In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Lennon’s ConfessionsRussell Davies

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.

‘I always wrote about me when I could. I didn’t really enjoy writing third-person songs about people who lived in concrete flats and things like that. I like first-person music.’ We didn’t enjoy hearing this in 1970, when John Lennon said it in the course of Jann Wenner’s ‘Rolling Stone’ Interviews. It was bad enough that Lennon had left the beloved Beatles to work with a Japanese-born conceptual artist, living in beds and bags and producing minimalist packages of photographs and recorded shrieks. But that he should seem to be promising more songs on the pattern laid down by the Plastic Ono Band album, a collection which had proved morbid, hectoring and pathetic by turns – well, this represented a doomier start to the decade than we felt we deserved. Besides, the allusion to songs about people in concrete flats seemed an unnecessarily explicit rejection of Paul McCartney, whose favoured vein that had sometimes been, in songs like ‘Eleanor Rigby’ and ‘Penny Lane’. McCartney’s compassionate tableaux and jaunty ballads, to be sure, were usually light and occasionally trite as well, but they were at least articulate. Lennon had turned away from verbal play into the Primal Scream therapy of Dr Arthur Janov – seen by Lennon’s public at best as a fashionable bolt-hole for the rich hysteric, and at worst as a profiteering alliance between phoney art and phoney medicine: Yoko and some quacks bleeding our John. It was an uncharitable attitude, but the evidence that informed it survives. The John/Yoko courtship albums are as vacuous as ever, and even the Plastic Ono record, it still seems to me, is emotional detritus barely shovelled along by music.

Where we were wrong, all along, was in failing to recognise Lennon’s human needs, which he had signalled almost from the start. It was too easy to mistake the anguish he often expressed for the standard rhetoric of the song-writer. In the early Sixties the only singers widely expected actually to mean what they sang were ‘protest’ performers operating in folk-clubs to their own acoustic guitar accompaniment. An electronic group shouting ‘Help!’ at the top of its voice couldn’t possibly mean it. Yet Lennon did; and by the time he’d got himself taken seriously, his talent had almost burnt away.

It was a gaunt sort of talent in the first place. If you discount the pastiche rock and apprentice roll of Hamburg, and take the start to be ‘Love me do’, the Beatles’ first national release, then a little of Lennon’s disquiet was already there. The song is apparently McCartney’s, but they were still two of a kind then: each had lost his mother in the late Fifties, and had the same vested interest in this almost dumbly beseeching song. Subtract from it the odd lazy, conventional line (‘I’ll always be true’) and you have something very nearly as desolate and unupholstered as Lennon’s songs of the Seventies. ‘Love, love me do, You know I love you ... So please ...’ In another musical setting it could have been embarrassing, a wheedling, lapdog serenade. But with its odd, bony tune, the sobbing hop in the vocal harmony part, and Lennon’s harmonica obbligato (the sound traditionally evoking loneliness), it added up to something new in love-songs, a strange bleakness. One could imagine the suggested relationship consumnated in a coalyard somewhere.

‘Please please me’, which followed, was perhaps fortunate to be so persuasive musically, with its escalating cries of ‘Come on!’ and falsetto resolution, because lyrically it was again a bit heavy on the ‘pleases’ to be a completely felicitous follow-up. However, the sexual urgency in it was new, though not unexpected after the slyness of ‘Love me do’, and a kind of fusion of the two songs, both pleading and masterful, was achieved in the third single, ‘From Me to You’ (‘I got everything that you want ...’). By now the songs had a genially bullying sexual tone that had everything to do with Lennon. Propositioning the female, the voices pretended to shock themselves in the process (‘and keep you satisfied ... OOOH!’). They teased the young audience with the possibility of sex, and its parents with the musical code in which the ‘thrill’ was suggested. Only Lennon’s stance at the microphone was insolently unequivocal. Lennon was heftily built in those days, and his thighs filled the tapering legs of the early sheeny Beatle trousers. Once a beat was established, he would stand, toughly square-on to the microphone, with feet planted a cowboyish distance apart, and flex, flex, flex the imposing thighs in a motion so comically sexual that only the knees-bend of a priapic music-hall policeman could have parodied it. This rhythmic exercise looked deliberately contrasted with the prim posture of McCartney: feet together, swaying snappily from the waist, wobbling the head, wearing that permanently surprised expression with which the young McCartney made himself prettier than some girls felt he had any need, or right, to be.

Lennon at this stage was prized chiefly for his meaty voice, and for a raw, sinus-scouring delivery in which the accents of Liverpool were still strong. But the Beatles were already approaching the end of the period when anyone’s contribution could be happily taken at face value. ‘she loves you’ was the last single that seemed to spring directly from the youth-clubby gossip of teenage Merseyside life (‘well I saw her yesterday’); and in the world-wide hit ‘I want to hold your hand’ the propositional mode – versions of ‘how about it?’ – finally played itself out. The gap between verbal innocence and musical pungency at last became noticeable; it turned into an irony. Lennon and McCartney, still working in fruitful intimacy at this time, had come up with a raucously passionate tune, climaxing in the giant animal leap of an octave, into the head-shaking falsetto range. Musically, it was a fit setting for a rape, but the words took us no further than ‘I wanna hold your HAND!’ Even those of us who in those days could aspire to no more exciting contact with girls than this recognised the comic disproportion in this effect. Perhaps we noted it all the more ruefully. Yet we enjoyed it. It was a way of dramatising frustration. While the music lasted, desperation and hilarity went ... hand in hand.

And so did the Beatles. So different and well-matched were they that their personalities became emblematic: they represented four interesting new divisions of the spectrum of human temperament, every bit as cleanly distinguishable, one from another, as earth, air, fire and water. To decide which of the four was which, and with which of them one’s own sympathy lay, became a game played by the young as part of the serious task of defining themselves. Yet precisely because these four figures interlocked so satisfyingly, nobody much wanted to consider them one by one, in the apparent meaninglessness of isolation. The group-effect of the Beatles was kaleidoscopic (a big word in the Sixties until ‘psychedelic’ took over). With each set of songs they issued, they shook themselves up into a new pattern. And one knew, as with a kaleidoscope, that if the thing once broke open, the fragments contributing to the display must reveal themselves to be tawdry bits of stuff, unspectacular to the point of ugliness outside the self-referring mirrors of the machine.

So when John Lennon wrote and performed the prophetic early song ‘There’s a place’, it was not he but the group voice that was felt to be confiding ‘There’s a place where I can go / When I feel low, when I feel blue/ And it’s my mind, and there’s no Time/ When I’m alone.’ In the proprietorial way of all musical customers, we easily assumed that the song was something created on our behalf, to express something we all felt. By ‘I’ Lennon meant ‘You’. This is indeed how songs tend to work: but Lennon, as it turned out, was letting loose a more concentrated urge to solipsism than most song-writers allowed themselves. This was no Tin Pan Alley placebo he had created. He was writing about his own imminent retreat into his own head. As Professor Mellers observed in 1973, when the whole Beatles show had collapsed, ‘There’s a place’ was ‘the first song concerned with self-reliance’. It was a theme that was destined to take Lennon over, the more so once Lennon and Yoko Ono had been welded into a dual self. All in all, when you consider how early in the game Lennon was using the song-writing process as a form of therapeutic declaration, it is perhaps surprising that his output maintained for as long as it did that quality of recognisable experience we optimistically call universality.

Whatever chance we had of adjusting to the emergent confessional Lennon was effectively obscured by Lennon himself. He became, rather suddenly, an all-rounder, reading his nonsense poems on TV, giving permission for his drawing ‘The Fat Budgie’ to be published as a Christmas card, and putting out his two manuals of linguistic subterfuge and sabotage. In His Own Write and A Spaniard in the Works. Cynics (who were admittedly in shorter supply fifteen years ago) were disconcerted to note that these sub-literary effusions could not quite be shrugged off as opportunist plunderings by the Beatle-marketing industry. Albeit at a low level of risk and accomplishment, there was something to them. If it was not art, then it was certainly cleverness. ‘Jesus El Pifco was a foreigner and he knew it,’ opened a typical tale. Who could have supposed there were reserves of New Yorkerishness in Liverpool?

Inevitably, this was a manner of invention that passed into the songs, tentatively at first, as in the title (but not much else) of ‘A Hard Day’s Night’, then wholesale later on. It read like a ready amalgam of Lewis Carroll, nursery rhymes and the Goons, though Lennon himself located its centre of gravity elsewhere. ‘I went through my Dylanesque period a long time ago with songs like “I am the Walrus”,’ he remarked in last year’s Playboy interview: ‘the trick of never saying what you mean but giving the impression of something more. Where more or less can be read into it. It’s a good game.’ (Incidentally, this must be one of the few quotations in literary history where ‘Dylanesque’ could be taken to refer to either Bob Dylan or Dylan Thomas, with roughly equal justice.)

Good though the game was, it was sometimes forced on Lennon, as in ‘Norwegian Wood’, where he wished to write about an affair without letting his wife know the details. Sometimes he forced it on us, as in the towering Babel of surrealism that ‘Walrus’ represents: a song both arty and threatening, built of private visions which only the composer could ever fully possess. One recalls that ‘What do you see when you put out the light/I can’t tell you but I know it’s mine’ were the two naughty/revealing lines contributed by Lennon to McCartney’s apologia for Ringo Starr, ‘With a Little Help from My Friends’. Lennon’s own appeal for aid, ‘Help’, was the least rhetorically frank of his confessional songs, and remained, for that reason, one of his favourites. ‘Because I meant it,’ he explained to Wenner, ‘it’s real. The lyric is as good now as it was then ... and it makes me feel secure to know that I was that ... aware of myself then. It was just me singing “Help” and I meant it.’ Considerations of authenticity still did not weigh heavily with the listening audience, however, and ‘Help’ is widely remembered as a disappointment. Phrases like ‘I’m not so self-assured’ and ‘I feel so insecure’ sounded uncomfortably mawkish when sung. Lennon had his own explanation – ‘We did it too fast, to try to be commercial’ – but this only goes to show how little, in the end, musical tactics concerned him. He would have preferred the beat of ‘Help’ to be matched to the heaviness of the message: because for all his hallucinatory excursions, both in and out of the drug trance, Lennon was a literal-minded soul. The notion of using a musical mood to offset a different verbal one offended his sense of propriety. Casting himself as a lazy anarch – not a difficult thing to do when you were ‘smoking marijuana for breakfast’, as he described himself to Playboy – he took against elaborate studio ‘production’ of the songs, which he came to associate increasingly with what he felt to be a false, showbiz versatility displayed by McCartney. After his two late but patchily brilliant insertions into the Sergeant Pepper collage, ‘Lucy in the Sky’ and ‘A Day in the Life’, Lennon began to shrink from imagery as well, apart from the kind he could live in. Just a couple of weeks after the consistently underrated Beatles White Album appeared in Britain (1968), John and Yoko were onstage in the Albert Hall, writhing about inside a large bag. The man who had written, ‘Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall,’ in an absurdist spirit, was beginning to explore vacuities for himself.

Lennon’s resentments all but poisoned the rest of his life, but it is not really to be wondered at that the public had now come to feel more at home with Paul McCartney. McCartney’s delight in parody ensured variety – and produced songs Lennon found quite disproportionately detestable, like ‘Maxwell’s Silver Hammer’ – yet did not prevent his lurching back occasionally into good old red-throated rock and roll. But it was when he acquired a new and sanctimonious folksiness that McCartney laid claim to the title of favourite Beatle. Blossoming into unequivocal religiosity with ‘Let it be’, he set up a solo career for life, as a purveyor of agnostic inspirational material. ‘Mother Mary’, Paul insisted, was his own mother, Mary McCartney, but it wouldn’t wash – especially set alongside Lennon’s equivalent song, ‘Julia’, where he set out for the first time to conflate the figures of Julia Lennon, his dead mother and Yoko (whom he later came to call ‘Mother’ out of jokey Freudian self-consciousness, and later still out of habit). ‘Julia’ is not an attention-getting song, but it is a remarkable one. ‘Half of what I say is meaningless/but I say it just to reach you Julia,’ it says, summing up his career so far. ‘When I cannot sing my heart/I can only speak my mind,’ it adds, predicting the rest.

Lennon’s speak-my-mind period, which ran from ‘Revolution’ (1968) to ‘Imagine’ (1971), taking in ‘Give peace a chance’ and ‘Power to the People’ on the way, marked the end of him as an artist and the beginnings of his salvation as a human being. Under the thorough management of a substitute mother – both parties admitted this – he felt able at last to make statements he felt he owned. It was naturally of no concern to him, but a sadness to the rest of us, that these were the kind of statements anyone could have made. Yoko was blamed for throttling his talent: but though it seems undeniable that she throttled her own, through her extraordinary policy of doctrinaire superstition, Lennon’s participation always struck me as desperately voluntary. It even had its visible correlative. Perhaps the collapse of Lennon’s face into a flat oriental mask was accidental (the transformation was effected, it is said, by the corrosion of the nasal substructure after cocaine-sniffing), but it certainly turned the pair into near-twins. By 1980, it was clear that Lennon had determinedly abandoned responsibility for his spiritual estate, not to mention the earthly one which Yoko bought and sold daily in her downstairs office.

Their last LP together was described by Lennon as a postcard. Sure enough, it is humble and domestic, though there is not much news. The songs are not statements so much as messages exchanged across the breakfast table. ‘Our life together is so precious together/We have grown ... we have grown.’ It was hard when the record appeared, and impossible now, to grudge them this soppiness. The dominant spirit on the LP – even musically – is Yoko’s. Her ‘I’m your angel’, oddly enough, is an ethereal dance-band pastiche entirely worthy of the old Paul McCartney (except that Yoko’s staccato delivery, laced with tra-la-la, is there to remind us of the superficial but widespread influence she has exerted on punk-age vocalists).

Presumably it was this harmless family album that Mark Chapman waited to have autographed outside the Dakota at tea-time. What did he think he was destroying when he pulled the trigger at 10.50 p.m.? A happy man, I suppose. Lennon had discovered that his only possible escape from the madness of the first person led into a two-person world. It took an older enemy, the third person, to remove him from it.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.