Before Oprah Winfrey surprised 276 audience members on September 13, 2004, with a new car, shouting, “You get a car! You get a car! Everybody gets a car!”, there was Elvis, who had set the example, famously giving away over 200 cars during his lifetime, many to complete strangers, according to legend.
Where Oprah’s legendary giveaway was part of a sponsored show, Elvis’ generosity came from the heart. In her third book on Elvis Presley, Sally Hoedel examined the roots and evolution of his benevolent giving and the purpose he found by sharing much of his wealth with others.
Paul Bélard, Kees Mouwen and Robert van Doorn read the book and generously shared their views with each other.
Design
The 342-page softcover book is a scholarly work, grounded in years of research. The narrative is presented in twelve chapters, spread across three evocatively titled parts: ‘Dawn of Salvation’ (January 1935 to December 1957), ‘Standing in the Sun’ (December 1957 to July 1971) and ‘Night Falls’ (January 1971–August 1977).
With just over a handful of illustrations, this is the kind of book you sink your teeth into. A few more illustrations would have lightened the heavy content for me.
The complimentary bookmarks you get when you order directly from the author are a nice touch. That's why I prefer physical books over e-books.
Paul: When I saw in the introduction that Napoleon and Winston Churchill were each mentioned twice, and that ‘Destined to Die Young’ was cited five times, my first thought was, “This is going to be a long book.” It is!
The book suffers from frequent repetition. It is well known that Elvis was born into poverty; there is no need to remind the reader of this over and over again. It also indulges in needless speculation; no one can know what Elvis’ life might have been had he never become a singer, so attempting to reconstruct that hypothetical future is simply an exercise in futility.
Kees: You have a point there, Paul, the author takes a long run-up before getting to the heart of the story. She uses the first five chapters to tell the story of Elvis’ formative years, which build his character. This is important to the story as, for most of his early life, he was on the receiving end of the stick, which morally grounded his character and perspective on life. Elvis became who he was through the hard lessons of a life in poverty, in a coloured and struggling community that took care of each other, sharing the limited means they had. This made him who he was, especially his human side. This was what set his moral compass firmly in the right direction through the influence of the decent people around him.
You could indeed say that this could have been done in one chapter, but as the author explains in an interview with the Elvis Information Network, she wanted the book to be for non-Elvis fans too, so you have to include this part of his history. Basically, Hoedel uses Elvis’ biography as the foundation for her book and as context for the explanation of Elvis’ generosity.
Robert: The 'Destined to Give' story of Elvis is a whole wide world, ranging from the documentary '200 Cadillacs' to Lisa Marie saying that her father gave one rat to too many snakes. In order to try and comprehend Elvis’ behaviour, it is necessary to understand where it came from. It explains to the reader why Elvis did what he did, although I also found some things that puzzled me. More often than not, the Elvis story is presented as though everything happened by coincidence. It looks like Elvis only had to wave his magic wand to make things happen.
In reality, things happened for a reason, although, yes, some things happened unexpectedly. Elvis already said that the human being is one thing and the image is something else, and that it was very hard to live up to the image. The Elvis story is full of the image, and it seems to increase by the year.
Hoedel found it out the hard way after writing her first book 'Destined to Die Young'. She took a lot of flak from lots of people who desperately wanted to protect Elvis the image instead of Elvis the human being. Apparently, too many people have an interest in regarding Elvis as God, rather than seeing him as the human being. For me personally, the more I know about the human being Elvis, the more I become a fan of him; the more I love him.
For me, a few things stand out in the early chapters. The first sentence is on page 40: “Elvis would commit to repetitive work for the rest of his life if he had to, but he wanted more. He dreamed of much more.” This early fifties attitude followed him for the rest of his life during his movie career and the concert years and explains why he did not stop making movies that were far from ideal and why he continued performing in concerts even when this was damaging to his health.
On page 42 these sentences resonate deeply with me: “Of course, more than anything, he wanted to give his mother every possible luxury” and “It was Gladys who always told him he was destined for remarkable things.”
It was Gladys Elvis wanted to provide for and buy luxury items for, like a car and Graceland. Gladys was his inspiration. The best you can say about Vernon is that he never left Gladys. Most generations of male Presleys before him did leave their wives and children behind in search of greener pastures.
For me it is significant that almost 50 years after Elvis’ passing, not a single book or extensive article has been written about Vernon. So, one of the big ifs of the 'Destined to Give' story is, what if not Gladys but Vernon had passed away in 1958? Elvis would have had his main motivation and inspiration still with him. I guess that he would have spent more on Gladys and less on the vast amount of snakes in his life.
On page 46 we read: “No longer invisible, Elvis decided immediately to anchor himself with familiar faces and the people who understood the kind of person he was. He quickly learned that with success came people who were eager to decide for themselves just who he was and what he was about.”
And finally, on page 48, there is a quote by Farley Guy’s sister Doris: “After Elvis became famous, all of us could have hung onto him, and we could have had an easy life, but we weren’t leeches.” So, there were enough good people in Elvis’ life and they were the ones who did not want to misuse his generosity. And as most of the good people did their own thing away from Elvis, their place was quickly taken by an increasing number of leeches, as we will find out.
Paul: Still, some assertions left me shaking my head. One claims that, “Contrary to most history books, race was not the dividing factor in Tupelo and most of the South.” Really!
Another states that “President Andrew Jackson ran on a common-man platform that would have resonated with Elvis.” Andrew Jackson is remembered for the forced removal of the Cherokee and other Southeastern Indian tribes from their ancestral lands, a policy that culminated in the “Trail of Tears,” during which thousands died from disease, starvation and exposure while being marched west to what was then designated as Indian Territory. Given that legacy, it is difficult to see why Elvis would have regarded Jackson as a model or someone with whom he would have strongly identified. If you wonder why Jackson made it into the book, it is because in 1948, Elvis borrowed a book about him from a Memphis library.
At one point, the author writes, “Shortly after graduation, Elvis took a step toward a secret dream he had not shared with anyone.” If that secret dream was to become a musician, he was not especially successful at keeping it hidden. After all, he was rarely seen without his guitar, and he had performed twice at his high school graduation, among other occasions. Those are not exactly the actions of someone concealing a lifelong ambition.
Robert: Sally does point out that Elvis and Andrew Jackson had one very unfortunate thing in common: “In the end, the consequences of excessive spending would still be destructive to both.” My guess is that this is why the Andrew Jackson story is included.
Paul: That being said, 'Destined to Give' is an essential book. It is extremely well written. The depth of the research left me in awe. Having written tje book 'Elvis the Humanitarian', I thought I knew a great deal about Elvis’ charitable deeds, but I quickly realized how much more there was to learn.
The amount of time, energy and generosity he devoted to helping people in need is staggering. He truly was an extraordinary man who never ceased to care for the unlucky ones. I must admit, however, that reading the long list of cars he gave away, sometimes to people who did not seem particularly deserving, left me feeling a little uneasy.
Kees: Yes, Hoedel must be complimented for her research. It looks like not a “day went by” that Elvis didn’t show an act of kindness, and as most of this was done privately, she found it.
A very nice example of this is what he silently did for actor Christopher Riordan, an actor and dancer in films such as 'Viva Las Vegas', 'Tickle Me', 'Spinout', 'Clambake' and 'Double Trouble'. At the end of one film, Elvis said to Christopher, “See you on the next one.” That struck Christopher because he was not aware of any arrangements. “What I didn’t know then was that Elvis had put me on a list where I was one of the people to be called whenever they came to town to make a movie,” recalled Christopher. “And what I didn’t know until about four years ago was that I was the only guy on the list. All the rest were girls.”
But taking it all in, I felt uneasy too. Not so much because of Elvis’ generosity, but more because of the portrayal of the main character. For me, Elvis comes across as the victim and underdog of this story. A “goody-two-shoes” who struck good fortune, but accidentally took a wrong turn and sold his soul to the devil, a.k.a. Colonel Tom Parker, who worked him like a mule.
And because he couldn’t live a normal life, he created his own bubble with people who shared his background, people he trusted, to escape from it all. Unfortunately, buying their loyalty and friendship had a price. Elvis paid that price in full; it became a debt he couldn’t pay mentally, artistically, physically and, in the end, financially. In the end, after 20 years of hard labour, he had to mortgage his beloved Graceland mansion to make ends meet.
Despite the many examples of the goodness of his heart, my conclusion after reading this book is that Hoedel’s telling of the Elvis Presley story is that he was “destined to fail” in life because of who he was and who he had become. This left me sad, as this could have been a brighter tale of a generous heart.
I come to the opposite conclusion from our friend Nigel Patterson in his review on the Elvis Information Network, where he writes: “It is an uplifting release which engenders some moments of sadness and dismay, but overall, many moments of great joy.”
Robert: As a volunteer, I toured throughout Europe with an international gospel project for several years. No, I did not sing (lucky for the audience), but worked as a driver, road manager and did all kinds of odd jobs.
In training camp, the choir members were educated about what to expect on tour, how to behave in certain situations and so on. Basically, they were life lessons. One of the lessons that made a deep impact on me was: “Give what is right, not what is left.”
I experienced that many times on tour. We toured very poor parts of Europe, and it was there that we received the most. In Bulgaria, our host family spent their month’s meat ration on us. No meat for them for the rest of the month, just to be great hosts to total strangers for one night. Of course, we only found this out later. With, of course, a number of exceptions, the richer our hosts were, the more we experienced that we got what was left and not what was right. Believe me; the difference is huge.
The book clearly shows that Elvis always gave what was right and never what was left. He knew who to give to and when to give. There was never a hidden agenda, and it was never to his advantage, such as for publicity reasons. Most things were given without ever appearing in the press. Giving what was right meant that Elvis gave to certain people. He saw his own needy youth, for example when Vernon was in prison and he and Gladys were dependent on the goodness of others. Doing so much good, just to do good and make people happy, should have attracted grateful people who would have filled Elvis’ heart with joy and made him feel good about himself.
But it attracted too many people who were using Elvis’ goodness and his good intentions.
Instead of being inspired by Elvis to do the right thing, like Elvis was inspired by his great-uncle Noah, the people around Elvis behaved like vacuum cleaners. They took everything and more, whether they needed it or not. Therefore, I agree with Kees. The good-hearted and sincere generosity of Elvis really should be a joyous and happy tale. But the continuous abuse of Elvis’ character makes this a rather sad story. I feel so very sorry for him to this day. It should never have happened.
Paul: Several topics that fall outside the book’s stated purpose, as suggested by its title, are nevertheless among its most compelling sections. One is the author’s assessment of Parker. She writes: “He was a mentally ill man with more than one personality disorder. His pattern of manipulation, deceit, extreme lack of typical response to social cues, and an odd sense of humour rooted in the art of swindling barely required a proper diagnosis then and now.” She captures this despicable individual perfectly.
Kees: Yes indeed, she portrayed his character perfectly. For him it was “one for the money, two for the show, three to get ready, and four to go,” to quote a hit record by our man.
But to be honest, the Colonel was clear about his motives. He was in it for the money and publicly acknowledged that in interviews as early as 1960. His “handshake” with Elvis was based on this intention, and Elvis knew it. Parker took care of the business and operational side; Elvis took care of the “show.”
With work divided along these lines, he turned a million dollars’ worth of talent into a million dollars for Elvis. Unfortunately, Elvis and his family (who took care of his finances) could not handle that kind of money, positively or negatively, and that impacted his life and career. Afraid of losing everything, they made the wrong choices. As long as the money poured in, they probably thought they were making the right choices.
Carrying the burden of giving back to all the freeloaders, they also had to keep the money rolling in, making the entire operation and Elvis’ life short-sighted. The milking of Elvis’ movie career, followed by the milking of the next cash cow - Elvis’ concerts - illustrates this.
What made this possible is that Elvis had a “tell me what to do and I’ll do it as best as I can” mentality. Other than on stage or in the studio, he didn’t tell others what to do when it came to his career.
Robert: I agree with you guys. Great conclusions and, yes, very compelling chapters. Sally explained early on that Elvis was taught obedience in his early days. And especially a person like Colonel Parker exploited that and other characteristics to the fullest.
Paul: Elvis and Parker were both flawed men, but only one exploited the other’s weaknesses for personal gain. Because of Parker’s self-serving manipulations, the world saw only a fraction of Elvis’ true talent.
Kees: True, but Hoedel places Elvis in the victim role. I believe she only mentions once or twice that Elvis should have kept his entourage at a professional distance, not living in his house and on his property; that he should have organized professional assistance; or that he should have taken care of business by taking matters into his own hands.
According to Hoedel, Parker even told him which books not to read, especially those he got from Larry Geller, which, according to the Colonel, put the wrong ideas into Elvis’ head. And the sad part is that, by doing this, the Colonel suffocated his own “goose with the golden eggs.”
Reading this book, delving deep into his character, physical problems and more, Hoedel paints a picture of a victim. A victim of his upbringing, his good character, his limited education, his predatory friends and family, his lack of professionalism from a business perspective, the hawks of the entertainment industry and so on. In my eyes, Elvis was more than this.
Robert: Yes, both Elvis and Parker were flawed men, like we all are. I personally have enough flaws too. But Elvis’ flaws were exploited by Parker and many others, while Elvis did not take advantage of the flaws of others.
Is Elvis a victim? This is a question I still cannot answer, but it is one of the main things that fills me with so much sadness. I wished so much better for him: so much good, so much love and warmth, so much more acclaim and success. Elvis had opportunities to change his circumstances, yet he never seemed able to make the necessary changes that would have benefited his health and his life.
Remember the quote from page 46? “No longer invisible, Elvis decided immediately to anchor himself with familiar faces and the people who understood the kind of person he was. He quickly learned that with success came people who were eager to decide for themselves just who he was and what he was about.”
And yet, he seemed to have forgotten this lesson as the years passed, as he was surrounded by people who never understood what Elvis was all about, what made him happy, or what he wanted. It baffles me to this day. And what makes me especially sad is that, when Elvis realized that changes had to be made in the people who surrounded him, in his lifestyle and in his habits, it was way too late.
That reminds me of the Karen Carpenter story. By the time she was finally ready to make changes in her life after battling anorexia for too many years, she passed away at the very early age of 32. On the day she passed away, she was to sign her divorce papers, finally getting rid of the one snake in her life. So Elvis was certainly not the only one for whom the changes came too late.
Paul: Indeed, one of the fascinating subjects in this book is Hoedel’s assessment of Elvis’ so-called friends. She pulls no punches in her portrayal of the Memphis Mafia. In fact, “Mafia” was an apt name for this entourage, many of whom were little more than ne’er-do-wells who believed Elvis should support them while they enjoyed a life of ease.
She rightly sets her sights on Lamar Fike and Marty Lacker. Red West also deserves a place on this regrettable list of hangers-on. Thanks to Elvis, Hollywood opened its doors to him, and Elvis even recorded several songs he had written. How did he repay that generosity? By co-authoring the infamous 'Elvis: What Happened?' The disloyalty displayed by several members of the Memphis Mafia after Elvis’ death makes for particularly sad reading.
Equally heartbreaking is the author’s account of Elvis’ final years. One could argue that his overwhelming need to give so much and care for so many people created financial obligations that could only be met by continuing to perform an endless string of concerts he no longer truly enjoyed and should not have been giving in view of his declining health.
Kees: I concur, Paul. Having read the book, I’ve not been able to put my proverbial finger on the exact cause of what made Elvis fail in life, so to speak. Elvis had intent, but he rarely followed through, even when there were opportunities to take back control of his life and career.
Paul: Had he been able to step away from the stage and take the long, much-needed rest his body demanded, the outcome might have been different. Perhaps, then, it was his extraordinary generosity that ultimately contributed to his early death. But that is only speculation, and I am doing precisely what I criticized the author for earlier in this review.
Robert: I also wonder why Elvis did not step away. Continuous touring of small venues, while other “lesser” artists did only a few concerts in very large venues, proved repeatedly to be very bad for his already declining health. Was it only for monetary reasons? If so, why not exploit other means of income?
In 1973, Elvis sold his catalogue to RCA. So if he wanted to earn money from records, why was he not in a studio at all in 1974? Why did they have to drag him into a studio from 1975 onwards, even bringing the studio to his home? Why not take a break from touring and spend a few weeks recording, so that new records could be released and bring in much-needed money?
Why spend 1.2 million dollar on a plane for Colonel Parker (luckily the Colonel refused), only to be forced to take out a loan on Graceland a few months later because of financial problems? Why did he want to buy a house for Ginger Alden’s mother, fully knowing that the relationship with Ginger caused him more sorrow than joy? And to top it off, after Elvis died, Ginger's mother sued Vernon in an attempt to keep the house that was registered in Elvis name. Shameless!
If the snakes did not come to him, it looks as though, in later years, he was actively searching for them. And he alone paid a heavy price for it. I guess that I will never find out the truth about Elvis’ motivation as to why he did certain things and why he did not do other things.
Kees: The author covers the many options he had for putting his foot down, such as with the 1968 TV Special, the records and the return to live performing, and Elvis famously firing his manager on stage in 1973. Elvis backed down when the Colonel presented him with a bill for work he had already been paid for, which Elvis thought he couldn’t pay, even though he started doing successful tours not much later. If only he had hired someone other than his father to do the calculations for him!
Hoedel pinpoints Elvis’ 1973 divorce as the turning point. Would he really have been in such a bad state after his divorce that he decided to no longer be both Elvis the artist and Elvis the person? And would he truly “let it all hang out” in 1973, as the author states? Become the rock star people expected? Give everything away as if he didn’t care? Reading the book, I think Elvis only gave up in the last year of his life, judging by his excessive and reckless spending sprees.
No, I don’t think he did that. After all, he stayed with Linda Thompson for four years (who doesn’t come off very well in this book), and we can’t say that he only made bad records after the divorce or that he stood on stage as a B-list artist.
Robert: Haha… the Linda Thompson portrayal surprised me too. One of Elvis’ most beloved girlfriends (certainly by the fans).
But I see another villain, and that is jeweller Lowell Hays. Sally does not portray him as a villain. Just check the (undoubtedly) incomplete ring list at the end of the book. It is mind-blowing, and those are only the rings, necklaces, bracelets, earrings and countless other jewels were provided by Mr Hays with his seemingly bottomless suitcase of jewels that he carried everywhere Elvis went, thus making optimal use of Elvis’ out-of-control generosity. For me, that is exploiting someone’s character for personal gain. Unfortunately, Lowell was by far not the only one.
Kees: You are right Robert, he offered the goods to someone who he knew couldn't say "no".
Robert: Another example from later in his career was Barbra Streisand’s invitation to do 'A Star Is Born'. Parker demanded top billing for “his boy” on Streisand’s project, where the great Frank Sinatra won an Oscar for a supporting role. The Colonel put his foot down where Elvis should have stepped on the toes of his manager and grasped his last chance to redeem himself.
In an interview with Nigel Patterson, Hoedel said the following about Elvis needing to have greater personal control of his life: “When I spent a week interviewing Ron Strauss for Destined to Fly, the first two days he said repeatedly, ‘I knew I would never be a pilot.’ Ron was kicked out of high school. He joined the Air Force underage and worked his way up from mechanic to flight engineer.
Without an education, he knew he could never be a pilot in the military. Then, after twelve years, he decided to leave the Air Force and pursue becoming a pilot. I asked him what changed after he spent two days telling me he knew he would never be a pilot. He said it came down to one thing: confidence. He simply didn’t have the confidence before to think he could do it. After watching pilots make mistakes that he never would have made, he knew he was every bit as good and every bit as qualified as the guys he flew with. It was a leap of faith that paid off for Ron.
I would say something similar happened with Elvis. He was very young when fame hit. He didn’t know anything about being famous or really about his craft because his talent was so raw, pure and untainted. Elvis had no choice but to trust someone for that leadership.
Unfortunately, the Colonel realized just how vulnerable and insecure Elvis was and took advantage of that. When you’re in unknown territory, suddenly making more money than you could have ever imagined and unaware that you’re being manipulated at such a level, it’s a very difficult cycle to break free from.
Plus, Elvis did not want to risk failing, which translated to being poor again, especially as he became responsible for more and more people. For Elvis, I believe it was a combination of confidence, like it was for Ron, and fear.”
In my view, the author paints the fatalistic portrait of a man who gave up and compensated for this, for both his dependants and himself, by being (too) generous to others, wanting others to be happy where he couldn’t be, or no longer wanted to be… Too much self-pity, in my opinion.
So I don’t agree with her conclusion, but I enjoyed the food for thought the author offered. I really have to let that sink in.
A good explanation of what might have happened comes from Hoedel’s reference to the theory of psychiatrist Dr Christine B.L. Adams: “In psychology, excessive giving is sometimes referred to as pathological altruism. It can lead to exhaustion, guilt, dependency and control issues. ‘Such overboard giving is detrimental to the giver because it results in the neglect of one’s own needs. Excessive giving is harmful to the recipient because it fulfills needs the recipient can and should fulfill for himself.’ Many around Elvis did not know how to save for a car or budget monthly expenses without the safety net of being able to ask Elvis for more when needed. His family leaned on him in the same way.”
When his nurse, Letetia Tish, after overhearing a telephone conversation in which Elvis was asked for money, asked him about giving away so much, Elvis replied: “I’ve found it’s a lot better to go ahead and give since I’ve got it rather than put up with the static afterwards.”
You could say Elvis worked himself to death to do both … and neither his family, his friends, his manager nor anybody else who saw what was wrong stepped in and took care of Elvis, who had given them all he possibly could, even at the expense of himself artistically, personally, physically and financially.
Robert: Here is where I come back to the Karen Carpenter story. Karen's anorexia (which she was remarkably good at hiding) most likely started after reading in the newspaper that she had been called “Richard’s chubby sister.”
During the seven years she battled the disease, more problems added to her struggles, including a rejected solo album, a failed marriage, and the lack of love and support from her family.
In the documentary 'Goodbye to Love' Richard Carpenter is quoted as saying: “I know, and I have known for years, that I did, my family did, and our friends did the absolute most they could have done.”
Sounds familiar? How many “friends” of Elvis have been quoted saying something along the same lines? And yes, I do believe that, to some extent, Richard Carpenter and Elvis’s friends tried to help, but they did so in the way they thought they should or could, not in the way Karen or Elvis actually needed.
The 'Goodbye to Love' documentary closes with this chilling quote from a New York Times article published after Karen’s passing: “If anorexia is classically defined as a young woman’s struggle for control, then Karen Carpenter was a prime candidate. The two things she valued most in life, her voice and her mother’s love, were the exclusive property of Richard.”
How easy it is to copy and paste that into the Elvis situation. Just replace Richard with the Colonel (in my opinion).
For me, the Elvis story is also a story about loss of control. A failed marriage, failed relationships, a movie career that he had imagined very differently, surrounded by people who did not have his best interests at heart. Elvis said, “I never did something important / significant for nothing.” He really felt that way. For us fans it is unimaginable, but Elvis felt that way.
Remember that at the beginning of his working career, he was already dreaming of bigger things. Most likely, he never achieved those dreams. And so, like Karen Carpenter, he sought out things that he could control, things that would make him happy. Bringing joy to people was something he could control.
Yes, he had to do more tours to be able to keep spending, but he was willing to do so.
But, like Karen Carpenter, the desire for control became completely out of balance, leading to such an imbalance that, by the time they realized changes had to be made, it was too late for both of them.
They died aged thirty-two and forty-two… Really? Bothe were "destined to die too young".
Conclusion
To summarize, Sally Hoedel has written a book that deserves to be widely read. Elvis was indeed “destined to give” but also “destined to fail” because of the path his life took.
The book also left us with a few “what ifs”. Through her book, Hoedel gives us “food for thought” as it offers a deeper understanding of Elvis’ compassion and his extraordinary generosity, even when most of those surrounding him abused it in every possible way. But what if he had become the policeman he wanted to be when he was young…?
What the book doesn’t explain is why exactly he started giving up so early in his career. He started out as an artist in control of his work; his fifties recordings prove this. He hoped to become a serious actor, but when his musical comedies, like 'G.I. Blues', made more money than his “serious” role in 'Flaming Star', he didn’t opt for doing both. He complained in interviews, but did he order his manager to make other deals? What if he had? How would Elvis’ life have turned out? The book doesn’t tell.
But the many small and big examples of his good heart, his generosity and his lifelong commitment to helping others celebrate the remarkable humanity of a man too often remembered only as an entertainer.
Robert: The book clearly shows that Elvis gave what was right and explains, for the most part, why he did it. As always in the Elvis world, it is not a story where everything is crystal clear. It shows that Elvis was a complex person living in a very complex world that did not make life any easier for him. The 'Destined to Give' story, like all Elvis stories, is also full of what ifs.
But the book brings another piece of Elvis the human being closer to those who care about him and love him. Thanks for this awesome book, Sally. Through your books, you have brought pieces of the human Elvis closer to us. For that you deserve my very sincere gratitude.
If I am correct, this is your last 'Destined' book. If you ever consider continuing the series, I have two suggested titles for you: 'Destined to Perform' and 'Destined to Love' (a title that was also suggested on Sally’s Facebook page).
