Michael Jackson: He never had a chance

I read Andrew's post and am happy to see Rod's link and comment here. And I agree with Rod's sentiments, along with those of Andrew and Michael Kinsley.

Michael Jackwas was an immensely talented individual who was destroyed by celebrity and all the stuff that comes with it.

And all the more sad because his father promoted the celebrity.

Since you wrote about the sexually pawned porno career of Marilyn Chambers when she died...more than once...it would only be fair that you mention too the death today of Texas born and American white bread Farrah Fawcett, whose sexuality was guileless and uniquely All-American wholesome.

At the site http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/06/huge-spike-in-michael-jackson-traffic-strains-web-sites.html it says that the death of Michael Jackson has increased traffic on their site by as much as 100 percent!

As a person who listened to him as a teenager but realises that, as you say, his impact was more in the field of business than in actual musical innovation, it is strange that someone compared him to the ancient castrati: I feel he, when his obvious business acumen with the Beatles' catalogue is considered, that Michael Jackson had more in common with the "robber barons" of the past in his skill at giving a product to the masses combined with cultural views that were generally very liberal.

Well, he touched a lot of people during his life.

I wonder if the TV news people know how many of their audience turned on the TV several times this afternoon and evening and finding nothing but wall-to-wall Jackson coverage, switched to HGTV or turned it off and went to do something else. Do they know what a huge number of people think of Michael Jackson as only a freakish Hollywoodite and child abuser? How many people wouldn't recognize MJ's music, or if the tune was familiar, would not associate it with him? To compare him to the Beatles or Elvis is just ludicrous. Broke the color line? Are we supposed to forget Armstrong, Ellington, Vaughn and hundreds more?

I think statements about his unhappiness and loneliness are slightly exaggerated. After all he had children, just read how he writes about them in an article on this very site, he doesn't sound like a hopeless wreck, "who died a while ago".
A girl from our office liked Michael very much, she wanted to go to his concert in London, had big portrait on desktop. Now she can't believe this news is true..(

And with all respect for education and musical taste of A.Sullivan, practicing homosexual who claims to be Roman Catholic (or generally Christian) is by far more bizarre and insane than Michael Jackson with all his whims, IMO.

I quit, this is about the humpteenth time capcha has lost my post, get the damn thing fixed.

it's like something (someone) great has left this life.......never to be seen or heard again......so it left me a immense sadness and lost

1) Without disputing that Michael Jackson's father was a tyrannical and indeed abusive show business parent, I'm not aware of any evidence that he was history's greatest monster. To the extent we have reason to attribute Michael Jackson's odd behavior to his father's abuse, it's because Jackson himself constantly excused his behavior on that basis. To some extent, I'm willing to credit that, but the extremity of Jackson's behavior over the last 27 years (since he recorded Thriller in 1982) suggests that that claim was somewhat self-serving.

2) I am reminded once again of this remark by Bill Murray: "I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'Try being rich first.' See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job."

Because not every crunchy con is dominated by fear, suspicion, and insecurity; some are willing to read worthwhile writing from outside of the bubble.

Sure, but that still doesn't answer my question: why would anyone (a crunch con in particular) waste time on Andrew Sullivan? His Trig Trutherism alone marks him as seriously mentally ill. While we might have a horrible fascination with the scribblings of a psychotic, we don't generally take them as serious journalism or thoughtful moral reflection.

Sorry, but it just has to be said: Shut up, Nomlik. We're talking about an entirely different subject here.

I realize there is a strong homophile demimonde that polices the comboxes here at Crunchy Con (or is it just the comboxes: Andrew Sullivan eulogizing Michael Jackson?), but according to the last book of logic I checked "shut up" is not an argument.

I'm sorry the conversation's not going in the direction that you desire, but I am genuinely interested in why Rod Dreher, whose indignation at the pedophile sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church led him out of that communion, cites the reflections of a noted homosexual propagandist about the passing of a noted pedophile so approvingly. (He frequently cites Sullivan in other matters as well and has AS's link prominent in his blogroll.)

It's a psychic disconnect that I don't fathom.

Nomilk,

First, I don't understand why opposing pedophilia would preclude someone from linking to a blogger who is openly homosexual.

Second, approvingly citing a story about a noted pedophile does not equal approving of the actions of said pedophile.

I'm really not sure where you're going here.

In a 1995 article in The New Republic entitled "Hooked," jazz critic Stanley Crouch wrote that Michael Jackon's work, "at its core, is a summation of the inflated failure that now dominates our popular arts, where the value of youth is hysterically championed at the expense of a mature sense of life. This exploits the insecurity of young people by telling them, over and over, that never growing up is the best defense against an oppressive world where fun isn’t given its proper due. That kind of exploitation has made Michael Jackson the King of Pop.”

In addition to the sociological commentary, Crouch offered this aesthetic judgement:

“Jackson delivers a shallow version of gospel, some maudlin rhythm and blues, uses the false bravado of hard rock inflection, postures as a love child reciting the pieties necessary for world peace, stoops to the vulgar gestures that are a priggish shorthand for lower class rage, alludes to the spanking that paddles under the brand name of sadomasochism and executes a few leftover Jackson Five steps that serve as quicksilver interludes within a choreographed synthesis of cheerleading moves, navy signaling without flags and aerobic exercises.”

Michael Jackson's music was never really my thing, even at the height of his popularity. But he was everywhere when I was growing up, and this feels like another part of my past is dead and buried.

MTV was actually playing many of his videos this morning (MTV playing music videos? Imagine that!). While the music was familiar (and in some cases still ridiculous...I remember laughing with my friends at Jackson trying to be "Bad"), I have to say that I'd forgotten just how good of a dancer he was.

John E.

Well, he touched a lot of people during his life.

And yet it's hard, even now, not to see that as a setup to a Michael Jackson joke.

Andrew Sullivan is one of the most important public intellectuals currently writing. That you don't like his sex life does not diminish his place in the public square as a writer and thinker.

Andrew? Is that you?

If your assessment bore any relationship to the truth, the only possible response would be: o tempora, o mores!

And, funny enough, I don't recall mentioning AS's sex life. My concerns are other issues he's "ahead of the curve" on: his Trig Trutherism, his pamphleteering for the Caliphate of Sodom, and, apparently (I don't know because I stopped looking at his blog), his growing antisemitism:

http://newledger.com/2009/06/through-the-looking-glass-with-andrew-sullivan/

Nomilk,

I don't know what O.J. has to do with it. The guilt or innocense of one has nothing to do with that the other.

FTR, and to put it simply, I'm convinced OJ is guilty, but I don't know what to think about Jackson's case(s).

Thanks, Nomilk, for putting a smile on my face.

Michael Jackson was responsible, ultimately, for what he became. But he wasn't wholly responsible for it, or perhaps even mostly responsible for it.

But when you look for the genesis of the tragic freak show that was the King of Pop, all roads lead back to Gary, Ind. For what it's worth:

http://revolution-21.blogspot.com/2009/06/child-who-never-was.html

I cannot help but to make a comparison with Elvis. Two extremely talented entertainers who became larger than life pop culture figures that dominated their generation. Both were rewarded with riches, fan loyality and media obsession that boardered on idolitry. But with fame came isolation. With money came the means to self-indulge. Both created a life disconnected from reality. Each went from being a cultural icon to being a cultural parody. They were creations, as well as victims, of a shallow American celebrity culture. While both died young, Jackson at 50 and Elvis at 42, for each their best work was behind them.

To paraphase St. Thomas More, "What profit a man if he lose his own soul but to be the King of Pop". Would it not have been better if Elvis remained a truck driver in Memphis and Jackson only sung in a high school choir in Geary? We may have been deprived of "Blue Suede Shoes" and "Thriller", but these men would have had a shot at living far more normal, and happier, lives. May they both rest in peace.

nicky, as has been said before...this is NOT e-bay!

Michael Jackson, and his music wasn't my cup of tea, however in the beginning, he was talented. But like a lot of "stars" he rose to the top, and fell in a slow burn...to the bottom. Unfortunately I do think he was a child molester, even though not totally proven. His early death is not a surprise.

I do think there's probably more involved than just being a music prodigy with a bad father. I think there are several musicians who'd fit that description, but who did not become as strange as Jackson. For that matter his siblings, who granted are a bit strange, are nevertheless not quite as strange as him. Janet Jackson, boobgate aside, almost seems normal and she was quite famous in her own right. (And she was in "Good Times" at a fairly young age)

So I think it might be a mix of nature and nurture. Perhaps he was psychologically fragile by nature and the stresses he faced just made that ten times worse.

On a different matter I mostly agree with you, Nomilk, about Sullivan and do find the occasional link to his blog surprising. Although in my case it's not about Sullivan's homosexuality, but his histrionic muckraking and paranoia. He's the modern Walter Winchell in some ways. (Including the shifting politics, except Winchell went Left to Right I think. Granted Winchell was very hetero) Still I think this is an issue for another discussion.

"By the end -- and in fact, long before the end -- the poor man ceased to be a person, and became instead a pathology."

I'm having a hard time with this statement, Rod. Even if he was mentally ill, he was still a person. People with lowered mental capacity, or people with drug problems, or people with different appearances are still human. Having a troublesome life does not take one's humanity away.

I know for a fact that as a child they were not always rich and growing up poor made him comfortable and accustomed to sleeping with others, as they had to due to living in a small space. It was an innocent thing to do. Besides, you don't have to sleep in the bed with someone to molest them. That is the part that irritates me. I am not convinced. I believe that Michael is inoccent and I know that he'd be embarrassed by what I am about to say next but I hope that he is buried upside down so that that all of you evil MJ haters can kiss his a@% forever..