Taboo - new Boy George Autobiography out soon

New Boy George autobiography called "Straight" is coming out soon that covers the last 13 years and is the follow up to the fantastic "Take it like a man".

I guess it might be of interest to people here because it covers the time of Taboo in both London and Broadway.

I wonder if it will mention the Taboo question and answer session where I managed to upset him. I now know for sure that Mr O'Dowd was being less than honest in an arguement with newspapers at the time and I innocently mentioned the debate he was having. I wonder if he will be honest about it now ?

Anyways comes out in March:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844133907/qid=1107966506/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-0004314-9821421

OH! Didn't expect this so soon. Can't wait!

---

He's writing another autobiography? I thought the first one was interesting, but I don't know what he's done since then that's compelling enough for a whole book. I can't imagine the Broadway adventure and djing can make up a whole book. This seems like an exercise in self-promotion and money making by someone who hasn't had a hit in years.

I'm not sure what Lee in London is referring to, but in my experience a lot of celebrity autobiographies aren't as honest as they claim to be. They are more about making the subject look good and getting back at people who they feel have slighted them, rather than telling the unvarnished truth.

I thought his first book was interesting. But for me as a not hard core Boy George fan, it rambled on for a little too long. It could have used some editing. It had some clever turns of phrase, but seemed more like him talking into a tape recorder on and on rather than being very well organized and written. Also, there were parts of it were very cruel and invasive of other people's privacy, particularly in relation to his ex-boyfriend. I came away thinking he was intelligent and clever, but awfully self-absorbed, bitchy and lacking in compassion for others. But I guess all celebrities, are like that aren't they?

evgirl i got the same impression of him but isnt that just his personality?

---

I literally just ordered it. It came like a week ago... almost done with this other book. Fear not!

---

I'm not really sure I get this. I mean, if someone has indellible flaws, I don't think it's right for that to make anyone less of a fan of their work... because, after all, being a fan of someone's is about being a fan of what they do, not what their personality is like, in theory. Obviously maybe you'd think less of them, but it shouldn't change your perception of their work.

That said, Take It Like a Man is what George wrote. He had every right to make it as cynical, bitchy, or whatever as he wanted to. He has every right to say what he wants to about people in his life; if it didn't portray his true personality, then what sort of autobiography would that be? A dishonest one, that's all about making things appear pretty, when they don't particularly sound like they are. And you just said that dishonesty was a bad thing, didn't you?

I'm not trying to start an argument, but just think about what you say before you say it.

---

Well, yeah. I wasn't a fan of his music until after I saw Taboo, even though I had been exposed to a little bit of it, kind of unknowingly, but now I am. I got the book because he seems like a pretty fascinating character, but I'm not going to be disappointed in the book when I read stuff that's heartless and bitchy. If that's what he's about, then fine.

That mini-rant before wasn't really addressed to you, Delph.

lol... ETA - I guess we posted at the same time.

---

Updated On: 2/9/05 at 12:40 PM

Rock on, umgeoboy.

Thank you, Emcee.

Besides, the bitchy stuff is what makes the book interesting. (And Marilyn and his "poisonous strings", which I cracked up at harder than anything else in the book. Good stuff.)

Updated On: 2/9/05 at 12:43 PM

What I was saying was I enjoyed his music, but I wasn't a hard core fan and knew little to nothing about him as a person (as compared to knowing his music) befor reading the book. I think people who are hard core fans of Boy George and some other artists aren't merely into just the music, but also sort of worship and admire their personality and bitchy wit. Let's face it, Boy George isn't still a star because of his music. People who maybe had a pre-existing affection for him as a person might be more willing to forgive his nastiness. I think the extent to which you liked his book and him as a person depends on whether you find all that bitching funny. I didn't; I found it really cruel. I still think he's talented, but his personality really turns me off.

There's a big difference between being honest and cruel. I don't buy this idea you have the right to say whatever pops into your head in whatever words you want no matter how much it hurts other people especially if the other people aren't celebrities and have no way of responding in kind. As a stranger, it's easy to enjoy the book; but suppose you were one of the people he wrote mean things about. How would you feel? I think some people give people like Boy George a free pass because they're famous; and allow them to get away with all kind of bad behavior that they would never put up with from people they encounter in everyday life.
I did think about what I wrote before I wrote it; I think anyone who thinks Boy George had a perfect right to go around hurting people just because he's a celebrity and talented needs to do some thinking and soul-searching of their own.

I guess where I disagree with you is I think that celebrities do have a certain moral responsibility when they write autobiographies or otherwise speak in the media, because they have an access to the media that others don't. I think it's possible to be honest without being so cruel as he was in parts of the book. I've read other celebrity autobiographies that were very honest and forthright, but they were not as cruel as his was, and were more respectful of the people around them, who in fact helped make them the stars they became.
It also seems to me that someone who suffered as much as George did should have some compassion for other people and their pain. I didn't get much of that in the book; he seemed to think only his feelings and pain mattered.
I certainly defend his right under the First Amendment to say whatever he wants, but it didn't make him a very caring or admirable person in my eyes for him to write what he wrote.

Updated On: 2/9/05 at 04:40 PM

I brought up the First Amendment because you used the word censorship. I'm not saying he didn't have the right to say whatever he wanted, but I couldn't agree with what he did from a moral responsible point of view. You have to realize that words do have a unique power to wound and even more powerful when they come from a celebrity and an icon. When you read his book, you are only getting one version of the truth, his truth. We can't hear the opinions of others talked about in the book like his ex-boyfriend and band members, who would I'm sure have a very different story to tell. But his view is given a greater credibility and is fact the only view we hear because he's a celebrity. I found him very unadmirable, but most people who have read the book who I have discussed it with don't feel that way and really admire him after reading the book. They like you admire his "honesty". I think the book although not written to make people like him, was written to enhance his status as an icon and keep him in the spotlight and get more attention and there were definitely some very egotistical reasons behind it.

I'm not saying he should be a cookie cutter artist, but in order to be different and unique, why did he have to be cruel and put so many other people down. I don't think that makes him or anyone else cool or hip. I think the one thing that will be interesting in his new autobiography is since he's older if he takes a different tone. Because the times I did see him on tv promoting Taboo he didn't really project the same cruelty and bitchiness that he did in the book.

Thank you, Kelly.

I'm done having this argument. The last thing I'll say is that it's HIS damned book. Of course it's his point of view. That's the POINT. Kelly stated it perfectly. You're talking yourself in circles, EVGIRL. George doesn't exact strike many people as the type who when looking or begging for admiration. He doesn't seem like he gives one wit about what people think of him. Who he hurts is his responsibility, but he has EVERY RIGHT TO DO IT. If these people hurt him, who are you to say whether or not he can write about it? His uniqueness isn't supposed to be based on his cruelty like you're implying - it's based on who he is as an artist in many different respects. And the story in Taboo seems to be a few things in relation to the book - slightly altered to save time, because 500 pages can not be a musical. That said, I think some of the characters are composites. And, it's also probably a lot less biased. The book gives the story PURELY through George's point of view, where the show looked like it was trying to be somewhat more neutral. That comment about how he came off while promoting the show therefore, in effect, is useless.

Hate all you want, but stop saying the same stuff a hundred times, and give me a f*cking break.

---