Susan Fast: Michael Jackson's Dangerous (33 1/3) - the book is released

How am I bringing in MJ's PRIVATE life by referring to a PUBLIC video/performance--a concert that was broadcast on TV?? OMG.

How am I becoming one of the critics who can't see him as sexy with a woman??

This is nuts.

I am expressing what I don't see so much in the ITC but that does not mean he was not capable of being sexy with or without a female onstage in public. In TWYMMF he runs after a hot babe on stage, scantily clad, etc--and it is hot, yes, but I don't need that to know that MJ is hot--he is hot without that other female strutting around on stage. I think the chemistry in the video w. Tatiana was better than with Noami--but I guess saying that is going to cause another claim thst I am an MJ hater or getting close to one--LOL.

This is getting way too personal and an attack on me, which is totally uncalled for and inappropriate.

I merely questioned--ages ago--the claim by Fast that MJ reached a sexualized adult hotness in Dangerous b/c IMO he showed that before. Get it????

Sigh.

Saying that IMO you are mixing his private life in the discussion is a "personal attack on you"? :smilerolleyes:

My point is that of course, there will going to be more chemistry with someone who he was really in love with than with someone who he wasn't. But didn't we go astray a bit with the whole discussion about chemistry with this or that woman? Because Fast's point is not about with whom MJ had more chemistry. It's about which one of his performances were more sexualized.

To me it was interesting that you went back to that performance with Diana and did not compare ITC to his other videos and performances in video where he was with other female partners. Upside Down has a somewhat unfair advantage over his other performances with women since he was in love with Diana (that's the bringing his private life into it in my view).

At least now you named TWYMMF as being more credible and having more chemistry to you than ITC. Which is interesting because the things you have criticized in ITC (MJ and Naomi not dancing with each other, Naomi not being a great dancer, not touching each other etc) are there in TWYMMF as well - actually even more so than in ITC. In fact MJ was often criticized for the video being "anti-climax" when they only hug at the end. I do not agree with that criticism and I think MJ had chemistry with Tatiana as well, but I cannot see it as more chemistry than with Naomi. But that's a subjective judgement and again the whole chemistry thing is a bit of a moot point. Fast's point was about sexualized performances, not chemistry.

I understand that you are trying to say that MJ reached sexualized adult hotness before Dangerous and that was your point, but you were the one who brought in a spontaneous 10 second performance with Diana Ross on stage in support of that. And that's IMO is crossing over to MJ's private life because the reason why that scene had such great chemistry is because MJ was really in love with Diana. (And again: it had chemistry, but it was not a sexualized performance. There's a difference!) I think it would have been more fair if we compare his performance with Naomi to those of with Ola Ray or Tatiana. And to me he is more sexualized and daring in ITC than he has ever been before with other female partners in his videos.

3a9adcf587b9.jpg


3c4f4c0fd5ab.jpg


55562954b31d.jpg


Michael_Jackson_-_In_the_closet15.jpg


069z.jpg


itc2.gif


018r.gif


2a7smqa.gif


280od50.gif


150861_350610368392021_531420883_n.jpg


IntheCloset.gif~c200


Need I say more? When did he ever go this far before?
 
Last edited:
With ITC I believe Michael definetely was more sexually explicit and bold than in any previous video and for never having a relationship of partners or lovers in the real life, both of them really had chemistry. It was belieable to me they were lovers in that short film.

If the released short was already sexy, sexual, just imagine all the hot steaming behind the scenes we haven't seen... :heat: I think Michael is smiling here. I never saw him awkward.

10547665_604469956337956_6276619690554961454_n.jpg
 
It didn't let me edit my previous post to add this video where those hawt gifs came from. Damn I wanted to be Naomi so bad in that short.

I really don't understand why people in the media deny to acknowledge how sexy and sensual Michael could be. I'm just putting the hot scenes video but it looks like it originally came from a In The Closet special, the journalist was just calling sexy to Naomi, if I find it full, I'll post it. It didn't look hard for Michael being flirty and sensual either but at least the reporter said it was Michael's sexiest video ever.



 
Last edited:
Just to say that Armond White--probably now in his 60's--wrote a fantastic book about MJ called Keep Moving: The Michael Jackson Chronicles that was based on his reviews of MJ's videos going back to when they were released. He wrote a wonderful one on Black or White. He published before Vogel and Fast. He is a film critic, an African-American, and one of the few critics who defended MJ's genius with enthusiasm while MJ was alive. Vogel quotes from White a good deal in his book. To me it's better to look at what the critic says rather than how old he/she is.

i was referring to establishment critics in the mainstream who have generally been negative towards michael his entire career. obviously, there are exceptions. and i also said "recently".
 
Sorry to move on to a different tack, but I found Fast's notion of 'noise' very interesting. Here's why ...

For the past few months I have found myself breaking into "if there's somebody else, he can't love you like me ... " in the middle of the shower. Every time. And I could not understand it. Then I realised that whenever I turn off my shower head it makes a noise that sounds exactly like the beginning of Invincible. And that sub-consciously the song starts playing in my head and off I go.

I love how Michael made use of common or strange sounds or sound effects (or as Fast says 'noises') to build a song.
 
another great review http://stereoembersmagazine.com/mission-accomplished-susan-fasts-dangerous/

love the opening line: "Mission accomplished. Susan Fast’s new monograph on Michael Jackson’s Dangerous album is an utterly compelling, utterly intelligent reassessment of Jackson’s oft-maligned record of 1991 and a challenge to anyone who thinks that they have a grasp on Jackson’s controversial art."

i saw an exchange on twitter the other night with a well know music critic rehashing the same old stale sentiments about michael "he made singles not albums" "lost without quincy" etc etc., like the above quote says, most people think they have grasp on his art, but they really dont.

"Jackson’s most complex work as been largely ignored, mainly because of its richness and because it comes from a man whom many people unfairly assume not to be a deep thinker, a man whom many people assume to be singly striving for hit records."

yes! yes! yes!
 
Love the tiny format! Got the book yesterday and looking forward to reading it.
 
So this book is similar to man in the music? I still need to buy that one too.

Similar in what way? That it's about MJ's music, yes. Otherwise not really. It focuses on one album and the whole structure is different. And unlike Man in the Music it does not focus on background info on how a song was made, but on a scholarly analysis.
 
I read Man In The Music and I even ordered and read Earth Song The book to, I'm currently awaiting this book, so I'll be back to let you know what I think of this book.
 
Susan Fast's article

Michael Jackson: Posthuman

The album cover for Michael Jackson’s album Dangerous was painted by American pop-surrealist artist Mark Ryden. In it, he depicts a world in which the boundaries between human and animal, living and dead, whole and part, and celestial and terrestrial have been crossed and fused.

Surrealist painters like Ryden often aim to collapse such categories – to reconcile, in their art, what seems to be irreconcilable in life. But actually, this boundary-crossing does happen in life – increasingly so – and corresponds to what some have called posthumanism.

Cary Wolfe, an English Professor and author of the book What is Posthumanism, writes that we are “fundamentally prosthetic creatures,” that we rely on entities outside the self – other humans, animals, technology – in order to function and thrive.

In other words: the boundaries of our bodies and intellect are not as firm and finite as we want to believe.

Posthumanism also argues for the dismantling of the hierarchy that puts humans – largely because of our ability to “reason” – above other forms of life and technology.

Both of these ideas were central to Michael Jackson’s life and art.

It’s somewhat surprising that so few have considered him through this lens; instead, many have simply labeled him as weird or eccentric.

Yet Jackson’s entire career was defined by his rejection of normal boundaries. This includes not only the most obvious of these (race and gender) but also generational barriers, the limits of his physical body, and divisions among real and fictional species – not to mention the seamless way he could fuse artistic genres.

Jackson celebrated the prosthetic idea of the human in a number of ways. For example, through plastic surgery, cosmetic procedures, make-up, hair styles and costumes, he asks us not only to reconsider gender binaries (that’s the relatively easy part), but to question prevailing ideas about aesthetic beauty and what can be called “normal.” Our appearances are all products of outside intervention (even face creams and nail files count); Jackson’s extreme modifications could be thought of as a commentary on this.

Fictional boundary-crossing was also a characteristic of his artistic practice – where, at various points, he presented himself as a werewolf, a zombie, and a panther. In the film Moonwalker he morphs into a spaceship; in Ghosts, he becomes a dancing skeleton, a grotesque monster, and a gigantic face that blocks a doorway.

Ghosts, in fact, is a film in which he addresses the perception that he is a “freak” and “abnormal” directly. It’s remarkable that so much of his morphing in this film is focused on his face – an object of constant scrutiny and derision in the media.

In both his life and his art, he held out his body as a work in progress, fully open to and trusting in limitless experimentation. There’s quite a long tradition of artists who have engaged in body modification as a means through which to test the limits of the flesh, like Orlan and Stelarc.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Jackson’s physical changes was the lightening of his skin. We should keep in mind that this was the result of the skin disease vitiligo. It’s thought, erroneously, that his skin color simply got lighter, but it actually fluctuated – so much so that his intent was certainly far from wanting to “be” white, as many have concluded.

Instead, it’s possible that vitiligo – painful as it must have been for him – served as an opportunity to start a conversation about race and skin color. He wanted to challenge the idea of race as fixed or linked to biology, rather than socially constructed.

Jackson’s boundary-pushing extended to his notion of family, which can be described as a sort of “queer kinship.” This has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but with how he challenged normative ideas about what constitutes family. His family included animals (Bubbles the chimp, yes, but also Muscles the snake and Louis the llama). It included children (Jackson could still play like a child, with children, when he was an adult, testing ideas about the normal, linear progression from childhood to adulthood). It included older Hollywood starlets, like Elizabeth Taylor and Liza Minnelli (again breaking the boundaries of normative generational affiliation); and it included Frank Cascio’s middle-class family from New Jersey, which Jackson adopted as his own, regularly showing up and spending time at their home, where he vacuumed and made beds with Cascio’s mother.

Much of this has been viewed as pathological because it’s a way of building family that does not conform; it crosses boundaries not normally crossed.

This makes many people uncomfortable.

But Jackson’s vision of the body and of kinship were actually forward-looking, a kind of reaching beyond societal norms that is often celebrated in other artists and activists, but still viewed with great suspicion in Jackson’s case. Elsewhere, I have argued that this is because Jackson crossed so many boundaries simultaneously. It was the combination of social transgressions that caused people to fear – rather than celebrate – his difference.

It was also that he truly lived these transgressions: there was nothing to mitigate Jackson’s differences. When other mainstream artists, like Lady Gaga, transgress boundaries on stage, the impact is often lessened by their private lives, which conform to societal norms.

In a 1985 essay about Michael Jackson, James Baldwin wrote that “freaks are called freaks and are treated as they are treated – in the main, abominably – because they are human beings who cause to echo, deep within us, our most profound terrors and desires.”

Michael Jackson – gender ambiguous; adored and reviled; human, werewolf, panther; black, white, brown; child, adolescent, adult – shattered the assumptions of a society that craves neat categories and compartmentalization.

Order and normality are illusions, he said though his life and art.

http://theconversation.com/michael-jackson-posthuman-33351
 
I have read the book and I liked it a lot. This book is a major contribution to the study of Michael Jackson, packed with fresh, innovative ideas about Jackson's art. She sees Jackson's "Dangerous" album as a concept album, analyzing the album as a whole and the individual songs musically, socially and artistically. It is a brilliant book that any serious fan or student of Michael Jackson must read.
 
I haven't caught up on this thread but I've only just started reading Susan's book and I have to implore you all to buy it. This is exactly the kind of writing we need more of.

A lot of what Susan says in this book is at least what we've all been thinking for years, and for myself, haven't been able to articulate - particularly white attitudes in regard to Michael's place in music history and how he's regarded. And also how fantastically profound every inch of Michael's artistry is - a reflection on just how well read he was. At least when you consider Susan's perception.

And on a really rather trivial level, I was shocked that she points out the presence of 4 globes across the Dangerous short films - 5 if you include the album sleeve itself. And her relevation that Michael wears a wedding ring in the In the Closet video?! Drop yer jaw stuff. Get this book, man. We need to support this sort of literature.
 
Requested the book from my local library so it should be in my hands in the next few days! Can hardly wait!!

We absolutely need more works of this kind focusing on, analysing and discussing Michael's art (I actually find it such a disservice to art in general that we don't).
 
Last edited:
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I decided to start reading this last night.

I definitely agree we need more books like this, Susan clearly is passionate about the music but I am finding it hard to relate to some of her ideas. Kind of seems like she is going out of her way to use big words a lot too when it's a bit unnecessary, no need to make music sound more complicated than it is.

Only half way through but I love reading other people's deep interpretations to music and albums. I read another thread that there is possibly a HIStory one in the works? This would be great.
 
^She claimed Dangerous was a concept album! How laughable:rollin:

That's the part I'm struggling with. I can see her points for some things but I can't agree with this. I have not finished it but lumping Jam and WHy You Wanna Trip On Me in the first section and label them "noise" when WYWTOM is one of the subtler songs on the album is beyond me.
 
big words a lot too when it's a bit unnecessary, no need to make music sound more complicated than it is.

Only half way through but I love reading other people's deep interpretations to music and albums. I read another thread that there is possibly a HIStory one in the works? This would be great.

On the contrary, Michael Jackson is an extremely intricate character who went on in the 90s to create much more intricate tapestries than what had gone before. When people have so often glossed over Michael Jackson as a hit maker who ran out of steam by 1989, or even worse a gimmicky puppet who picked collaborators well, this sort of book stands as a rare example of someone willing to take Michael Jackson seriously as a creative force. You might not agree with all of her perceptions of Dangerous, but she absolutely nails some of them to the wall. Particularly, for me, in the race and sex aspects.

I've been checking back and I'm sure of the 16 titles that they have chosen to publish next, HIStory is not among them. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, could they reconsider further down the line?
 
On the contrary, Michael Jackson is an extremely intricate character who went on in the 90s to create much more intricate tapestries than what had gone before. When people have so often glossed over Michael Jackson as a hit maker who ran out of steam by 1989, or even worse a gimmicky puppet who picked collaborators well, this sort of book stands as a rare example of someone willing to take Michael Jackson seriously as a creative force. You might not agree with all of her perceptions of Dangerous, but she absolutely nails some of them to the wall. Particularly, for me, in the race and sex aspects.

I've been checking back and I'm sure of the 16 titles that they have chosen to publish next, HIStory is not among them. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, could they reconsider further down the line?

No, I do agree that Michael's work is much deeper than it sounds (you should hear what i gotta say about HIStory!), I may have written that wrong- I think I meant that for me she is digging deep in areas I can't relate to. I agree with many of her points but I'm finding it hard to share her opinions on a lot of things.

Other than that I guess I'm finding it good so far
 
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I decided to start reading this last night.

I definitely agree we need more books like this, Susan clearly is passionate about the music but I am finding it hard to relate to some of her ideas. Kind of seems like she is going out of her way to use big words a lot too when it's a bit unnecessary, no need to make music sound more complicated than it is.

Only half way through but I love reading other people's deep interpretations to music and albums. I read another thread that there is possibly a HIStory one in the works? This would be great.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...al-in-the-33-1-3-series?highlight=raven+woods

The proposed 33 1/3 book isn't happening but the author is still planning on writing a book anyway. Here's part of her analysis:

https://www.academia.edu/16633338/Michael_Jacksons_HIStory_and_The_Art_of_Musical_Autobiography
 
No, I do agree that Michael's work is much deeper than it sounds (you should hear what i gotta say about HIStory!), I may have written that wrong- I think I meant that for me she is digging deep in areas I can't relate to. I agree with many of her points but I'm finding it hard to share her opinions on a lot of things.

Other than that I guess I'm finding it good so far

Well, she is an academist and academists sometimes tend to "over-analyze" things a bit (at least so it would seem). Moreover, her area is gender studies, among others, if I am not mistaken, so of course she is going to include aspects of that. I am also sure that some of her conclusions are not necessarily what MJ really intended, but an analysis of an art piece is always somewhat subjective - whether it is a critical analysis of a Leonardo painting or of the Dangerous album. Overall I enjoyed the book, you just have to take it for what it is: not a collection of facts or a history of how the Dangerous album was made, but basically it is an opinion piece about what it means, what it represents, its artistic value etc. Not everyone enjoys these kind of writings, but i did enjoy it.
 
Well, she is an academist and academists sometimes tend to "over-analyze" things a bit (at least so it would seem). Moreover, her area is gender studies, among others, if I am not mistaken, so of course she is going to include aspects of that. I am also sure that some of her conclusions are not necessarily what MJ really intended, but an analysis of an art piece is always somewhat subjective - whether it is a critical analysis of a Leonardo painting or of the Dangerous album. Overall I enjoyed the book, you just have to take it for what it is: not a collection of facts or a history of how the Dangerous album was made, but basically it is an opinion piece about what it means, what it represents, its artistic value etc. Not everyone enjoys these kind of writings, but i did enjoy it.

Agreed. I always enjoy when people read into things, I do it myself. I guess I didn't share her views. It's definitely the kind if book we've deserved for a long time. One for each album is essential.
 
I definitely agree we need more books like this, Susan clearly is passionate about the music but I am finding it hard to relate to some of her ideas. Kind of seems like she is going out of her way to use big words a lot too when it's a bit unnecessary, no need to make music sound more complicated than it is.

In my view, I do not believe we need more books like this. From the excerpts alone, I gathered it was more of an expanded opinion piece than a true academic study of Dangerous so I refrained from reading it.

I do not believe all academic study of Michael's art should appear in this format either. For example: students studying art such as Michael produced would fare better by simply analyzing the Bad25 documentary. Tis better to hear from collaborators and their views on the process and/or listen to the man himself on how his art was created and then develop views and participate in discussions upon that. Developing views and participating in discussions based on another's opinion that is not more valuable than another's opinion on the same art is not necessarily an academic exercise in my view.

For me, it is equating a review of a theatrical release by a movie critic to an academic study of the theatrical release. A review is an opinion piece and this book is simply an opinion piece for me and not necessarily an opinion I hold.
 
In my view, I do not believe we need more books like this. From the excerpts alone, I gathered it was more of an expanded opinion piece than a true academic study of Dangerous so I refrained from reading it.

I do not believe all academic study of Michael's art should appear in this format either. For example: students studying art such as Michael produced would fare better by simply analyzing the Bad25 documentary. Tis better to hear from collaborators and their views on the process and/or listen to the man himself on how his art was created and then develop views and participate in discussions upon that. Developing views and participating in discussions based on another's opinion that is not more valuable than another's opinion on the same art is not necessarily an academic exercise in my view.

For me, it is equating a review of a theatrical release by a movie critic to an academic study of the theatrical release. A review is an opinion piece and this book is simply an opinion piece for me and not necessarily an opinion I hold.

This is true to an etxent- the main thing I didnt like about this book was that I felt I was part of a debate that I wasnt allowed raise any of my own points in. But, I do like seeing what other people have to say.

I was very torn between enjoying and disliking the book. I gave it 3 stars for the points you made above. But, it was still a breath of fresh air to read something half decent that wasn't bu an ex worker, family member or supposed friend. I've only read Moonwalk, J Randy Tababaraolellerelli (unfortunately, never ever again) and Jermaine's book (It was everything I expected, and less).

Joe Vogels book and this are 2 that are on the right track of what we need, but I do feel that Susan could have spent a little more time discussing the lyrics of the song as opposed the sound of the song as I think that she put more emphasis of song placement and style over the actual lyrical content in many places. She talks about the gist of a song but went in at length about cultural relevance and spent a lot of time discussing the relevance of the videos also.

It was certainly an interesting read but I cant say I enjoyed it as much as others.
 
In my view, I do not believe we need more books like this.

I despair. A book that takes Michael Jackson seriously as an artist, opinions that in turn prompt more discussion about Michael Jackson as an artist, and a publisher willing to actually print it and sell it (I'm aware this is part of the vast series of 33 1/3 books); and you think we don't need that? For every one of these there's 10 that paint Michael Jackson as a fragile, mentally questionable, potential paedophile. I'm not saying we need to lower our standards but we need to live in the real world too.
 
Innuendo141, ChrisC, my only concern with a book such as this is it is confused with an academic study on Michael’s art and promoted as such when it is nothing more than opinion piece.

D.amien S.heilds’ Xscape Origins is an academic study on Michael’s art. S.heilds sought out Michael’s collaborators and discussed how the art was created. Fast's book is an opinion piece.

Not all books regarding Michael are equal. Most are about the author’s views of his personal life and include gossip, innuendo, and complete fabrications while attempting to be characterized as an accurate biography. Very few are about his art and those are oftentimes expressing opinion instead of detailing facts about the art’s creation. S.heilds is able to write academically about Michael without using unnecessary “large words” and large amount of text discussing his views on the subject.
 
Tygger;4116504 said:
Innuendo141, ChrisC, my only concern with a book such as this is it is confused with an academic study on Michael’s art and promoted as such when it is nothing more than opinion piece.

D.amien S.heilds’ Xscape Origins is an academic study on Michael’s art. S.heilds sought out Michael’s collaborators and discussed how the art was created. Fast's book is an opinion piece.

Not all books regarding Michael are equal. Most are about the author’s views of his personal life and include gossip, innuendo, and complete fabrications while attempting to be characterized as an accurate biography. Very few are about his art and those are oftentimes expressing opinion instead of detailing facts about the art’s creation. S.heilds is able to write academically about Michael without using unnecessary “large words” and large amount of text discussing his views on the subject.

I understand you prefer something other than this book, and the overall 33 1/3 series. I just didn't like that you were effectively campaining against any further explorations of this nature.
 
I understand you prefer something other than this book, and the overall 33 1/3 series. I just didn't like that you were effectively campaining against any further explorations of this nature.

Apologies as I now understand my previous statement was misleading and therefore, misunderstood.

I am against books of this nature being seen as academic studies.

I am not against this particular book being published, read, and/or discussed.

I lean towards academic study than opinion pieces in the guise of academic study. I have not read any book in the 33 1/3 series; not for that reason as I would think some offerings are more academic in nature than others. This particular offering did not strike me as an academic study which is what I believed the 33 1/3 series to be.
 
Back
Top