h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello. I would like to question you as regards your statement in relation to Allan Williams and his book. you said "much of it was written for dramatic effect and factually wrong". I would be very grateful if you could forward your evidence in order to support such a claim. Thank you.

Hello Dooley, thank you for showing an interest in this article.
Allan Williams, a well-regarded Liverpool personality, wrote a book in 1975 entitled 'The Man Who Gave The Beatles Away'. This was a pioneering book, one of the first in-depth looks at the Beatles in their very earliest days, before the world press followed their every move. Consequently, he has not been able to benefit from the extremely thorough research done since then by people such as Mark Lewisohn, Bill Harry and Alan Clayson etc. He is not alone in this, as Philip Norman, author of 'Shout!', another one of the earliest books about the Beatles, has recently revised and republished this, taking into account facts that have come to light since its original issue.

This is nothing to be ashamed of; the first man along a path in the dark holding a candle will not see as much as the man following him carrying a full-beam X-Files style flashlight. Many books are revised, Williams' one hasn't been. If a new edition was published, I'd be first in the queue to get the new copy.

Many things mentioned in the book do not agree with facts later uncovered – especially with regards to Stuart Sutcliffe's death. Allan Williams' account states that Stu was injured at a place and time that he could not have been, which is probably merely a slip of memory, but has led to a widespread belief in a cause of death which is unlikely, and disagrees with accounts described by George Harrison, Pete Best and Paul McCartney. Williams' account of the Parnes audition also disagrees with Parnes' recollection and at least one photograph taken of the event.

As for being written for dramatic effect, well, yes, it is – and that is neither unusual nor a bad thing. Books are primarily entertainment and biographies, especially autobiographies, by their very nature frequently emphasise events to make them seem more interesting, exaggerate the roles played by subject of the biography and attempt to portray them in whatever light the author wishes to convey. Does Allan Williams use drama as an effective device in his book? Yes. Does this keep the book entertaining and worth reading? Yes. Would I recommend the book to others? Yes. Is every single line of the book 100% accurate? Not really, but that is a largely unobtainable goal. Books like Lewisohn's 'The Complete Beatles' list all the facts and figures and are a goldmine of useful information, but for entertainment, Williams' 'The Man Who Gave The Beatles Away', warts, faults and all, provides a more lively read.

Williams' book has contributed greatly to the myth of the Beatles, which is as inspiring as the Beatles themselves. Some of the myths aren't entirely true, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy looking for, say, the Paul McCartney Death Clues or state that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds may or may not be a song all about LSD. He is no more guilty of this than John Lennon himself, who whenever interviewed would delight in saying whatever he felt at the time would have the greatest impact, especially if it would shock and contradict what he had said before. Lennon loved making up stories, such as that the Beatles all took drugs in the toilets of Buckingham Palace before being awarded the OBE by the Queen, when they didn't. By stating that Williams' book is factually wrong and dramatic, I do not mean to imply that Williams intended to deceive or had any ulterior motive other than to write a good book about the early days of the Beatles. That he did.

Allan Williams was a key player in the early years of the Beatles. Pop was in its infancy and not as organised as it is now, and his role would nowadays be considered to be as a booking agent rather than a manager, but that is a distinction that was less apparent then. Williams was in a position where he had ample opportunity to have managed the Beatles and do what Brian Epstein later did, so yes, he certainly was a Man who Gave the Beatles Away, or at least a Man who Didn't Grab Hold of the Beatles As Much As He Could Have Done.

That said, I admit that on re-reading what I wrote earlier, I do seem a lot harsher of Allan Williams than I had intended. I think that in the 'Cause of Death' section the words 'often discredited' should be removed, as should the word 'controversial' in the following paragraph. (Note to self: I really shouldn't write anything immediately after reading Goldman's biography of John Lennon as I seem to unwittingly adopt an angry tone).
We could perhaps rephrase 'The earliest published record of this was Allan Williams' The Man Who Gave The Beatles Away, and his description of this audition has become accepted as fact, even though much of it was written for dramatic effect and factually wrong.' To something like 'The earliest published record of this was Allan Williams' The Man Who Gave The Beatles Away. His description of this audition has become accepted as fact, although more recent research has shown Stu in a more positive light.' What do you think?

<BB<