Fleetwood: My Life and Adventures in Fleetwood Mac

[Moz]

I just got this book in the mail today; I'll start reading it this afternoon. I enjoyed Mick's other book, mostly for the pictures and the CD.

Has anyone read Fleetwood: My Life and Adventures in Fleetwood Mac? If so, what did you think of it?

[Lindsey Jr.]

Is it the book which was " a bit exaggerated & not always correct"?

I haven't read it...

[michelej1]

Some of the book is taken from magazine articles about the band -- which would be ok if those articles had been credited. But they're quoted at length without acknowledgment.

Michele

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by Moz

Has anyone read Fleetwood: My Life and Adventures in Fleetwood Mac? If so, what did you think of it?

I loved it. The coke falls in your lap while you turn the pages.

[skcin]

^ I bought a used copy. There was none left.

[David]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Some of the book is taken from magazine articles about the band -- which would be ok if those articles had been credited. But they're quoted at length without acknowledgment.

For those of us who virtually memorized all the old Mac articles in Rolling Stone, Hit Parader, Circus, Cream, & Stereo Review, reading the book elicited a strange sense of deja vu.

At the time, I thought about compiling a source concordance, sort of for fun. My estimate at the time was that only about 35 percent was new from Mick's brain. Incidentally, the stuff that ruffled people's feathers -- Lindsey's, Stevie's, Christine's -- & that fans clamored was "untrue" was almost entirely the "new" stuff.

An additional layer of irony: Since the publication of Mick's book in 1990, there've been other books & articles that have lifted -- sometimes verbatim -- from THAT! Plus, fans who never read it or don't remember what they read have for years added florid "details" to the tales Mick tells. So what we have at this point is a misreading of a misreading of a misreading. It's so convoluted (for example, the New Zealand concert incident) by now that it would be like trying to peel off the layers of a 10-ton onion to get to the original story.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by David

For those of us who virtually memorized all the old Mac articles in Rolling Stone, Hit Parader, Circus, Cream, & Stereo Review, reading the book elicited a strange sense of deja vu.

At the time, I thought about compiling a source concordance, sort of for fun. My estimate at the time was that only about 35 percent was new from Mick's brain. Incidentally, the stuff that ruffled people's feathers -- Lindsey's, Stevie's, Christine's -- & that fans clamored was "untrue" was almost entirely the "new" stuff.

An additional layer of irony: Since the publication of Mick's book in 1990, there've been other books & articles that have lifted -- sometimes verbatim -- from THAT! Plus, fans who never read it or don't remember what they read have for years added florid "details" to the tales Mick tells. So what we have at this point is a misreading of a misreading of a misreading. It's so convoluted (for example, the New Zealand concert incident) by now that it would be like trying to peel off the layers of a 10-ton onion to get to the original story.

I recently bought a used copy and perused it. I thought Mick's statement of attending Stevie's wedding at some "born again church" was not only oddly inaccurate (even Carol Ann got that part right and she wasn't there!), but it was also poorly edited.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

I recently bought a used copy and perused it. I thought Mick's statement of attending Stevie's wedding at some "born again church" was not only oddly inaccurate (even Carol Ann got that part right and she wasn't there!), but it was also poorly edited.

It makes me wonder what the "writing" process was. I doubt Mick was sitting at a desk with quill in hand. Did he just tell his story verbally while someone else paraphrased what he said, converting it to a narrative? Would be interesting to have been there while it was being constructed. That thing where Stevie said something along the lines that if she'd read Mick's book, all she would be doing is crossing out things with a red pen saying, 'Mispelled, never happened, big lie' was one of the funniest things that ever came out of her mouth. Michele

[David]

Originally Posted by michelej1

It makes me wonder what the "writing" process was. I doubt Mick was sitting at a desk with quill in hand.

I assume he spoke freely (Lindsey called it free-associating) into a tape recorder, & Stephen Davis wrote it down on a word processor & took care of all ghost-writer/editor tasks, like consistency, chronology, grammar & usage, transitions, chapter divisions, collating the new stuff with the old print articles, manuscript formatting, indexing, cross-referencing, & proofing.

Mick probably read the ms at the tail end of the process, & said, "Ooh, I like it." Ka-ching!

Why would you want your book to end with a rattlesnake sighting anyway? Or was that the "veal viper" metaphor returning for a final goodbye? Tacky, Mick, tacky.

[wolfontherun]

Originally Posted by michelej1

It makes me wonder what the "writing" process was. I doubt Mick was sitting at a desk with quill in hand. Did he just tell his story verbally while someone else paraphrased what he said, converting it to a narrative? Would be interesting to have been there while it was being constructed. That thing where Stevie said something along the lines that if she'd read Mick's book, all she would be doing is crossing out things with a red pen saying, 'Mispelled, never happened, big lie' was one of the funniest things that ever came out of her mouth. Michele

I never read that Stevie bit do you have a source?

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by michelej1

It makes me wonder what the "writing" process was. I doubt Mick was sitting at a desk with quill in hand. Did he just tell his story verbally while someone else paraphrased what he said, converting it to a narrative? Would be interesting to have been there while it was being constructed. That thing where Stevie said something along the lines that if she'd read Mick's book, all she would be doing is crossing out things with a red pen saying, 'Mispelled, never happened, big lie' was one of the funniest things that ever came out of her mouth. Michele

LOL! Yeah, I love that one too. I remember reading a quote of Lindsey's where he said he believed Mick's "writing" amounted to several nights in a bar somewhere with a ghostwriter recording his inebriated responses.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by wolfontherun

I never read that Stevie bit do you have a source?

No, I will write it out, if I can find it, but I'm not at home right now. Michele

[chriskisn]

Actually this book is quite a good read, even if you don't believe half of it. The better one is My 25 Years with Fleetwood Mac (or whatever its called). I quite enjoyed the Brunning one too (Behind The Masks?). I could actually get up and check the titles on my bookshelf but I'm too lazy so I'll just guess!

[Villavic]

I love the book. It's the best reading of all FM related books. Accurate? Probably we will never know. The most controversial episode in that book is the one that describes the night Lindsey left the band and supposedly hit Stevie. Not sure about that fact, but it was true that John said to him "you better leave now", after the fight, though he meant leave the room, not the band!!

[Street_Dreamer]

I've felt as though much about the band between 1967-1974 that's in Mick's book is more or less accurate/true. From the point Lindsey and Stevie joined the band, I think there are cases where he exaggerates or just happens to leave out important information. I definitely wouldn't reguard his book as the bible of Fleetwood Mac or anything, but anyone who's a fan should read it knowing that the truth is likely stretched or not told completely in many cases.

Matt