I was born in '63 too and the Beatles were my favorite band. I listened to the Beatles, Bob Dylan and The Rolling Stones mostly.
That’s how I always understood it until I read about the alternative interpretation.
Oh, c’mon.
She showed me her room, isn’t it good, Norwegian wood.
So I lit a fire, isn’t it good, Norwegian wood.
That’s Paul, years later, so in my mind that doesn’t 100% settle the issue. I don’t remember John ever clarifying the song’s meaning; and I think he would have loved the ambiguity, that it could be interpreted either way.
That’s interesting, thanks.
I suppose there’s little choice but to accept it, being from the horse’s mouth and all, but I never got from the song itself that she “made” him sleep in the bath, nor that the song’s protagonist was unhappy about doing so. More like had she had to get up early and was going to bed, and he, who could have slept on a couch or on the living room floor, etc., decided on his own to go sleep in the bath.
Some people feel it’s better to be an interesting liar than a truthful bore, and I wonder sometimes if McCartney doesn’t on occasion say things that aren’t necessarily true just because they make for a more interesting back story on a song.
I actually do agree with you and Starvihg Artist there. I don’t always trust artist explanations of their lyrics. But there it is as at least one Beatle’s explanation.
I heard a quote from a Beatle biographer and I regret that I don’t have a source or and exact quote but it was something like, “Since George died you can’t get good information because Ringo doesn’t remember and Paul makes it up.”
That’s what I remember hearing but can’t vouch for its veracity.
Haha, thanks.
I think Paul’s always been the most commercially driven of all the Beatles, and it strikes me that if he feels he can put a more interesting spin on a song, or portray himself and Lennon as being mischievous or outre in some way, it’ll make their music more interesting and likely to be revisited and/or brought to the attention of new listeners.
That’s hilarious.
Paul’s revisionism often makes him being more like a bad-ass rather than the nice diplomatic Beatle that wrote pretty ballads.
Yeah, it just occurred to me too that I may have been a bit uncharitable in attributing Paul’s motive for attempting to portray himself and John in in a more “bad-ass” way to commercial interests. It might also be that Paul’s grown to resent his reputation for “silly love songs” and what John referred to as his “granny music,” and so he tries when he can to put himself in league with John as being mischievous and naughty.
I was 13 when the Beatles first appeared on Ed Sullivan, so I was the prime demographic. Just watched the Ron Howard documentary on the Beatles’ touring years with my sister last weekend, and we sang along with every song they played. Seared on my brain!
Or maybe it’s what Paul says it was with no reason to put contrary words in his mouth.
I agree with this, to a certain extent. Paul *was *the more business-minded, and could emulate and find “that sound that sells” like nobody else in the band. John was the more creative-minded, and could innovate like nobody else in the band. Paul was always the story teller.
I also think John did this tale-telling too in interviews, but obviously his time for telling stories was cut short. I mean, shit, don’t we all tell stories when it comes to our 20s? How much do we actually remember, and how much is stretched a bit in our minds? Especially if you consumed as many fun things as John & Paul probably did.
And that quote about Ringo forgetting and Paul making shit up, makes me wish I could sit down for a meal with George even more. He’ll always be my favorite Beatle.
This (like many “Paul was this and John was that” comments) doesn’t hold up if you press it too far. Paul was plenty creative and innovative, at least at times. It was his experimentation with tape loops that led to the sound of “Tomorrow Never Knows.” And “Sgt. Pepper” (“Let’s assume alternative identities!”) and “Magical Mystery Tour” (the TV film) were Paul’s idea (not all his ideas were necessarily good ones). And John could sit down and crank out a commercially-successful song like “A Hard Day’s Night.”
I’ve run into at least one person who was certain that “I lit a fire” meant “I smoked a joint,” and was pretty adamant that no other meaning was even possible.
I always took it to mean “lit a fire in the fireplace,” but then I was a pretty naive kid.
I always thought the parallelism spoke for itself.
I mean, maybe it was her furniture that was made of Norwegian wood, rather than the walls and floor themselves. So maybe he broke up her Norwegian wood furniture, put the pieces into the fireplace, and burned it. So yeah, it’s possible that he lit a fire in the fireplace.
But he lit a fire of Norwegian wood.
“Norwegian wood” is pine just in case you didn’t know.
You mean the woman in the song makes a big deal about her place being furnished in pine??
“Isn’t it good, all this pine furniture/paneling/whatever?”
Naaaaaaaaah. 
Now THAT’D be a fun thread: “Warren Zevon, loving husband, doting father, and all around swell guy.”