Carol Ann Harris

[mezzoforte]

Originally Posted by Villavic

Carol's book has lot of interesting, curious stories, like the night at Eric Clapton's home. But to me it's more like a collection of episodes, and almost gossip. I never "got hooked" to the book, actually never finished.

Mick Fleetwood's book is far better, looks more authentic (though I know many people questioned it) and very good written. I've read it lot of times, the first time I read it continously for several hours until I fell asleep (actually i bought in Europe so I started it in the 15 hours flight )

Those little stories were fun--probably my favorite part of the book. You're right about it feeling like episodes, though--it really wasn't cohesive at all. I don't think she's much of a storyteller.
I'm not sure, though, what made the book so boring. Since it's a topic all of us here are obviously interested in, you would think it would hold a little more interest, in spite of the princess-y tone. The "groupie" comment is an interesting one. She obviously wasn't--they did have a real, long-term relationship. But because the books lacks introspection, it does feel like she didn't really know the band (aside from Lindsey) at all, in spite of touring with them for years. She talks endlessly about being in the inner circle, and no doubt she was, but she writes as though blithely detached from it.

This is, BTW, the most positive review of Mick's book I've heard. I've considered reading it, but heard it was dull and unreliable. You recommend it, though?

[jellyman10]

Originally Posted by mezzoforte

This is, BTW, the most positive review of Mick's book I've heard. I've considered reading it, but heard it was dull and unreliable. You recommend it, though?

I agree, that's about the nicest thing I've read on here about Mick's book!

I've read it and my feeling is that the emotional and personal content of it is very likely to be largely true, but it's been very poorly copy edited (I know, because that's my day job). What this means is that some people have taken the inclusion of factual inaccuracy to imply that there are inaccuracies of other, perhaps more important, kinds as well.

I think that's a risky assumption, rather like me telling you that I had the worst meal of my life at a certain restaurant but you don't believe me because I get the date I was there wrong.

As for CAH, I agree she doesn't qualify for the label of 'groupie' as I would ever understand it. I also think she, too, cops a lot of flak for a poor copy-editor - and also because some LB fans are upset by her accounts of LB's aggression towards her.

By the way, there's a thread somewhere that had a full text file of Mick's book.

Loz

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by mezzoforte

This is, BTW, the most positive review of Mick's book I've heard. I've considered reading it, but heard it was dull and unreliable. You recommend it, though?

I strongly recommend it. I found it far more interesting and enjoyable than Bob Brunning (a good book, too) and Carol Ann's.

I couldn't detect unrealiable info. The most controversial episode (at least controversial for ledgies, as I recall all those threads) was the day Lindsey left the band, August 7, 1987.

Several ledgies said it was impossible Lindsey reacted that way, even that Lindsey grabbed Stevie and slapped her. But I never found any interview where the members denied that. In fact I found where Stevie talks about it and describes the angry situation (something about she would call her brother if he touches her again). And John also confirmed he said to Lindsey I think you'd better leave now. Though he meant the room, not the band ha haa.

Mick's description about Lindsey & John didn't go along the first sessions was also confirmed by themselves. Lot of info was confirmed. Maybe he exaggerates some points and numbers, the typical emotion and because he always loved that band, but I don't find it dull and unreliable at all.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Villavic

Several ledgies said it was impossible Lindsey reacted that way, even that Lindsey grabbed Stevie and slapped her. But I never found any interview where the members denied that.

Lindsey denies that that ever happened. And Stevie never said he slapped her either when she described what happened. On that Rock Family Tree special, she said she's really ferocious and flew off the couch to "seriously attack him" and grabbed him. Once she did, he started chasing her around Christine's house and outside and up the block and then once he caught her he threw her against the car. That's when she screamed at him and said she thought he was going to kill her and he probably thought he was going to kill her too. She says she told him her father and brother would get him if he did -- if the rest of the band didn't kill him.

As for CAH's book, some of the things I find incredible have little to do with Lindsey and it's not about location, dates or chronology either. I do wonder why she says the Rolling Stone photo shoot with the band in bed took place in her house and in her bed. That's a hard thing to remember incorrectly, but the place is just one discrepancy. Her description of the event differs from the band members and from Annie's.

Then, little things like her saying she was standing in the wings during a concert wearing a see-through dress and the crowd saw her and started reacting to her and she inadvertently stole the spotlight from Stevie. Please. I just find it hard to believe that anything like that remotely happened. She may have been wearing a transparent skirt and someone whistled at her, but all eyes in the Fleetwood Mac crowd did not turn turn to her. Forget the fact that she got the chronology wrong. It's that her book is full of descriptions of events that are so ridiculously flattering to herself that make me discount its credibility.

Michele

[jellyman10]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Lindsey denies that that ever happened. And Stevie never said he slapped her either when she described what happened.

My impression is that both LB and SN are or have been very careful what they say about 'that day', and that SN always takes care to emphasise that he was provoked rather than focusing on what he actually did. But we really could go all round the houses on this .... I'm of the school that thinks he did have a problem with his temper around women, but he recognised it and it's ok now. I respect anyone who sorts themselves out like that.

Originally Posted by michelej1

As for CAH's book, some of the things I find incredible have little to do with Lindsey and it's not about location, dates or chronology either.

It's that her book is full of descriptions of events that are so ridiculously flattering to herself that make me discount its credibility.
Michele

I totally agree with you here. The actual content of CAH's book is far more questionable than Mick's, but the real problem is not that you can't believe any of it, it's that some of it is almost certainly true!

The annoying thing for all of us who spend too much time thinking about these matters is that it's impossible to know which bits they are, but some people don't really admit that. I mean, sometimes on here it's almost like I could say 'Fleetwood Mac released an album in 1977 called Rumours - I know that because it's in Carol Ann Harris's book' and someone will pop up and say 'Well, I wouldn't put any store in that, because she's was a cokehead and her book's full of lies.'

I guess people just have to read it themselves and draw their own conclusions, really?

Loz

[Silver Springs]

Originally Posted by jellyman10

I guess people just have to read it themselves and draw their own conclusions, really?

Loz

Alot of what has been discussed in the thread thus far is exactly why I refuse to read anymore of Carol's book. I'm the first to admit how sensitive I am when it comes to reading about my idols, and especially so idols who I hold in the highest of esteem. I try to avoid anything that could shatter my rose tinted spectacles. Having said that, I'm not naive enough to not know some of the more grim aspects of the band. I know perfectly well that they're not saintly, at least they weren't in their heyday. But rather than upset myself to the point of turning myself off of them and ruining the whole experience for myself, I choose not to dwell on what has happened. I guess it's an embodiment of the "Never meet your Idols" advice, really. You get to know them to such an extent that the enjoyment and esteem you had for them dissipates, and such familiarity more often than not breeds contempt.

[jellyman10]

Originally Posted by Silver Springs

I guess it's an embodiment of the "Never meet your Idols" advice, really.

Quite so. If I'd had my wits about me I would have said I guess people just have to read it - or not! Couldn't agree more.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by jellyman10

My impression is that both LB and SN are or have been very careful what they say about 'that day', and that SN always takes care to emphasise that he was provoked rather than focusing on what he actually did.

At the time that Stevie said that, she was at odds with the band and had lots of negative things to say. It wasn't a diplomatic period for her. Plus,
I doubt she'd be careful about what she said regarding that 1987 incident, when her description of him kicking and throwing the guitar at her has only become more elaborate over the years, not less so. She's not really careful at all.

Michele

[jellyman10]

Originally Posted by michelej1

At the time that Stevie said that, she was at odds with the band and had lots of negative things to say. It wasn't a diplomatic period for her. Plus,
I doubt she'd be careful about what she said regarding that 1987 incident, when her description of him kicking and throwing the guitar at her has only become more elaborate over the years, not less so. She's not really careful at all.

Michele

Hmm. I'd be genuinely interested to see what your sources are for saying this, because it's really not the impression I get, and I've read and seen just about everything!

We'll just disagree, then, unless you care to persuade me with evidence (and I am definitely persuadable - I love to have my mind changed!)

Loz

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by jellyman10

Hmm. I'd be genuinely interested to see what your sources are for saying this, because it's really not the impression I get, and I've read and seen just about everything!

We'll just disagree, then, unless you care to persuade me with evidence (and I am definitely persuadable - I love to have my mind changed!)

Loz

What do you mean what's my source? I'm not relaying backstage gossip. I'm talking about interviews Stevie has given. In that Rock Family tree interview, she is dissing all of FM to the point where even John objects and complains that according to her everything about FM was bad and he says her version is all lies.

If you look at the entire Rock Family tree interview (transcript from the video) in which she describes the 1987 fight, she's negative about everything she says about FM. Based on the timing of that interview, when she was mad at both Lindsey and Mick, I don't think she would be careful about what she said Lindsey did to her.

Moreover, in that interview she says she thought he was going to kill her. That's pretty extreme. That's not pulling punches. I don't know why she'd lie and say she provoked it when she didn't or not say he slapped her, if she's going to say he killed her.

I compared that to her descriptions of the earlier New Zealand incidents where she said he kicked her or something (in the earlier interviews October 30, 1997 Rolling Stone, she didn't remember exactly what he did, but said he must have kicked her or something) and then around the time of SYW she started adding to that description and said that he threw a guitar at her on stage in New Zealand and she ducked and that's why it missed her. Her version of the New Zealand incident has gained more details over time. In Mojo 2007 she said,

“I think I was singing through one of his solos or something, and he walked across the stage and kicked me and then went back to his microphone and we just sort of went on with the show. Me being pretty much the ultimate professional, I’m like, OK that didn’t just happen, it was just a joke everybody. Then he threw his guitar at me, wwwosh! I saw it coming and ducked. And he would have killed me if it had hit me; a Les Paul weighs about 30lbs.

It's not like she makes a habit of protecting Lindsey by changing the violent descriptions of events Mick has given. Her version of the August 1987 incident is violent enough, it's just not the same as Mick's version. Since she was one of the 2 people involved in the fight I believe her over Mick and based on other things she has said about Lindsey's temper, I don't think she softened the events of 1987 to protect him, especially not when she gave the interview, when she and Lindsey weren't talking, she wasn't with FM and was not saying favorable things about her days with the band. Michele

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by michelej1

At the time that Stevie said that, she was at odds with the band and had lots of negative things to say. It wasn't a diplomatic period for her. Plus,
I doubt she'd be careful about what she said regarding that 1987 incident, when her description of him kicking and throwing the guitar at her has only become more elaborate over the years, not less so. She's not really careful at all.

Michele

She gets sloppy at times (or just loopy) but she's careful when it behooves her to be so.