82 of 214 people found the following review helpful
Badly written Copy and Paste job, which at times highlights the Author's RACIST bias!,
This review is from: Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Hardcover)
There's nothing in this book that we haven't read in tabloids already, more over it's EMBARRASSINGLY badly written! So much of this book is very tabloidish in nature (much of it seems copied and pasted from other suspect sources). In this economic climate I would URGE everyone not to waste their hard earned money on this literary disgrace!
This Sullivan not only comes across like a really bad 'copy and paste' journalist (as none of this information is first hand or well researched), he also more disturbingly comes across as HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL! There may not be any actual racial slurs tossed or anything you can pinpoint as being obviously RACIST, but the tone and phrasing leaves no doubt what the opinion really is. It's evidenced even in the way Sullivan throws in disgusted asides about how white cops can't follow the evidence if it looks like it might lead to anyone black being accused of a heinous crime. The subtext of reverse racism is obvious and highly distasteful coming from this author!
The above isn't the only example of Sullivan's extreme RACIST bias. For example, on page 14 of the hardcover version, Sullivan notes that "[In the early 1960s], as now, black males committed a hugely disproportionate amount of crime in Los Angeles and across the country." WHAT? I can't even believe that went to print. Question: do black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country or are they accused and convicted disproportionately? At the very least, if you're gonna make such outrageous comments, back it up. With no statistical data, I consider Sullivan's comment to be hearsay.
Even more disgustingly Sullivan thinks it important to re ask a highly RACIST question 'Will Michael's 'WHITE' children get along with a 'BLACK FAMILY'??? How obviously RACIST!
My reading of this author is that he really doesn't like minorities or "liberals," whatever the latter term means to him because he sure doesn't define anything!
The glaringly racist slant aside, this book also contains many easily debunked inaccuracies, starting with the ridiculous claim that Jackson had no nose and had to wear a prosthetic one......
A claim debunked by Michael Jackson's autopsy report, (Dr. Rogers describes scars "at the lateral border of the alae nasi", the nostrils of the nose, showing Michael did in fact have his nose)!
Or how about the claims that Michael bleached his skin, (another gross and dare I say RACIST lie coming from an obviously biased white author who has little or no sensitivity to the millions of black and ethnic Vitiligo suffers around the world) >>>>
Dr Rogers again and another doctor both confirmed Michael had Vitiligo (a fact that can be found in Jackson's autopsy report which with a click of a button is easily found online).
Now from the serious to the utterly ridiculous lies in this book....
The claim that Mark Walhberg and Jackson fought over a Sony plane after 9/11 lol a ridiculous claim debunked by Mark Walhberg, actor >>>> "It's an amazing story -- Michael Jackson and Mark Wahlberg fighting over a private plane in the days after 9/11. The only problem ... IT'S JUST NOT TRUE ... this according to sources close to Wahlberg. A new book, entitled "Untouchable," recounts the tale of MJ and MW both jockeying for a Sony private jet. Sony eventually let MJ have it, claims the book. But sources close to Wahlberg tell TMZ the whole thing is a work of FICTION."
The bold faced inaccuracies (something which becomes a some what a habit for Sullivan in this book) continues further with false claims that Mark Lester is Paris's biological father... Again another lie that has already been debunked by his ex Wife>>>
''Mark Lester's ex wife on his claims of being the father of Michael's children, "It makes no sense to me. The first real contact the family as a whole ever had was when Jackson came [to the UK] after he had broken his ankle [Jackson had an accident in rehearsals in 2002].'Michael only contacted Mark in 2001 and renewed the friendship. There is no way Mark could be Paris's father, as she was born by then."
The lie that Jackson was an 'Asexual virgin'... apparently the words of his ex wives and the dozens and dozens of Heterosexual and Lesbian porn found at his home during the raid isn't sufficient enough evidence for this so called journalist who would rather take the word of suspect sources who have been successfully sued in court for their lies, than the words from Jackson's ex wife Lisa Marie Presley>>>
''And when asked if Michael kept her sexually satisfied, Lisa Marie responded, "I wouldn't have married him if I wasn't." Michael's two G spot articles would suggest she is telling the truth.
And If I were to sit here and outline the disgusting inaccuracies told in this book about the 1993 allegations then I would be here all day. Not only are there out and out lies in this book concerning those allegations, vital information (that is easily available online)is completely omitted. For example, there is no mention of the 1993 settlement document which states that Jackson's 'insurance carrier paid the Chandler settlement over the protests of Jackson and his legal counsel'.. Pretty vital piece of information to leave out..no???. Nor does this so called journalist bother to interview the MANY once children who came to Jackson's defence in both 1993/2005 and after he died.
And it seems i'm not the only one here and elsewhere who dislikes this literary disgrace, many other reviewers seem to agree with me, for example............
NY Times writer Michiko Kakutani calls Randall Sullivan's new Michael Jackson bio "dreary," "bloated," "haphazard" and "unconvincing."
Roger Friedman of Fox411 says, "Sullivan's main problem is that he wasn't there for any of it, but tried to cash in on Michael Jackson once he died. Imagine someone writing a biography of Batman and only interviewing the Penguin, the Riddler, Catwoman, and the Joker. The writer fails to speak to Robin, Alfred or Commissioner Gordon."
Very embarrassing I suspect for Sullivan to be exposed as such a hack of a journalist by so many reviewers here and in the mainstream! If I were him I'd quit now and save my self any further embarrassment, what a joke this man turned out to be.
And if you have bought this book and now regret it, then make sure you get a FULL REFUND, Amazon has a great refund policy!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 15, 2012 8:10:44 AM PST
A review this long and emotional looks like damage control. Where are the real reviewers, who were neutral towards Mr. Jackson?
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 8:28:12 AM PST
lol Are you scared of facts Jen? I merely presented facts that debunk this atrociously written literary mess! Why does that bother you Jen? Are you a friends of Sullivan? O I suspect you are, otherwise why are you so interested in the negative reviews???? lol I think it is you who is doing the damage control, as this book is doing VERY badly in the charts, esp for a book that was considered 'the book of the month' by Amazon, a title I suspect bought by Sullivan and his minions... Weep, Weep at the reviews, cus they are honest and doing the job well... :)
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:53:13 AM PST
jen, you must be completely delusional.
Posted on Nov 19, 2012 9:55:45 AM PST
Anyone who does any in depth research of Michael - "neutral" research, mind, would not use the sources or easily disproven stories he shares here.
Posted on Jan 21, 2013 10:49:13 AM PST
How much were you paid to write your sham review?
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2013 4:18:43 PM PST
Posted on Jan 22, 2013 9:41:39 AM PST
P. Morton says:
ALL of your ratings on Amazon are for MJ products. So...first...maybe you should diversify what you expose yourself to. And second, why is it that you give the MJ books which paint him in a positive light a positive rating and those which paint him in a negative light a one-star rating? This brings your credibility into question.
Can you please provide an instance where you think MJ was flawed or made a mistake or broke the law or was wrong about something? This might help with your credibility. Otherwise, you are exposed as a fraud.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›