Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Scarrott
It doesn't seem terribly well-written, I'm afraid.
|
I would agree. Beyond the tragic, doomed tone the author insists on using, there’s also this hilarious anachronism:
“Christine could have walked away – she was only 30 years old, talented and in her prime. She might have divorced John, cut her losses and resumed her solo career. Chicken Shack, the second-division pre-Fleetwood Mac blues outfit with whom she famously scored a hit with the Etta James cover “I’d Rather Go Blind”, would have had her back in a beat. But Christine knew the magical harmonies that she, Stevie and Lindsey conjured together were too precious to throw away.”
In the essay, this passage refers to Christine’s 1973 predicament after her affair with Birch, two years before she met the two with whom she made magical harmonies. Splendidly stupid.
What is the author’s motive in painting this portrait of a Christine? Why is she hellbent on showing the world how tragic Christine’s story is supposed to be?