Badgirl66 gave me a link ^_^ I'm guessing the book isn't very reliable? XD
Well, I think most of it's probably true but he basically recycled a lot of what's been written before. He gave credit;
the footnote section is the longest one I've ever seen and when I read Geoff Emerick's book there was actually one part that I recognized verbatim! Some of his original sources seemed kind of iffy; "interview with family member". The section on Paul's life after the Beatles did have a lot of information that, according to reviews is new. It just seemed to me that alot of what he related throughout made Paul look like a monster. He seemed obsessed with Paul's infidelity while he was with Jane Asher but interestingly, he couldn't seem to find a single such story during Paul and Linda's marriage. He had to be content with dwelling on how difficult Paul was to work with. And it was obvious that he did not like Linda at all. "Almost everybody I interviewed who knew her personally spoke very warmly of her, yet people in the media — myself included — found her a gauche, abrasive woman lacking in charm."
Maybe his behavior as a member of the media tried her patience. I'd like to hear what other members of the press really thought. I considered not finishing the book many times because it was making me think I don't like Paul and that is not okay! I know he's not perfect but I just don't see the point of dwelling on or magnifying anyone's faults.