The Beatles: The Biography (Paperback)

Allow me to itemize some of the more glaring mistakes, an extensive list of which have also been compiled by people directly involved with a well-known Beatle magazine. Again, the mistakes in this book are ludicrous and inexcusable!

*There are photographs of the Beatles taken in 1960, supposedly at the Star Club. That is impossible because the Star Club did not open until 1962!

*Erroneous captions - the Top Ten Club is mistakenly listed as the Star Club in some photographs taken in 1961.

*Date errors, such as when George Harrison met Pattie Boyd. The pair met in 1964 on the set of "A Hard Day's Night" and NOT in 1963 as is claimed in this book! Paul's 21st birthday was in 1963 and at that time, George and Pattie had never even met.

*Another error in re George and Pattie is in a photograph saying they met during the filming of the 1965 movie, "Help!" That is incorrect. They met in 1964 on the set of "A Hard Day's Night."

*A king sized error can be found in the 1964 photograph of John mugging with somebody's daughter in Central Park. His own son, Julian was then 10 months old and was in England during the Beatles' first whirlwind tour of America!

*The photograph of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan is erroneously captioned as being their last appearance on his show in August of 1965. NOT TRUE! That picture was taken during their February 1964 performances. The 1965 Ed Sullivan performance was filmed on August 14, 1965, one day before the famous first Shea Stadium concert and was aired on September 12, 1965.

*The 1965 "Rubber Soul" album was reported as having "an unheard of 14 cuts." Not true. At that time, all of the Beatles' UK albums had 14 cuts save for "A Hard Day's Night," which had 13.

*"Run For Your Life" was not the last song recorded for "Rubber Soul." It was the very first.

There are more, but I think you have gotten the idea. How on earth this got past the editors I will never know. If that isn't bad enough, there are plenty of mistakes throughout the text as well. Beatle literati will pick them up right off the bat. I don't know if these errors were allowed through with the thought that they would remain unnoticed, but the errors were extensive to the point where I just cannot recommend this book.

Sometimes errors get by even the best researcher. In this case, it looks like there was no fact checking done. It is not the editors' job to correct and catch mistakes. That is the author's job and in most cases editors are not necessarily experts on the subjects they are editing.

Still, one would hope for better from an author than telling people who have caught the mistakes to "get an enema and a life." That sounds crass and unprofessional. On December 5, 2005, Rusy & Molloy's column in the NY Daily News defends the book by saying Beatle fans "don't like it because it doesn't paint a pretty picture of John." That is not true. Our issue with it is that it is full of needless mistakes that were easily checked. We don't need to put any Beatle on a pedastal, just give us some truth. If a writer cares about the subject, then that writer will take the time to check the facts and not blame others for catching the errors.