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?"