DiamondGirl said:

As you said, represented. Past tense. What conflict of interest? The litigation was over and settled, on terms very favorable to Alex's client. Alex had nothing to gain with respect to the (settled) litigation by writing a book that contained negative statements about Prince.

Now, it's fair to suggest that Alex was biased because he defended UPTOWN agsinst Prince. Although I don't have a copy handy, I also believe that Alex disclosed his involement in the book. Similarly, when CNN.com reports on something involving Time Warner, they mention that CNN is owned by Time Warner. It's relevant, but it doesn't mean that the book/article should be discredited.

whodknee said:

Of course it was. Even Michael Moore admitted as much. And it should have been obvious to any viewer of reasonable intelligence. I don't believe that authors or filmmakers have an obligation to create works with only a neutral point of view.



I might not be terribly happy about it, but the only issue I'd raise would be a lack of objectivity. And as long as you're not trying to pass it off as objective, well, the only problem is that you're setting yourself up for a rebuttal.

Anxiety said:[quote]

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", quote]

True.
[Edited 9/20/05 22:21pm]

matt said:

Writers may have no legal obligation to stay neutral but they should try to remain neutral when it's another person they are writing about (but would they even bother then?). When given a platform what they say/write will affect those persons in some way. It can affect anything from future sales to some encounter with a crazed fan. Afterall, celebrities don't live in a vacuum. If you badmouth them it will have an impact, particularly if it's in print.

I know I'd be mad as hell if some chump wrote a book about me and didn't consult me. Whether it was praise or condemnation I'd feel uncomfortable if some stranger were writing about me.

madhouseman said:

I rented it. While it made a few good points, for the most part, I thought it was a weak rebuttal.

whodknee said:

That's the price you pay for being a celebrity, especially when you've actively sought fame.

zennabell said:

The book never really says he was a Cocaine user. It says Prince was a Ecstasy using control freak. Possessed is my favourite Prince book. It's a tell-all book. It's great because it's not a Prince worshiping, ass kissing book made just for the fans, and just about the music.

zennabell said:

I didn't like it at all. It's just Mr Hahn's opinion about Prince. It's focus is mostly negative and angry. It mentions too few positive aspects about Prince's personality. It's gossipy (Hahn is not specific about the origin of his sources. So, he has nothing to back up many of his statements). I sold my copy as soon as I finished reading it.

Krystal666 said:

very true...

gyro34 said:

But you did finish reading it.

scififilmnerd said:

I get the impression that when YOU don't like a book, YOU stop midway through. Do you usually do that scififilmnerd?

gyro34 said:

Yes. If I read something and don't like what I am reading, why on Earth would I read on when it would only aggravate me further? AND the valuable time could be better spend on something I DO like.

scififilmnerd said:

I've also stopped reading a book that was dull or boring. Just because I've started it, doesn't mean that I should finish it. I have a lot of things to do on my list for life, and finishing a book I hate isn't usually one of them.

Personally, I enjoyed Possessed. It started off with a great catch and was fairly interesting throughout. DMSR is also great.

matt said:


Thank you. No further questions your honor



.
[Edited 10/1/05 13:22pm]

I bought it and read it over a Thanksgiving weekend about two years ago. A month later, I wrapped it up and gave it to a friend as a Christmas present.

I enjoyed the book and once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down. I wasn't surprised by Prince shitting on his band members and not giving them credit. I also was not surprised by Prince being so controlling. I've known all this for years. However, I was surprised and pissed when I read about the homophobic rant that Prince and Larry Graham had about Lisa and Wendy. Even though Prince may have put out some albums throughout the years that I felt were not his "best", I've always viewed him as an open minded person that had no problems or hangups with anyone and in his world "anything goes". When I read this part, it changed forever how I viewed Prince.

I liked the book. I liked it a lot. It reveals a side of prince that no everyone knows about and i feel that if i'm gonna be a fan of someone then i wanna know what kinda person they are, good or bad, u know?

This book paints an ugly picture of Prince and basically says that Prince doesn't have any talent other than stealing from his band members. If this is true then why didn't these so very talented band members have great careers! They all had/have solo careers. I wouldn't have stayed with a control freak when I could just go do it myself. If I remember correctly it said something about Prince not being able to write a rock songs or something like that. Does anyone believe that? This man didn't write 1 good word about Prince. He seemed 2 hate all of Prince's albums. This book is very negative and full of gossip and the writer's personal opinion on Prince and his music.

BEAUGARDE said:

I don't remember anything like that and I've read it twice. I think that Prince does grab ideas from the jam sessions, but Alex was a fan, is a fan, and will be a fan. Some of the things that were talking about Prince were negative, but many of them were said by his associates. Rosie's story isn't always nice and pleasant, but she deserves to be heard and not censured. To think that an entire career is going to be nothing but nice-nice and cotton candy is just wishful. Prince is an artist. I don't know if you realize this, but artists generally have a twisted life and that passion often comes out in their work. For the most part, the book is fairly true. I know because I have had some of these conversations with people that were there.

Not one good word about him? Wow. I don't know what book you read, but the first line on the dust cover says "The inside story of the most talented musician of his generation..."

Quotes inside include pg 57 Cavallo saying that Prince's music output had "a direct line to heaven".

pg. 52-53 are full of praise for 1999

pg. 67 is an entire lovefest for the Purple Rain album

pg 111 comparing Adore to "the best of Al Green"

Yes there are some things that he didn't like, but to write it off as a negative look is unfortunate. I congratulate Alex for creating a book about Prince at a time that he KNEW it wouldn't sell very well. That is writing about a subject that is close to one's heart.

madhouseman said:

AMEN to that brotha!!!

It wasn't a book that made me feel happy.
Very gossipy & a lot of negative comments.
The author feels Prince's best days are behind him
& he makes a decent arguement for that.
I found it depressing.

madhouseman said:

It's all negative for the most part post year 1990 and all talk about his character is negative. Which is bullshit. Nobody is "mean" 24/7. Hahn forgets to add any semblance of goodheartedness which Prince has displayed.

But thgat wouldnt make good copy now would it?

The book is informative but the analysis is too generic. Unless you had no idea Prince can be a jerk sometime and played fast and loose with credits and song ideas, this book is not going to shed new light. The original conclusion was way too pessimistic and many pages just feel like they were written by a disappointed former hero-worshiper. Hopefully, someone will one day write an insightful biography.
[Edited 10/1/05 15:57pm]

madhouseman said:

Oh U found 3 nice things, U still have 2 admit it was more negative than positive.

BEAUGARDE said:

Wow. Talk about having an agenda! Those 5 nice things (not 3) are just a few of the comments I found opening it randomly. I agree that the slant is about him being a flawed person, but a creative genius. I was just pointing out that you were incorrect in your statement that he didn't say one good word about him. As I mentioned, Alex is, was and will be a fan... he is just a more realistic fan then a lot of the people that think Prince's crap smells like flowers. The man has issues! Why is that so hard for some people?
[Edited 10/1/05 22:39pm]

madhouseman said:

How come everytime some people try to point out when things aren't fair or impartial they get labled a kiss azz or accused of thinkning that Prince is perfect. Thats bullshit.

Don't trip because its pointed out that dude had an agenda and WAS biased (who gives a shet if he is/was a fan?). I mean here's a lawyer(lol exhibit A) who defended against Prince writing a book about him, rise and fall (lol).

We all know Prince got issues but to make ait seem like he was this ogre 24/7 is stupid and irresponsible writing. Just digging for the dirt. If he was so awful, I wonder why so many stayted with him and were so taken with him etc.

To use your own phrase, "Why is that so hard for some people?" to understand.

DiamondGirl said:

Thank you for agreeing that the man isn't perfect, but you have cleverly avoided my point. I took issue with the statement that there wasn't one nice thing said about him in the book. I proved it to be a false statement. That is all. If you want to use cute court phrases, that is called an open and shut case.


Enjoy the book.... or do not. I don't give a rip either way!

Nuff said.

madhouseman said:

Let me guess: you also ordered the code red, right? You sure have been passionate to prove your point throughout for someone who doesn't ..."give a rip" -you're dangerously close to Colonel Jessup material here.

And your pointing out statements of goodness is not what I stated anyways. It was about an overall theme of the book post 1990, pay attention.

Trust, the enjoyment or disaproval of the book never was never dependant on you in any way whatsoever


.
[Edited 10/2/05 22:33pm]

DiamondGirl said:

I am flattered that you respond to my thoughts to others so passionately as well, but again, my statement was for someone else about something else. You keep adding your two cents to a question you weren't asked, but that's cool. I'm sure Alex is just happy that you would read his book all the way to the end. Keep up the passion!

madhouseman said:[quote]

DiamondGirl said:

I'm not the one in denial about giveing a "f"



You generalized a group of people who had certain opinions about the book on a public forum. Replys will be made to that structure. Don't be too flattered.

BEAUGARDE said:

Which book were you reading?