Love, Hate and Betrayal (Express co.uk)

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Lilyfan

I think I probably only caught it because I read the books back to back. I read Ken's book first and then the book by CAH. The first thing I noticed was that CAH had a tendency to compress time and then sometimes expand time. I'll see if I can find the quotes that made me think that way.

Yes, I know that CAH has a massive time problem in her book. People say that not everything can be accurate and it's no big deal, but she indicated that she was not just writing from memory but from contemporaneous diaries she kept at the time, so I find the inconsistencies odd, since she says she was referring to writings and audio tapes that were, presumably, dated.

I agree with you about the tendency to compress and expand time. Obviously, since Ken was dealing with such a finite time frame in the FM history, I think he would be more reliable when it comes to when things happened. I was just saying that I completely missed the fact that CAH may have hinted that Stevie had an affair with Ken. That escaped me.

Michele

[Lilyfan]

Originally Posted by michelej1

. I was just saying that I completely missed the fact that CAH may have hinted that Stevie had an affair with Ken. That escaped me.

Michele

What made me notice it is the fact that I had just read his book and in her book she seems to avoid mentioning him. She mentions Richard and then refers to something like a second-tier engineer or engineer's assistant - something snide like that.

Then when she talks about the Tusk cover she refers to it as a stray dog that bit someone's pants, again with the attitude. Ken identifies the dog and shows other pictures of it in his book.

CAH towards the end of her book refers to Stevie as having been involved with some vague description of an assistant engineer again and that Stevie broke the guys heart and the heart of his fiance'.

It just felt to me that she was using the same phrasing to probably refer to the same person. Especially since she went out of her way to talk about the fact that she had wanted to be a sound engineer and that she constantly stressed that she was an insider in the FM "family". It seemed that she went out of her way to avoid mentioning Ken at all. His book directly contradicts her book on several points - timeline being one of them. I could be wrong

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Lilyfan

What made me notice it is the fact that I had just read his book and in her book she seems to avoid mentioning him. She mentions Richard and then refers to something like a second-tier engineer or engineer's assistant - something snide like that.

Then when she talks about the Tusk cover she refers to it as a stray dog that bit someone's pants, again with the attitude. Ken identifies the dog and shows other pictures of it in his book.

Very interesting and, as you say, reading them back to back is probably very illuminating and so you are in a great position to compare them. I read CAH's years ago, so I would have forgotten little details like that. I think CAH and Ken are friendly though and she is one of the people he thanks in his book.

Michele

[Lilyfan]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Very interesting and, as you say, reading them back to back is probably very illuminating and so you are in a great position to compare them. I read CAH's years ago, so I would have forgotten little details like that. I think CAH and Ken are friendly though and she is one of the people he thanks in his book.

Michele

hmmm. All this stuff happened so many years ago I can see how they could be friendly now. He never talks unfavorably about her in his book. It just seemed that he kept detailed notes of the band's activities as part of his job and so I trust his dates more. It just seemed odd to me.

I was shocked at LB's violence in both the books.