspective Jane was a much better match, she was English upper-class, pretty, all the fans loved her, and she no previous serious attachment. Whereas Linda was an American divorcee with a child and famously much hated by the fans. Why was Faul allowed to dump Jane? It raises suspicions as well, surely better to have him marry Jane as Paul planned to. You also have to take in account that Cynthia & Jane were EVERYTHING that "Yoko"/Foko & "Linda"/Finda were NOT, one of those things being physical beauty. This is also the Illuminati's subliminal ways of reversing things -- think of it as a "As is above, so is below" sort of deal -- making good out to be bad, bad out to be good... and portraying evil as being good & good as being evil. Y'all get the point. I don't think it is really that complicated. As I have said before the Beatles were basically family men and so are the Featles it is just that they had DIFFERENT families! Ringo liked woman like Mureen and Fingo liked woman like Barbara Bach. Paul liked Jane and Faul liked Linda. Simple as that. Different woman for different men. Too me all this talk about "the Beatles never existed" and their were dozens of different Beatles is just dis-information just like in the JFK murder and other conspiracies. Jackie Kennedy killed JFK simple as that. Beatles like different woman than the Featles simple as that. One thing about men that almost NEVER changes is their taste in woman! That does not mean Yoko was not Fohn's "handler". TPTB knew what type of woman Fohn liked and that is why they used Yoko. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 13, 2014 20:42:52 GMT -5
The Beatles of the 64-66 Era were presented as the clean cut types. They were the opposite of the grungy Rolling Stones. While they seemed to be "family men". But that is an "image" and not always what they seem to be. If they were playing the field before they were famous, they were most likely even more so after. But it does seem odd that at that time, John and Paul were attached to really pretty women, while the post 67 attached to rather plain artsy fartsy types. Yoko with her "art", and Linda with her photography. But I also think that Linda and Yoko's "bloodline" reflects that they were purposely attached to the post 67 models for a reason. First of all, they were different men than the previous models, and so their taste in women would be different, and it could be that those women were placed to cause rifts between the two icons, even if it was all staged.
They both became joined at the hip with their men as the other two were not seen everywhere with their women, and I mean onstage, during interviews and in the studio.
I didn't care for either Yoko and Linda being included in their music or being everywhere as if they were joined at the hip. Had the two been connected to other real singers and they recorded together, it would have been a different thing, but neither Yoko or Linda had singing voices.
So, whether it was the fact the replacements were attracted to less physically pretty women, or if they were arranged relationships, it's just too strange.
Whereas, "Elvis" seemed to be attracted to the same type, beauty queens with Egyptian eye makeup and big hair. Think about it, Priscilla, Ginger Alden and Linda Thompson were all the same type. Not identical, but the same type.
|
|
|
|
Post by astro4 on Dec 15, 2014 5:34:41 GMT -5
Indeed as Hotman says, “
As to “why "Faul" married Linda and not Jane?” I guess it was TRUE LOVE. Those two lived happily ever after. Linda was in with the whole rock star scene, she mingled with the likes of Hendrix and Eric Burdon. In the year ’67 her acclaimed book “Rock and other four-Letter words, Music of the Electric Generation’ was published. And she smoked dope. That was Faul’s scene.
Her chat-up line when they met at the Bag of Nails on 15 May ’67 was supposedly, that she knew he was not Paul because of her photos, and when and how did he join the Beatles? Linda would accept him as not being JPM, and she loved him. That was vital for his self-confidence and sanity.
With Jane he always had to pretend to be Paul. Jane’s friends were theatre-types he didn’t really get on with them.
If you watch Faul narrating his meetup with ‘your mother’ to his daughter (wingspan Paul & Linda McCartney documentary) the two really tuned in on that date, then re-met a few days later at the Sgt Pepper launch party. So it is paradoxical that he got engaged to Jane in December of that year – then broke it off 6 months later. I guess there was some duality in Faul’s being that he could thus act like two different people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxleys_halo on Dec 15, 2014 14:20:43 GMT -5
I had heard before some version of Linda knowing who he really was, and that's why he married her (though the version I heard was she sort of blackmailed him, and said "I know you're not really Paul and will tell everyone unless you marry me", to which he thought, he quite fancied her anyway so might as well).
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxleys_halo on Dec 15, 2014 14:22:39 GMT -5
What is weird though, is that they named two of their three children after JPM's parents - Mary (JPM's mother) and James (JPM's father). Then Faul named his daughter with Heather after JPM's aunt (Beatrice) who played a big role in raising him and his brother after his mother died. Laying it on a bit thick, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by astro4 on Dec 16, 2014 6:00:59 GMT -5
I agree with Huxley's Halo Maybe I'm amazed at the way you pulled me out of time And hung me on a line
Maybe I'm a man and maybe I'm a lonely man Who's in the middle of something That he doesn't really understand
Maybe I'm a man and maybe you're the only woman Who could ever help me Baby won't you help me understand Maybe I’m Amazed, 1970
Linda allowed him to stop pretending to be Paul But coming back to Jane, usually after an awful crisis there are letters to and from friends that can be accessed, by a biographer, at least for someone famous. Jane was London's number one diva wasn't she? I mean he played Juliet in 1967 at the Old Vic. Getting engaged and then dumped that year for another, no worse getting engaged when the other had already been met, who she was going to be dumped for - is there no record anywhere of what she felt? I guess her three novels are all about trauma, sudden breakup of relationships, with no theme of redemption, no happy endings. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 17, 2014 9:29:01 GMT -5
I say it was an arrangement. As phoney as he is, the only thing he loves is adoration.
|
|
|
|
Post by astro4 on Dec 20, 2014 15:35:59 GMT -5
Its wonderful that the Fanzine My Sweet Lady Jane is still going, after twenty years. webspace.webring.com/people/ab/beatlegirls64/SweetLadyJane.html (edited by 'Penny Lane') I guess Americans want to hear about a real English rose. She was reading Dostoevski in the evenings when Linda was getting bonked by all those rock stars. Twenty lovers in two years 1966-68! - 'with a preference for rock stars'. Come to think of it, I guess that was how she wrote her book on Rock 'Music of the Electric Generation', co-authored with Jay Marks. Ah, what a choice! someone should write a play about it. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 21, 2014 21:26:39 GMT -5
It should be a MUSICAL....everything ends up a Musical....Bat Boy...The Musical,
Menopause... the Musical, The Christmas Story... The Musical Somehow "You'll Shoot YOur Eyes Out" doesn't seem to be a catchy type of song....LOLOL
|
|
|
|
Post by astro4 on Jan 7, 2015 6:44:19 GMT -5
A musical, right. With two actors for Paul, only slightly different. The last scene is two old codgers, one munching a Linda McCartney vegetarian sausage, the other a Jane Asher cake. And one says to the other...
|
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jan 7, 2015 14:07:06 GMT -5
We go together like ramma lamma ding dong....
|
|
(but I will soldier on) 
