The Liz Smith Column | 06/30/2009 11:00 pm

Liz Smith: Michael Jackson's Arrested Development

Also in Our Gossip Girl’s midweek dish: Anna Wintour – Like the Pope?

"In retrospect, so much of what Michael Jackson achieved seems baldly symbolic. This was the black kid from Gary, IN, who ended up marrying Elvis’s daughter, setting up Neverland in place of Graceland and buying the Beatles’ song catalog – bold acts of appropriation and mastery, if not outright aggression … He made trademarks of the very emblems of his remoteness: his moonwalk dance and his jeweled glove – noli me tangere and vice versa. He morphed relentlessly from the most adorable of kiddie performers … to the most sinister of superstars … He performed his dance of death as a central figure in America’s long racial horror show."

So writes David Gates in the new Newsweek. I was particularly taken by the following statement, which I don’t recall ever seeing before: "One shrink concluded at the time – 2005 – that he was not a pedophile, but merely a case of arrested development."

***

And here is something I wrote in my syndicated column back in June, 2005: "He has not been found innocent. He has been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Michael Jackson – and the rest of us – have been spared the horror of a prison sentence.

"To many who have watched this wretched spectacle, he is guilty and will wear the mantle of child-abuser-set-free for the rest of his life. The prison he made of his existence prior to this, is nothing compared to what is to come."

I added: "That Michael has not committed suicide has been the great press disappointment. The drumbeat for him to take his own life began in 1993 and never really let up."

OK, that was then; this is now. At the time, I took a dim view of Michael Jackson’s ever really redeeming himself in the mind of the public. Boy, was I wrong!! His sheer impressive, incredible, unique talent has taken over public opinion since his untimely death the other day.

Maybe this kind of tragic catharsis is a good thing. We can simply erase all the bad, weirdo, wacko things we felt at the end of that trial and go back to embracing the creative Michael.

***

And, what do you know? Here in my office, in a limp little file, I find a handwritten letter from Debbie Rowe, which came to me in April 1997 right after she had produced a first baby for Michael.

I had met Debbie in the offices of Dr. Arnie Klein, dermatologist to the stars. She was always sweet and charming and I’d frequently heard about her through a mutual friend. Sometime in April 1997, I wrote something positive about her in The Los Angeles Times. I can’t remember what this item was but it seems to be irretrievable.

Here’s Debbie Rowe in her own words: "Dear Ms. Smith. I stay away from most articles written about me and/or my husband and child. Dr. Klein brought me your article from today’s L.A. Times. I just wanted to let you know how I appreciate your comment. I just wish the rest of the world would back off and just believe the truth that we tell them. Thanks again. Debbie Rowe Jackson."

I see some people are already casting Debbie as a bad woman who will harass the Jackson estate over custody. Well, I hope that’s not true. She was well paid by Michael for being a surrogate. But if she is watching Joe Jackson as he and Rev. Al Sharpton preen and pose and discuss how they are going to cash in on Michael’s legend, she may wonder if she wants any children anywhere near old Joe, who Michael always said had abused him as a child. Michael’s mother, Katherine, no longer lives with his father, but Joe is front and center taking charge these days. Let’s hope they find a will that sets this all out better.

53 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

OE…clearly you didn’t get the memo…you DON’T have to read about this mess…and telling others what they should read…what an ego MY DEAR!

By Victoria J on 07/02/2009 9:22 am

e-mail alert

After watching a video of Jackson morphing from black to white it’s even more obvious that he hated being black. Why would he go out of his way to "adopt" white, blonde haired children when the vast majority of children eligible for adoption are black? And for him to bleach his skin until it was so ghostly white seems unhealthy and strange.

Clearly Jackson had a severe personality disorder and body dismorphic disorder. Someone that mentally ill and dependent on illegal medication could not have been a great father. It’s just not possible.

By Bella Mia on 07/01/2009 5:10 pm

e-mail alert

Bella Mia…why do people like you take rumor and stretch it to fit your own limited. He didn’t hate being black and his choice for his kids is obvious. Living in L.A., most black entertainers and athletes end up having white lawyers, agents, physicians, dentists, plastic surgeons…why? because their agents and managers tend to recommend people they know or use. Superstars have little time to seek out those people on their own. There is no doubt that over the years Michael’s sense of self was changed mostly because of his enormous low self-esteem brought on by his father’s original abuse and the way he was probably scorned earlier when it was learned by his father and handlers about his homosexuality. If he saw himself as morphing because of his vitiligo into a white man, then given his mindset, his kids should be white. Not a lot of people of color he knew would agree to the agreement that Debbie Rowe and others agreed to. So he had to take those arrangements where he could get them. His color was what happens when there is no pigment…due to vitiligo…not bleach…why do you people insist on stupidity as a reasonable facisimile for reading and learning more about the disease? You would be surprised how many black folks are perfectly happy with who they are…your presumptions about Michael says more about what you think about black folks, then it does about his real feelings.

By Victoria J on 07/02/2009 9:33 am

e-mail alert

Bella Mia - I don’t know why Michael Jackson chose to "adopt" blond haired, white children. However, in our area African American children are not the children most available for adoption. However, all indicators are that the children were birthed through a surrogate or by use of sperm and/or egg donors. Evidently he was not interested in adopting children that were available for adoption.

Washington Cube - If MJ used sperm and/or egg donors then he would not have had to "adopt" the children legally. He would be considered the children’s father at birth. As for him using his influence to omit the mother’s name from the legal documents… if he did use a surrogate or donors, then there is no legal mother. Just FYI, if you go through the adoption process in California, then the old birth certificate is replaced with a new birth certificate listing the adopting parent(s) as the birth parents. Yes, this does mean that a single father adopting a child would receive a new birth certificate for the child that listed a father only on it.

By Jessica Pfalmer on 07/01/2009 6:43 pm

e-mail alert

There may be another answer that solves all the questions, and includes the "arrested development". If Joe Jackson beat him so severely, or did it on purpose, to turn Michael into a eunach. The high voice, the almost total lack of sexuality, never having the feelings and growth to be an adult. And if I had to look at the face of the man who had done that to me….I can think of no better reason to want to change everything about the way I looked. It would have been just way too easy for MJ to go to another country and rent/hire/buy hundreds of kids if that is truly what he was after. I have loved his music and I am sad that he died. All that is left is between him and God.

By Lisa Grandbois on 07/02/2009 2:16 pm

e-mail alert

I have just heard that Debbie Rowe will be contesting custody of her two children. The whole matter of raising them seems to a really confusing and strange (maybe weird) situation. There is some doubt that Michael Jackson is the biological father (should there not be some adoption process if he isn’t the biological father??), but even without the DNA tests Debbie is obviously their mother. Her daughter has her very distinctive mouth.

A week ago I read another article in the Australian press that she said she was just someone who " offered him my womb - it was a gift. It was something I did to keep him happy.

"I was just the vessel. It wasn’t Michael’s sperm. I got paid for it, and I’ve moved on. I know I will never see my children again.

"I was never a good mother, I never felt any attachment to them. It was a better feeling giving them to him than it was keeping them as my own."

Debbie says Michael split from her soon after the painful birth of Paris, which left her unable to have any more children"…

I wish Debbie and her children well, whether she wins custody or not.

By Merrie M on 07/02/2009 3:04 pm

e-mail alert

What disturbed me greatly was that the room Michael had for his boy guests at Neverland could only be accessed by going through his bedroom. He often slept with his guests in the same bed. This is absolutely wrong, no matter how you look at it. There is a wall covered with photographs of the boys who visited the ranch (and Michael’s bed?) - also uncomfortable. No matter what the legal outcome was - and it wasn’t cut and dried, black and white - as a person who was sexually abused as a child, I can guarantee things happened at Neverland that were absolutely wrong.

Having Michael for a father must have been like having a playmate, not a parent. Did they sleep with him? We’ll probably never know the answer to that question. What kind of an education have they had? What about socialization - how much exposure have they had to other children? Those children are going to need a lot of help. The mother who birthed them has shown no interest whatsoever in them until it was found that in addition to astronomical debt, Michael has an estate worth millions. So yet another person wants to "cash in" though she was paid millions to create the two oldest children for Michael and had no concern for them until now - announcing initially she didn’t want them. They should not be separated and under no circumstances should they be with anyone who will not love and protect them.

Michael’s father is a scary, selfish, vulgar, insensitive, greedy, bully of a man whose wealth came at huge cost to his children, particularly Michael. He sacrificed them to get rich! He has no right to Michael’s music, DVD’s of his performances or anything else that has to do with his son. He has no right to profit by one penny for his death. If ever a son was ruined by his father, it was Michael.

Michael was a very, very troubled man, there’s no doubt about that. He was such a handsome youth - wonderful smile, enormous talent. His appearance was freakish when he died - the ghastly white skin, the lipstick and heavy eye make-up, the destroyed face, that fragile little pointed nose; it was very hard to look at him. I was born to early to be comfortable with his frequent crotch-grabbing during his performances; it disgusted me. I can remember the outcry about Elvis and the "indecency" of his performances - they were a walk to church compared to Michael’s and to those who have followed and/or imitated him. Is it any wonder we have so many tweens and teens who are so centered on sex, dressing seductively (have you seen the clothing in stores for very young children - scary), having sex way too early, teen and even preteen pregnancies. If anyone doesn’t think they’ve been heavily influenced by the music they’re allowed to listen to and the performances they watch, think again. Listen to the lyrics - that alone should give you gray hair.

Rest in peace, Michael. You have found peace and calm at last. As for your children (or not), the battle has just begun and with the voracious media frenzy to accompany events, it won’t be pretty.

By Pdr de on 07/04/2009 6:59 am