Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[michelej1]

Ah, David:

After that mock plaintive note you struck above, come down here and share your thoughts.

You were interested in tours. Did you find any new information that you didn't have before? Were you able to fill in any gaps about dates, places or songs?

You were surprised that she and Sara were such good friends. Anything else take you aback, catch you off guard, make you reconsider hard fought beliefs and hard thought conclusions you've held for 25 years?

Did it reaffirm your belief in cycles? Do you think Lindsey stole that line from Carol?

My theory about the Save Me gaff is that Carol didn't even work on any Mac productions. They probably just told her she could say she did to get her resume started. I just don't know how you could forget the name of the first video in your portfolio -- especially forget it and replace it with one made after your affiliation with the band. I mean, she was much less familiar with Save Me and I don't see how that would pop out of her head and onto the page by mistake. It might be easy to mix up Walk a Thin Line and Save Me a Place, but Little Lies and Save Me? Not so much. Seriously, since Little Lies is a more popular song, how could you think you worked on Save Me when you actually worked on Little Lies?

Michele

[David]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Ah, David:

After that mock plaintive note you struck above, come down here and share your thoughts.

You were interested in tours. Did you find any new information that you didn't have before? Were you able to fill in any gaps about dates, places or songs?

I don't think I learned anything new that was reliable. She reran the ****up from Mick Fleetwood's book about the seizure in the shower in Philadelphia. Mick places it TWICE: in 1977 and again in 1980. Carol places it once (at least she fixed THAT problem): in 1977.

It took place in 1978.

That's all doubly ironic because in the text she takes the position (& assumes the reader does too) that it was heartless of the band to put a gig that day ahead of something as gravely important as Lindsey's seizure -- but she can't even remember which year it happened!

Still, it was fun to read more about the shenanigans backstage, even if I had to continually rewrite them for believability & sense in my mind (see my comments below). However, the author got on my nerves by constantly swerving abruptly away from the backstage & touring matter & launching yet again into another self-confessional about how much she loved & was loved. I'd have loved her a lot more if she had made Fleetwood Mac the true center of the book instead of Fleetwood Mac's effect on her. Her presumptuousness is off-putting: Why should any of us care about her? The very act of writing the book -- soliciting our attention -- becomes an act of arrogance. It's the notion that thousands of us Macheads don't care as much about Fleetwood Mac as we do about Fleetwood Mac strangely filtered through Carol's sensibilities, & the notion that we all, ultimately, care more about what happened to her than about them. I see even her strange decision to title the book "Storms" emblematic of this arrogance.

You were surprised that she and Sara were such good friends. Anything else take you aback, catch you off guard, make you reconsider hard fought beliefs and hard thought conclusions you've held for 25 years?

Nothing I can think of because I -- Michele, truthfully -- just didn't believe a thing I was reading. The whole struck me as almost entirely concocted. Mythmaking, & pretty crummy mythmaking, at that (the campy, exaggerated dialog among band members & their entourage was what? meant to be cutesy?).

I'm not even really talking here about bare facts. I'm talking about the atmosphere she creates, the descriptions of people's emotions, their doubletakes, their moods, etc. I didn't believe any of it. Everything seems not just exaggerated but grossly distorted. This isn't the way people talk to one another or interact with one another, in any universe. Characters (I don't know what else to call them) constantly roll their eyes at other people, people take an interest in other people's personal lives that they couldn't possibly have actually felt at the time -- normal voyeurism & vicarious thrill are caricatured. Everyone seems pathological, even the limousine drivers.

My theory about the Save Me gaff is that Carol didn't even work on any Mac productions. They probably just told her she could say she did to get her resume started. I just don't know how you could forget the name of the first video in your portfolio -- especially forget it and replace it with one made after your affiliation with the band. I mean, she was much less familiar with Save Me and I don't see how that would pop out of her head and onto the page by mistake. It might be easy to mix up Walk a Thin Line and Save Me a Place, but Little Lies and Save Me? Not so much. Seriously, since Little Lies is a more popular song, how could you think you worked on Save Me when you actually worked on Little Lies?

Hard to figure that one out, but a lifetime spent in publishing makes me think it possible it's the error of a proofreader or someone besides Carol.

Let's keep going & I'll remember more of my reactions.

[macpai]

Originally Posted by David

I'm not even really talking here about bare facts. I'm talking about the atmosphere she creates, the descriptions of people's emotions, their doubletakes, their moods, etc. I didn't believe any of it. Everything seems not just exaggerated but grossly distorted. This isn't the way people talk to one another or interact with one another, in any universe. Characters (I don't know what else to call them) constantly roll their eyes at other people, people take an interest in other people's personal lives that they couldn't possibly have actually felt at the time -- normal voyeurism & vicarious thrill are caricatured. Everyone seems pathological, even the limousine drivers.

This was exactly my take on it. I am assuming there are kernels of truth in there somewhere, but...
I don't have that kind of clarity on things that happened 10 years ago in my own life, so I can't imagine how someone stoned would be that much better than me.
All of a sudden I was reminded of Jurassic Park and the explanation for how they made the dinosaurs. They couldn't figure out what some DNA was, so they concocted some DNA via frogs and stuck that in there. She kind of concocted the DNA of her story.
I'm not sure what to believe. And I guess that ultimately shields me from what should have been the more frightening aspects of her tale.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by macpai

I don't have that kind of clarity on things that happened 10 years ago in my own life, so I can't imagine how someone stoned would be that much better than me.

Well, she says she kept audio journals that helped her refresh her memory. Which reminds me, in another thread I said I think that one tape that's been circulated with Beverly and Sara talking with another woman named Kell -- I now think that's probably Carol Ann, not "Kell." They were calling her Carol and we just didn't know it at the time. I haven't heard that Conversations tape in a long while, but I'd like to hear it again and see if the pieces fit.


David,

As far as the dramatic language goes, the only thing I'd give her leeway on is that Stevie and Lindsey do talk in crazy extremes sometimes. So, I believe they would say some pretty unnatural, overblown sounding things.

But the moment when the book started off with her and her six (?) sisters sitting curled up around the room reading, I knew I was in for a ride.

Now, what do you think about the shooting of the Rolling Stone bed cover? To me, that's not only odd because no one else describes it taking place that way and in that place (Carol's home), not even Annie, who would be an objective source. But I think it's a calculated lie, in that it seems designed to undermine what Lindsey and Stevie have said more recently about holding each other (Stevie says for a couple of hours) during that shoot. Carol seems to have written in a way deliberately designed to undermine that story.

You know, I was watching a documentary on the Amityville Horror phenomenon and one guy pointed out a passage in the story where the priest (I believe) was driving away from the haunted house and the hood of his car flew up and blocked his vision. The critic pointed out that that couldn't have happened in that car because the hood is reversed on the model and could not fly up and block the windshield. So, then in the second edition of the book, they put the priest in another car. It made me laugh. Carol once talked about a second edition of her book coming out and I would have been interested in seeing what she would have changed. But it was never published.


Michele

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by David

I don't think I learned anything new that was reliable. She reran the ****up from Mick Fleetwood's book about the seizure in the shower in Philadelphia. Mick places it TWICE: in 1977 and again in 1980. Carol places it once (at least she fixed THAT problem): in 1977.

It took place in 1978.

That one video that circulates where Stevie comes up to the mic at the end and says "Lindsey is one strong man" is right after the seizure, correct? I'd always assumed it was anyway, no matter how it was labeled. Stevie rubs his back and Christine takes his guitar away.

Michele

[Regina]

I'm not a fan of the book. Actually, when she talked about Lindsey getting sick at the hotel and her decision to run through the streets of Washington, DC (I think) with bare feet, bleeding all over the place, instead of staying in the hotel and...oh, picking up the phone and calling an ambulance, l pretty much labeled her an airhead and a drama queen that almost puts the rest of FM to shame.

The Rolling Stone cover shoot thing is another thing that almost made me throw the book against the wall. Unless everyone else was lying--including Annie Liebowitz--Carol Ann's memory is quite faulty.

From Rolling Stone:
I have a feeling the band had all gone through rehab or something," says Leibovitz, "and I brought out huge amounts of drugs, thinking that's what they wanted. They were not so happy about it, but everyone consumed everything, so we were all out to lunch. I brought the mattress and sheets."

"I don't remember the drugs," says Stevie Nicks. "I thought it was a case of champagne. There were two ex-couples in the band. When Annie said she wanted us to lie down together on a big bed, it was like, 'Hmm, hope you have a backup idea.' But she said, "No, you're going to look great, this will be fun, have a glass of champagne.' I said, 'OK, but I can't curl up next to Mick for the next three hours while Annie is suspended over us on a platform."

"Christine really didn't want to be next to John, because they were just divorced," Nicks adds. "So he was the odd man out, reading the magazine. Afterwards, Lindsey and I got to talking about how amazing it was that not so long ago I was a waitress and he didn't have a job, and now we were on the cover of Rolling Stone with this huge record. And we lay there for two hours talking and making out. Finally, Annie had to tell us to leave, because she had rented the room for only so long. But in one afternoon she put Lindsey and me back together and also planted the seed for Mick and me, which happened a year later. You want to know the power of Annie Leibovitz, there you go."

As for Buckingham, he remembers the photo session a little differently. "For Stevie and me, the wounds and animosities were still very fresh," he says. "So the idea for the photo wasn't all that funny. We had to compartmentalize our feelings to keep the band functional, and at the end of the session, we had this moment of not being able to avoid all that had been lost. We embraced for about fifteen minutes, and Mick finally came over and said that people were starting to get uncomfortable. I don't know how healthy all this display of our personal life was, but that's showbiz."

Granted, time-wise there is a difference, but...the story is similar enough and completely different than the one CAH told.

And, yeah, I'm taking into consideration the fact that I totally don't want parts of it to be true.

[Street_Dreamer]

Pow! The difference between a song and a (supposed) autobiography or whatever you want to call this book, is that you don't have to tell the truth in a song. As I've said before with this book, people need to consider the source of the material. She has a lot more to gain than she has to lose writing this book. The only reputation/credibility she has that anyone truly knows about is her relationship with Lindsey and the association with Fleetwood Mac that came with it. I haven't read and won't read the book, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that everything she says is untruthful, but there are no doubts in my mind that there are cases where she stretches out the truth or just tells flat out lies.

Of course people would ask why Lindsey wouldn't sue her for defamation of his character if there are untruths in the book. Why would he want to get himself involved in a legal battle at this point in his life? The man has a beautiful family, is probably the happiest he's ever been in his life and let's face it, obviously this book has done little if nothing to besmirtch the public image that he has. Once again, consider the source. It's the number one reason why I have not and will never read a word of her book.

Matt

[David]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Well, she says she kept audio journals that helped her refresh her memory.

I think she's a liar. I don't think she used old tapes as refreshers. I think she used old newspaper clippings & Mick's book as refreshers.

As far as the dramatic language goes, the only thing I'd give her leeway on is that Stevie and Lindsey do talk in crazy extremes sometimes. So, I believe they would say some pretty unnatural, overblown sounding things.

Carol wrote a Victorian melodrama, & Lindsey is the wicked villain with devilish looks, a Jack the Ripper mustache, one eyebrow arched, an evil red glow across part of his face (the other part is always in shadow).

Open any page at random. "Malevolent glances" are always being cast at this person or that person; "storm clouds" are always hanging over everything (inside people's homes!); angry lovers don't talk -- they "snarl," etc. etc.

She keeps making fun of the "soap opera" that the band's lives have become, but nothing in Fleetwood Mac history is as soapy as this book.

Now, what do you think about the shooting of the Rolling Stone bed cover? To me, that's not only odd because no one else describes it taking place that way and in that place (Carol's home), not even Annie, who would be an objective source. But I think it's a calculated lie, in that it seems designed to undermine what Lindsey and Stevie have said more recently about holding each other (Stevie says for a couple of hours) during that shoot. Carol seems to have written in a way deliberately designed to undermine that story.

I'm with you. But it's surprisingly brief & surprisingly free of high drama. I agree that it's very odd that Carol makes absolutely no mention of ex-lovers hanging out together after everyone else leaves the room or goes home or whatever they did.

My notion is that Carol is seriously ill, but not in the way she might think. Either she's lying to a pathological degree or she's emotionally crippled to a pathological degree. Somebody is always scratching her arms, scratching her face, strangling her, punching her in the face, punching her in the back, pulling her hair, dragging her, or slapping her. She portrays herself as a pincushion. Worse, she appears to be getting off on this sadomasochistic portrait. No matter who is physically or verbally abusing her, she stands there, weeping like a sob sister, unable to speak or to move (how many people, when their arm is being twisted, don't use their free arm to push or elbow?). She is frozen in place, time after time, wondering what did I ever do to make them so angry with me? I love them and I know they love me because they said so, and . . .
Does anyone believe this dreck?

"I twisted myself out of his grasp & stumbled backward, speechless with shock" (speechless, mind you, even if it's the twenty-fifth time her romantic lover has smacked her). She is concocting a weirdly idealized "Carol Harris" in her febrile brain, a character who is as guileless and wide-eyed as Cinderella. She even says numerous times, "My life had become a fairy tale." My bull**** meter hit the red back around page 36.

There are descriptions of things here -- we've talked about this already -- that wouldn't be here at all if they hadn't already been described, in virtually identical ways, in Mick's book. Examples: the New Zealand business on the Tusk tour, the show at the Munich Olympic Horse Riding Stadium, the various rehearsals, the photo shoots, the album sessions, the radio broadcast of "Tusk" before release, etc.

Virtually every other page, we read something like, "I could see the rage in his eyes and I knew that I was helpless." This is a romance novel, for chrissake -- a bodice-ripper. It's cheap, it's corrupt, it's hypocritical, & it's fake. The only Polaroids in the whole book that aren't mysteriously blurry are those of Carol herself, professionally taken as part of her modeling. What the great Mary McCarthy once said about Lillian Hellman is true here: Every word in this book is a lie -- even "a" and "the."

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by David

I think she's a liar. I don't think she used old tapes as refreshers. I think she used old newspaper clippings & Mick's book as refreshers.

Carol wrote a Victorian melodrama, & Lindsey is the wicked villain with devilish looks, a Jack the Ripper mustache, one eyebrow arched, an evil red glow across part of his face (the other part is always in shadow).

Open any page at random. "Malevolent glances" are always being cast at this person or that person; "storm clouds" are always hanging over everything (inside people's homes!); angry lovers don't talk -- they "snarl," etc. etc.

She keeps making fun of the "soap opera" that the band's lives have become, but nothing in Fleetwood Mac history is as soapy as this book.

I'm with you. But it's surprisingly brief & surprisingly free of high drama. I agree that it's very odd that Carol makes absolutely no mention of ex-lovers hanging out together after everyone else leaves the room or goes home or whatever they did.

My notion is that Carol is seriously ill, but not in the way she might think. Either she's lying to a pathological degree or she's emotionally crippled to a pathological degree. Somebody is always scratching her arms, scratching her face, strangling her, punching her in the face, punching her in the back, pulling her hair, dragging her, or slapping her. She portrays herself as a pincushion. Worse, she appears to be getting off on this sadomasochistic portrait. No matter who is physically or verbally abusing her, she stands there, weeping like a sob sister, unable to speak or to move (how many people, when their arm is being twisted, don't use their free arm to push or elbow?). She is frozen in place, time after time, wondering what did I ever do to make them so angry with me? I love them and I know they love me because they said so, and . . .
Does anyone believe this dreck?

"I twisted myself out of his grasp & stumbled backward, speechless with shock" (speechless, mind you, even if it's the twenty-fifth time her romantic lover has smacked her). She is concocting a weirdly idealized "Carol Harris" in her febrile brain, a character who is as guileless and wide-eyed as Cinderella. She even says numerous times, "My life had become a fairy tale." My bull**** meter hit the red back around page 36.

There are descriptions of things here -- we've talked about this already -- that wouldn't be here at all if they hadn't already been described, in virtually identical ways, in Mick's book. Examples: the New Zealand business on the Tusk tour, the show at the Munich Olympic Horse Riding Stadium, the various rehearsals, the photo shoots, the album sessions, the radio broadcast of "Tusk" before release, etc.

Virtually every other page, we read something like, "I could see the rage in his eyes and I knew that I was helpless." This is a romance novel, for chrissake -- a bodice-ripper. It's cheap, it's corrupt, it's hypocritical, & it's fake. The only Polaroids in the whole book that aren't mysteriously blurry are those of Carol herself, professionally taken as part of her modeling. What the great Mary McCarthy once said about Lillian Hellman is true here: Every word in this book is a lie -- even "a" and "the."

ROFLOL!!!!

One note: I love the end where Lindsey begs her to come back to him and sing with him. Yeah. Sure.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Street_Dreamer

Of course people would ask why Lindsey wouldn't sue her for defamation of his character if there are untruths in the book. Why would he want to get himself involved in a legal battle at this point in his life? The man has a beautiful family, is probably the happiest he's ever been in his life and let's face it, obviously this book has done little if nothing to besmirtch the public image that he has. Once again, consider the source. It's the number one reason why I have not and will never read a word of her book.

Matt

Absolutely agree. It would be a waste of time and money. And frankly, why call more attention to it? I think Lindsey probably doesn't want to bring up memories of those time because, from what he has said and written, it wasn't a healthy or positive time in his life. He has young children but a few of them are approaching an age where something like a lawsuit over an ex-girlfriend's mean book couldn't go unnoticed, and I don't think it's fair to his kids to have that stuff dragged out in the press.

Now, as far as reading the book...I did. I don't see any harm (for myself) to read it because it does absolutely nothing to influence my feelings for the man's most important aspects, which are always primarily about his incredible music and overall talent. I understand your reasoning for not reading it, but my personality is such that things like books or tabloids mean squat in terms of why I became a fan. I read them, look at the pictures, discuss, and move on. I never dwell on them in my every day life nor would I consider asking Lindsey or anyone associated with him about these things if I ever had the (extremely unlikely) chance to sit down and pick his brain.

If I were to measure anything pertaining to Lindsey in terms of importance, this book wouldn't even make the scale. It's just "fluff"- like discussing his wardrobe or women. I don't see any harm if, ultimately, everything is done in good humor and we all know what makes him so amazing and why we are fans in the first place. I just can't take it all that seriously!

[michelej1]

Spectacular post -- and not uncommon.

Originally Posted by David

My notion is that Carol is seriously ill, but not in the way she might think. Either she's lying to a pathological degree or she's emotionally crippled to a pathological degree. Somebody is always scratching her arms, scratching her face, strangling her, punching her in the face, punching her in the back, pulling her hair, dragging her, or slapping her. She portrays herself as a pincushion. Worse, she appears to be getting off on this sadomasochistic portrait. No matter who is physically or verbally abusing her, she stands there,

You know, I was thinking this recently about a post I made regarding John's wedding. Carol says Jenny (in an argument with Stevie) pulled Carol in the closest with them. It's really a meaningless little passage, about very minor players in the book, but it just represents how she never has herself DOING anything. She is entirely passive. Little red wagons have been pulled around less than Carol. Things happen to her and she has no explanation as to why and no reaction when they do. This is so unnatural that it's not even physically or psychologically possible.

Just from the way she wrote that, my guess is she instigated the entire argument between Jenny and Stevie and jumped into the closet to egg them on.

She's no one and is so passive as to be nonexistent, but still people see her from across a room and instantly want to sleep with her or -- even stranger -- lie to Christine about sleeping with her. How could a woman who never does anything inspire such feeling?

And what I think about that Rolling Stone cover shoot is that it's somewhat diabolical what she does. If Lindsey and Stevie hugged (and SnL are psychotic themselves, so who even knows if they did), I wouldn't expect Carol to have been in the room at the time. She wouldn't know about it, so I would never expect her to mention it.

So, she doesn't fall into the trap of denying it or even acknowledging it. She just very subtly sets up the whole photo shoot in a way that would make it clear that such a thing couldn't have happened. Yeah, it was in my house, in my bed, with me standing outside the door and it was over very quickly. With no time for anyone to do one single thing but jump in bed, pose for Annie's camera and then jump out. It's such an odd lie (how many band photo shoots take place in a band member's bed?) that it's not something that could be created from a memory lapse. It has to be deliberate. Forget the big events in the book. It's very abnormal to go out of your way to lie about something so minor, to want so badly to create such a very specific picture.

Michele

[Nico]

Originally Posted by michelej1

So, she doesn't fall into the trap of denying it or even acknowledging it. She just very subtly sets up the whole photo shoot in a way that would make it clear that such a thing couldn't have happened. Yeah, it was in my house, in my bed, with me standing outside the door and it was over very quickly. With no time for anyone to do one single thing but jump in bed, pose for Annie's camera and then jump out. It's such an odd lie (how many band photo shoots take place in a band member's bed?) that it's not something that could be created from a memory lapse. It has to be deliberate. Forget the big events in the book. It's very abnormal to go out of your way to lie about something so minor, to want so badly to create such a very specific picture.

Michele

How interesting. It's quite obvious that, if this is the case, Carol knows that her story is a tired tale and she needed some spice to make it sound more interesting, less dull, MOR. Frankly, she probably wanted herself to sound more interesting ,sharp, innocent, and alluring to keep it from falling to the ground. She hasn't got much in terms of credentials to build upon, but her connections and experiences, and any of the drama she can elaborate on was the basis for this, I believe.

And then to paint her characters into more luminous beings she made herself seem like the naive, passive bystander who was walked all over, assaulted, insulted, and drugged up. Everything DOES always happen to her. It's crazy, but it makes sense. She had to make the story more captivating by building up these people to the stereotypical public perception: Stevie the pointy-toed, mystical pixie, Lindsey the over-intense, passionate madman genius, Christine the very English Mother Hen with handsome boyfriends, Mick the business-minded jerk, John the quiet drunk...she touches on all this, some more specifically than others, and it's all quite predictable, eh?

I can't deny that I believe some of the things happened. It's probably true to some extent, but the way she presents herself and many of the other people is so surface-level that it's a joke to take her too seriously. I could have opened up a copy of some bio summary rag comparable to Teen Beat and read about the same info on some of these people. If not more.

[Lori40]

I was just reading the reviews of "Storms" on amazon and found it interesting that Jeremy Spencer just posted a review on April 9, 09. He starts off by writing, "Poor Carol. What she said about me was atrocious. A total lie..." Carol Ann then responded, "...I stand by every single word that I wrote in "Storms" and I wish you only the best."

[Erin]

Originally Posted by Lori40

I was just reading the reviews of "Storms" on amazon and found it interesting that Jeremy Spencer just posted a review on April 9, 09. He starts off by writing, "Poor Carol. What she said about me was atrocious. A total lie..." Carol Ann then responded, "...I stand by every single word that I wrote in "Storms" and I wish you only the best."

Runs off to read it...gee Michele sure you can't get Carol Ann to do a Q&A?

[Nico]

Here's what Carol Ann apparently wrote:

Jeremy,
The party in my book that you attended was not Lindsey's birthday party, but a summer barbecue. I'm sorry that you're distressed, but everything I wrote pertaining to you was either told to me by Mick Fleetwood or John McVie - (exactly as I've described it in my book) or I experienced myself when you came to our barbecue so many years ago - again, exactly as I've described in my book. I stand by every single word that I wrote in Storms and I wish you only the best.
Carol Ann

Hmm...Mick I had no doubt. But John!