|

楼主 |
发表于 2009-8-27 21:46:52
|
显示全部楼层
转一个评论家对这本书的评论吧.抱歉是英文的.
http://www.jacksonnjonline.com/2 ... all/comment-page-1/
大意是说首先这个记者 T 为英国一家下流小报工作.
那家报纸说他和迈迈是一生挚友,而事实远非如此. 虽然T自己并没这么说,但是他允许报纸这么报道了.
T的文章中有些部分只是小道消息.比如和lisa的关系,还有Jordie的关系等等。还有他知道这么多的话,他怎么没写其实是迈克的保险公司付给钱德勒钱而不是迈克自己付? 仅仅是为了取悦读者么?
5。 这个作家在2005年的庭审中表现并不尽如人意。
6。 T在一个访问中说道他最近几年都没有继续跟进迈克尔杰克逊的生活。 这就意味着这本书最后的部分是一个月内草草写成的(这里应该指的是新版)
7。 T承认说他没继续关注杰克逊是因为他生迈克的气。这简直是在说笑。因为作者的个人情感是不可以影响到传记的编纂的。这很不专业也很不成熟。
================================================================
这篇文章的作者不是迈迈的粉丝,可是他有些话说得很有道理。为什么说这本书是在迈的传记里面最好的一本?因为其他的都更糟。只有这本比其他的更接近事实,但是依旧远离事实。
=============================================================
Ok, so in the sad world of Michael Jackson biographies, this is undoubtably the best. Taraborelli’s style is conversational and enjoyable and I agree with the reviewers before me- it is difficult to put down.
However, there are a number of things that rattle the credibility of this publication.
1. Taraborelli contributes to the Daily Mail, a smutty British tabloid.
2. Taraborelli allows the Daily Mail to refer to him as Jackson’s “friend” and even “lifelong confidante.” This is incredibly far from the truth. Taraborelli makes no such assertions himself, but allowing himself to be referred to as such is just as bad. This type of self-aggrandizing disregard for the truth undermines his otherwise seemingly-semi-credible work. (Also of note, the Daily Mail also calls Stacy Brown a family friend. Brown is another Jackson biographer who revealed that crucial portions of his biography were made up for sensational purposes when under oath in Jackson’s 2005 trial)
3. There are some things that Taraborelli reports as fact that could only have reached him through a biased, drawn-out grapevine. For example, Jackson’s sex life with Lisa Marie. Also, the portions written about the nature of Jackson’s relationship with Jordie Chandler, particularly the pieces where Jackson is alone with only the family in their home when Jackson is like, obsessively staring at Jordie. Who the HELL told Taraborelli that? One of Chandler’s parents? Good ol’ Uncle Ray? Knowing that Taraborelli took liberties with the fact here and in other places where he will put incredible detail into scenes of which he couldn’t possibly be aware makes you wonder where else he did this(and, also, if he knew all this- why did he not know that it was Jackson’s insurance who paid the Chandlers the $20 million and not Jackson himself?) Does it make for enjoyable prose? Yes. But it’s basically FAN FICTION.
4. Taraborelli associates with some pretty shady anti-Jackson characters. He considers Diane Dimond a close friend. Frankly, I don’t understand how someone could see past her tasteless witch-hunting to become a friend. He also gave interviews to this guy whos in this name escapes me, but he made a documentary called “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened” This documentary is so poorly made, it seems like a middle-schoolers powerpoint. And basically everything in it is ridiculous and incorrect.
5. Taraborelli’s participation in the 2005 trial was less than admirable. He seemed to favor the prosecution’s chances when, upon review of the transcripts and evidence, they never had a case. He also got all of this credit for being so “close” to Jackson, but then he went along with all of the reporters who entertained themselves by relentlessly mocking their cash cow. I spent one week on the press there, and I was blown over by how unprofessional the environment was.
6. Taraborelli admitted in an interview that he hadn’t been keeping up with Jackson’s story for the past few years. This means that the final portion of this book was scrambled together in a month.
7. The reason, Taraborelli admitted, that he had been ignoring Jackson was because he was mad at him. …..seriously? …are you joking? FEELINGS SHOULD NOT MATTER IN BIOGRAPHY WRITING!!! Taraborelli, you are not Jackson’s FRIEND. You aren’t allowed to be mad at him! This is unprofessional and immature.
I’m not a fan of Jackson’s music, but I have been very intrigued by his story and relationship with the media since I witnessed the circus in 2005. All of this said, I do think this book is worth a read. Taraborelli writes well and definitely appears to come much closer to fact than any other biographers. His sources listed are extensive, yet vague in some very crucial areas. Unfortunately, the truth will never be known when it comes to Michael Jackson. Some lie for fame and money. Celebrities will lie for their image. Taraborelli does seem to care for Jackson and is capable of discussing his life without his comments dripping with mockery like other “journalists.” Sadly, I imagine this is as good as it’s going to get. |
|