![]() |
| Macca and Boz |
Looking at Paul McCartney’s personal and artistic similarities to Charles Dickens helps explain a lot of things. It illuminates why McCartney is hugely popular but often critically reviled, why he is driven to make money despite his great wealth, and why he tirelessly performs live. Most importantly, it brings his particular gifts into focus.
Often McCartney is compared to John Lennon and criticized for being less confessional, poetic, or political than his songwriting partner. But appreciating Lennon’s variety of excellence shouldn’t entail dismissing McCartney’s. Lennon was a lyric poet in the vein of Wordsworth, Shelley, or Keats: his work is powerfully personal, often transparently so. McCartney is a storyteller and performer, as Dickens was.
Dickens and McCartney share a surprising number of character traits. They determined early to achieve financial security, after childhood brushes with poverty. They idealized children and domestic life even during their years as roving London bachelors. They approached their artistic fields as crafts to be mastered, ardently pursuing popular success. Their ambition and desire to run things were sometimes admired and sometimes resented by colleagues.
From the first, both men were also compulsively productive. For much of his career, Dickens combined writing stories, novels, and the occasional play or travel book with public readings and with managing, editing, and contributing to his own periodical (Household Words, followed by All the Year Round). In the Beatles years McCartney’s productivity sometimes exasperated Lennon, who felt pressured to keep pace. Since the breakup, McCartney has regularly released solo albums while also finding time to write a movie, score a ballet, compose and play music in a range of genres, and run his own corporation, MPL.
Unsurprisingly, for both men producing at such a rate resulted in works of varying quality. This reality, combined with Dickens’ and McCartney’s investment in audience response, led to ego-bruising encounters with criticism. Despite popular success, both men were stung by accusations of sentimentality and shoddiness, and both constructed a public persona as a screen for this vulnerability. Dickens cultivated his image as “Boz,” the friendly champion of the common folk, and McCartney has usually played the role of upbeat performer still in touch with everyday people. These personas are not lies, I would argue, but selective presentations of their real personality traits and values. Born performers, Dickens and McCartney strove to combine getting the audience and acclaim they needed with protecting a private life genuinely important to them.
This desire to perform but to shield the private self helps explain why Dickens and McCartney love telling stories. Rather than speak in first person, both often communicate obliquely through characters. Dickens was first known and most widely celebrated for creating indelible characters like Mr. Pickwick, Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, and Scrooge. In a few words, Dickens could create a character with a distinctive look, attitude, and way of speaking. When he died, one periodical memorialized him with a drawing of his empty chair, surrounded by a cloud of his immortal characters.
McCartney shares Dickens’ fascination with characters, and has said Nicholas Nickleby is his favorite book. In the Beatles years McCartney wrote many short stories in song, including “Eleanor Rigby,” “Lady Madonna,” “Rocky Raccoon,” and “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.” “Penny Lane” is a Dickens novel in miniature, with its large cast of characters and distinctively English setting. It’s artfully narrated, too: that repeated “meanwhile” underlines the simultaneity of the characters’ actions, adding motion and breadth as the multiple plots in Dickens’ novels do. McCartney has continued to write narrative songs throughout his solo career, with “Another Day,” “Jenny Wren,” “She Given Up Talking,” and “Mr. Bellamy” as leading examples.
Both Dickens and McCartney wanted not merely to write about, but to perform their characters. While writing, Dickens would often jump up, make faces, and try out speech mannerisms. He gave sensationally successful public readings from his work, touring both England and the U.S. One of his favorite pieces, the brutal murder of the prostitute Nancy in Oliver Twist, was so intense that women sometimes fainted and had to be carried out. Other selections regularly moved huge audiences to laugh or cry. Dickens kept giving readings even as he grew ill, and his performance schedule probably hastened his death. How much he was driven by money and how much by love of the stage is a continuing point of debate.
As a live performer, McCartney is just as persistent and driven as Dickens. McCartney’s sometimes hectoring insistence, in the Beatles’ last years, on getting the group to play live again contributed to its meltdown. When he formed Wings, McCartney was willing to drive a van around the countryside and play small university halls to get back on stage. The 70s, 80s, and 90s all saw successful McCartney tours, and the last several years have featured some of his most impressive shows. He’s clearly giving audiences what they want, with setlists that cover the highlights of his entire career, and has been charged with doing it mainly for money. His enjoyment of performing is palpable, however, and it’s hard not to admire his dedication: at 69, he’s giving concerts that last three hours without an opening band or a break. It seems probable that, like Dickens, McCartney will go on performing until disability or death prevents him.
This pattern of similarities makes me think that time will improve McCartney’s artistic reputation. His poorer work will be justly forgotten, as Dickens’ lesser productions have been. Who is now beating up on Dickens for Master Humphrey’s Clock, Martin Chuzzlewit, The Uncommercial Traveler, or his play The Village Coquettes, not to mention dozens of fair-to-middling articles and stories? Just as we now appreciate Dickens’ higher-quality work and leave the rest largely alone, so may McCartney’s best work endure. Perhaps one day, like Dickens, he will get a biographer able to regard his faults and excesses with some sympathy and appreciate his artistic fertility and performing tenacity.



14 comments:
Perhaps one day, like Dickens, he will get a biographer able to regard his faults and excesses with some sympathy and appreciate his artistic fertility and performing tenacity.
Nancy, I think the best biographer for the job might be you. Have you thought of attempting it?
A superb observation and post. As with all great observations it seems so obvious now I wish I had thought of it. Thank you.
This is really fascinating as I had no idea of these parallels. I hope you don't mind but I posted a link to this in Paul McCartney's forum as I thought people there would be interested. I need to mull this over but so much of it seems spot on.
It is amazing to me how many of John Lennon's weakest songs (or Bob Dylan's) are just forgotten -- yet critics seem to beat Paul over the head with his weakest songs.
Anyway, this is food for thought. And I echo the anonymous poster who nominated you for the job of Paul's next biographer!
Michelley.
Anon and Michelley, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I don't know that I have the perseverance to do a full-scale biography, but I do hope McCartney eventually gets the great one he deserves. Guitar Rat, I'm glad you think this comparison makes sense.
And Michelley, I'm happy for you to cross-post it. The more the merrier!
This insight is just wonderful: "This desire to perform but to shield the private self helps explain why Dickens and McCartney love telling stories. Rather than speak in first person, both often communicate obliquely through characters."
Really spot-on. And I'm glad to hear that you think McCartney's reputation will improve with time; I agree, but sometimes wonder if that's just being hopeful.
You've convinced me, and I've learned a lot about both Dickens and McCartney. You write so well--what a shame most academics do not.
Very interesting. A friend sent me the link on Facebook. Paul's songs that he writes in the third person have always fascinated me. I hope somebody will write a biography of Macca while I am still alive to read it that will give him the respect he deserves.
...and, of course, Dickens was a teacher at the Liverpool Institute–a fact Paul shares in the recent Scorsese documentary.
Great piece, very insightful... worthy of becoming part of mainstream Beatles cultural interpretation.
"McCartney’s sometimes hectoring insistence, in the Beatles’ last years, on getting the group to play live again contributed to its meltdown."
That sentence is so odd when you think about it. Imagine today an artist being accused of "hectoring" his bandmates for wanting them to perform live. Really, it should have been John and George who were criticized for avoiding live performance for so long. It's really bizarre when you think that all Paul was asking them to do was something EVERY band these days has to do to make money -- play live.
George had one disastrous tour in 74 and never toured again. John developed odd performance anxieties. He was apparently supposed to tour with Double Fantasy and, sadly, we'll never know how that would have gone. But for someone who claimed that the Beatles' best years were performing live in Hamburg, John sure did avoid live performance for much of the 70s. I wonder if John was just afraid to fail on stage. And I think George realized that fronting a tour was more than he could handle.
Paul and Ringo seem to be the only ones who loved live performance enough to actually do it -- repeatedly. And Paul is the only one who can carry a three-hour show on his own. I think Paul's skill as a live performer is often taken for granted. But it really is amazing how he can take even a mixed crowd (of Beatles fans and non fans, like he encountered at Coachella in 2009) and have them roaring and singing along by the end.
I never got to see him perform with Wings, but it must have been amazing watching him play bass and sing at the top of his game.
I'm sure he keeps performing for a mix of reasons -- the thrill of a rapturous audience, the sheer joy of performing, the money (!!!), and probably because it's the one place he can connect with fans without criticism. He's a big target and he has received more than his share of attacks. But on stage, he can get past all that garbage, and just play -- love the audience and be loved in return. Nice work if you can get it.
P.S. This is a great, though-provoking piece making a connection that had never occurred to me before but makes so much sense.
--- Drew
Drew, I also think that for McCartney the direct response from the audience he gets in performance is IT. The feedback loop between performer and crowd is something that clearly continues to thrill him.
Thinking about John's and George's resistance to playing live in the "Let It Be" days, I'm convinced a lot of it was resistance to seeing the Beatles as a continuing band. If the four of them got up on stage, they'd be saying "We're still here as a unit," and they would have had to pull together in ways the studio didn't require. And I think that's why Paul was so hell-bent on the idea of that live performance.
But, as you say, John and George were ambivalent at best about performing as solo artists. Interesting that they were often willing to play with someone, but not to be the focus of attention.
nice!!
I am very fond of the work Paul did with Declan Patrick McManus.
Here is their guitar demo of So Like Candy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwMtwtF_mb8
I think it is problematic to compare McCartney and Dickens. I believe it is unfair to compare Lennon-McCartney to Dickens.
McCartney's best work was conceived and executed in a partnership with John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and others---all of whom at one time or another made significant contributions to the final product the author attributes solely to McCartney.
For example, Lennon and Starr added lyrical ideas to Eleanor Rigby, and George Martin's arrangement of strings (and the way the strings were played and recorded) gave the song a dramatic influence that a solo acoustic performance lacks.
One reason much of McCartney's post-Beatles work has suffered in comparison is that he lacked the editorial and collaborative support of Lennon and Martin, both of whom were the only people who could tell McCartney his songs or lyrics were substandard.
Thanks for your comment, J.R. There are certainly differences between Dickens and McCartney, but I think the similarities in their affinities as artists and performers are revealing.
McCartney worked collaboratively in the Beatles years (and beyond them), but it's meaningful to look at which Beatles songs originated with and were driven by particular members. Story-type songs were almost entirely originated and primarily composed by McCartney, while the most directly self-revealing songs were almost always Lennon's work. Each contributed to the other's songs (as did Harrison, Starr, and George Martin, in different ways), but the songs still bear the primary author's distinctive stamp.
And Dickens didn't work in a vacuum; he talked about his work with others, and was known to respond to comments about what he was writing by changing aspects of it (adding more American scenes to Barnaby Rudge while the novel was in appearing in serial form, for example). He also commented on others' work while it was appearing in his periodicals, and collaborated with Wilkie Collins on the play "The Frozen Deep."
I agree that McCartney's solo work is uneven in large part because he lacks a strong editor, a la Lennon or Martin. But Dickens wasn't always his own best editor, either; it's just that time has distanced us from the many things he published that weren't of classic caliber.
Post a Comment