Sunday, October 09, 2016

Sara would have been 39.

I wrote a short story for Jason Rennie's SciPhi forum where in a world of narcissistic gratification the main character was haunted by the ghost of a child he never knew.

This was what I was getting at.

Stevie Nicks is no stranger to rumours. She finally confirmed longstanding conjecture that she wrote one of her best-known songs partly about the child she conceived with Eagles frontman Don Henley, then aborted.
Henley said more than 20 years ago that the Fleetwood Mac song Sara, which hit number 7 on the Billboard charts in 1979, was about the baby they never saw.
“I believe, to the best of my knowledge, [that Nicks] became pregnant by me. And she named the kid Sara, and she had an abortion – and then wrote the song of the same name to the spirit of the aborted baby,” he told GQ magazine in 1991. "I was building my house at the time, and there’s a line in the song that says, ‘And when you build your house, call me.'”
In a special interview with Billboard magazine on Friday, Nicks said their baby inspired many of the song's lyrics.
“Had I married Don and had that baby, and had she been a girl, I would have named her Sara,” she said. But Nicks said the song – which was originally 16 minutes long and included nine verses cut from the album – also dealt with Mick Fleetwood's wife, Sara, and other aspects of the band's disintegrating relationships.
The revelation sheds light on the song's lyrics:
Wait a minute, baby
Stay with me awhile
Said you'd give me light
But you never told me about the fire...

Sara, you're the poet in my heart
Never change, never stop
And now it's gone
They say it doesn't matter what for
When you build your house, call me…

All I ever wanted was to know
That you were dreaming
There's a heartbeat
No, it never really died
You never really died
Four years after the song's release, she said, “Sara was my favorite, for that kind of song. Sara was, and is, the love of my life.”
Nicks and Henley's torrid two-year affair had been no secret, and the subsequent abortion had been well-known. According to Eagles biographer Marc Eliot, Nicks “was deeply upset about what she considered his fast and easy consent to her decision. Nicks took it as Henley's way of saying he wasn't interested in any type of serious long-term commitment.”
But Nicks had never acknowledged that the song was dedicated to her child until last week, 35 years after its release. The closest she had come was a statement in 1979 that “If I ever have a little girl, I will name her Sara. It's a very special name to me.”
Nicks never had children, something she blamed on her cocaine addiction.
Sara cast a shadow over her life for years to come. When she entered the Betty Ford Center in 1986 – doctors said she had come dangerously close to a brain hemorrhage – she used the name “Sara Anderson” and commemorated the experience in the song Welcome to the Room...Sara for Fleetwood Mac's last album, 1987's Tango in the Night.
Sad.

I think that Sara would have been a good little girl, an energetic child, an inquisitive teenager, a promising college student, a beautiful wife, a good mother and a support for her mother in her old age.

But we will never know.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe if she had used birth control it wouldn't have been an issue either way, but then that's wrong as well, right?

Peter Bradley said...

I'm sure that sounded pretty clever in your head.

Nicks could have done a lot of things. She could have chosen to not have sex with someone she wasn't willing to have children with. She could have married Henley. She could have had Sara.

Lots and lots of things apart from using contraception and the inevitable back-up for contraception.

That said, you are clearly attempting to engage in a kind of anti-Catholic bigotry by equating the Catholic moral on contraception with the Catholic position on abortion. They are not the same position, and they are not equivalent. Abortion is the murder of an innocent being; contraception is not. If someone is going to sin, then it would be better if they chose the lesser sin in the hopes that someday they won't sin.

But you obviously think that you can score debating points by pointing to that "weird" Catholic position about contraception.

I won't tolerate that kind of bigotry.

Anonymous said...

What, exactly, happens when you won't tolerate something?

I wonder how many less abortions there would be if use of birth control was not opposed by the Catholic Church. But then I guess the two issues have nothing to do with each other - preventing unwanted pregnancy and terminating unwanted pregnancy. I'm glad we have your name-calling, neocon, pro-Catholic basis to make that clear to the rest of us.

Peter Bradley said...

Anonymous,

You are a pathetic troll.

Case in point, please demonstrate to us all of the Catholic-imposed restrictions on contraception in the United States and how those Catholic-imposed restrictions on contraception have increased the abortion rate.

Likewise, explain your thesis in light of the fact that Griswold outlawed contraception restrictions in 1963 and Roe outlawed virtually all abortion restrictions in 1973 and compare the increase in abortion rates after 1973.


Clearly, what you are doing is raising anti-Catholic tropes - The Papists will take away your condoms!!! - as a smear.

Or you are an idiot.

If you continue with this bigotry, I can and will ban you.

This is my blog, these comment boxes are my living room.

I won't have an asshole bigot in my house.

Anonymous said...

I don't get your point of view. I am opposed to outlawing, arguing against, preaching against, or otherwise trying to twist people into not using birth control. That has nothing to do with anti-Catholic bigotry. It does have something to do with disagreeing with the Catholic Church, and apparently you, on this specific issue. Constantly using the pulpit of a church to "discourage" the use of birth control should obviously be viewed as a contributor to unwanted pregnancies. People (married or not) will keep having sex. If they don't use birth control the chances of an unplanned pregnancy are significant, and unplanned pregnancies often lead to abortions.

This bigot trope is nonsense. If a church is going to enter the political realm, then it is going to have its political critics, especially on specific controversial political issues on which it has expressed and pushed a point of view. I disagree with many religious people on this issue of birth control. Further, I think Catholic doctrine on this issue is at best stupid and more likely opening hypocritical. That doesn't make me a troll. It means we disagree. I suspect I also openly disagree with many Muslims on this issue, although I'm not really sure how Muslim's view birth control. And despite disagreeing with the "teachings" of the Catholic Church on this issue, I still consider the Church an overall force for good in this world, just not an infallible one, a view I am sure is held by most Catholics.

Your public blog spewing forth all sorts of political and moral points of view, accusations, judgments and condemnations is not your living room. When expressing very public opinions on such issues one should expect lively disagreement. Otherwise, you should keep them to yourself by only inviting like-minded people to your actual living room to discuss, judge and condemn. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

 
Who links to me?