An allegory of the Lennon/McCartney symbiosis & synergy -- and of their "break-up" | Fab forum

I couldn't post this topic in the Lennon section, or in the McCartney section, since I'm referring to a certain level on which the two of them were fused in artistic synergy, during those "golden years".

The allegory my title refers to may make some of you chuckle with amusement.  There was an old Star Trek episode (from the original series) where Captain Kirk gets split into two Kirks -- a good Kirk, and a bad Kirk.  The problem with the good Kirk, however, was that although he had qualities of kindness and intelligence, he was too wimpy and passive and could not take charge when the ship needed him.

The problem with the bad Kirk was that although he was quite capable of being aggressive and taking command, he was also arrogant, rude and sometimes hot tempered.

I think you guys know where I'm going with this…

At the end of the episode (if memory serves me) the two Kirks confront each other, and they realize that neither one of them alone is any good, and that they need to "fuse" again into one.

Of course, the post-Beatles McCartney is the "good Kirk", and the post-Beatles Lennon is the "bad Kirk".

As for George, I think he would have made a good Spock.

(I'm sorry I have no place for Ringo on board the Enterprise -- unless "Scotty" the engineer would do:  We all live in a Yellow Star Ship, a Yellow Star Ship, a Yellow Star Ship…)

Okay, I'm going now.

kedame said
I think most people who have worked with Paul would probably argue that he has lots of the "bad Kirk" qualities, such as bossiness (ask George), controlling tendencies (again, ask George), and ego (according to George M.).

While interesting, I feel this scenario plays right into the old trope that Paul was the soft, good guy, while John was the badass, edgy guy. They could both be both, I think.

I watched the 2009 Star Trek movie around the time I started listening to The Beatles, and I always saw Paul as Kirk and John as Spock.

Yes, but my point is that Paul was that way because he was "with John" in the Beatles context.  The post-Beatles context is where their imperfect selves began to flounder, because each one was "less than whole" without the other.

That's the theory, anyway.  I realize it's exaggerating things, but I think on a certain level they were kind of that way.  It's a way certain lovers feel -- they are so close they feel as though one.  John probably felt that way about Yoko, Paul about Linda -- but on a certain unique level, perhaps no one in the universe could have supplied for Paul what John did, and vice versa, during those golden years of music-making.

meanmistermustard said
You cant put John into this category and Paul into this as thats not how people are.

Paul was very capable of taking command and to be in the beatles you couldnt be passive. You cant call Paul passive when he stood up to the other 3 beatles when he believed, correctly they were being screwed by Klein; his refusal to sign caused a huge division between the 4. It would have been easier to bend and give in. 

And John had a very tender, loving side to his character.

That's what I said in my reply to kedame above.  I'm not saying Paul -- during part of the Beatles time -- was wimpy and passive; that's because he was "fused" with John.  Obviously, I don't mean that literally, and I've already expressed all the caveats I could possibly express, yet people will still misinterpret.  Oh well.