Remembering

In Speaker for the Dead, Orson Scott Card suggests a new type of post-life remembrance. Rather than being the subject of a white-washing eulogy, the deceased should be “spoken for”, in a Cromwellian warts-and-all type way. The speaker for the dead should speak not merely positively, but honestly; describing hopes, dreams, and aspirations, as well as foibles, failures, and flaws.

Michael Jackson died this week. Perhaps you’ve heard.

Immediately after his death, the eulogies began. And somewhat surprisingly, what I saw tended to focus on his rarely paralleled gifts as a performer, rather than on his past few decades of true batshit insanity (which tended to be glossed over with a mention, as if this did them justice). I saw also a second camp of eulogists, that denounced him as a pedophile, and pretty much nothing else worth mentioning.

Now, we don’t know if Michael Jackson ever broke the law during his strange, strange relationships with children. Certainly, whether the letter of the law was followed or not, those relationships were, in the parlance of our times, fucking weird. Grown-ass men sleeping in beds with boys who are not their own is passing strange, and creepy, and profoundly icky, and gross. My guess, for whatever it’s worth, is that he was damaged to the point where he honestly believed there was nothing wrong with his actions, because he honestly believed that he himself was also a little boy. This is not a defense, note. Honest belief is never an adequate defense.

But I am surprised by how few appraisals and obituaries I’ve seen that take both sides of the man into account. This may, admittedly, be because I have not been looking at enough appraisals and obituaries, and because those that I have read tend to be your Facebookian status updates and Twitterish 140 character shouts, which are not the world’s finest places to craft a coherent argument. But it seems that one group wants to ignore the insanity and focus on the art, and the other wants to focus on the art and ignore the insanity.

Is there room for both?

I don’t know. I’ve thought about it. Quite a bit. Do an artist’s non-artistic thoughts, opinions, doings, political alignments, felonies, &c. have anything to do, at the end of the metaphorical day, with an artist’s art? Just as a for-instance, Orson Scott Card, mentioned at the top of this essay, is a raging bigot. Does this in any way diminish the value and beauty of his Speaker for the Dead concept?

Does Michael Jackson’s creepy weirdness detract from the brilliance of Billie Jean?

Is art a “conversation” between artist and audience via the art, or a “conversation” between the art and the audience in which the artist is vestigial at best?

Is a blog post interesting if it just poses unanswerable questions?

Here is my appraisal: Michael Jackson was one of the strangest people to ever walk the face of the Earth. He was also one of the most talented. Each of these statements is true. His talent seems like it was at least partially the result of abuse. His weirdness seems to stem from the same root. I do not think his death is tragic; I do think that his life was. His performance added joy to the world, but I don’t believe he ever experienced any of it. His pain entertained us, whether we danced to his songs or laughed at his plastic surgery. He behaved inappropriately, dangerously, and criminally (baby over balcony, in any case) with children. He was a disturbed, sick, fucked-up human. And between now and the day I die, I will never be able to stop myself from dancing when Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough starts playing.

This is all true. So how will we remember? We get to decide now. Always.