UKking

The tag-line for Chapter 27 reads:

How would it be different if he didn't do what he did?

I don't see it as affecting anything other than the music industry.

Perhaps if John Lennon had lived, he would have been much like Bono is today - using his wealth and celebrity as a jumping point for humanitarian efforts - and he may have had a big impact on certain social and economic issues.

What are your thoughts?

Crack

Lee Harvey changed the world, as did Wilkes Booth. David Chapman killed a singer.

Imho.

on a side note, do all "assassins" have 3 names?

__________________
Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex.

~Halx

Strange Famous

No, I dont think so. John Lennon was just a pop singer, plus when he was killed the Beatles were broken up anyway.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Tully Mars

I agree. I feel sorry for his family and fans. But change the world? I don't see it.

And yes, all assassins have three names.

BTW- How do I change my screen name to "Tully Fred Mars?"

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

djtestudo

You know, I just can't get past the fact that the guy playing John Lennon in this movie is named Mark LINDSAY Chapman!

And, in his little bio it says he lost the same part in another movie about Lennon because of his name...

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Craven Morehead

John had largely been invisible for a decade leading up to the release of Double Fantasy. He was a house husband "watching the wheels go round and round", who knows what lay ahead for him? I think he would have had a voice in this world had he used it, especially with those of my generation. We would have listened. I wish I knew what he did instead of wondering what he might have done.

My guess is the answer to this question will vary greatly based on the age of the respondent.

Baraka_Guru

Britney Spears is just a pop singer. John Lennon was a musician and peace activist.

I'm not sure his assassin changed the world, but he certainly raised Lennon's profile. It was Lennon who made the change. He inspired many people with both his music and his message of peace, and he still does this day.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Slyboots

I would say he did.

Thinking about all the music we missed out because of his actions. Think about the children he left fatherless (not sure how many kids JL had).

No matter what your opinion is on John or what Mark did, his actions changed the world and it would be the same even if he killed a nobody that he found wondering the streets.

__________________
"Ah, yes, divorce......., from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet." -- Robin Williams

percy

No, the world didn't change. Maybe some peoples lives changed, personally or vicariously but changing the world,....

The world hasn't changed since the beginning of time in terms that history repeats itself. One would have to be bigger than earth itself to change the world.

This is just one more prescribed self absorbed iconoclastic phrase that allows one to revel in hero worship whilst ignoring the opportunities present to do heroic deeds themselves

james t kirk

No-one's death really changes the world (literally)

However, sometimes, as in the case of Lennon's death, the world loses a little piece of goodness that we can never be get back.

In all my 43 years, I've seen a lot of famous people come and go and this much I know for sure.....

When John Lennon was murdered, the WORLD reacted. I can't think of one other death (I wasn't around when JFK was assisinated) in my lifetime where the world slowed down even for a minute. There was a collective gasp that was heard around the world at the news of his death. There were rememberance ceremonies held all over the world. Condolences poured in from the four corners of the globe and these were heart felt ones. John Lennon through his music (the Beatles, his own music) truly shook the world. A lot of times when a political leader dies, it's polite to send your condolences because that's what you do, protocol dictates that you acknowledge the passing of famous politician (Reagan, Ford, the Pope, etc.) When Lennon died, there was no such "protocol" yet people from all around the world did so anyway.

Name me one other person where you can say the same thing. Even 27 years later, we still commemorate his life.

When Lennon was murdered, it was a collective loss for the world. It was truly a tragedy.

Charlatan

I tend to see these kinds of statements as hyperbole. Yes, many were effected by his murder (see jtk's post #10) but Change the World? Not really.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pan6467

I believe Lennon was mellowing politically. I believe the Beatles would have gotten back together in the 80's. I believe Lennon would have probably had much the same career as his peers had in the 80's. I believe had he gone back to heroin he probably would have contracted AIDS, considering the people who did have it and he associated with. I also believe he probably would have been the first Beatle to die, regardless.... via heart disease, drug overdose, cancer, etc. In a few things I have read regarding his life, he was not in the best of health at that point in his life.

Do I believe Chapman changed the world? Yes, I believe Lennon became bigger because of the assassination. He was most remembered for his early 70's anti-war solo material and demonstrations... (and of course the Beatles)... but the 7 years he had been in self exile he had pretty much been left behind. What did his future hold? I think he would have ended up much like Keith Richards/Mick Jagger/Rod Stewart/Elton John/David Bowie/The KINKS/etc. Having hits and making more money than God and for the most part silent. U2, The Police, Morrisey and the Smiths, the Clash... overall, Punk, New Wave, etc. were making their move and having their say by then.

Do I believe that Lennon would still be remembered as almost saintly now if he hadn't been gunned down? Doubtful. I think he'd still be looked at for his words of peace, but overall, I doubt he would have changed much. I think at this point he just was trying to get a grasp on the music industry and write songs that sold. He was not all that wealthy, at that point in his life.

The biggest reason I say this is that a Beatles reunion would have been a HUGE payout, even though all signs point that it was Paul and some George at this point who refused to get the group back together.

This HUGE payout would have taken away John's title of Working Man's Hero and made him look like a hypocrite (which many say he was anyway), thus it could very easily have caused a backlash against John.

Unfortunately.... or fortunately..... depending on how fate would have played out...... we will never know what truly could have been, what the fates, governments and industries would have allowed. All we have are our beliefs and visions of what might have happened.

I would love to say we'd be living in a Lennonistic world and he would have been idealistic to the day he died.... I just don't see it and am a Lennonist.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ratbastid

pan & Baraka: That's really interesting... I'd always thought about how his assassination took something from us. I'd never considered what it may have given us. By raising Lennon's profile, his message--whatever it was, at that point, largely an ex post facto construct I imagine--was able to take a global stage.

I was six years old when he died. I have no memory of it, and at the time had no exposure to John's solo work, but I sure knew the Beatles. I'd sit in the corner by the stereo with Dad's enormous studio headphones on listening to Sargent Pepper's over and over and over again. It was my favorite album by the time I had the manual dexterity to work the record player. Listening to that album as an adult is a bit surreal (well... even more surreal than the album is designed to be, let's say) because of that added piece of history. There's not a tune on that album that couldn't be a children's song, if you don't understand what the lyrics are saying.

allaboutmusic

Kill somebody famous, obviously.

Disclaimer: I am not recommending aforementioned action.

snowy

It's one of my favorite albums to play for kids.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Martian

I would argue that the very question posed here is somewhat redundant. I say this because it assumes (rightly, I think) that the reader will know who Mark David Chapman is without being told; given that, which implies that his name is known globally, we can assume that the man had some global influence.

One can argue that nobody really changes the world in a literal sense, but I think that's sort of daft. It's almost reductio ad absurdum; clearly Mark David Chapman did not move mountains or carve rivers. What he did was kill a man who was internationally recognized for both his music and his philosophy. That we as an international community can sit and debate whether or not this had global social implications is answer in and of itself.

On the other hand, I reckon one probably shouldn't take movie taglines too seriously, since they're hyperbolic almost by definition. The tagline 'he shot a man in glasses and a bunch of people cried' would be a more accurate description of events, but isn't nearly as catchy.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Jinn

I'm not convinced that's a correct assumption. I didn't know. But I know who Lee Harvey Oswald is. I know who John Wilkes Booth is.

Perhaps he did "change the world", but not to the degree of the above two. If he had, his name would be more common in the news and household, would it not? I'm not exactly living in a cave of ignorance regarding history - I actively study it. But the death of a pop star is hardly analogous to other "world changing" events.

I could argue that Tupac Shakur's death was "world changing" too, but I don't believe that it would based in fact, just like this thread's assertion isn't.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

spindles

Wrongly - I had no idea who the guy was.

Personally I don't think this kind of action changes the world anyway. Is the death of one person (as influential as they may be) really going to affect the world too much? maybe yes short term, but not really in any life changing manner for most people.

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Charlatan

I just asked some locals working in my office and they have no idea who John Wilkes Booth or Mark David Chapman were. They did know Lee Harvey Oswald though.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Martian

Excuse my error, then. I made the mistake of not looking at it objectively; I'm reasonably sure that the great majority of people in my circle of friends would know who Mark David Chapman is.

Regardless, I stand by my assertion. The whole thread is naturally based on conjecture, but I think that had John Lennon survived the world wouldn't be what it is now. I'm not arguing that things would be radically different, but at the same time, I think John was influential enough that he could've had a real effect on the world at large. Exactly what form that would take or how great it would be, I don't pretend to know.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Kahn

I don't mean to push buttons or offend those of differing opinions. I'll even refrain from outright preaching about what I think regarding the question posed, and respond with a fair question to make something of a point instead.

What would the world be like today had the life of Adolph Hitler come to an end at a much earlier age (say early childhood) than it actually did for him? I think for starters, it's a fair assumption to conclude there would be a lot more Jewish people today.

And before you say anything about comparing a famous, iconic musician to a lunatic, murderous monster guilty of genocide, let's stop right there and put aside what they did or did not do .. or .. what they could have done or could not have done .. and simply focus on the "what if". Today, at this very moment, you know that Hitler nearly wiped out the Jewish race. It's historical fact and I concede that. We also know that John Lennon contributed to the spread of popular rock music, the popularity and success of the Beatles, and was becoming rather well known for his humanitarian contributions in general.

All that aside .....

You cannot possibly answer this question, with all certainty, based on the simple fact that you just don't know the "what if". Anything beyond that is purely speculation.

As an afterthought, John Lennon was a legend to many people and his death was a loss to millions. Personally, I feel that deserves a bit of respect, whether you knew him or not.

__________________
Attention everyone: We have another potential asshole in the area !

You don't have bad luck, the reason bad things happen to you is because you're a dumbass !!

Dinner $50
Drinks $30
Motel $40

Finding out she swallows -
PRICELESS!!!

spindles

I just want to make it clear - I had no idea who "Mark David Chapman" was before reading this thread. You would have to live under a rock (or in outer space perhaps) to not know who John Lennon was

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Jinn

Maybe I don't get it. When has a pop star ever dramatically, permanently changed the politics or condition of the world? Sure they support certain things and might bring a bit of a following towards a certain cause, but I don't know of any that have actually brought about a long-term change.

Hell, Michael Jackson approached the Beatles in terms of popularity and capital, but even his penchant for fucking little boys didn't start a movement for or against molestation..

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

MJ didn't invite the world's press to his bed-in.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Manuel Hong

[QUOTE=JinnKai]Maybe I don't get it. When has a pop star ever dramatically, permanently changed the politics or condition of the world? Sure they support certain things and might bring a bit of a following towards a certain cause, but I don't know of any that have actually brought about a long-term change.
[QUOTE]


Well, Zappa tried with the PMRC along with John Denver and Dee Snyder. (!)
Now on a grand scale, it would be hard to equate an individual, particularly a musician (as we are discussing here) to a global change. HOWEVER, people like Lennon, Zappa, Bono, Dylan, and many others (listen to the lyrics!) have in fact changed the world enormously one fan at a time! My personal beliefs- and not just mine- have been shaped by the music and other various mediums I ascribe to. This colors the work I do. This affects the way I interact with the world. This makes a difference in the choices I make. Multiply that by all the people who are also moved by their musical/movie/television/etc. preferences, and you have change on a global scale. Maybe not in a day or a week, or even a year...but change is happening all around us. John Lennon in that sense did change the world. Mark David Chapman didn't really change it that much.

__________________
Believe nothing, even if I tell it to you, unless it meets with your own good common sense and experience. - Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

ring

I was 21 when he was taken away from us...I had been affected by his music
and vision since I was 9.

Lennon changed and changes my world, still.

james t kirk

The only thing in this post that makes any sense.

Kahn

I thought the point I was attempting to make was clear enough to not need any explanation .... how wrong I was.

First, I guess we need to define what we mean by "change the world". For me, this can mean many things and my reply attempted to convey this by also pointing out we will never know what John Lennon was capable of AFTER he was killed.

I suppose it is possible to assume he could have changed the world of music as we know it, although unlikely since he was pretty much past his prime when he was killed. There is also his humanitarian efforts to consider. Who knows what change this could have had on our world. It's also not unreasonable to think he could have fathered another child. Who knows if that child did not grow up to do something so profound and life altering, it impacted everyone. Point being, change is a relative thing and can be defined in many ways. Will your life be completely different because John is dead? Most likely not. Is it possible that had he not been killed, there is a slim chance SOMETHING he did could have had some influence in your life, or the life of someone else? That is not unthinkable.

The reason I used Adolph Hitler as an example was to A) refer to someone we know who had a very profound impact on our world .. and .. B) to attempt to demonstrate that IF Hitler died as a child you may not have ever known who he was, hence assuming his death had no impact on the world as we knew it back then, BUT, had he died as a child it would have most certainly had a huge changing impact as history well knows today.

I can't help it the butterfly theory came to mind on this one. So again, change is a relative thing. Lastly, the author of the thread ask for thoughts .. these are but a few.

__________________
Attention everyone: We have another potential asshole in the area !

You don't have bad luck, the reason bad things happen to you is because you're a dumbass !!

Dinner $50
Drinks $30
Motel $40

Finding out she swallows -
PRICELESS!!!