What are peoples thoughts on the book Possessed the rise and fall of Prince by Alex Hahn?

I doesn't paint a very nice picture of the guy. A brilliant read. The reviews of Albums are mostly spot on. But is Prince really a Cocaine using anti semitic control freak?

i'm not a fan of that book. there may be some truth in some of the gossip in that book, but i think a lot of it is slanted and distorted at best. reading that book just made me appreciate the music that much more, and it made me care less about who prince might have screwed or screwed over.

I liked the book. Pretty much everything in it was backed up with interviews/quotes so I think there is a lot of truth in the book. Of course, I'm sure some of it is probably inaccurate but I think for the most part it is probably accurate. Just my 2 cents.

It started off slow, but eventually I couldn't put it down. However, extremely entertaining a read it was, I dislike how the author tries to make something so big out of something so subjective and almost petty as Prince's "artistic downfall". It's all purely a matter of personal taste and opinion, for Chrissakes (even though I happen to somewhat agree with him ).

Not to mention the occasional spelling error, the often unsubstantiated gossip, the seemingly rushed last few pages, and the fact that there are probably better Prince books out there. Still, not really a bad job, all in all.
[Edited 9/16/05 16:59pm]

I wanna read that book. Nice tittle. "Possessed".
I seen it 4 sale on the internet. I might purchase it.

its a good airplane read....thats about it.

I like the book and it was interest to read and that I felt that a lot was true but at times some of the details were exaggerate a bit and he did have some typos and also some of the years where he mention of events were inaccurate.

Its funny some people claimed some of the stories that he mention were lies that yet no one never try to sue him so until then I draw to the conclusion that the book is nearly the truth. I think that those people just didn't like the fact that he was airing out some of their past "darkside".

That's my two cents.

I thought it was a very entertaining read and although it focused heavily on Prince's "dark side" I think that what it said about his "dark side" is true.

at best. Not because it revealed Prince's "dark side"(the only people that didn't know he had a dark side for 20 years just weren't paying attention!) I didn't like it because the guy that wrote it had an axe to grind and took blatant creative liberties all the while implying factuality which many a gossipmongers devoured and spread with shameless abandon.

The only thing that shocked me about it was the title. Though I'm pretty certain that 2004 made the guy that wrote it just want to kick his own ass, so I'm over it.

This is the only book about Prince I haven't read. Is it hard to find? I have struggled to find it.

emilio319 said:

..."a friend of the bands states..." is not being backed up by interviews nor investigated facts

read DMSR instead. it's a much better read, and you actually learn stuff that's true and makes you appreciate the music even more.

DiamondGirl said:

emilio319 said "interviews/quotes", not 'investigative facts', which was correct. When several individual sources give the same run of events, although not taken as cold, hard, irrefutable fact, it does add weight to them, and it's upto the reader as to what they believe - though the reader can't claim they categorically are not facts, just like the author can't categorically claim they are - only what they each believe to be.

scififilmnerd said:

Agreed

Just to clarify my comments, I'm sure there are plenty of things in the book that are inaccurate or exaggerated but the same can probably be said of most biographies. But there are plenty of interviews with engineers, band members, and people that were actually there with Prince so, yes I do think a lot of the stuff in there has some truth to it. Maybe I'm wrong. Just my opinion.

And I'm currently reading "Dance Music Sex Romance."

emilio319 said:

i agree....just read it all....and form your own opinion....

zennabell said:

I enjoyed it and thought the book made a strong case for its thesis. Unfortunately, a lot of people, including those who never bothered to read it, decided they hated the book because of the "Rise and Fall" subtitle.

Most of the well-respected books on Prince are basically objective compliations of facts. And such books are valuable resources. But as a published writer myself, I think it's much harder to write a book that presents a thesis and a supporting argument.

It's interesting that Alex's book was so controversial, yet I don't remember a similar reaction to Purple Reign (I think it was published under a different title in the UK), which was filled with plagiarism. The author of that book apparently got an interview with Prince, but she also lifted material from other interviews and didn't credit the sources, thereby implicitly passing off those other interviews (such as the one in 1996 by Oprah Winfrey) as her own work.

matt said:

That is the problem. You don't write a biographical work with a thesis. Just let the facts themselves tell the story. Like I've said before, you end up with a caricature when you focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. Including some facts and leaving out others leads to false perceptions. We all know the man's no angel-- none of us are-- but the man portrayed in this book would be incapable of much of the sensitivity, joy, and love in much of Prince's music.

I'd have just as much a problem with a book that aimed to portray Prince as Ghandi. I can forgive the subtitle because a) the man wants to sell books, b) it's true-- we all rise and fall, and c) it isn't that big a deal. However, the book revels in the idea of him falling and tries to convince us that he brought it all upon himself. You can quote Joe Schmoe the assistant engineer on the Dirty Mind sessions all you like but until you sit down with the man himself your book isn't very credible.

whodknee said:

Why not? As long as the nature of the book (i.e., objective versus subjective) is clear, I don't see a problem. The book is what it is.

I felt the same way when people complained that Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't a documentary because it was biased. To be sure, a dictionary definition of "documentary" usually includes something about objectivity. But I didn't buy my ticket expecting to see a disinterested examination of George W. Bush's presidency.

whodknee said:

For a minute there I thought I had read an entirely different book or something.

whodknee said:

You're assuming the man himself would be credible.

And what did Joe Schmoe (what a name! ) had to say?

It 's an interesting read. I think DMSR by Per Nelson is the best biography on Prince I've read. But I wouldn't just write Possessed off as untrue just because it paints an unflattering image of Prince.

I expecialy liked hearing about what Anna Garcia had to say about her time with Prince.

matt said:

Of course you dont. It was written by a lawyer who represented someone who was being sued by Prince.

Can you say "conflict of interest?" I knew that ya could

DiamondGirl said:

I thought the book was good. I do believe 90% of what was said about him is true.

matt said:

Fahrenheit 9/11 was propaganda and believe me, I'm the last one to support Bush. You don't see a problem with me for instance saying, hmmm, Matt is a loser: Let me do a little research and find what I can to support that thesis. Then I proceed to ignore or minimize anything that works to the contrary.

Hell, Hahn didn't even do most of the research himself.

scififilmnerd said:

That's the chance you take. I suppose the only true biography you'll ever have is Prince's body of work. The man he is can be seen when you put it all together. That's really all I need to know.

I think the book is interesting.We all knew that Prince is no angel,so I wasn't surprised at some of the more negative stuff in the book.

Possessed is a very good book. It is flawed and I wish he had researched his other info better (bad info about U2 for example), but a lot of what he said is backed up by interviews with the actual people that were there. WHODEKNEE mentioned that it isn't a proper bio without an actual session with Prince. That is a pretty funny comment. I just got done reading the bio of John Adams by David McCullough and he never once sat down with Adams, but it is an amazing bio. I have also noticed that a lot of episodes of the TV show "Biography" don't actually interview the main subject. Does that make them 'not credible'? Hardly. Sometimes those outside voices are what is needed to round out the story, especially when someone like Prince is involved.

Possessed is a good read. If you want a great read, try DMSR by Per Nilsen. Again, no interview with Prince, but a fantastic read if you are really interested in when, where and why things happened.

Back to Fahrenheit 9/11... I would hope all of you who loved it decided to watch the rebuttal called 'Fahren-hype 9/11'. It gives the other side of Michael Moore's stories and shows what was made up and what was only 1/2 true. A must see for anyone who likes to call themselves informed.

madhouseman said:

it just means it's an unauthorized biography, that's all. people write 'em all the time, and at least half the time, they're better than authorized biographies and/or autobiographies because an unauthorized version tends to be more "warts and all", and might take the time to talk to folks that wouldn't be contacted for an authorized bio. this of course doesn't mean i think 'possessed' is a great book, but something like DMSR? pretty good read.