Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011
I'd expect that the target readership for the book is primarily Michael Jackson fans. The general public is probably on "Jackson overload," given the almost non-stop trial coverage by HLN, and significant coverage in other news media?
So, I'm not understanding what, exactly, it is that Michael's fans need "cleared up" or "explained," that has not been discussed many times before? I doubt that by now there is ONE person on this board who doesn't know that in Michael's life he had physical pain, and that he sometimes had difficulties with prescription medications? Is there even ONE person here who doesn't know this? Given the extreme, and sadly necessary, invasions of the trial is there ONE person who doesn't now know that Michael had a history with propofol for sleep, sometimes, when preparing to tour, or touring? Does anyone here need that "cleared up" for them? Is there ANYONE here who does NOT know that Michael was not a child-molester? Is there anyone here, at all, who needs this "cleared up?" We KNOW he was not.
We don't need these things "cleared up," or "explained" to us. Not really. And, what was likely to happen is already HAPPENING, that promos for the book and commentaries on the book are already picking up on the NEGATIVE things that Frank has said and written. I don't need to READ the book to know ALREADY that there is discussion of drugs, and other personal things about Michael, in it, and for that reason, I wish it had not been written, or at least, that Frank had WAITED and reflected a bit, before (or, not at all!) making public things that I'm really pretty sure Michael would not have wanted him to discuss.
"Objectivity" INCLUDES context, for Michael's fans. The book didn't just drop from the sky with no history or future in terms of Frank. The general public might not know, but we DO, some of Frank's history, and we know about the unfortunate interview he gave, and its terrible timing. That context cannot possibly be separated now from the book, because the context is THERE, and real, and this book does not stand in isolation from it's context.
I don't "hate" Frank. I simply do not want to hear from him again, about Michael. Liza Minelli didn't find it "necessary" to write a book about Michael -- her friend -- nor did Liz Taylor, Chris Tucker, Brett Ratner, nor McCauley Culkin, nor Diana Ross. Given the SHREDDING Michael has received before, during, and after the trial, this is not a book that is necessary, nor is it welcome, for very, very many fans. We are all trying to heal, particularly now, from the horrors of the trial. The very LAST thing I think we need is more discussion of "Michael's drug use," no matter how sympathetic Frank seems to be. Personally, I want those discussions to be GONE. I get it.
There is also the factor of Michael's children. Suppose I'd "gotten stoned in the mountains" with a friend of mine? And that friend wrote about something I never would have intended my child to know? I'll tell you right now, I'd DUMP that friend for violating my privacy. . . . . if that information were made available to my child. No doubt, that person would be GONE from my life. Is this different? Really? That book will be out there, and the commentary on the book will be out there. It already IS, and the chances that Michael's children will encounter that commentary and discussion, are very high. I honestly can't see how this is different from a friend saying things that his/her friend's CHILDREN could encounter, that should not be out there in the public. The difference from my analogy of "dumping that friend" is that Michael is no longer here to express his disapproval, or his desire for his children to be as protected as much as possible from a "friend" making things that should be private. . PUBLIC. Hasn't there already been enough of that? I'm sure that Michael's children are trying to heal from the trial and its excesses, too. Michael is gone, and can't be hurt anymore. But, his children CAN be.
There is really nothing that I can imagine that Frank can "clear up," that we don't already know. And as for the general public? I expect few will buy and read the book, and all they will know are those sensationalized things that are already being reported on. I don't hate Frank. Mostly, I'm indifferent. I just don't think that's the way a friend should treat a friend.
And Ivy? I do see your point, about "objectivity." Problem is, with all the advance publicity, and now the quotes from the book -- I do think that's enough to make a determination that it will only add to the negativity-overload, no matter how many good things Frank has to say. I think the damage is already done, in terms of a skewed emphasis on "drugs" in the media comments on the book, instead of about Michael's humanitarian good-works, amazing artistry, and parenting.
