After a long time i was a part of a meaningful discussion with some of my friends. The discussion was about why Paul McCartney does not enjoy the level of adulation that John Lennon does. WE all reached a conclusion that Lennon became famous because of anti-Vietnam campaign and his altercation with Nixon. It seemed to me a very fair conclusion to reach. Basically the only difference between Lennon and McCartney was that Lennon voiced his opinion about what he thought was bad while McCartney simply lived his life. So making this conclusion might seem a very good one based on these two.
Paul Newman, a very successful actor till the late 70's , was another major Anti-Vietnam activist. He also had earned the ire of Nixon and he was also listed in the infamous enemy list that Nixon had compiled. He does not seem to enjoy the celestial status that Lennon seems to enjoy. Most people wont have heard about Newman in the first place. Now comparing Newman and Lennon I simply cant make sense as to why one of them is being venerated by a generation of people , who were born after he died, while the other we have no idea about. I thought that Lennon's fame is still undiminished because he died at the peak of his career while Newman died at a very old age. This simply reminds me of the Dark Knight dialog "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" a small modification to it "You either die while famous and be remembered or live long enough to fade into oblivion" .
