For those readers up and down the American Mid-West, there are some upcoming events where I will be offering presentations and papers related to the my book and Beatles historiography overall. While the introvert in me is instinctually nervous about such blatant self-promotion, here goes:
First, next Thursday, February 9, I will be presenting “Lennon Vs. McCartney” at Newman University’s Spring History Speaker Series. More details here:
Those of you who have read The Beatles and the Historians will recognize much of the presentation from “Chapter Two: The Lennon Remembers Narrative.” The presentation’s core focus is an expanded look at John and Paul’s conflicting accounts concerning the authorship of “Eleanor Rigby,” and the use of historical methods analysis to evaluate the accuracy and credibility of their claims. It also delves deeper into the issue of why, out of the hundreds of Lennon/McCartney songs, this one song was the most fiercely contested. There will be a Q&A afterwards. For those of you unable or unwilling to brave Kansas in February (I don’t blame you) the university’s I.T. department is planning to record it, and I should hopefully be able to post a video of the presentation and event on this blog within a week or two; I hope it will spark some good discussion.
Second: another Wichita event (hold the “There’s no place like home” jokes, please; I’ve heard them all. :)) I’ll be offering a talk at The Museum of World Treasures, in downtown Wichita, for their “Coffee with the Curator” series, at 9:00 in the morning on Thursday, April 27th.
While this talk will certainly cover the Beatles and historiography, it doesn’t have a core focus yet. Any suggestions? If you were to attend a talk on Beatles historiography, what would prefer me to focus on?
Third: My proposal on “The Historiography of Sgt. Pepper” was accepted for the Sgt. Pepper Symposium this summer, June 1-4, at the University of Michigan.
More information on that as it gets closer, but the symposium is open to the public, and if any posters/lurkers here are interested in attending, please, let me know!
24 thoughts on “Blatant Self-Promotion”
Yes Erin, if you can please post videos of your Lennon vs McCartney talk. I’m sure it will be very interesting as always.
Thanks, Linda! It’s going to be an expanded look at the “Eleanor Rigby” debate, as I said. There was only so much space/word count I had for certain subjects in the book, and that was one of my favorite sub-headings, because it was straight Source Analysis: Source A says this, Source B says this, so let’s examine the evidence and determine which one is more credible and accurate. Hopefully it will be posted in a week or so.
Awesome topic as always. I look forward to it. I don’t comment much because you, Karen and a few others say it so well there’s nothing to add. But yours is the only Beatles blog I read religiously.
I always enjoy your comments immensely, but I understand not posting when you think everything has already been said. (I tend to do the same, myself).
And I’m very flattered to hear that this is your go-to blog. As such, are there any topics you’d like to see discussion of here? Any issues from my book, or other books/subjects, that we haven’t really delved into in-depth? Personally, I’d like to see a better exploration of how the Beatles drug use impacts their historiography; not just their actions/words then, but even to this day — does anyone really doubt that Paul’s decades-long marijuana use impacted his recall?
Really good point about Paul’s drug use impacting his recall. Fans and biographers seem to simply overlook the fact that the four of them were heavy drug users and drinkers, going back to a very young age. They only talk about John’s drug use, as if the others were completely drug free, and even while acknowledging John’s drug use, it’s never in relation to his ability to remember things clearly. It’s treated like a blip that had no impact. As for Paul I’ve seen people write about his great memory and that everything he says is true because he was there. Well sure of course he was there, but he was probably always under the influence of a substance. Their drug use had a huge impact on everything. It defined them. It’s a very interesting topic that hasn’t been explored enough.
It would also be interesting if you would continue to discuss parts of your book that didn’t make it into the edited, published version. That’s always enjoyable.
“Fans and biographers seem to simply overlook the fact that the four of them were heavy drug users and drinkers, going back to a very young age.”
I’m of the opinion that this is one of the elements of the Beatles story that simply must be told, if we are ever to get an accurate — or close to accurate — version of events. Drug use — starting with alcohol an then running the gamut to heroin — impacted their relationships with each other, their musical creativity, their interpersonal relationships, their romantic relationships, and their breakup. It’s also, undoubtedly, influenced their historiography.
And writers will discuss John’s drug use — primarily the LSD — but then fail to apply the logical conclusion that that drug use impacted the validity and credibility of John’s statements. The failure of anyone to acknowledge that John’s heroin use diminished his credibility as a source during LR and in the breakup period in general is simply staggering. John made many of his breakup era decisions — and then recounted them to reporters later — in a state akin to drunkenness. But this is something that no one starts mentioning until 1995. And it’s not just John: George’s cocaine use, Ringo’s alcoholism, Paul’s weed use — studies on PTSD are arguing that the reason marijuana works so well to treat it is because sustained marijuana use impedes the ability to access negative memories. Paul gets a lot of criticism — much of it legitimate — for preferring the rosiest picture possible of Beatles history. But if he used a drug for forty years which makes it more difficult to access negative memories, that would be a chemical, psychological reason — in addition to his own preferences and personality — for him to argue the version of Beatles history that he does.
“It would also be interesting if you would continue to discuss parts of your book that didn’t make it into the edited, published version. That’s always enjoyable.”
I’m glad you like those; I’ll have to see what’s left.
“And writers will discuss John’s drug use — primarily the LSD — but then fail to apply the logical conclusion that that drug use impacted the validity and credibility of John’s statements. The failure of anyone to acknowledge that John’s heroin use diminished his credibility as a source during LR and in the breakup period in general is simply staggering.”
This failure on the part of authors is the main reason why I don’t read Beatles books anymore. I’m only interested in reading about them if the source applied good research methods.
Thanks for the info about pot smoking and PTSD. I didn’t know that. It certainly puts Paul’s unwillingness to dwell on negative memories into perspective.
“This failure on the part of authors is the main reason why I don’t read Beatles books anymore. I’m only interested in reading about them if the source applied good research methods.”
I’m still reading them — it’s my job — but it’s immensely frustrating to read new books — like Goodman’s bio of Klein — that ignore the drug elephant in the room. It’s equally frustrating to read older books that did the same, esp. when you know they were crucial in reinforcing or establishing narratives.
For instance, I finished Schafner’s “The Beatles Forever” a few weeks ago. That was published in 1978, and while it’s got some excellent qualities, there’s no way it could be considered an accurate source anymore. 1. It’s too immersed in the LR narrative, even if the author does attempt (mostly) to be objective 2. It ignores — completely — the drug issue, both its impact on the band’s breakup and on their historiography 3. Also eliminates entirely the issue John’s conflicted psychology may have played. Now I don’t blame Schafner for that last one — authorial acknowledgement of John’s psychological issues didn’t really start to emerge until after Goldman, who, for all his many, many flaws forced authorial acknowledgement of that issue — but Schafner is another LR narrative writer who 1. uses “Lennon Remembers” extensively as a source — it’s probably his most widely used source throughout the book and 2. Knew that John and Yoko were using heroin during the breakup period/probably during the interview but didn’t acknowledge any impact that would have had on John’s credibility. And that connection — that their drug use/emotional state impacts their credibility as sources (not just John and Yoko, but all the Beatles) isn’t some obscure rule of historical methods minutiae: it’s a basic, fundamental rule of journalism.
The marijuana/PTSD information came from a recent cover story of Time. I can’t date it any more accurately except to say it was published within the last few years; they did a report on medicinal marijuana, and the legal hurdles scientists face when studying its effects. I found its notes on PTSD fascinating, because it would explain why, out of all the drugs available to him, pot was the one Paul used most religiously — it makes perfect sense, given what we know of Paul’s personality, for him to prefer a drug which makes it chemically easier to ignore negativity — and it would also help explain his rosier views on Beatles historiography. I don’t want to say Paul’s selective memory is all pot — any more than John’s anger in LR is all heroin — but you can’t remove them from the equation.
“authorial acknowledgement of John’s psychological issues didn’t really start to emerge until after Goldman, who, for all his many, many flaws forced authorial acknowledgement of that issue ”
If one good thing came out of that fiasco of a book it was definitely that and I’m grateful for it.
As for older books like the Schafner book, they have no credibility for me. They were written way too close to the event and the authors were practically just fans. There were no sources available for them either. I give you a lot of credit for your ability to wade through those old books without giving up and tossing them out of a window. The only exception for me would be the Davies book. With all of its many flaws at least it managed to be an impartial source. And maybe Love Me Do although I haven’t read that one. But the ones written between 1970 and up to probably 1995, are unreadable to me.
“If one good thing came out of that fiasco of a book it was definitely that and I’m grateful for it.”
Agreed, because consider how different our interpretations of John were in the 70’s/80’s pre-Goldman. John’s excesses — his absolutist statements, his occasional acts of violence, his mood swings, his abysmal parenting of Julian — were ignored, excused, or celebrated for their honesty. When you remove John’s conflicted psychology from the equation (and it was pretty much absent until post-Goldman) authors and Beatles fans twisted themselves into knots trying to interpret how and why John did the things he did; most of them simply swallowed John and Yoko’s interviews without question, and blamed the other Beatles. One word Schafner repeatedly uses to describe John in “The Beatles Forever” is “honest.” What so many people overlook is that yes, John destroyed the “Fab Four” mythology, but he did so because its destruction suited his breakup-era agenda.
Goldman dragged John’s conflicted psychology kicking and screaming into the forefront — it’s not in Coleman or Shout!, that’s for sure — and forced Beatles historiography to acknowledge that it influenced John’s statements/actions and therefore Beatles history. Goldman did so in a terrible, gleeful, destructive way, with no empathy, understanding or compassion — but he forced everyone to acknowledge it as a factor, to the point that you now have authors like Doggett, who are very well respected, arguing that John was, in 1968, “teetering between insanity and eccentricity.” And for all of Goldman’s ill will, I thank him for that, because it would be impossible to get any semi-accurate reading of Beatles history, their story, their music or their historiography without acknowledging that, psychologically, John Lennon had some serious issues. For example – and I’ll include this in my ultimate review of Schafner — when you remove John’s psychological issues from the breakup (Yoko as a mother/Mimi figure; John’s obsession with being the alpha; his fears of abandonment and rampant insecurity and jealousy) the author comes up with alternative interpretations for why John left the band. Schafner argues that John simply got bored with Paul’s “more mundane” musical talents, and therefore cleaved to Yoko as a replacement for both Cynthia and Paul. What’s interesting is that this is the opposite of what most people argue now: people like Doggett, Gilmore, etc. now declare that John wanted to leave the Beatles not just because he wanted to explore the avant-garde, but because, rather than being bored with Paul’s “more mundane” talents, he felt stifled and overshadowed by Paul’s productivity, musicality and production. In other words, the interpretation has flipped; John didn’t leave Paul because he saw Paul as inferior; John left Paul because he saw Paul as taking the superior position, which John simply could not accept because of his psychological makeup.
I like Davies, and I like “Love Me Do.” But reading material from that twenty-five year period you mention, 1970-1995 (with exceptions, like TCBRS) can be a slog. I approach it purely from a methodological standpoint; I don’t expect to enjoy or learn anything new from it. It’s the same way I approached all three editions of Shout! “What evidence was available to them? What evidence did they include/ignore? What’s their John/Paul bias? What narrative were they writing this under? Do they offer examples, or make sweeping generalizations without backing them up?” etc.
“One word Schafner repeatedly uses to describe John in “The Beatles Forever” is “honest.” What so many people overlook is that yes, John destroyed the “Fab Four” mythology, but he did so because its destruction suited his breakup-era agenda.”
Wow. That Schafner book sounds like a tedious slog. I think I used to own a copy. If I’m not mistaken it might have been one of the first actual books I purchased post breakup. Is it a coffee table sized, soft cover, with sort of a rainbow design on the cover? I bought it in 1977 and at the time I thought it was so wonderful. But this worshipful fanboying of John Lennon is the number one reason I don’t read anything about the Beatles anymore. It makes me sick. It’s just so easy to see through these John worshipping, fanboy, authors. After a while I’d had enough. “Honest”….Oh my God….
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a message board with a post about this book. Its very positive and I sent the link to this blog for others to see.
here is the message board link
I hope it was OK to do so.I love the blog and the book and wanted to share with others.
What an amazing review that was! Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and providing it for the blog. Providing them the link here was more than OK. I know things have been quiet here lately, and it would be interesting to see if we get any new lurkers/posters out of that linking. (Personally I sympathize with lurkers; I’m a lurker by nature myself; I just can’t be on my own blog).
I do have another review — my publisher sent it to me — but it’s in German, which I’m not fluent in. Luckily, my father is fluent, so when he’s translated it, I’ll hopefully be able to post it. (I’m curious what the German word for “historiography” is — Leopold Von Ranke, the father of modern history, was German).
I really did enjoy the review — it looks like Dr. Beatle and I agree on a lot of Beatles books — but I think he confused Ray Coleman with Ray Connolly when he said that I identified Connolly as an illegitimate source. I find Connolly to be a marvelous source — I think he’s one of the best, most impartial journalists to cover the Beatles, esp. during the breakup period — whereas Coleman basically writes biased hagiography.
Those presentations look very exciting, Erin!
Linda — a reply to your last post — you’ve got the right book: “The Beatles Forever” is a coffee-table sized book. Mine was hardcover, not soft, but it’s the same thing; a half biography, half-essay of the band’s history/music/solo years.
“I bought it in 1977 and at the time I thought it was so wonderful.”
You weren’t alone: most of the reviews I read on places like Amazon were absolutely glowing, and the mentions I’ve seen of the book on most forums are also very complimentary. Schafner’s got a casual, at times playful writing style that can be appealing, and — unlike a Coleman, or a Shout! era Norman — doesn’t write hagiography. He favors John, but also admits (at times) that John made some mistakes — like STINYC, and he doesn’t feel the need (most of the time) to trash the other Beatles in order to elevate John. I can understand why so many people liked this book when it was first published, and continue to like it to this day, particularly when there was so little decent literature out there on them in that time period.
But, for me — and again, I’ll go over this further in the actual review — “The Beatles Forever” is a classic example of why an accurate version of history needs historical distance. Had Schafner waited another decade or two — if he had had the evidence available to him in 1998 that he didn’t have in 1978 — I think he was objective enough that he could have produced an essential Beatles work. Instead, because he was writing and researching in the midst of the “Lennon Remembers” narrative, his work includes any number of factual errors, one-sided accounts, and trite stereotypes that were so common during that time period. Which is a genuine shame; “The Beatles Forever” is a book that I genuinely wanted to enjoy, as well as analyze.
“I can understand why so many people liked this book when it was first published, and continue to like it to this day”
Do you think the glowing reviews from people who read it recently are colored by nostalgia? I can’t help but think that a lot of fans are too indiscriminate. Perhaps because the subject is still part of pop culture and still relatively recent.
I agree that a lot of fans are indiscriminate. And the ones who point out the methodological weaknesses can get accused of picking sides, seeing bias where it doesn’t exist; only acknowledging those that are negatively geared towards their favorite Beatles, etc. And again, if you read “The Beatles Forever” in 1978, and loved it, and then re-read it, but not too in-depth, and posted a review on Amazon, you’d be inclined to give it a good review. It also, crucially, loves the Beatles and, also, finds things to celebrate about all of them. For all its immersion in the “Lennon Remembers” narrative, if you favor George, or Paul, or Ringo, you’ll find stuff in there to like; it’s not a Lennon hagiography.
I think everyone can benefit from really analyzing what they read, regardless of subject — whether the source was produced yesterday or in 1978. Many, many subjects can only benefit from better informed, prepared readers.
first I am amazed how little in book reviews of biographies and autobiographies is missing, you have introduced a source analysis system to me as a non-historian, and it renders a lot of (auto-)biographies to utter useless books, but sometimes great stories.
As to your question about themes and subject for your talk at The Museum of World Treasures:
a) I would not dig into or present the changing perspective of The Beatles Story, that is not really new… b) For (serious) Beatles’ fans a better understanding of validation of sources is always useful…
[[ I would love to cooperate on a review of Beatles’ books from the perspective of an historian including a vigorous source analysis ]]
c) So how does a reliable storyline of The Beatles story look like?
– it is easy to dismiss ‘Shout!’ and ‘Lennon’ even though the story sometimes is fascinating, I used to read Alun Williams ‘The Man Who Gave the Beatles Away’ with great interest and care, knowing most of it was nonsense, but as an atmospheric centre-piece it made a lot of sense and I still love it.
d) from a historian’s perspective is there anything reasonable and reliable to say about the influence of folks like The Beatles or Dylan on culture… I tend to agree with Lennon, nothing really changed, not in society, not in politics, the same groups of people still are in power… and as Dylan in 1984 said to Kurt Loder in his Rolling Stone interview:
Loder: Do you still hope for peace?
Dylan: There is not going to be any peace.
Loder: You don’t think it’s worth working for?
Dylan: No. It’s just gonna be a false peace. “You can reload your rifle, and that moment you’re reloading it, that’s peace. It may last for a few years.”
Loder: Isn’t it worth fighting for that?
Dylan: Nah, none of that matters. I heard somebody on the radio talkin’ about what’s happenin’ in Haiti, you know? “We must be concerned about what’s happening in Haiti. We’re global people now.” And they’re gettin’ everybody in that frame of mind–like, we’re not just the United States anymore, we’re global. We’re thinkin’ in terms of the whole world because communications come right into your house.
It’s not that I agree or disagree but I am really put off by the silliness of the American focus that what happen’s in their perspective is valid for the whole wide world… and that the world changed forever… even though their subjects of adoration are totally in disagreement with what fans attribute or describe as objective reality.
I love the angles you’re approaching Beatles historiography from, Rob.
“It’s not that I agree or disagree but I am really put off by the silliness of the American focus that what happens in their perspective is valid for the whole wide world… and that the world changed forever…”
I think this is a crucial point that (like the complete lack of authoritative female voices) doesn’t get near enough attention: the domination of Beatles historiography by British and American journalists ensures that these two interpretations control the narratives. (We actually had a very interesting discussion on this in my earlier review of “The Beatles Bibliography,” an annotated bibliography of Beatles works which also notes the British/American domination as well as the American co-opting of John, and his peace movement in particular, to suit their political agendas/interpretations). Every nation essentially has their own unique version of Beatles history — Karen will happily discuss the Canadian version — but because of America’s elephantine status, direct connections to the Beatles — all four of them were heavily involved with the American press, eventually wound up with American wives and American investments — and American media domination, you get documentaries such as 8 Days a Week, which provide a view that is so American-centered it essentially promotes an inaccurate version of events. There is evidently substantial Polish scholarship on the band, but unfortunately The Beatles Bibliography couldn’t translate it, and only provided the citations to it in their work. There’s no doubt that this lack of national diversity has skewed Beatles historiography.
“first I am amazed how little in book reviews of biographies and autobiographies is missing, you have introduced a source analysis system to me as a non-historian, and it renders a lot of (auto-)biographies to utter useless books, but sometimes great stories.”
My main goals in writing the book were to provide a textbook for source analysis that hopefully wouldn’t be too dry, would interest history majors, and introduce some Beatles fans to historical standards. If the book introduced you to these standards of source analysis, and you find those standards helpful and applicable, then I’m very pleased.
It does, as you say, render a lot of the biographies and auto-biographies fairly useless in terms of credibility, but they still offer, for me, fascinating glimpses of how the Beatles were viewed during that particular time period. I missed all of the major events in Beatles historiography as they unfolded — with the exception of George’s death, and the possible exception of Anthology (if you consider that a pivotal moment) — due to my age. So even if I’m dealing with a source, such as Flippo’s Paul biography, which has next to no accuracy and credibility whatsoever, it’s still interesting to me to see that “this is how Beatles history was being written in this time period.”
I’m afraid I’ll have to answer some of your other points later: I need to pick up my son from pre-school.
here’s another shot at your question for April 27th… though I know it is probably too late…
Above you write: … an expanded look at the “Eleanor Rigby” debate, There was only so much space/word count I had for certain subjects in the book, and that was one of my favorite sub-headings, because it was straight Source Analysis: Source A says this, Source B says this, so let’s examine the evidence and determine which one is more credible and accurate.
e) A topic or theme that is artistically of equal but totally avoids the Lennon vs McCartney controversy – which was started by Lennon and he kept doing until the week he died.
f) Equally troubling is the way Lennon treated Harrison or his work… we don’t really know anything about this.
So, wordpress evidently makes it a habit to wait until I am 80% done with a response, then freeze and refuse to allow me to recover what I’ve already typed. But I’ll reply again to the best of my memory:
I found your comment on culture very interesting because I was having a similar discussion regarding the beatles/culture/politics., etc. with another Beatles writer/scholar at the KAH conference I went to last week. In all honesty, culture studies are outside my area of expertise — historiography and historical methods are my comfort zone — but this man has studied both, and published an article about them in November 2016: “Politics and Power in the Record industry,” Mark Harvey, Musicology Australia. I haven’t had chance to read the article — I only got it via I.L.L. the other day — but he’s also coming out with a book that addresses a lot of those same issues; it should be out within a year. If the article is relevant to our discussion, I’ll do a post on it.
I haven’t read Allan Williams; he’s still on my “to-read” list. I prefer books like Williams, fanciful as they are, to supposedly objective biographies that are anything bet. In short: I go into a memoir — any memoir — expecting to have the author attempt to pull the wool over my eyes to a certain extent. I bristle when a supposedly professional biographer attempts to do the same.
” e) A topic or theme that is artistically of equal but totally avoids the Lennon vs McCartney controversy – which was started by Lennon and he kept doing until the week he died.
f) Equally troubling is the way Lennon treated Harrison or his work… we don’t really know anything about this.”
Thanks for the suggestions. Other commentators have also noted how tired they are of the Lennon/McCartney schism, and how they’d like to see more discussions outside of the L/M center of the Beatles universe. John’s relationship with George, as you mentioned, is a great one … I know Karen and I speculated on the role that introversion/extroversion played in the overall Beatles dynamic. I’m wondering what would be a good case study to examine the Lennon/Harrison relationship — the way “Eleanor Rigby” is a good way to look at songwriting credit, emotional issues, the breakup, etc. Their shared first acid trip? Although I can’t help but notice that those professions of how close it made them, emotionally and spiritually, all came from George. Anyone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember John attaching the same level of significance to his taking with George that George associated to taking it with John.
I have learned to write my response in a word-file first, unless it is meant to be a quickie, like this one. .
What a great advice Mark Harvey’s article is. I downloaded and scanned it quickly, it adds a few fine thoughts to the current release of Sgt. Pepper… and the way 1967-reviews of the albums are discussed, e.g. check McCartney interview in Mojo Sgt. Pepper issue.
It may very well be that the commercial power of The Beatles triggered the thought that pop-music is not just ‘romantic danceable commercial crap’, but maybe is in some way or another a form of ‘art’, if not, and wow how would that sell, ‘Art’. The Beatles were not the first with an album like Sgt. Pepper even though other who preceded them might have only done so partially, The Beatles might have helped to change the music business, but we would need reliable and verifiable research for that confirmation, meeting notes, letters and contracts from within the music-business, it did change the audio-environment and tweaked our learning curve of the fans…
For me it, who got to The Beatles’ music seriously only a year later with ‘Hey Jude’ and ‘Revolution’ on Dutch pirate radio during day time and tracks of the white album during ‘Late Night Tineke’ on pirate station Radio Veronica, Sergeant Pepper was tainted. I learned to love, but really with the rerelease of the mono-vinyl version a few years ago my ears and my body got it… I am really looking forward to the 2017 CD-vinyl stereo remixed version… like I loved the Yellow Submarine soundtrack, whoch was also a modern 21st century remix.
But isn’t it funny that it wasn’t the fans, nor the music, but plain Mad-Men-Marketing that gave Sgt. Pepper and The Beatles this new ‘artistic’ perspective – maybe after all, we should accept what Macca ever so often said, ‘We were just a little rock’n’roll band”, and they did influence the music business in some ways, surely in terms of the rise of sales and marketing opportunities, but did they change the world?
Mark Harvey also has a nice thesis out ‘Celebrity Power: Spotlighting and Persuasion in the Media’ (it can be downloaded easily), which touches my professional interests and skims The Beatles briefly. It might give Beatles’ fans a perspective on the causal relation of the power of The Beatles image/message and the culture/business. Somewhere Mark Harvey writes:
“the argument that the Beatles’ commercial dominance from 1964-1970, coupled with Bob Dylan’s folk ethic influence on popular music, likely created an artistic and commercial space for more musicians to express themselves politically without being normatively “punished”.”
It puts an interesting new, but hardly explored, perspective on the need and admiration for authenticity that determines: 1) the Lennon vs Macca debate, Lennon used this space completely almost to his own artistic destruction, 2) is still very much part of the appreciation and discussion of Dylan’s work, and 3) currently influences the appreciation by (old if not very old) Beatles’ fans of the outcome from the Kayne West and Macca cooperation, like you can see glimpses of on ‘Hey Dullblog’.
Now off to bed, ‘maybe tomorrow’ there is more… I love your work, and tonight your book is on the bedside table.
I’m so pleased you liked the Mark Harvey article, Rob. I still haven’t had a chance to read it, but hopefully will get a chance this week. I’m glad you like the book too; if you have any questions or issues from it you’d like to see discussed further, let me know.