September GQ Magazine Article on Michael

[ItsALLforLOVE]

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_10577

BACK IN THE DAY

Before the weirdness claimed his legacy, Michael Jackson understood his talent—and what he was willing to do for it—better than we ever have

By John Jeremiah Sullivan

HOW DO YOU talk about Michael Jackson unless you begin with Prince Screws? Prince Screws was an Alabama cotton-plantation slave who became a tenant farmer after the Civil War, likely on his old master's land. His son, Prince Screws Jr., bought a small farm. And that man's son, Prince Screws III, left home for Indiana, where he found work as a Pullman porter, part of the exodus of southern blacks to the northern industrial cities.

There came a disruption in the line. This last Prince Screws, the one who went north, would have no sons. He had two daughters, Kattie and Hattie. Kattie gave birth to ten children, the eighth a boy, Michael—who would name his sons Prince, to honor his mother, whom he adored, and to signal a restoration. So the ridiculous moniker given by a white man to his black slave, the way you might name a dog, was bestowed by a black king upon his pale-skinned sons and heirs.

We took the name for an affectation and mocked it.

Not to imply that it was above mockery, but of all the things that make Michael unknowable, thinking we knew him is maybe the most deceptive. Lets suspend it.

Its a long article.... more here http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_10577

 

[ItsALLforLOVE]

I tried to search GQ, but nothing came up. Sorry if this is a repost.

 

[Naad]

i'm confused

 

[Naad]

wow its a long article

 

[shimar]

i'm confused

Michael named his sons Prince I and II to honor his maternal grandfather & great-grandfather & great-great grandfather.

 

[xXMJJXx]

I think this has been posted before and I think its an awful article if read the whole thing it basically says mj is old and a pedo and:
"Before the weirdness claimed his legacy" come on the person who wrote this is a moron and an mj hater

 

[Naad]

Michael named his sons Prince I and II to honor his maternal grandfather & great-grandfather & great-great grandfather.

oh ok, thanks for the clear up th:

 

[gummy]

Michael named his sons Prince I and II to honor his maternal grandfather & great-grandfather & great-great grandfather.

Yeah, I read that somewhere before. But he was/is the king, and Prince is a fitting name for his sons anyway.

 

[shimar]

I think this has been posted before and I think its an awful article if read the whole thing it basically says mj is old and a pedo and:
"Before the weirdness claimed his legacy" come on the person who wrote this is a moron and an mj hater

I agree with you - it started out great and then suddenly - like accidentally stepping into dog poo wearing your brand new shows - the article turns into an "I think Ian Halperin is right" piece.

Blech.

 

[ItsALLforLOVE]

It has some interesting quotes, stories, lines that I have not read or heard before, but the writer did go negative and WHY even give Halperin any kind of credit....

Ugh...

 

[IRide4MJ4Ever]

i'm confused

Me too.

 

[LisaB]

I read half of the first sentence and realized it would be a lesson in futility to read that piece. I have to give some people here props for being so strong-minded because I don't have the heart to read alot of the articles people write.

 

[tarah86]

I read the article in the store. I like some of the info in the middle of it but I didn't like the "When Michael was cool" crap on the cover. And them suggesting MJ was a passive-aggressive pedophile(saying subconsciously he wanted to be with little boys but was arguing with himself on whether he should do it). Then I saw they were quoting Halperin and I just put the book back. I was not buying that garbage. Basically gave MJ a back-handed compliment.

 

[LisaB]

Doesn't it make you angry that out-right MJ haters and liars can publish book and make money off MJ's name? Shouldn't there be a law that a slanderous book on a personality should not be allowed to make any money?

And what makes me even more delirious with disbelief is when admirers go and purchase the work of this hack and try to use quotations from it etc.

 

[indranee]

I agree with you - it started out great and then suddenly - like accidentally stepping into dog poo wearing your brand new shows - the article turns into an "I think Ian Halperin is right" piece.

Blech.

yeah, it was almost like the author suddenly realized that he had to somehow get his "journalistic credentials" back, so he stopped saying the good things and started the badmouthing.

yuck. it left a bad taste in my mouth.

ironic that he used Ian Halperin (roflmao!) to get those credentials back. a futile effort, IMO.

 

[ani_geleia]

I read the article in the store. I like some of the info in the middle of it but I didn't like the "When Michael was cool" crap on the cover. And them suggesting MJ was a passive-aggressive pedophile(saying subconsciously he wanted to be with little boys but was arguing with himself on whether he should do it). Then I saw they were quoting Halperin and I just put the book back. I was not buying that garbage. Basically gave MJ a back-handed compliment.

Then, it's not worthy reading this article.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Adore]

stopped reading after 'Screws' - if his research is so sloppy he can't even spell the name right then it's probably full of crap

 

[movingcoolcat]

I read the whole article, What I found interesting is the part fascination, part loathing that seem to be in all articles that try to write about Michael in an "intelligent" way.
There is a deep ambivalence in how more "educated" ( he used the term "burgouis" witch I think is descriptive). Whenever I read journalists like this, I tend to think that they would be better served by analyzing the societies reaction towards Michael. In my opinion, its "us" ( as consumers, readers, critics etc...) and media that needs to be analyzed. because when you see the rage Michael seem to have awakened in some people, and especially in people that work in the media- its is interesting. There has to be some reason for this rage.

If you read between the lines, this man has a lot of admiration for Mchael. But he cops out, trying to keep his mask of indifference- but fascination. And that is part of the problem with articles like this. If the writer do not acknowledge that his views are HIS- and not reality, its not a good article. Because it becomes the journalists personal views, presented as reality.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Michael named his sons Prince I and II to honor his maternal grandfather & great-grandfather & great-great grandfather

prince michael jr is offically michael joseph jr and blanket is prince, michael being his middle name if u believe blankets birth cetificate as it looks abit dodgy

 

[johnlucas]

stopped reading after 'Screws' - if his research is so sloppy he can't even spell the name right then it's probably full of crap

That was their name. It was Screws. Prince Albert Screws.
Obviously that name leads to a double entendre so they modified the spelling to Scruse.

Hattie & Kattie. Kattie picked the more refined name of Katherine. This is what happened. Writer had some good insight in this article. I'm impressed...at least in the earlier parts before he went south with perpetuating those villainous insinuations.

John Lucas

 

[mjjfan4ever]

yeah, it was almost like the author suddenly realized that he had to somehow get his "journalistic credentials" back, so he stopped saying the good things and started the badmouthing. :clapping:

yuck. it left a bad taste in my mouth.

ironic that he used Ian Halperin (roflmao!) to get those credentials back. a futile effort, IMO.

ain't giving them my precious time, attention, or money.

WHATEVER YOU ARE SELLING, I AIN'T BUYING..... GQ! Cause it ain't stand for Good Quality. :evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:

 

[indranee]

I read the whole article, What I found interesting is the part fascination, part loathing that seem to be in all articles that try to write about Michael in an "intelligent" way.
There is a deep ambivalence in how more "educated" ( he used the term "burgouis" witch I think is descriptive). Whenever I read journalists like this, I tend to think that they would be better served by analyzing the societies reaction towards Michael. In my opinion, its "us" ( as consumers, readers, critics etc...) and media that needs to be analyzed. because when you see the rage Michael seem to have awakened in some people, and especially in people that work in the media- its is interesting. There has to be some reason for this rage.

If you read between the lines, this man has a lot of admiration for Mchael. But he cops out, trying to keep his mask of indifference- but fascination. And that is part of the problem with articles like this. If the writer do not acknowledge that his views are HIS- and not reality, its not a good article. Because it becomes the journalists personal views, presented as reality.

you're got some interesting thoughts here. I agree.

 

[smooth_criminal05]

I don't like this article. Even the tagline on the front cover states "When Michael Was Cool". Screw them, I'm not buying that shit.

 

[Ohood]

i wish some fan can make use of all the stories we read now adays in the websites and magazines and make a good book filled with direct quotes from famous ppl who met Michael and worked with him personally.

this fan will make millions.