What do you think?
Rate this book
On Michael Jackson
In On Michael Jackson —an at once passionate, incisive, and bracing work of cultural analysis—Pulitzer Prize–winning critic for The New York Times Margo Jefferson brilliantly unravels the complexities of one of the most enigmatic figures of our time.
Who is Michael Jackson and what does it mean to call him a “What Is It”? What do P. T. Barnum, Peter Pan, and Edgar Allan Poe have to do with our fascination with Jackson? How did his curious Victorian upbringing and his tenure as a child prodigy on the “chitlin’ circuit” inform his character and multiplicity of selves? How is Michael Jackson’s celebrity related to the outrageous popularity of nineteenth-century minstrelsy? What is the perverse appeal of child stars for grown-ups and what is the price of such stardom for these children and for us? What uncanniness provoked Michael Jackson to become “Alone of All His Race, Alone of All Her Sex,” while establishing himself as an undeniably great performer with neo-Gothic, dandy proclivities and a producer of visionary music videos? What do we find so unnerving about Michael Jackson’s presumed monstrosity? In short, how are we all of us implicated?
In this stunning book, Margo Jefferson gives us the incontrovertible lowdown on call-him-what-you-wish; she offers a powerful reckoning with a quintessential, richly allusive signifier of American society and popular culture.
Who is Michael Jackson and what does it mean to call him a “What Is It”? What do P. T. Barnum, Peter Pan, and Edgar Allan Poe have to do with our fascination with Jackson? How did his curious Victorian upbringing and his tenure as a child prodigy on the “chitlin’ circuit” inform his character and multiplicity of selves? How is Michael Jackson’s celebrity related to the outrageous popularity of nineteenth-century minstrelsy? What is the perverse appeal of child stars for grown-ups and what is the price of such stardom for these children and for us? What uncanniness provoked Michael Jackson to become “Alone of All His Race, Alone of All Her Sex,” while establishing himself as an undeniably great performer with neo-Gothic, dandy proclivities and a producer of visionary music videos? What do we find so unnerving about Michael Jackson’s presumed monstrosity? In short, how are we all of us implicated?
In this stunning book, Margo Jefferson gives us the incontrovertible lowdown on call-him-what-you-wish; she offers a powerful reckoning with a quintessential, richly allusive signifier of American society and popular culture.
146 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
36 people are currently reading
1287 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
July 6, 2009
Yes, my longest and most thoughtful Goodreads review is for a book about Michael Jackson. Since he died, I've been upset - more upset than I expected. Michael Jackson was for me what he was to many: always there in the background, whether it was his inspired music, dance, and presence in the early 80s, the speculation over his increasingly bizarre behavior starting in the mid to late 80s, or the more sinister role he took on as charges of sexual molestation were brought against him. Always there; someone you raised your eyebrows at; someone you never doubted would be there forever, whether because that's how it had always been or because of the freakish, lineless mask his face had become. His sudden death was surprising - as in, I didn't know that could happen - and extremely upsetting because he runs through my childhood memories and because his life seemed incredibly sad. I gave into this weird intense mourning, read a lot of news stories that all said pretty much the same thing, watched a lot of his videos, especially his older stuff, cried a few times, and finally came across this book.
Margo Jefferson's tone is academic as she explores Jackson. She of course depends heavily on biographical details for many of the conclusions she comes to, but she also analyzes the trainwreck of his existence (covering until he is acquitted on the molestation charges in 2005) through culture, race, gender, and sexuality. She briefly tells us about Motown (by the late 60s it was beginning to decline, but had the same goals it always had of captivating black and white audiences without allowing for musical "emotional outbursts or improvisation" but rather "pure pleasure, addictive pleasure.") She dedicates an entire chapter to the stress put on the Jackson children and child stars in general. Shirley Temple is quoted from her own autobiography: "It is not easy to be a Hollywood starlet. Starlets have to kiss a lot of people, including some unattractive ones. Often starlets are knocked down to the floor or pricked by diaper pins. The hours are long...." Whoosh. That statement knocks the air right out of you.
Jefferson discusses the sexualization of child performers, particularly Michael Jackson. Asked to move, sing, and act like an adult while talking about things children don't really understand - romantic and sexual love, and the loss of it. He did it uncannily well. She discusses the "freaks" of PT Barnum and places Jackson within that context, not only for his ever-changing face but also because of his fascination with Barnum; she discusses Peter Pan, JM Barrie, his mother as a Jehovah's Witness, and the historical rejection of typically black features both within and without black communities, particularly skin color, nose width, lip size, and hair texture. You can see why the latter point is relevant to a discussion of Jackson. She discusses his parents and siblings, his upbringing, his solo rise to global fame. Note, too, that she covers all of these topics, and the book is a brisk 146-page read.
So did Jefferson answer my questions about Jackson? - What was wrong with him? Why did he drastically change his appearance? Why did he surround himself with mostly sick, needy children (mind you, I do not believe he sexually abused any of those children)? And - seriously, this is something I've always wondered and am really looking for an answer to - why did he always grab his crotch? Well, first, Jefferson did kind of answer my questions with interesting, creative suggestions, though it's mostly speculation.
Now back to the crotch-grabbing. She focuses on the video for Black or White, in which Jackson is pretty heavy with the crotch grabs and shots. She says, "And he dances - a violent tap dance without real tap sounds. Which makes it oddly ominous - we see and feel the percussion but we don't hear it. It creates a strange tension. Partly because it's sinuous and elegant - the way soft-shoe tap is. And very much because every few beats he strokes, snatches at, caresses his...phallus....In retrospect, the crotch clutch seems at once desperate and abstract. It is as if he were telling us, 'Fine, you need to know I'm a man, a black man? Here's my dick: I'll thrust my dick at you! Isn't that what a black man's supposed to do? But I'm Michael Jackson, so just look but you can't touch.' It wasn't real, it was symbolic. Not a penis but a phallus." This interpretation - not so sure that I buy it (though I would love to, how awesome if Jackson was really thinking that). It does put Jackson firmly in control of himself, his image, his actions, his behavior. My own impression of him was that of a vulnerable, broken, mentally ill and psychologically damaged man. This is probably part of why I (and many) reacted so strongly to his death. As my friend put it, "You just want to give him a hug and tell him you're on his side. But you can't. He's dead."
I can't quite believe that the crotch clutch goes as deep as all that. Is it not just a childish dance move from a man who was somewhat stunted psychologically? (And I am serious when I say that I want to know what's behind the crotch clutch - and I'm equally curious to know how America and the world accepted something so blatantly sexual into their lives - this is not swaying your hips suggestively, this is grabbing your dick). But I do buy Jefferson's premise that Jackson's career and some of his physical transformation that called his gender, race, and entire identity into question was somewhat purposeful. Perhaps psychological damage combined with narcissism and a need for "perfection," and the fact that he "has been a sexual impersonator since age five" gives us this: "He imitates no kind of life known to us. He passes in plain sight. Each appearance through the years has been a rehearsal, a restaging. Our doubts are never soothed, our questions never answered. Passers are supposed to hide their past, shed their racial or sexual history. Michael's past is everywhere. It exists in thousands of photographs and film images." And perhaps this is why we get Michael Jackson, forty years after his rise to stardom, holding his baby over the edge of a balcony: "a child star's act of vengeance. Holding a baby over a balcony is furious, infantile acting-out - doing something outrageous when people are interfering with you." Hmmm. Not sure I buy that either, but the theories this author has are interesting as hell.
A few things worth noting, personally: I see this deliberateness in Jackson's questionable gender identity. The video Scream is beautifully danced between him and his sister Janet. There is a two-second shot of him walking towards the camera in a very masculine way - some sort of incredibly sexy macho swagger. I had to replay it the first time, after his death, that I saw it. The scene changes, and a second or two later he's walking towards the camera again, same flashy gold costume, same backdrop. But this time it's a very feminine walk: narrow, with each foot in line, making his hips sway while his arms propel him forward. Is he fucking with us? I thought, or can he just not keep that effeminate runway walk from bursting out of him? (Either way, he has exceptional control over his body. Watch the video.)
And the second note regarding Jackson's deliberateness in some things, at least, comes from Jefferson, who says regarding his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley, "Kings are supposed to compete with their predecessors and kings are supposed to marry other royals. Elvis's widow, Priscilla Presley, makes clear that she saw Michael Jackson as a scheming pretender, building Neverland to top Graceland, then courting Elvis's daughter to secure his lineage...." Same with the other towers of the music world, the Beatles. "Michael learned to be as big as The Beatles. He learned to be bigger when he outbid Paul McCartney and purchased the Beatles' catalog (a clever twist on the old money, power, and race equation that had white performers outselling black ones with cover versions of black hits)."
Finally, Jefferson analyzes the criminal charges and trial and gets a nice, fat jab in at that moron Nancy Grace and the celebrity-crazed media and public who ate it all up. She validates much of what I already thought about Jackson, but she does it with a surprisingly thorough historical, cultural, and biographical analysis. It's sad - I'm still so sad. He was a messed up person, whether his actions were deliberate or not. As Jefferson says, "At this point, Michael Jackson's damage is equal to what his talent was, and that means it is extraordinary indeed. This is deeply upsetting to witness. Who wants to try and map that kind of compulsion and regression? Who wants to watch mental illness in panoramic close-up? What language is available to us when talking about it?"
Margo Jefferson's tone is academic as she explores Jackson. She of course depends heavily on biographical details for many of the conclusions she comes to, but she also analyzes the trainwreck of his existence (covering until he is acquitted on the molestation charges in 2005) through culture, race, gender, and sexuality. She briefly tells us about Motown (by the late 60s it was beginning to decline, but had the same goals it always had of captivating black and white audiences without allowing for musical "emotional outbursts or improvisation" but rather "pure pleasure, addictive pleasure.") She dedicates an entire chapter to the stress put on the Jackson children and child stars in general. Shirley Temple is quoted from her own autobiography: "It is not easy to be a Hollywood starlet. Starlets have to kiss a lot of people, including some unattractive ones. Often starlets are knocked down to the floor or pricked by diaper pins. The hours are long...." Whoosh. That statement knocks the air right out of you.
Jefferson discusses the sexualization of child performers, particularly Michael Jackson. Asked to move, sing, and act like an adult while talking about things children don't really understand - romantic and sexual love, and the loss of it. He did it uncannily well. She discusses the "freaks" of PT Barnum and places Jackson within that context, not only for his ever-changing face but also because of his fascination with Barnum; she discusses Peter Pan, JM Barrie, his mother as a Jehovah's Witness, and the historical rejection of typically black features both within and without black communities, particularly skin color, nose width, lip size, and hair texture. You can see why the latter point is relevant to a discussion of Jackson. She discusses his parents and siblings, his upbringing, his solo rise to global fame. Note, too, that she covers all of these topics, and the book is a brisk 146-page read.
So did Jefferson answer my questions about Jackson? - What was wrong with him? Why did he drastically change his appearance? Why did he surround himself with mostly sick, needy children (mind you, I do not believe he sexually abused any of those children)? And - seriously, this is something I've always wondered and am really looking for an answer to - why did he always grab his crotch? Well, first, Jefferson did kind of answer my questions with interesting, creative suggestions, though it's mostly speculation.
Now back to the crotch-grabbing. She focuses on the video for Black or White, in which Jackson is pretty heavy with the crotch grabs and shots. She says, "And he dances - a violent tap dance without real tap sounds. Which makes it oddly ominous - we see and feel the percussion but we don't hear it. It creates a strange tension. Partly because it's sinuous and elegant - the way soft-shoe tap is. And very much because every few beats he strokes, snatches at, caresses his...phallus....In retrospect, the crotch clutch seems at once desperate and abstract. It is as if he were telling us, 'Fine, you need to know I'm a man, a black man? Here's my dick: I'll thrust my dick at you! Isn't that what a black man's supposed to do? But I'm Michael Jackson, so just look but you can't touch.' It wasn't real, it was symbolic. Not a penis but a phallus." This interpretation - not so sure that I buy it (though I would love to, how awesome if Jackson was really thinking that). It does put Jackson firmly in control of himself, his image, his actions, his behavior. My own impression of him was that of a vulnerable, broken, mentally ill and psychologically damaged man. This is probably part of why I (and many) reacted so strongly to his death. As my friend put it, "You just want to give him a hug and tell him you're on his side. But you can't. He's dead."
I can't quite believe that the crotch clutch goes as deep as all that. Is it not just a childish dance move from a man who was somewhat stunted psychologically? (And I am serious when I say that I want to know what's behind the crotch clutch - and I'm equally curious to know how America and the world accepted something so blatantly sexual into their lives - this is not swaying your hips suggestively, this is grabbing your dick). But I do buy Jefferson's premise that Jackson's career and some of his physical transformation that called his gender, race, and entire identity into question was somewhat purposeful. Perhaps psychological damage combined with narcissism and a need for "perfection," and the fact that he "has been a sexual impersonator since age five" gives us this: "He imitates no kind of life known to us. He passes in plain sight. Each appearance through the years has been a rehearsal, a restaging. Our doubts are never soothed, our questions never answered. Passers are supposed to hide their past, shed their racial or sexual history. Michael's past is everywhere. It exists in thousands of photographs and film images." And perhaps this is why we get Michael Jackson, forty years after his rise to stardom, holding his baby over the edge of a balcony: "a child star's act of vengeance. Holding a baby over a balcony is furious, infantile acting-out - doing something outrageous when people are interfering with you." Hmmm. Not sure I buy that either, but the theories this author has are interesting as hell.
A few things worth noting, personally: I see this deliberateness in Jackson's questionable gender identity. The video Scream is beautifully danced between him and his sister Janet. There is a two-second shot of him walking towards the camera in a very masculine way - some sort of incredibly sexy macho swagger. I had to replay it the first time, after his death, that I saw it. The scene changes, and a second or two later he's walking towards the camera again, same flashy gold costume, same backdrop. But this time it's a very feminine walk: narrow, with each foot in line, making his hips sway while his arms propel him forward. Is he fucking with us? I thought, or can he just not keep that effeminate runway walk from bursting out of him? (Either way, he has exceptional control over his body. Watch the video.)
And the second note regarding Jackson's deliberateness in some things, at least, comes from Jefferson, who says regarding his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley, "Kings are supposed to compete with their predecessors and kings are supposed to marry other royals. Elvis's widow, Priscilla Presley, makes clear that she saw Michael Jackson as a scheming pretender, building Neverland to top Graceland, then courting Elvis's daughter to secure his lineage...." Same with the other towers of the music world, the Beatles. "Michael learned to be as big as The Beatles. He learned to be bigger when he outbid Paul McCartney and purchased the Beatles' catalog (a clever twist on the old money, power, and race equation that had white performers outselling black ones with cover versions of black hits)."
Finally, Jefferson analyzes the criminal charges and trial and gets a nice, fat jab in at that moron Nancy Grace and the celebrity-crazed media and public who ate it all up. She validates much of what I already thought about Jackson, but she does it with a surprisingly thorough historical, cultural, and biographical analysis. It's sad - I'm still so sad. He was a messed up person, whether his actions were deliberate or not. As Jefferson says, "At this point, Michael Jackson's damage is equal to what his talent was, and that means it is extraordinary indeed. This is deeply upsetting to witness. Who wants to try and map that kind of compulsion and regression? Who wants to watch mental illness in panoramic close-up? What language is available to us when talking about it?"
July 27, 2015
"Michael Jackson speaks to and for the monstrous child in us all."
Easily the best thing I've read that tries to figure out Michael Jackson. The right mix of sympathy and query, that doesn't come up with an answer (you can't), turning the question back on us instead.
There are some factual slips (hey, I'm a fan with an encyclopedic knowledge of MJ - I can't help it) but overall the conclusion she comes to, with the available evidence, minus my tendency to get upset and defend him, is the closest one to my own. In short: poor Michael, but he was his own worst enemy.
I don't agree with all of Jefferson's conclusions (she doesn't explore Michael's adult and apparently quite lucid side, for instance, and evidence that's arisen since his death), but I appreciate her methods and open, questioning approach to the subject. Don't bother with the longer more exhaustive accounts of his life (or of the stories other people tell of it, anyway), that are rich in detail but poor in explanation and seek only to confirm the author's own bias. This and John Jeremiah Sullivan's article on the same subject are true essays: open-minded thought exercises that question our every assumption. Excellent. Recommended.
Easily the best thing I've read that tries to figure out Michael Jackson. The right mix of sympathy and query, that doesn't come up with an answer (you can't), turning the question back on us instead.
There are some factual slips (hey, I'm a fan with an encyclopedic knowledge of MJ - I can't help it) but overall the conclusion she comes to, with the available evidence, minus my tendency to get upset and defend him, is the closest one to my own. In short: poor Michael, but he was his own worst enemy.
I don't agree with all of Jefferson's conclusions (she doesn't explore Michael's adult and apparently quite lucid side, for instance, and evidence that's arisen since his death), but I appreciate her methods and open, questioning approach to the subject. Don't bother with the longer more exhaustive accounts of his life (or of the stories other people tell of it, anyway), that are rich in detail but poor in explanation and seek only to confirm the author's own bias. This and John Jeremiah Sullivan's article on the same subject are true essays: open-minded thought exercises that question our every assumption. Excellent. Recommended.
August 13, 2007
Terrific premise; disappointing execution. I think it's a great idea to examine Michael Jackson - as a persona, performer and phenomenon - from a multifaceted cultural perspective (including the histories of entertainment, race, family culture, legal precedent and more), which is exactly what this book does. The problem here is that although the perspective is broad and far-reaching, the author just doesn't delve very deeply into any of her subjects, and the result feels more like a brief outline of possible topics than a true examination of any of them.
April 9, 2012
One would think that a book titled "On Michael Jackson" would attempt some kind of objectivity in writing about such a controversial mega-star. Unfortunately, the author says everything we have already heard: he is a freak, he is odd, he is asexual, etc. What disturbed me most was the voice, which was very "matter-of-fact" when it is clear that nobody really knows all of the facts of Jackson's life. I wanted more, so much more, and it just wasn't there. There were a few strong points regarding Jackson's apparent desire to transcend race, while defying masculinity "norms."
January 31, 2020
If you’re looking for an in-depth look at Michael Jackson, this isn’t it, and I don’t think the book is particularly well-written. In fact, the author seems to know so little about Michael Jackson that you really wonder how she could have been so bold as to have written a book - about the length of two New Yorker articles - about the musical superstar. I’m not even sure how to describe this book - it seemed to be a whimsical or poetic or reflective look at Michael Jackson. Still I liked the book. I’m glad the author declined to pass judgement on Jackson - I agree that he was a strange and sad and brilliant person, but I have my doubts as to whether he was a child molester.
July 8, 2009
I read this book when it first came out, and ordered a copy when Jackson died. I appreciated, and appreciate even more so now, Jefferson's ability to discuss both sides of Jackson: his unquestionable talent and the irreparable harm caused to him in the name of that talent... and the possibility that he may have caused harm to others as a result. Jefferson's book is an example of how to talk/think about Jackson and his role in our culture without lapsing into the disturbing romanticization of him going on now, or falling into labeling him a child molester and dismissing him. I wish we could just let him go and hope he's in a better place.
February 10, 2021
Took a class with Jefferson last year and her writing does not disappoint. Brilliant, insightful, authoritative and thorough do not begin to do this book justice. I’m not super knowledgeable or familiar with Jackson’s career or controversies (aside from Leaving Neverland) and this book read like an interrogative documentary in which Jefferson does not disappear or feed into her subject’s persona, but instead brings herself and Michael into breath-taking clarity. If you’re at all interested or a fan of writing about media, it’s worth it for the song, video and dance descriptions alone.
June 30, 2013
Michael Jackson is a fascinating artist and personality. Unfortunately this book did not do justice to him or his work. Fairly disappointing.
June 12, 2019
Sono appena tornata da un viaggio bellissimo e terribile, gioioso e oscuro nel mio passato, negli anni della mia infanzia e giovinezza, gli anni dell'esplosione musicale, del primo innamoramento adolescenziale per una star, della musica sparata a palla nelle orecchie in lunghe notti farcite di balli e lacrime; tutto questo, per me, viene catalogato sotto al nome di Michael Jackson.
Tutto ciò mi è stato regalato dal libro "Su Michael Jackson" scritto da Margo Jefferson e pubblicato in Italia da 66TH A2ND con la traduzione di Sara Antonelli che ho letto con grandi aspettative.
Michael Jackson cresce con Barnum e i suoi rutilanti spettacoli circensi e il mondo fatato di Disney come modelli ("Michael Jackson era un lettore appassionato dell'autobiografia di Barnum e ne regalava sempre una copia ai membri del suo staff, dichiarando: << Voglio che la mia carriera sia il più grande spettacolo al mondo>>. In questo modo diventò sia il produttore sia il prodotto. L'impresario di se stesso."). A cinque anni già calca i palcoscenici, viene educato alla disciplina e alla perfezione dalle violenze psico-fisiche infertegli dal padre ("L'ho frustato con la verga e con la cinta. Ma non l'ho mai picchiato. Se devi picchiare qualcuno lo prendi a bastonate" dichiara il genitore) e estenuato da sei ore di prove al giorno, prima e dopo la scuola; vorrebbe possedere le ossa di Elephant Man e probabilmente viene abusato ripetutamente proprio dagli abitanti di quel mondo dorato e sfavillante che lui vuole fare suo.
Produce capolavori immortali quali "Billie Jeans" e "Thriller", cambia aspetto, viene accusato di abusi sessuali su minori per i quali verrà assolto dai tribunali ma mai dall'opinione pubblica. Non abbandona il suo amore per Peter Pan e vive a Neverland, la sua 'Isola che non c'è' ( "Se credi che egli sia stato l'unico bambino che abbia voluto fuggire, significa che hai del tutto dimenticato la tua infanzia." scrive Barrie in "Peter Pan nei giardini di Kensington) forse tentando così di sottrarsi a un mondo di cui non si fida e che gli ha rubato l'infanzia.
Jefferson scrive un libro biografico che è anche attenta narrazione, acuta ricerca e obiettiva presa di posizione. Quando analizza gli argomenti più difficili e i passaggi più delicati della vita del cantante schierandosi, pur rimanendo fan del Michael Jackson artista, dalla parte delle presunte vittime, la scrittrice lo fa con fermezza e durezza ma con estremo tatto.
Io sono innocentista, ma non posso non chiedermi cosa penserei, quali sentimenti albergherei, che reazioni avrei nel caso in cui avessi la certezza che Michael fosse colpevole; sinceramente non so rispondermi perché non sono in grado di immaginare me stessa che non ama questo artista, non ho la capacità di scindere ciò che lui rappresenta per me da ciò che dovrebbe rappresentare in quel caso ("...e mi chiedo chi mai potrà capire il fascino degli opposti rappresentati da un performer. Michael era fragile e ferale, percussivo e sinuoso, vulnerabile e imperioso. E quello che ci ha dato la sua arte non si può cancellare."). Dopo aver letto l'introduzione, per altro aggiunta in questa edizione italiana dall'autrice e contenente opinioni maturate dopo la morte del cantante e l'uscita recentissima del documentario "Leaving Neverland", ho dovuto fermarmi a riflettere e a metabolizzare quanto vi ho trovato scritto: fatico davvero a ingoiare certe affermazioni, non le posso credere vere, d'istinto lo difendo forse perché, come tutti coloro che lo difendono, in questo modo e per un certo verso difendo me stessa?
Il libro è molto interessante, oltre alla vita di Michael Jackson, ripercorre anche la storia della musica e dello spettacolo del secolo scorso, è un libro di opinioni e deduzioni in ogni caso, obiettive, condivisibili, intelligenti, ma appunto opinioni. È l'ennesimo che leggo sull'argomento e non delude partendo da una prosa e da una narrazione che raramente si trovano in questo genere di pubblicazioni; ancora una volta ho amato leggere di questo performer straordinario e uomo tormentato, genio del palcoscenico e della musica e essere fragilissimo e nuovamente sono a interrogarmi sul come abbia fatto a emergere, a non soccombere brutalmente già da ragazzino, sul come sia riuscito a reprimere i suoi demoni, a non far prendere loro il sopravvento così a lungo e mi rispondo che, nonostante tutto, era un uomo forte, carismatico sorretto da quella luce potente, limpida, a volte fagocitante, ma sempre straordinaria e vivifica che scaturisce dall'arte quando è legata al talento vero. ("Michael Jackson ha raggiunto la fama mondiale perché era un talento di prima classe.")
https://youtu.be/g97Ok-TY6QM
Su Michael Jackson
Margo Jefferson
Traduzione: Sara Antonelli
Editore: 66TH A2ND
Pag: 153
Voto: 5/5
Tutto ciò mi è stato regalato dal libro "Su Michael Jackson" scritto da Margo Jefferson e pubblicato in Italia da 66TH A2ND con la traduzione di Sara Antonelli che ho letto con grandi aspettative.
Michael Jackson cresce con Barnum e i suoi rutilanti spettacoli circensi e il mondo fatato di Disney come modelli ("Michael Jackson era un lettore appassionato dell'autobiografia di Barnum e ne regalava sempre una copia ai membri del suo staff, dichiarando: << Voglio che la mia carriera sia il più grande spettacolo al mondo>>. In questo modo diventò sia il produttore sia il prodotto. L'impresario di se stesso."). A cinque anni già calca i palcoscenici, viene educato alla disciplina e alla perfezione dalle violenze psico-fisiche infertegli dal padre ("L'ho frustato con la verga e con la cinta. Ma non l'ho mai picchiato. Se devi picchiare qualcuno lo prendi a bastonate" dichiara il genitore) e estenuato da sei ore di prove al giorno, prima e dopo la scuola; vorrebbe possedere le ossa di Elephant Man e probabilmente viene abusato ripetutamente proprio dagli abitanti di quel mondo dorato e sfavillante che lui vuole fare suo.
Produce capolavori immortali quali "Billie Jeans" e "Thriller", cambia aspetto, viene accusato di abusi sessuali su minori per i quali verrà assolto dai tribunali ma mai dall'opinione pubblica. Non abbandona il suo amore per Peter Pan e vive a Neverland, la sua 'Isola che non c'è' ( "Se credi che egli sia stato l'unico bambino che abbia voluto fuggire, significa che hai del tutto dimenticato la tua infanzia." scrive Barrie in "Peter Pan nei giardini di Kensington) forse tentando così di sottrarsi a un mondo di cui non si fida e che gli ha rubato l'infanzia.
Jefferson scrive un libro biografico che è anche attenta narrazione, acuta ricerca e obiettiva presa di posizione. Quando analizza gli argomenti più difficili e i passaggi più delicati della vita del cantante schierandosi, pur rimanendo fan del Michael Jackson artista, dalla parte delle presunte vittime, la scrittrice lo fa con fermezza e durezza ma con estremo tatto.
Io sono innocentista, ma non posso non chiedermi cosa penserei, quali sentimenti albergherei, che reazioni avrei nel caso in cui avessi la certezza che Michael fosse colpevole; sinceramente non so rispondermi perché non sono in grado di immaginare me stessa che non ama questo artista, non ho la capacità di scindere ciò che lui rappresenta per me da ciò che dovrebbe rappresentare in quel caso ("...e mi chiedo chi mai potrà capire il fascino degli opposti rappresentati da un performer. Michael era fragile e ferale, percussivo e sinuoso, vulnerabile e imperioso. E quello che ci ha dato la sua arte non si può cancellare."). Dopo aver letto l'introduzione, per altro aggiunta in questa edizione italiana dall'autrice e contenente opinioni maturate dopo la morte del cantante e l'uscita recentissima del documentario "Leaving Neverland", ho dovuto fermarmi a riflettere e a metabolizzare quanto vi ho trovato scritto: fatico davvero a ingoiare certe affermazioni, non le posso credere vere, d'istinto lo difendo forse perché, come tutti coloro che lo difendono, in questo modo e per un certo verso difendo me stessa?
Il libro è molto interessante, oltre alla vita di Michael Jackson, ripercorre anche la storia della musica e dello spettacolo del secolo scorso, è un libro di opinioni e deduzioni in ogni caso, obiettive, condivisibili, intelligenti, ma appunto opinioni. È l'ennesimo che leggo sull'argomento e non delude partendo da una prosa e da una narrazione che raramente si trovano in questo genere di pubblicazioni; ancora una volta ho amato leggere di questo performer straordinario e uomo tormentato, genio del palcoscenico e della musica e essere fragilissimo e nuovamente sono a interrogarmi sul come abbia fatto a emergere, a non soccombere brutalmente già da ragazzino, sul come sia riuscito a reprimere i suoi demoni, a non far prendere loro il sopravvento così a lungo e mi rispondo che, nonostante tutto, era un uomo forte, carismatico sorretto da quella luce potente, limpida, a volte fagocitante, ma sempre straordinaria e vivifica che scaturisce dall'arte quando è legata al talento vero. ("Michael Jackson ha raggiunto la fama mondiale perché era un talento di prima classe.")
https://youtu.be/g97Ok-TY6QM
Su Michael Jackson
Margo Jefferson
Traduzione: Sara Antonelli
Editore: 66TH A2ND
Pag: 153
Voto: 5/5
January 28, 2023
I found this book very interesting, it starts with a critique of Barnum, whom Jackson was obsessed with and how Barnum exploited Black and disabled people in order to make money. Looking at Motown and the abusive Joe Jackson with the same intellectual clarity, before turning to Michael himself with thought provoking considerations of his videos. There is a fascinating breakdown of the Jackson's individually and she makes interesting points about MJ's physical changes in relation to what they say about his views on race and gender. Much has been written about his imagined sexuality so it was refreshing to have gender discussions. The last chapter is about the trial that he faced at the end of his life on child molestation charges, her view is nuanced, considered and allows space for you to make up your own mind. Most of all I appreciated the intelligent cultural exploration of the times and live of Michael Jackson, which has been missing in the rabid condemnation or unseeing hero worship that surrounds him and is indeed present in some reviews of this book.
August 11, 2013
Margo Jefferson's On Michael Jackson is a cultural analysis of the King of Pop, ultimately providing readers with the reason behind his bizarre actions that eventually acquire the pop star the infamous nickname of "Wacko Jacko." While the first half primarily explores his childhood, the latter focuses on the notorious 2005 trial and his transformation from a reigning pop star to an erratic recluse. Additionally, Jefferson cleverly scatters a few of her unique interpretations of the pop star's visually arresting performances and unforgettable music videos throughout. In the beginning, Jefferson makes known the cruelty and pain of Jackson's hollow childhood despite the glamour of singing lead in the Jackson 5. Interestingly enough, the gem of the book lies in the transformation and trial, as it suggests the King of Pop's methods. Although the book is well written, in the end, I found it incredibly disturbing. Jefferson's last few pages leave us utterly startled, speechless, and disillusioned. Frankly, after being exposed to this monstrosity, I genuinely wish I would have watched Jackson's lighthearted American Bandstand performance of "Abc" with his brothers and not gone beyond that. – Eddie S. ‘17
September 24, 2015
This is the book I would have dreamed of writing had I decided to go to grad school. It's like listening to your cool professor in a seminar called "Constructing Identities in (fill in the blank)". I read it because Michael Jackson represented such a big part of my childhood, and I was expecting a regular biography that would give me a walk down memory lane. Instead the book made me appreciate MJ in a way I never thought possible. He truly defied any categorization which I think is one of the reasons people felt so uncomfortable about him. People need to be able to pigeonhole everything and even in Hollywood, all the enhancements people do typically emphasize that category in an exaggerated way (women get breast implants to look more feminine for example). MJ's enhancements caused him to transcend categories. Man or woman, black or white, man or child? Selfless or self-absorbed? I don't think anyone thought he was trying to become Asian but he most reminded me of a Japanese manga character, especially near the end.
August 16, 2017
Jaahas. Tämä kirja tuntuu lähinnä siltä, että jollakulla gradun tekijällä on päässyt proggis lapasesta ja tuloksena on syntynyt tutkielma hahmosta nimeltä Michael Jackson. Kirja ei juurikaan keskity hänen musiikkiinsa vaan pikemminkin hänen tanssimiseensa, videoihinsa, oikeudenkäyntiinsä ja ylipäänsä hänen ristiriitaiseen persoonaansa. Hieman samanlaisella otteella kuin vähän aikaa sitten lukemani kirja Leonard Cohenista. Cohenin kirjasta paistoi läpi se, että kirjoittaja oli lukenut ja kuunnellut Coheninsa ja pyrki tekemään aukikirjoitettua ja perusteltua synteesiä kaikesta omaksumastaan. Jefferson ei pysty edes tähän. Hän velloo juuri siinä keltaisen lehdistön luupissa, joka on pyörinyt Jacksonin kuolemasta lähtien. Jefferson kompastuu samaan kiveen kuin Cohenin elämäkerran kirjoittaja Nadelkin: ylianalysointiin ja tappavaan tylsyyteen.
January 9, 2011
Though it includes a variety of factual errors in regard to Michael's career and life, it's worth noting that many of these essays were written while he was still alive (and even today there is very little legitimate research on hand for authors to consult). For the position Jefferson was in as a writer, she does an admirable job of being relatively accurate, but that's not really the main point — her goal with this collection is more creative interpretation of the man's work. Some passages — her read of Michael's often overlooked role in 1978's "The Wiz" jumped out at me immediately — contain some rather stunning insight. She may be looking at the man from an angle askance, but that doesn't prevent her from making some valid and interesting points.
June 28, 2008
I was never a fan of MJ, although he was the biggest thing since sliced bread in pop culture during my formative years. I do like several of this songs, his dancing is phenomenal...but the evolution of his character, career, and physical being--the stuff of endless articles--is tackled in this short book, written with a more academic pen than a tabloid one. As other reviewers have noted, there is a lack of depth that leaves one unsatisfied.
August 24, 2009
--not in German when I read it, which was four days after his death on my fire escape in the sun. It was the absolute best way to combat or correspond with the radio and television marathons, the general conversational obsession (two people running by me in the park [who I heard for maybe 7 seconds:] were talking about whether or not Quincy Jones was a paternal stand-in), and the unexpected sadness of the world sans this strange little enormous man.
September 5, 2009
Found on the Salvation Army shelf in the wake of this past summer's morbid Jackson frenzy, took it over to one of Woodside's few cafes, and read the thing. Jefferson provides a useful biographical sketch and poses a few interesting questions, that's all, and that's all that really can be done on MJ beyond a more complete appreciation of his music. Everything else is just voyeurism that isn't even fun.
Read
February 5, 2009It's a high-wire act to admire and defend someone as genuinely bizarre and embattled as Michael Jackson. Most of the public has long come to a conclusion about him, so much so that his name rarely grabs tabloid headlines anymore. That Margo Jefferson, a Pulitzer Prize_
June 27, 2009
Turn off all the TV and internet coverage of Michael Jackson's death and pick up this slim book by Margo Jefferson. Love him or hate him, her observations are to the point and thought provoking. A riveting look at an icon and what became of him.
July 25, 2009
I just reread this excellent book. If you were impressed by Joan Acocella's piece on M.J. in 27 July 2009 New Yorker (for 3 days she watched and analysed his music videos), you are going to be blown away by Margo Jefferson's marvelous book. 5 stars.
April 10, 2019
For many years, Michael Jackson has held a grip on my mind. Did he do it? Why did he change his appearance? The questions which have held the mental real estate of many over the past few decades. On many an occasion, I would get lost in a YouTube worm hole watching videos of MJ and speculation over wether he did or did not do it. Time and time again, I would hear about this book by Margo Jefferson as being the essential text to understanding MJ, but I never got around to reading it. The recent HBO film Leaving Neverland brought these questions out of my YouTube wormhole and into the public sphere once again. For many years I had decided that MJ was not guilty, but the film’s testimony from the two men was incredibly believable. He must’ve done it. With the question fresh and prevalent in the minds of many again, I sought out a copy of Jefferson’s book, and I must say that I am not disappointed. This is perhaps the definitive study of MJ and draws connections that are often not drawn by countless other MJ commentators.
Although it is conventional for people to assert that MJ was transgendered and unable to confront the fact, Jefferson makes this allegation in a much more subtle way, and allows for the possibility that MJ may have simply just wanted to not be anything; not black, not white, not man, not woman, not straight, not gay. An individual existing outside the constructed parameters of our existence, a ‘’weirdo’ whose inherent weirdness allowed for any allegation brought against him to seem true. But Jefferson also gives a paranoid reading of MJ and the allegations and essentially says “ok, he did it. What does that say about our society and culture?” Jefferson concludes that our culture directly forced MJ to be a predator, that there could have never been another way for him. It strikes me that this book could never be written today, in that it does not seek to cancel MJ insofar as it seeks to examine “why is MJ? How is MJ?”
Jefferson’s writing lacks only in one regard: the final section of the book, which focuses on MJ’s Trial, provides a convincing account that at least one of the MJ accusers is an outright liar who was moulded by a notably greedy mother to craft a tale of hot-air balloon kidnapping and other fantastic claims. The rest of the book features a casual assertion that MJ is, in fact, guilty. The final section confuses Jefferson’s overall point, in that by acknowledging that maybe the accusers are lying, the entire concept of Jefferson’s vision of MJ is shattered. Perhaps this is intentional, but I would’ve preferred Jefferson to choose a side. Yet, the inability to choose a side is the root of my fascination with MJ, and I suspect the root of many other’s fascination. We will never know if he did it, the question can never be answered. Yet, MJ remains a fascinating figure to consider and think about. The greatest symbol of America and American culture (pre-Trump era of course. Although Trump and MJ were good friends (the Youtube rabbit hole beckons once again) so maybe they act as twin symbols of the American experience more so than separate eras)
Although it is conventional for people to assert that MJ was transgendered and unable to confront the fact, Jefferson makes this allegation in a much more subtle way, and allows for the possibility that MJ may have simply just wanted to not be anything; not black, not white, not man, not woman, not straight, not gay. An individual existing outside the constructed parameters of our existence, a ‘’weirdo’ whose inherent weirdness allowed for any allegation brought against him to seem true. But Jefferson also gives a paranoid reading of MJ and the allegations and essentially says “ok, he did it. What does that say about our society and culture?” Jefferson concludes that our culture directly forced MJ to be a predator, that there could have never been another way for him. It strikes me that this book could never be written today, in that it does not seek to cancel MJ insofar as it seeks to examine “why is MJ? How is MJ?”
Jefferson’s writing lacks only in one regard: the final section of the book, which focuses on MJ’s Trial, provides a convincing account that at least one of the MJ accusers is an outright liar who was moulded by a notably greedy mother to craft a tale of hot-air balloon kidnapping and other fantastic claims. The rest of the book features a casual assertion that MJ is, in fact, guilty. The final section confuses Jefferson’s overall point, in that by acknowledging that maybe the accusers are lying, the entire concept of Jefferson’s vision of MJ is shattered. Perhaps this is intentional, but I would’ve preferred Jefferson to choose a side. Yet, the inability to choose a side is the root of my fascination with MJ, and I suspect the root of many other’s fascination. We will never know if he did it, the question can never be answered. Yet, MJ remains a fascinating figure to consider and think about. The greatest symbol of America and American culture (pre-Trump era of course. Although Trump and MJ were good friends (the Youtube rabbit hole beckons once again) so maybe they act as twin symbols of the American experience more so than separate eras)
April 7, 2020
I heard about this book after the HBO documentary last year and while I don't remember the exact context of the recommendation, I remember it was brought up to show how a lot of the things his defenders say have some inconsistencies. While this book isn't a definitive expose that complements the documentary, it has some more insight on the Jackson family. I left with more questions than answers, and I wish the writing had more substance than style, but it at least put his legacy/reputation in a societal context, from PT Barnum to the classism at the 2005 trial.
Read
July 7, 2018I Think I like This Book
June 14, 2023
I was left wanting a little more. Though the book is slim it took me longer to read because it got me looking up mentioned performanes.
May 2, 2012
This sometimes feels like an overlong grad student paper. Although the author is quite intelligent, I often felt like she was more in love with her own writing than anyone else could ever be. She can be quite clever and occasionally tickled me with assertions such as, “Knowing Michael had not one, but two sons named Prince Michael, Jermaine would trump him, upping the ante on black nomenclature, by christening his son Jermajesty.” She is best when writing about the Jackson family, at which point she combines pop psychology with wry wit. The sections on fame, commodity, race and gender tend to become dry with academic vernacular and occasionally overreaching. However, interesting parallels are drawn between young Michael and Shirley Temple, and old Michael and faded stars like Doris Day and Brigitte Bardot “who cope with the passage of time by retreating to a protective haven that excludes most other adults. There they devote themselves to loving creatures that need protection, usually dogs.” The author then points to Diana Ross and Elizabeth Taylor as providing this form of mothering, and then takes it a step further by saying that Michael too became like these divas when he started sheltering child stars such as Emmanuel Lewis and Macaulay Culkin. Overall, there are some interesting ideas and some pleasing zingers, but I’m not sure it was worth my time in the end. Glad I finally got around to reading it, though.
Read
February 20, 2008so, i got through it. it took a little over an hour and i'm irritated that i will never get that time back. there's no reason to even review this piece of crap, so i'll just repeat what i said @ the book club meeting when asked, "what'd you think?":
it was like a really long magazing article. an article you'd only read b/c you were in the hair salon and the chatter of the other patrons and/or the stylist was somehow more annoying than the article. and you forgot your book. and there were no other magazines there. and you'd read the rest of the magazine backwards and forwards already, twice. and amazingly, even though you'd stayed up late the night prior and then got up early to get into the salon and get the good/hottest dryer that morning, you still couldn't get to sleep under the hot dryer!
can you tell i hated it?! *eyeroll*
----------------------------------------------------
i can't believe i have to read this for book club. *barf*
it was like a really long magazing article. an article you'd only read b/c you were in the hair salon and the chatter of the other patrons and/or the stylist was somehow more annoying than the article. and you forgot your book. and there were no other magazines there. and you'd read the rest of the magazine backwards and forwards already, twice. and amazingly, even though you'd stayed up late the night prior and then got up early to get into the salon and get the good/hottest dryer that morning, you still couldn't get to sleep under the hot dryer!
can you tell i hated it?! *eyeroll*
----------------------------------------------------
i can't believe i have to read this for book club. *barf*
June 16, 2010
Consider this a 3.5 star review rounded up to four, because there are no half-stars, apparently. I got this yesterday for (literally) a song--it was on the dollar rack at my Brookline Booksmith (I confess I go there far too often for someone like myself who has way too many books already and not nearly enough money).
I wanted to like this book more than I did. It's certainly the start of something important and worthwhile (it was published in 2006, not long before his death), and it contains many salient points and cogent analyses. But in the end, it sort of falls back on a kind of shorthand, lacking the due diligence to really pursue some of the implications of her arguments through to the end.
It's really quite short, though, and can be read in one sitting. That's always a plus.
I wanted to like this book more than I did. It's certainly the start of something important and worthwhile (it was published in 2006, not long before his death), and it contains many salient points and cogent analyses. But in the end, it sort of falls back on a kind of shorthand, lacking the due diligence to really pursue some of the implications of her arguments through to the end.
It's really quite short, though, and can be read in one sitting. That's always a plus.
September 2, 2012
Beautiful, lyrical prose offers the reader a different way to think about Michael Jackson by addressing the idea of a "monster child." Sometimes, the writer meanders and the voice is extremely present, which makes the book a bit disconcerting at first (and hard to get through). But once you start reading it on its own terms rather than your own, you start to wonder more and more about the voice telling the story. The voice implicates us, the reader, the audience, in a clever way so by the end of it, we are not sure who Michael Jackson is, but even more confused, not just about him, but our relationship to him as well.
August 3, 2010
Brain candy or junk food for the brain - quick to read, hard to put down (Lay's - you can't just have one!), and about as substantial as fast food. But it was a page-turner. The book was written three years before Jackson's death, but it pretty much summarizes what anyone with half a brain was already thinking - that Michael Jackson ceased to exist as a human after Thriller. Highly recommended for those stuck in a traffic jam/standing in a line.
November 21, 2014
Seriously one of the most horribly written books I have ever read! If this were not required reading for a class I'm taking, I would have put it back down after the first page! Margo Jefferson sets the stage right from the start for just how awful this book will be. She doesn't write anything based on interviews she conducted, or personal interactions of any kind. This entire book is her negatively biased opinion of tabloids and other heresay. I would NOT recommend this book to anyone
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews