Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by mgikallaroundme

Stevie never had to say much about Barb liking him to convince me of anything. Even after Jess's death Barbara dragged her own 80 something year old ass to Lindsey's solo show. He didn't dedicate that song to thin air ya know. He also dedicated it to his beloved wife during the SYW tour. I think he's got a sentimental fondness for that tune.

That was too funny...

I think there's a reason why Lindsey said in his last interview the meaning of NGBA has changed for him in the last few years. Dedicating it to Barbara I think proves that...otherwise he's slamming an 80 year old woman who is dragging her ass to his shows. LOL.

[louielouie2000]

People who are totally dismissing this book on the basis of relatively small inaccuracies really are looking at it the wrong way. Can any of you remember mundane details from 30 years ago? Would your memory, feelings, thoughts, and diaries from when you were a young adult even stand up to YOUR OWN standards today? You've gotta keep in mind the crazy head spinning lifestyle that Carol was thrown into at the age of 22, and her newfound substance abuse problem too. I think we ALL have to look at this book in a big picture sense, and not dissect the details of it. Carol was just trying to convey the overall nature and feel of the band behind closed doors, and I think she did an excellent job at that.

There is no question that Lindsey was publicly violent with Stevie on 2 very well documented times, once on stage in I believe 1978 or 1979 in New Zealand where he mocked and kicked her, and in 1987 when he refused to tour with the band following Tango and he choked her. If he would publicly assault Stevie on multiple occasions, one can only imagine the things he'd do to Carol behind closed doors. Do I personally believe Lindsey is that way still with his current wife Kristen? I highly doubt it... he seems to have grown up some and calmed down... mainly, become more comfortable in his skin and seems somewhat less insecure. I have to have some sympathy for Lindsey too... his rapid and cosmic rise to fame would probably make anyone go a little nuts.

I too kinda hate in a way that I read this book. It absolutely shows just how crazy each member of the band was, and how terribly they treated each other and themselves. If you all go back and listen to all your Mac interviews from the past 10 years, you'll see that Carol's book seems to be pretty accurate in this account indeed. I don't know if anyone can survive that kind of fame and fortune without going a little insane though. Most notably I will never look at Stevie in the same light again. But that's ok... the book showed that she was not the airy fairy princess goddess she plays on stage, this book humanized her. If you really look objectively at this book, in the end, it isn't trying to trash or tarnish ANYONE in particular. This is no vengence book, this is no publicity book, I truly think she wrote it for her own psychological needs, and for the fans of Fleetwood Mac. If she was trying to fling mud at someone or cash in, she would have done that LONG ago. Until one of the band members comes out with their own book to refute Carol's, this book will be the definitive word on Fleetwood Mac for me.

[David]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

There is no question that Lindsey was publicly violent with Stevie on 2 very well documented times, once on stage in I believe 1978 or 1979 in New Zealand where he mocked and kicked her, and in 1987 when he refused to tour with the band following Tango and he choked her.

I like your writing, Louie, & I have several of the same views you do. But I don't consider the New Zealand incident (which was in 1980) a closed case. You say "there is no question that Lindsey was publicly violent," but there most certainly is a question. The incident was first brought to the (American) public's attention in "My Life & Adventures" (1990) -- see pages 229-230. It's described not in terms of physical violence but in terms of an alcoholic bender in which no one in the band was either assaulted or threatened until Christine smacked Lindsey backstage afterward.

Years later, the description of the incident took on a different hue in which Stevie was ferociously kicked -- much more of an assault than Mick & Stephen Davis originally characterized it.

Lindsey himself says he doesn't remember any of these details, but nonetheless doesn't doubt that something or other happened.

It's been a long time now since March 1980, & even the band members' recollections seem to reflect back more on what they've recently heard other members say than on the actual incident -- sort of a "my faulty memory of your faulty memory of my faulty memory" ... endlessly regressing to a point at which probably the actual incident is all but unrecoverable. To this day, the radio broadcast Mick refers to has never surfaced, & only a single fan -- here on the Ledge -- has reported that his or her mom or dad was there & saw something or other (this person has never brought the topic up again or ever verified it in anything other than a circumstantial, somewhat out-of-left-field assertion). To get Stevieish on you, the whole incident has been buried in mythology. I seriously wonder whether the incident ever would have been recollected at all had it not been in Mick's book in 1990.

Anyway, that's my point: The details of the incident are unresolved, even among the members of the band.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

. . . Anyway, that's my point: The details of the incident are unresolved, even among the members of the band.

Details of the actual attack aside, I think there is no question LB was violent in some manner, which to me is the point

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by David

Anyway, that's my point: The details of the incident are unresolved, even among the members of the band.

Well, that's true of the Tango fight too. Mick tells one story. Stevie tells another, saying that she lunged at Lindsey to kill him (hyperbole, yes) and then he chased her down the block and was going to kill her on the hood of the car. John's version of events was spare and ambiguous. Lindsey -- well, Lindsey has never actually said what he did. He just said what he did NOT do -- he says the slapping never happened (and I think Stevie would agree with that), but he didn't say he didn't slam her on the car.

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

People who are totally dismissing this book on the basis of relatively small inaccuracies really are looking at it the wrong way.

I don't dismiss the book at all. I think it's very insightful and entertaining. But far from thinking it is the definitive word on Fleetwood Mac, at most, I think it's the definitive word on Carol Ann Harris, through both what it says and what it doesn't say. I don't think the book is all lies, but I think it's got enough lies to call the whole thing into question. So, I enjoy it for its entertainment value not for its truthiness (as the lovely Colbert would say).

To me, the inaccuracies in the book are not "relatively small." They aren't random mistakes. They're deliberate and purposeful, designed to further a point. She's telling the story in a way slanted to leave a certain impression.

For instance, the bed cover shoot for Rolling Stone -- everyone (Mick, Stevie, Lindsey and an objective third party, Annie Liebowitz) says it happened quite differently from the way Carol says it did. It didn't even take place in Lindsey's house the way Carol says. Why would she change those details of all things? Well, for some reason, after all these years, she still felt the need to dispute the notion that Lindsey and Stevie made out during the shoot. So, she went out of her way to fabricate a scenario for the photo shoot that would have given no opportunity for the make out to take place. I don't know why that was so important to her, but what it tells me is that when there are so few details that we can check against proven facts and even those few details don't hold up to the light of scrutiny, then I certainly don't trust the descriptions I can't check.

And it's funny that Carol describes the one Rolling Stone photo shoot, but doesn't mention the one in 1979 when Rolling Stone says that Carol was looking so distraught about Lindsey and Stevie cavorting that Christine had to comfort her.

It's clear to me that Carol chose to offer only a very filtered version of her story with Fleetwood Mac and I don't fault her for that. A biography is one thing, but an autobiography is another. Whether it's CAH or James Frey, in a memoir, I don't expect to get the truth. I only expect to get the story that one person wants to tell about themselves.

As for waiting for a member of Fleetwood Mac to refute Carol's book, she's already refuted parts of it herself. I don't have to wait. In the book, she goes out of her way to say Lindsey was relieved to be out of his relationship with Stevie. Yet, after the book was published, last year, she gave an interview about Fleetwood Mac (Sex, Lines and Audio Tapein which she said that Lindsey and Stevie shared ongoing guilt and pain over their break up and she, Carol, knew Stevie and Lindsey had never gotten over each other during all the years she was with Lindsey. That's something that Carol not only didn't say in the book but denied. She completely contradicted her own writing.

And it's not the only time she's said one thing and written another. Years before the book came out, in 1992 I believe, she went on tv, on a show about abused women, and described how Lindsey grabbed her in the car after the Elvis Costello concert and said "you are all alike". But when expressly asked for other examples of his violence, she didn't or couldn't give any and actually said that she and Lindsey had been happy for most of their time together. So, I'd say that Elvis Costello attack has been pretty consistently described by her for about 15 years, but I am puzzled as to why she couldn't think of any other violent moments between them, when she was asked to do so on a show about abuse. When memories sharpen over time rather than fade, when events start to get more detailed as the years pass, I get suspicious.

Originally Posted by Gailh

In the UK the law does allow publication to be stopped if you get an injunction on the grounds that the allegations are untrue. Sometimes this is only temporary and can be appealed against. I don't know too much about it but I know it is possible.
Gail

Regarding Storms, the jurisdiction for suing Carol would probably be in California where she lives. Although, if you sued the publisher, I guess the publisher's state of incorporation could be the be the place where the suit would be filed.

In California, the case would be even worse than in other states, because we have this anti-SLAPP legislation, SLAPP being strategic lawsuits against public participation. Anti-SLAPP laws protect those who speak out from being sued for doing so. It started as a way to protect people who speak out about civil rights or against the government, but it's been expanded to protect people who speak on any "public issue." Although, I don't think Fleetwood Mac is really a public issue, the law is frequently used to protect negative speech about public figures, which not only includes politicians, but celebrities too. The anti-SLAPP law makes it easy to get defamation suits thrown out of court within 60 days of their filing.

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

Most notably I will never look at Stevie in the same light again. But that's ok... the book showed that she was not the airy fairy princess goddess she plays on stage.

See, I never thought Stevie was an airy fairy princess. I always thought she was a pistol. And there is one point in the book, where Carol describes the look Stevie gave her when she pointed out that John Wayne shared their birthday, that I can totally see Stevie doing. I just think it's hilarious.

But by and large, Carol's jealousy towards Stevie is so palpable throughout the book that I could never take anything she wrote at face value. I'm sure some of it is true, but I'm equally sure some of it is false. I'll never know which is which.

Actually, what Carol writes about Stevie gave me the most damning revelation about Carol. She paints Lindsey as this murderously violent guy, yet she constantly describes herself as running and tattling to Lindsey about everything Stevie supposedly did to her. It's like she is hoping that he'll beat Stevie to a pulp. That tells me something dark about Carol that I don't think she meant to say.

Michele

[CADreaming]

Michele, thanks for all the above.

Btw, never heard about the 1979 photo shoot - sounds intriguing!

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Details of the actual attack aside, I think there is no question LB was violent in some manner, which to me is the point

But there is a question: I question it. Q.E.D., right?

But on the level of rhetoric or even logic, how can you conclude that something is beyond question after pushing aside its details?

That's like saying "Never mind what happened on April 14, 1912; the Titanic unquestionably ran aground."

[ajmccarrell]

Not EVERYONE agrees on the Rolling Stone cover shoot either. Stevie is the only one mentioned, at least of anything I've read, that says that she and Lindsey "made out". Lindsey himself contradicts that. Stevie, historically, exaggerates things. Besides, ALL of them were so coked up, I don't know how any of them remember anything.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Not EVERYONE agrees on the Rolling Stone cover shoot either. Stevie is the only one mentioned, at least of anything I've read, that says that she and Lindsey "made out". Lindsey himself contradicts that. Stevie, historically, exaggerates things. Besides, ALL of them were so coked up, I don't know how any of them remember anything.

Actually, Lindsey has said they were "freaking" everyone out after the shoot by making out. That's one story that he and Stevie have related that match - the only difference being how long it lasted - and with his toking mind trying to calculate it....anyway, I totally agree with you about the coke - if any details are right it's a miracle coming from that lot!

[ajmccarrell]

I remember that as being Stevie that made the "freaking out" remark. I even remember a post on Buckinghamnicks.net about this very topic and their opposing views. Either way, so much of their "chemistry" is scripted, as indicated by the mike placement instructions given by Mick Fleetwood, that it's hard to tell what is real and what is said for drama and promotional reasons. They're all attuned to the fact that the rumour mill is what keeps them going.

[LukeA]

And lets not forget that it doesn't necessarily take a woman for Lindsey to express his anger physically- remember his ridiculous blowup when he found out that he *might* not be on the Peter Jennings/ABC NYE 2001 show?

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

[Peestie]

Originally Posted by LukeA

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

Or when he trashed his M1 on the last tour because it stopped working.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by LukeA

And lets not forget that it doesn't necessarily take a woman for Lindsey to express his anger physically- remember his ridiculous blowup when he found out that he *might* not be on the Peter Jennings/ABC NYE 2001 show?

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

I don't know about that. . .

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

But there is a question: I question it. Q.E.D., right?

But on the level of rhetoric or even logic, how can you conclude that something is beyond question after pushing aside its details?

That's like saying "Never mind what happened on April 14, 1912; the Titanic unquestionably ran aground."

If we know someone has been violent, why do we care about the details? I mean does it really matter if he threw his guitar at her or he kicked her instead? They are both violent acts which support the conlcusion that he was violent, which is sad.

And, though it is interesting to know why, the Titanic sank regardless of the details -- so the conclusion is still valid

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Peestie

Or when he trashed his M1 on the last tour because it stopped working.

OMG, the lady next to me was scared. His face got so beet red and he had this expression of, well, she thought he was going to start throwing things at the crowd next. lol! Like I said, he probably has the same temper. Perhaps he has learned to control it better, but tempers like that don't just miraculously disappear.