No, it doesn't have to be a hagiography, but let me put it this way: For years I have been reading stories from MJ's collaborators. Interviews, their Facebook accounts, stories coming out from seminars, documentaries etc. Most of the same people who are quoted in these extracts from the book. There was nothing that painted MJ in the light that he seems to be painted in this book - at least if we go by the review above. Brad Buxer told about his contribution to SIM before (although he also told a different story even before that - ie. that the chords were created initially for the Sonic game by MJ and him and that's what they decided to use for SIM) but in the extract from this book now it is claimed that he wrote all of the music which is BS. We know that MJ wrote the melody, for example, which is not mentioned in the extract I read about the song. (Hagiography or not, it IS at least mentioned in Vogel's book. Brad obviously doesn't dispute that claim since he read the part about SIM from Vogel's book at the Brad 2x seminar.) We also know SIM would not have been born without MJ's input. It's one thing to say Brad should have been given co-credit. It's another to go to the other extreme and now make it look like MJ had nothing to do with the music and it was all Brad. It sounds like with every telling of the story of SIM Brad's role gets bigger and bigger and MJ's gets lesser and lesser. To be fair, it's not who is Brad saying that in the book, it is the author who puts it that way. Brad's quotes in themselves are not bad.
But let's forget song credits. The review also makes it look like MJ was a major a**hole to his colleagues. Treated them poorly (actually in one of the extracts from the book even the word "abusive" is used supposedly quoting Bill Bottrell). How come that this is the major impression the book manages to leave behind about MJ when we have dozens of testimonies from colleagues - again, mostly the same people who are quoted in this book - and most of them rave about what a pleasure it was to work with MJ, what an extremely kind, polite person he was? I am sure MJ had his bad days, like all of us do, but generally when you read first hand accounts about him the picture you get is that this was a generally very kind, very polite guy who had great respect to his collaborators and went out of his way to treat them very well. Eg. we heard about family dinners he had with his co-workers in the studio, we heard about him being extremely apologetic if he did not show up, sending them a basket of DVDs as gifts to "compensate" them etc. I am sure there were times when he disappeared for days and did not send them any gift to "compensate", but actually he did not have to if they were on his payroll during those days. That there were times when he did that was an extra little bit of kindness on his part, not an obligation. While I am sure MJ was not a saint and no, he doesn't have to be portrayed as one, and while I am sure he had his bad moods when he was less kind than usual, but when you read first hand testimonies about what it was like to work with MJ the general picture is that this was a very nice, very kind, very generous guy who was a pleasure to work with.
How did then this author manage to portray him as the opposite in the book? Well, if the review is really true - that is. Again, of course, I am talking about what is in the review ("will also make you think much less of Michael as both a person and an artist", "in quite a few cases Mike treated his collaborators poorly", "what a c**d person Michael had become" etc.). Maybe it is the review that is twisting the book's content, we will see when someone else gets to read it. But for now I can only talk about what is in reviews and extracts. This is why I said earlier that an author is more than capable of taking generally positive stories and turn them into rather negative ones if that is his agenda. One way to do is that if there are small negative stories you blow those out of proportion and represent those as the rule, when in fact, the rule was that MJ generally was very kind and treated his collegaues well. (Of course, it is quite possible that it is not the book that is doing this, but the reviewer.) Again, I am not saying this because I see him as a saint, but because this is what I have read directly from his collaborators so far. So if the book managed to turn all those generally positive accounts of MJ as a person into MJ being an a**hole, then it isn't an honest book IMO.
Same about his artistry. Maybe some credits are debatable in one way or another, but if the focus is disportionately on that while conviniently leaving out information about MJ's own contributions (eg. not mentioning that he wrote the melody for SIM) and not representing all the positive accounts of his creative genius proportionately then I don't know how much we can consider this book as something that is "setting the record straight". And BTW, I wouldn't put too much trust into ANY book. You have to consider the sources, the general goal of a book (in this case already the title "Making Michael" seems to set a direction). It sounds like this book is more about praising his collaborators than about a focus on MJ's genius. Which wouldn't be surprising considering everything in the book is told through these collaborator's filter (and of course, they will have some bias for themselves - that's human nature) while MJ's own point of view doesn't get represented. Since the author met the collaborators but did not meet MJ himself he too might have a bias for the collaborators as opposed to MJ. This renders the book to be inevitably one-sided. Of course, it can still carry lots of useful, truthful and never before heard information. I just wouldn't take anything in it as the gospel truth that "sets the record straight". I take it for what it is. Stories told through the filters of MJ's collaborators and in this author's arrangement and interpretation, at a time when MJ is not here to tell his side of the story.
