I have issues with Michael Crichton. When I was a kid I loved The Andromeda Strain, and thought it was a cool movie. It wasn’t until much later, after seeing Jurassic Park, I think it was, that I became aware of the clear antiscience — literally, saying science is bad — message.
Jurassic Park is full of that sort of thing. There Are Some Things Man Should Not Tamper With. And Crichton’s science — blecch. I laughed and laughed at how chaos theory was portrayed, and it was just as bad in the book. I wasn’t sure if Crichton didn’t understand chaos theory, or just horribly abused it for his plot.
It wouldn’t have bugged me so much, but Crichton makes claims about being a scientist himself. He has a book out on denying global warming, and advised President Bush on it. James Hansen, an actual climate scientist, couldn’t see Bush, but a guy who wrote about the work other people did got an audience. It’s a crazy world.
I’ve been meaning to write about this for a long time, but then I was reading io9, and they had a post about Mike Brotherton, a fellow astronomer and blogger, as well as a science fiction writer (and BABloggee). Brotherton puts the hurt on Crichton’s writings and attitudes, and wow if it doesn’t parallel my thinking eerily.
Brotherton also links to a book dissecting Crichton’s science, a collection of essays edited by our mutual friend Kevin Grazier (science advisor for Battlestar Galactica and Eureka). I’d very much like to read that, actually. I’ll have to find a copy… and maybe get Kevin to sign it at Comic Con; we’re both on a panel there about science in science fiction. It’s sponsored by Discover Magazine, and it should be fun.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Wait: BSG had a science advisor ?
they must not have listened to him much.
Still a good, entertaining program, but don’t get me started on impossibilities.
As for Crichton: Jurassic Park = Bleh, I agree.
I liked The Andromeda Strain* , but I suspect that most microbiologists would shun it like the plague. (pun intended.)
*(the first one, not the made-for-TV version)
July 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Why is AGW science? It is nothing but hypothesis, it can not be falsificatet. This is the same as relgion, or the flying spagehti monster. Vey funny, indeed…
July 24th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I’m not a big fan of his writing for many reasons – couldn’t even really dig State of Fear. But the point I took from Jurassic Park isn’t that genetic science is bad. It is that we are undertaking it without commonsense and necessary safeguards.
For the longest time I thought it was stupid – why wouldn’t they have a tank or an APC on the island to take out the T-Rex if it got loose? Or have backup systems in case the power went out? But this was his entire point.
Okay, I still think it’s kind of stupid, but dinosaurs are cool. Whether he is right or wrong making that point, I have no idea.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Couldn’t let this go by without a comment. Yes, Chrichton is anti-technology and anti-science, and his books have a strong tendency toward idiot plots – plots that work if and only if every character acts like a complete idiot at all times. Jurassic Park is almost totally an idiot plot, with idiotic design of the park itself thrown in. But then, if his characters behaved sensibly and intelligently, he wouldn’t have a story, would he?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Kinda like how A Clockwork Orange was an anti-ABA book/movie.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Oh, WEIRD. We were just discussing chaos theory on the Skeptics’ Guide last night (that show will be up on iTunes Saturday), and I jokingly said that everything I knew about chaos I learned from Jurassic Park. Steve claims it was a good overview in the book, but I admitted I couldn’t even remember because I was in 6th or 7th grade at the time. Crap, now I’m going to have to check.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
[...] | Mike Brotherton: SF Writer on Outside the Ghetto and the Ghastly Example of Michael CrichtonBrotherton on Crichton | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine on Outside the Ghetto and the Ghastly Example of Michael CrichtonDaniel Levin on The Ten Worst [...]
July 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Crichton’s travel journal “Travels” is a fun read, when it sticks to the actual travel part, but it’s full of the biggest woo-woo stories you’ve ever heard. Roomsful of people bending spoons, auras, etc.
Bending spoons with your mind is super easy, he writes, but it’s so boring once you’ve figured it out that people just don’t talk about it much (even after paying huge amounts to attend seminars where you learn how to do it).
He claims you can see your own aura in a dark room. Right there, flowing out of your fingers. I tried it…guess what.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
@Dirk,
The article you linked to was made up of parts of a paper written by Dr. David Evans. He did work for the Australian Govnt. with the Greenhouse Gasses Office as stated in the article. What the article fails to mention is that he area of expertise is computer science. He helped write the programs that gathered data from various sources for the government program. Although his area of study does not disqualify him from stating his opinion on the subject, I believe it carries no more weight that the opinion of any other scientist who comments outside of his field. Maybe one of our Australian commenters could comment on the reliablility of the newspaper that carried this article. I do not like relying on newspapers for scientific information unless I do a little research into their source first.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Dirk: AGW is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory, either. AGW is a prediction from the theories of atmospheric science. If you calculate the radiative balance within the atmosphere, and then you increase the average global CO2 concentration, warming occurs. The atmosphere must adjust. This is not speculation nor a guess at how the atmosphere works.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
You noticed! Yes, Chrichton’s plots have almost always followed the Frankenstein model (only moreso). Scientists or technologists develop something (often motivated by greed) that gets out of control and kills people and threatens to kill more, if not the whole world. Andromeda Strain, West World, Future World, Jurassic Park, Prey, possibly Terminal Man and Timeline; less so Airframe, Congo and a couple of others. It’s an easy plot to write a thriller around. (Not that its easy to write the way Chrichton does, credit where due, he does know how to write for the market.)
The Frankenstein lesson should be that science or technology are bad, but that people can do bad things with them (think of the good that could have come of Victor Frankenstein’s work). Alas, both Shelley and Chrichton take the easy way out and blame, not so much the sinner or the sin, but the technology — they don’t point out the upside.
Chrichton isn’t and never was a scientist. He was trained as a medical doctor — where you’re fed from a firehose of knowledge that science has learned, but that doesn’t make you a scientist — and has been writing and filmmaking almost his entire career.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Crichton… antiscience
While I would agree that you can interpret his writing as antiscience, I’m not so certain that it is deliberate or premeditated.
Because of the kind of story he typically writes –his formula of cautionary tale– science gone wrong often ends up being the villian or conflict. To have a cautionary tale you must by default have something to be cautious about. I think he basically just freezes out other degrees of freedom in his writing and ends up at antiscience as a side-effect… not because that was the direction he deliberately headed. Note, “Twister” isn’t antiscience: it is very pro-science given that the whole point of the story is to do science and use those results to further humanity (in a vague “okay, let’s park an instrument package in a Tornado and immediately have the results” sort of way.) I’m not for a moment suggesting his science is either good or properly researched, just that it isn’t a deliberate vendetta like you might find at the Disco’tute.
Still, I may be wrong about that.
For the record, I’ve haven’t touched another story of his since I was appalled by his treatment of Quantum Theory in Timeline.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Ack! Left out a word. “The Frankenstein lesson should NOT be that science or technology are bad,”
Jeez.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Isn’t there a section in “Travels” where he says something about how he doesn’t believe in the germ theory of disease?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Phil,
I disagree. His books are not anti-science. For the most part his books are just fun mixed with some sort of real sort of fake science. However, I do see a message from his books that science is power and we better not forget that it has consequences. I personally, as a scientist, am disgusted with a growing attitude amongst scientists that we are some how morally superior and all things we say should not need any inspection nor scrutiny. Embryonic Stem cells is just one topic for which when I even questioned the ethical implications was shouted down by many of my peers as basically being an “anti-science religious right winger.” I hope that more scientists will begin to at least realize the raw power we have by way of our knowledge and that perhaps not all its consequences will be welcome one.
Regards,
Caleb
July 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
John W: “I’m not a big fan of his writing for many reasons – couldn’t even really dig State of Fear. But the point I took from Jurassic Park isn’t that genetic science is bad. It is that we are undertaking it without commonsense and necessary safeguards.”
No, that’s not it at all. Crichton was very clear in the book, through his misunderstanding of chaos theory, that Jurassic Park HAD to fail. It didn’t matter what safeguards were put in place or how much commonsense was applied. The mathematician makes it very clear that he doesn’t have to see any safety features whatsoever. Doomed to failure. Man was trying to control something inherently uncontrollable (dinosaurs, genetics, life, fate). Without the ridiculous chaos theory and message, I could have loved what was otherwise a very fun and exciting dinosaur thriller.
Crichton’s fair game to me since he’s not “just a writer.” His work has a huge influence on people and he seems to believe the research he does for his books, as much as he seems to misunderstand it, qualifies him as an expert. He’s briefed the White House on global warming, for instance. He consistently casts doubt on the entire scientific enterprise and brandishes his ancient MD as if it were a PhD when they’re nothing alike (talk to some doctors and scientists at length and you’ll see what I mean).
Well, I don’t need to comment too much here probably. I got my entire original blog post to say what I wanted on the subject. I should be so lucky to have so many people nitpicking the science in my own novels which I work very hard to get right.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’ve read 3 of his books. Don’t care to read anymore.
Anyone else notice the female characters are a pain, while the boys are the geniuses. Look at Jurassic park. Spielberg made the boy a bright dino-nut and the girl a computer geek. The book however, the girl character whines and the boy is a dino-nut and computer geek. Similiar thread in the other 2 books. I was as put off by this as the anti-science.
By the way, I never watch E.R. because of him.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I never read JP, just saw the movie. In addition to the obvious anti-science, I can’t say I was thrilled about the anti-lawyer stance. Sleazy lawyer gets eaten while hiding the john? Cheap shot. I preferred Greg Bear’s little book, Dinosaur Summer. Much more fun and whimsical and less preachy, which is ironic cuz it’s Greg Bear.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Uhh and I gave his book “Next” to my uncle as a present today.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I’ve contended for a long time that the biggest difference between written SF and the movie/tv variety is that the former is generally optimistic about science while the latter is generally pessimistic. There are many, many exceptions, of course, but I think this is true in the very broadest terms.
This divergence really goes back to the 1920s and the beginning of pulp SF.
Both media and written SF trace their origins to 19th century antecedents, but in most of the twentieth century, written SF tended to follow the tradition of Jules Verne, while media SF followed that of Frankenstein.
Chichton is a successful novelist, of course, but his work has always had more in common with movie sci-fi than with science fiction as a form of popular literature.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Phil, I agree wholeheartedly.
Ad Hominid, that’s it exactly. I would add that Crichton’s books are, TTBOMK, never labelled “science fiction” on their spines (although the movie adaptations are usually tagged that way in TV Guide data).
Rebecca, as far as I can recall, it is a very very BAD overview of chaos theory in J.P. For me it was easily the worst part of a bad book. He takes it to mean something like “you can’t predict anything, you can’t control anything” — pretty much the message of all his work — which is exactly wrong. “Chaos theory” is about understanding the underlying order in apparently disorderly processes — just the opposite of what Crichton is saying.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Wow! This is like some sort of paralell universe thing. Over on io9 there has been the same general discussion, albeit more people there were slapping Crichton around for being a Luddite pretending to know what he is writing about.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Oops–here is the link. Check it out.http://io9.com/5027537/michael-crichton-evil-or-just-a-crazy-luddite
July 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Nemo, that was exactly my reaction to Crichton on chaos theory, too.
And apparently my website just went down. My webmaster is checking into it. The site has been able to withstand being farked in the past, so I doubt it’s merely a traffic spike from here. My hypothesis is that Crichton noticed my criticisms and called up his hacker friends to attack me…
The io9 link does well summarize key points of my essay, however.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
You guys saying Crichton is anti-science clearly have less reading comprehension than I did when I was in 6th grade. The point has been made already by other posters here like themadchemist, AJWM, and viggen. I am just reiterating them.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I have never had a good opinion of Michael Crichton’s books. His ideas are fun, but his execution is terrible. But my son has grown up wanting to be a paleontologist “like Dr. Grant.” I never thought of Crichton’s writing as anti-science. I agree with earlier posts describing his works as Frankenstein stories, that is science run amok.
I guess my son did not get the anti-science message either. He first saw Jurassic Park as a wee lad. Now at 15, he still wants to be a scientist. He understands that Jurassic Park is fiction and Dr. Grant a caricature. Now I am not defending Chrichton’s personal stance on science, but I do give his stories credit for inspiring at least one budding young scientist.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“The Andromeda Strain” was one of the first grown-up books I read, found it on my fathers book-of-the-month shelf, and enjoyed it very much. Thinking about it, it’s probably one of the things that influenced my interests towards science both fact and fiction. I always took the anti-science in his books, the Things-Go-Wrong parts not his mistakes and misunderstandings, as the focus of the plot. If things all went to plan it would be a rather boring book and you might as well watch Care Bears.
A few years ago I stumbled over his book “Travels”, that really set off the alarm bells in my mind about him. “State of Fear” read like a piece of work commissioned by an oil company for their informative pamphlet for people visiting an oil rig or a refinery. The problem with highly successful people like Crichton is that they often believe their way of thinking is better than other peoples: “just look at what I have achieved with my superior brain/religion”.
I still read his books though, a guilty pleasure like watching Rugter Hauer b-movies from the eighties or books by Matthew Reilly (really, really, really crappy science and plots, but reads like the fastest action movie you’d ever seen or will see).
July 24th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
It took me a bit to twig to Chrichton – and now I can’t stand him. Even watching reruns of Andromeda Strain is painful. The “new” one is worse than worthless..
But am I the only one that seems to think the man has not a single clue how to END a story? Almost all of his stuff ends with some version of “And then it all went away and everything was back to normal…. or was it?”
That more than anything else drove me away. The science part I just knocked down to “almost no one since Clarke/Asimov can do it right”
JC
July 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Calling Crichton anti-science or a Luddite is exactly the cherry picking so-called AGW “deniers” are claimed to be doing. Obviously, Crichton can’t just be advocating caution, prudence, and humility before nature and someone that doesn’t think global warming is primarily caused by human activity is anti-science.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Wait, Eureka has a science adviser? C’mooooooon!
July 24th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Science fiction writing follows a long tradition of “what goes wrong when science oversteps its bounds”. An early commenter pointed out Frankenstein, but a similar paradigm can be found in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or The Invisible Man, or The Island of Dr. Moreau. In all of these stories (and numerous others) the story pretty much revolves around science going wrong.
You’re free to dislike Crichton as a writer, but calling him “anti-science” might be a bit too harsh. He’s just yet another author in a long line who have capitalized on the “science going wrong” story. A whole lot of writers fit into this category.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Dudes, and dudettes…
I haven’t read a Chricton novel since Jurassic Park and if you think JP is anti-genetics, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet — you should read some real genetic fear-mongering in his latest book, “neXt”.
Chricton to me is more of a screenplay writer than a novelist. His writing style lends itself well to movie-making, and there money-making. The trouble with his writing is that he has enough understand of a topic to sound reasonably credible to non-critical thinkers.
I guarantee you that if my Mom read “neXt”, she would be touting that novel like a preacher waving his bible at a Sunday service. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Wow…I just re-read my post and I made several typos…sigh…hope all of you can read “typo”.
– Slaps forehead –
July 24th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“I haven’t read a Chricton novel since Jurassic Park and if you think JP is anti-genetics, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet — you should read some real genetic fear-mongering in his latest book, “neXt”.”
Did you have someone read “neXt” for you then?
July 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Paul, as documented at blogs like Deltoid and RealClimate, State Of Fear and Next are both filled with footnotes that purport to be the ‘real science’ on which the story is based. These footnotes contain the worst kind of pseudoscience and conspiracy theory. In those two books, Chriction shows himself to be every bit as crazy as an AIDS-denialist or a 9/11 – troofer.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’m not sure if I can add anything new to what’s already been said, but I just finished reading Jurassic Park and The Lost World for the second time after not having read them since they were first released. I literally just finished Lost World today, which is ironic timing.
Malcolm’s character in the movie makes a pretty weak argument for why he feels the creation of the park will and should fail, apparently because they just didn’t have time to expand upon it. In the book, his point of view is given the good part of entire chapters, which technically makes it a better case. Technically.
These two books are the only Crichton novels I’ve read, so I can’t make the case that he himself is anti-science. Yes, I can understand that the underlying message of the books is “You cannot attempt to control nature”, and yes, the Malcolm character is, I would say, fairly anti-science. But when you consider the time period that JP was written in, the points of view become borderline social commentary given the uncertainties of the future that allowed Crichton to basically invent this scientific world of bioengineering that went against all morals in the pursuit of money. Without even presenting any other point of view even.
One could definitely argue that Crichton tries to coax the reader into an anti-science mindset by having such a character constantly presenting his views as the “ultimate truth”. And at times, that’s how it seemed to me, as I eventually grew tired of hearing Malcolm ramble on about there is no more “real science” and that in x number of years everything imaginable will be bio engineered and all morality of science will be obsolete. So without having any other books to go by, it is possible that he is trying to press upon the viewers the anti-science views of the character, however I don’t know enough about his other work to have a valid judgment.
Clearly Crichton is not a genius in the field of chaos theory. But I think he needed something to accomplish what he wanted to with the book, and I can imagine 90% of JP’s readers didn’t know the wiser. So I can see the logic in picking chaos theory as the safety net for his character’s beliefs, but one could argue that it is irresponsible to abuse the true nature of a scientific field just to get your character’s point across. That I can agree with.
But are the books anti-science? The pivotal character is- whom a great deal of the story is devoted to- yes. But I’d say the message of the books as a whole is the inability to control nature more than it is anti-science, simply because one character’s views don’t always represent the overall moral of a story for me. Is Crichton himself antiscience, and are the lengthy expositions by this character just a means of him pushing his views upon the reader? Possibly. Worth reading? For the fun, yes. For the science, no.
But you don’t have to take my word for it.
::Reading Rainbow::
July 24th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
@Thomas Siefert,
LMAO buddy…another issue with my post. –double sigh–
July 24th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Er, I meant Crichton, sorry. I blame the lack of preview on this blog.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I never understood why Michael Crichton’s books, which are, by any reasonable definition, science fiction (most of them), are somehow lifted out of the sf ghetto and placed in General Fiction and become bestsellers, while self-described sf writers who have been writing about similar subjects for many years never get any mainstream recognition. It’s not like his books are better-written; in fact they’re characterized by shallow, perfunctory character sketches, expository monologues and plots that could be created by fairly cheap software.
(And in the case of “Timeline”, his research into 14th century France was lacking, to say the least.)
July 24th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Is Jurassic Park *the book* antiscience? I think that was a theme added by Spielberg in the movie. Malcom’s point was the “life finds a way”, not “science is bad”.
As far as “Climate of Fear” goes, he presents the data against AGW pretty strongly. We know you disagree with his interpreation, but is it really “anti-science”?
July 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
To Viewer 3, and the others who are doubt Crichton is anti-science. If you have not read State Of Fear, go to the library, check it out, and read it – and then see the RealClimate careful analysis of the book. Whether previous books such as Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain, and so forth are anti-science is arguably open to interpretation, but State Of Fear is full of footnotes which tell you how to interpret it. In that novel, Crichton is very careful to eliminate all doubt.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
All of this is less disturbing than the personal attack he put into “Next”. A writer who criticized him appeared, in slightly modified form, as a child rapist: http://snipurl.com/34hn2
July 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
A couple of years back Crichton was the final speaker at the Skeptics Society annual conference. That year, the subject was global warming. Crichton started out by reading the prologue to Jurassic Park (which discussed the then-new concept of patenting genes), and said [paraphrased, please see Shermer for videotape] ‘They laughed at me then, but see where we are now? In 25 years, when you have to wear snowshoes in Los Angeles, see who’s laughing”. I guess he’s a prophet now.
Presumably, we’re due for space plagues and android gunslingers.
When questioned on his science, he proudly claimed “If [the science in his books] had to be peer-reviewed, I’d never get anything published!”
That about tells you all you need to know about his mentality.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
> When questioned on his science, he proudly claimed “If [the science in his books] had to be peer-reviewed, I’d never get anything published!”
Which is why I can’t really hold too much against him. He just twists the facts of science to fit his stories. Which is fine for things like Star Trek. The only thing I find irresponsible is presenting inaccurate science as “the ultimate logical truth”, and basing your entire character’s belief on inaccuracies, however slight they may be. People who know nothing of chaos theory may read Jurassic Park and come away thinking that Malcolm’s character is probably right, and that all science is without morals and whatnot.
Of course it sounds like no one would be foolish enough to have their entire perspective on science changed by reading a mere book, but if you’ve actually read it, then you know what I mean. It’s written in such a way that it goes beyond simply one character talking about his beliefs. He is meant to be the “prophetic hero”, the one that everyone turns to at the end and says “My God, he was right all along!”. So the mistake, in my view, comes not from using the usual sci-fi formula of twisting science to fit your story, but rather lifting that twisted perspective of science to the level of “See, if you don’t believe in this, then you’re just blind and ignorant like everyone else.”
July 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
El Spectre, his books are fiction, and he doesn’t claim they’re not. That statement doesn’t really tell you anything about his mentality.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I used to love Crichton when I was a kid, and I considered his books to be based on real science. I really started to question him when I read an autobiography where he talked about some serious Woo.
It was a sad day when I took Crichton off my heros list.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
If for nothing else, I will always remember “Jurassic Park” as the movie where I first heard the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
J. D.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Robbie, the point (and I probably didn’t communicate this well) was he had a real “see, I told you” vibe going on thru his whole talk, and then admits his arguments are all untenable.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I think there was a big differnce between the book & the movie. I assumed that Crichton had less to do with the move, which was full of typical Spielberg stupid.
It’s been a while, but I thought the book had more to do with corp. greed; “screw finding a cure for cancer, we could make some real $$ with customized pets!”
I think that Crichton is better critized for “Aliens Cause Global Warning” (http://tinyurl.com/59ytdh), which is full of slighly more safisticated stupid (IMHO.) For example, his rant on computer models – I guess the weather guys should go back to slide rules….
July 24th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I can’t say I disagree with all that has been said here, but I think that in a lot of ways you are getting him wrong. I remember reading a article he wrote about how all science fiction movies have the classic Frankenstein theme, which he hated. So, in Jurassic park, he explicitly set out to change that. I think that if you look closely, Jurassic really does not have that theme at all. However, when it was made into the movie, Spielberg actually has Malcolm say “There are some things that man was not meant to know”, a line that was not in the book at all, and totally at odds with Crichton intentions.
I agree with the poster above about the book Travels. I enjoyed it quite a lot, but after the chapter about the psychic, he lost all his scientist cred with me.
I thought that Prey went off kilter when the ‘bots started taking over humans and imitating them, but that is not so much as an impossibility in itself as unrealistic compression of evolutionary speed. But that’s the point, I think, of both Prey and Jurassic Park, not that there are things not meant to be played with, but that you play with complex chaotic systems at your peril; they don’t behave in the ways you might expect.
Truly, as Crichton has adopted an agenda his writing has suffered. The last good book he wrote was Timeline. It is interesting to note that Arthur C. Clarke came out with a book that uses the exact same science to explain highly different phenomena. I figure some physicist published a paper which both read. Interesting to see the different results.
In any case, sure Crichton gets the scientific details wrong, he is not a scientist. The authors of almost all techno thrillers have this problem. The important thing for a writer is not to get it all right, but to seem to get it all right. Thus, for almost all such writers, the comment is “Well, he got everything in my own field completely wrong, but everything else was spot on!”, said by all technical readers of their stories. Clancy was notorious for that.
And consider that most of what Crichton says about Global Warming, Chaos theory, nanotechnology is a reasonable point of view and needs an answer. Maybe he is is out to lunch on all of these topics, but given the evidence he has and the weighting he gives it, his conclusion is fairly persuasive., and probably reflects a lot of other intelligent people. Ignore them at your peril.
I do wish he would get off his high-horse and get back to writing real stories and stop preaching, though.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Apparently Yahoo felt like having the top 10 most inaccurate movies today. Not only does MC get the science wrong, so do they. Hopefully this link will work (it’s a particular image inside a frame set) but without a preview button I won’t know in advance…
There are a lot of reasons why 25 million year old DNA won’t get you dinosaurs, not just the breakdown of it.
That’s like that “How Life Began” on the History Channel having the Cambrian Explosion happen at about the same time as the Permian Extinction. Sigh. Ok, Yahoo is only 40 million years off instead of 285 million years but still. It’s not like this stuff is so obscure that it can’t be looked up in a second or two. Unfortunately those kind of dates aren’t common knowledge. ;^)
July 24th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Well, I can’t say Brotherton’s post struck me as a particularly strenuous thrashing. I also can’t help but wonder if the opinion of Crichton would be different if he were a staunch AGW advocate. Maybe that’s my natural cynicism.
The first issue, how Crichton and others escaped the ghetto of SF, is simple. The plots in his SF books are close enough to current tech as to appeal to editors as thrillers. End 0f problem. I disagree with Brotherton that description of SF tech bogs it down, but that’s a matter of personal taste – I suspect there’s a niche for well-written SF technothrillers.
The second is I don’t think Crichton is anti-science. I did, long ago, after reading “The Andromeda Strain” and “The Terminal Man.” After reading a few more of his books, oh, maybe a decade and a half later, I was struck that the common theme is anti-hubris, not only of individuals but, I suspect, mankind as a whole. Here cutting edge tech is a classic set-up (see Frankenstein and R.U.R.) because there’s a perception that those on the cutting edge don’t recognize all of the ramifications of what they’re doing. It’s a popular theme, popular enough to put Crichton on the best seller list more than once.
That’s not anti-science. There’s a crucial scene in “The Andromeda Strain” where an alarm bell is accidentally disabled by a scrap of paper.
Could Crichton’s science be better? Sure. I cringed at his time-travel mechanism in Timescape. The DNA in blood-sucking insects locked in amber is a nice thought, if you don’t dwell on it too much, but no more than the FTL drives that Brotherton mentions. Sphere was a bit “eh,” but the very last sentence – and it’s implication – made up for it. And I’m sure we can pick apart the central premise of Eaters of the Dead. Yet I enjoyed this book not only for the story, but because it’s an excellent parody of those heavily annotated translations published by universities (see the very last work cited in the “bibliography”).
Here’s the point: Crichton sells books because he can write a good yarn. So does Stephen King and every other best selling fiction author. If you want a bestseller that portrays science the way you like, then write it. Which, as any aspiring writer will tell you, is easier said than done. But if that’s the type of story you want to get into the hands of the public, and they’re not being written, then that’s the way to do it.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
State of Fear was a polemic and a bad novel. Worst info dumps ever. “Well Bob, this is why global warming is… blah blah blah…” followed by 3 pages of graphs. The last novel of his I enjoyed was Timeline.
For good sf dino novels check out Robert J Sawyers Quintaglio Ascension trilogy. The first book is called Far-Seer.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Antiscience? I interpreted the exact opposite. Crichton is very pro-science, he believes that it is important to fully understand a topic before blindly jumping in. What he does write against is the hubris of humanity in thinking that we can understand and control our natural world. We cannot. It is also important to understand that his works are science FICTION. But of all science fiction actually being written these days, Crichton’s science is actually real and tangible. You don’t like State of Fear? Fine, don’t argue with the author, argue with the conclusions of the numerous papers that fill its bibliography, those are the source.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Regarding ‘Jurassic Park’:
To call Crichton an ‘anti-science’ writer is asinine.
Apparently, none of you are paleontologists.
Is the science in the novels and movies perfect? Of course not, they are NOVELS and MOVIES, meant to entertain the whole populace!
If ‘true science’ sci-fi was even halfway entertaining to anyone other than ’scientists’, the result would be a blockbuster. Which hasn’t happened. So, get over it already, and get back to the astronomy!
July 24th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
for me mr.crichton is a pulp fiction writer making trash. i only read timescape, and well…trash!!!.
but i think the real problem with him, is what he has said (and i think is correct) about the “Drake’s ecuation”…and it hurts!!
a lot of peoples became very angry about that piece of “blasphemy”
vindictiveness is bad for your health, mr.plaiy
July 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Check out some of Crichton’s essays and speeches to get a feel for his attitudes on science apart from the needs of commercial fiction. For example: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
There is a lot in there that Mr. BA could endorse. Yes there are a number of weak points as well. I think that the general conclusion that the science of AGW is not sufficiently developed to justify overturning our entire energy supply infrastructure, in preference to other pressing demands, deserves some consideraton. There are enough people with better scientific credentials than Crichton calling for a more open examination of the evidence that those with a truly scientific frame of mind should welcome a more balanced (and less acrimonious) public discourse. (See http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps-edito-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/ )
July 24th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Chris Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
“Crichton’s travel journal “Travels” is a fun read, when it sticks to the actual travel part, but it’s full of the biggest woo-woo stories you’ve ever heard. Roomsful of people bending spoons, auras, etc.
Bending spoons with your mind is super easy, he writes, but it’s so boring once you’ve figured it out that people just don’t talk about it much (even after paying huge amounts to attend seminars where you learn how to do it).”
Phil has already posted the youtube link to the approximately 800 people bending spoons at The Amazing Meeting 6. I was there and bent one also. We found out how to do it at no extra charge. Teller, of Penn and Teller, explained something about it (not shown in the youtube clip). I can guarantee that the only mental ability we used was the mental ability of following instructions.
If people pay “huge amounts” to learn how to do it, they must be embarrassed about it.
George
July 24th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Geophysicist, What he does write against is the hubris of humanity in thinking that we can understand and control our natural world. We cannot.
I can’t understand that attitude. Why can’t we? We’ve done ok so far. Everything humanity has done since he discovered fire has come about because of our ability to understand and control nature. It isn’t going to stop any time soon. Don’t throw global warming back at me either. We will either reverse, stabilise or adapt to global warming. One way or another we’re here for the long term… unless of course we get taken out by an act-of-god(tm) or nukes, neither of which have much to do with understanding or controlling the natural world. We are one smart chimp. We can do anything. Yay us.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I just realized one of the main reasons I like reading the comments on these posts…hardly any lame net-style abbreviations are used, except in moderation, our grammar, punctuation and spelling are usually correct, and if we do make any typos, we usually apologize for them and re-comment. I recently got an email from the mother of one of my students (in High School) and I would swear that her keyboard had no Shift key, nor comma, fullstop (period) or semicolon keys. Thanks for uplifting my reading today.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Crux Australis, U ROK 2, LOL, K THX BAI.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I read Eaters of the dead and The Great Train Robbery and I thought he was a great writer. Then I had a month long period where I didn’t have much else to do other than read the likes of Sphere, Congo, The Terminal Dude, as well as a nice assortment of John Grisham’s best. I came very close to suicide. Of course, for Eaters of the dead and The Great Train Robbery, he didn’t really need to craft the stories himself or resort to preachy, bad science. Maybe that’s the key.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
shane:
The people around Brownsville, Texas, might disagree with that point. Here is the hubris I think Crichton is aiming at: We’re not as mighty or as clever as we think. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t extend our grasp, it only means we should be very careful of our footing when we do so.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Crux:
Not sure if you’re aware, but anyone reposting because they “typoed” is not exactly a GOOD thing. I’m quite sure there’s not a single typo anyone here has or will make that couldn’t easily be understood with simple context. I can see if it was leaving out a “not” or something that would dramatically alter their intended thought, but anyone who takes the time to waste space with a second post saying “Oops, I meant *you’re, not your. Sorry about that!” truly has a self-image issue if they’re that worried about maintaining their “internet image” when it’s clear what they meant.
BUT I agree completely. I can think of no other subject other than science where pretty much 100% of the people posting actually know how to use English and a keyboard. Refreshing indeed.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
@Crux Australis
I love the abbreviations, but that’s may be because I’m too lazy to figure out what they mean. Instead I just substitute whatever pops into my head.
Here’s what I think Shane said.
Crux Australis, you rotten old krank! Lots of love… OK, me thinks. Bad Ass Invalid.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Geoscience says:
So, uh, why doesn’t he?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Jose
Crux Australis, you rotten old krank! Lots of love… OK, me thinks. Bad Ass Invalid.
That is way better than what I thought I said.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Crichton’s mistake is that he’s quick to point out how well researched he is, and then he uses bad science to try and send a lame after school special message that might not even be right. And he’s a dick.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Anti-science. Another buzz term many people are now using for everything they don’t agree with. Not everyone … just a lot. I am guilty of it.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Anti-science. Another buzz term many people are now using for everything they don’t agree with.
I don’t see people throwing the term around in situations where they don’t feel bad science is at work. I don’t call the Bush tax cuts anti-science. I call them anti-math, anti-middle class, or pro-rich. I call his positions on global warming and the environment anti-science because he’s had to actively ignore science in order to reach those positions. Although, sometimes I call that pro-rich as well.
By the way, I may disagree with you, but I don’t think you’re anti-science, just anti-anti-science.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:15 am
@ Brian Utterback
“The last good book he wrote was Timeline. ”
Wow, really? I’m shocked anybody liked that book. I’d suspected before that book came out that he was tapped out as an author, but Timeline was the final nail in the coffin of his career, IMO.
After discovering and harnessing time travel (using extremely dubious science), what does Crichton have happen? Do the first time travels want to see Jesus/Muhammad/Buddha (etc.)? No. Do they want to answer the great questions of mankind? No. They want to build a THEME PARK.
And then Crichton had to go and make an already bad novel worse by giving the most absurd answer ever for the grandfather paradox (”It just can’t happen. Please don’t ask further questions.”), and by including the stupidest character ever (that stupid green giant in by the secret passage).
Timeline was an absolutely atrocious novel.
Also, I agree with the other posters about Travels having some genuine eye-popping moments in it. Crichton claims to have conversed with a cactus in Travels. I’m not kidding, and I’m not exaggerating. Anyone who thinks Crichton is anything other than a credulous dimwit ought to read Travels.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:02 am
If Crichton is using “Frankenstein” as a model, then I think he misunderstands that book. Also I don’t think Shelley really blamed technology in her writing either.
The creation of the monster was described in quite beautiful terms, and it was clearly motivated by Victor’s love for his mother. Also the monster is clearly portrayed as having come into being pure and innocent, only to be corrupted later.
The act the brings disaster upon Victor is not the creation of the monster, but his abandonment of his creation afterwards. The theme of the novel is about the responsibility a creator owes his creation.
One could even parse the book to be a criticism of a god who created man and then apparently abandoned him. Given Shelley’s association with and inspiration by several notorious atheists of the time, this is a possibility.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:05 am
GW is not a hypothesis or a theory, or even a prediction of a theory anymore. It is an observation. A confirmed (and recomfirmed by multiple lines of evidence) fact.
And the idea that GW is anthropogenic is certainly falsifiable. If we observe that the average temperature of the planet is not rising, it is falsified, but our observations do not show us this. If we find a natural mechanism that accounts for all the observed temperature changes, the idea is again falsified, but no such mechanism has been found.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Let me ask this question. Is there anyone that the bloggers on this site do like? Is there anyone that is really without woo that writes an interesting book that is popular by any measure?
I don’t really have a problem with Crichton. After all he is just an author writing fiction. I haven’t seen him as anti-science. The heroes in Jurassic Park were scientists. (The park owner was not a scientist, I believe). So were the heroes in Congo. The heroes in Runaway were tech-saavy detectives (the bad guy used technology to kill, but so what. A lot of good Doctor Who episodes do the same). I’d have to say that I’ve enjoyed many of his books. Quite often I end up saying in surprise, “He wrote that?”
As an aside, an even more common theme is that man (an to some extent, nature) will overcome technology when pitted against it.
As far as Crichton’s lectures, personally, I tend not to listen too much to people who want to lecture outside of their field of expertise. If Crichton wants to talk about how to write fiction or get published, I’ll listen. The man obviously knows how to do that. When it comes to global warming…ehh. Just like the way I try to ignore rock stars and actors who get on soap boxes or say, astronomers, who want to expound on things like politics and the like.
But I understand its not easy. After all, I’m responding to this blog…maybe its just a sign that work is boring today.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Miachale Crichton novels woth poor science ? – you should read Matthew O’Reilly Ice Station or Contest – they are best seller thrillers, but they gave them away with the newspaper here !
I was so unimpressed with the physics. Suspension of belief is one thing, but suspension of brain is completely different …
July 25th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Crichton’s scinece might be flawed, and I don’t like the way he touts himself as an expert, but films like Jurassic Park,as others have stated, got a lot of kids interested in science. I thought timeline was a mediocre book at best….but it’s one of the things that got me digging around for physics related stuff on the web. Some of the general public needs to learn to not be so accepting of some people as experts, but Crichton has gotten a lot of people interested in science.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Let me ask this question. Is there anyone that the bloggers on this site do like? Is there anyone that is really without woo that writes an interesting book that is popular by any measure?
Oh come on. Is this a sincere? Nobody’s hates Michael Crichton because he’s successful and gets his science wrong. They hate him because he’s an irresponsible ass. Star Wars is more successful than anything Michael Crichton has ever done, and the science is far worse than anything Crichton has ever done. But I’m going to go way out on a limb here, and say most of the people here are still star war fans (At least of episodes 3-5).
As far as Crichton’s lectures, personally, I tend not to listen too much to people who want to lecture outside of their field of expertise.
I won’t listen to him either, but I can’t ignore that he’s got the ear of the president and other powerful people who are more than happy to exploit his bad science.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Really, all of you people who hate him take a minute and think. Does your name have New York Times Bestseller next to it? I think I’m done with this blog, theres too much hate in the world already
July 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Jose, it’s a sincere question. A lot here think Crichton is bad. Who then do the BAblogees think is considered a good pro-science (fiction) writer?
BTW, many consider Star Wars the ultimate antiscience movie.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:21 am
If anything, Crichton has been anti-politicians and business men, especially big business, in his books. Again, if you think Crichton is anti-science then you don’t have the reading comprehension I had when I was 12.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:29 am
@ RL
Issac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert Heinlein, Philip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury. There are plenty of them.
Also, Star Trek > Star Wars.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
HooDoo: Thats a good list although I don’t think I’ve heard of Philip Dick before. I’ll google jim. I heard Asimov speak once. Very interesting and selfdeprecating. He had just written his 200th book. He said some hadcasked him if they were amy good. He said who cares! Do you know how hard it is to write 200 books!? Pretty funny. Maybe you had to be there.
I wonder how they’d do on this blog given any woo that might be in their stories or lives.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Ah! After a quick google, I have heard of Phili K Dicks work even if I don’t remember him. Good stuff. Thanks.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am
RL:
Though not as well knows as he should be (IMO) Greg Egan kicks ass, especially in his short stories.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am
RL:
There’s also Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Niven wrote the Ringworld series and he and Pournelle wrote The Mote in God’s Eye, Lucifer’s Hammer, and Footfall.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Isn’t it interesting that in the old, low tech societies(ie, tribal), manhood tests were designed to separate those who could not control their instinctive reactions(read fear/emotions) from their intellectual control. Those who allowed their instincts to rule them were not considered to be human. In some tribes, this made them acceptable as FOOD. In others(a bit more compassionate) they were merely exiled from the tribe.
Anti-intellectualism is tantamount to being anti-human. Our most singular difference from other animals IS the ability to ignore our instinctual feelings(USE the fraking computer, Luke. It’s a whole lot faster,,,)
Our species is so young, it’s understandable we would have a desire to return to the simple times, where our reactions are gut based and the difficult, rational control systems can be ignored. Of course, should that become a species norm, we would no longer be anything “special” in the world. Just one more animal in a continual stream of animals, doomed to die when the hard laws of an insensate, uncaring universe dictate.
HUMANS have compassion. HUMANS are kind. WE set standards of decency. But then, that’s what thinking, intellectual beings do and that is often directly opposite to the dictates of animal survival.
Think and be human,,,
Gary 7
July 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am
PS: Phil, I thank you for turning me on to Brotherton.
I’ve added his site to my list of hard SciFi writers.
GAry 7
July 25th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Grep Agni and KC: Thanks. Lucifer’s Hammer was one of my favorites a long time ago but once again I could not remember the authors name.
And, boy, is my spelling bad today…oh, well.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I like Eureka, but science advising? It looks like that amounts to “give us some vague techno-jargon that we can use in this scene to support our plot devices.”
July 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I like to think I’m writing pretty good, scientifically accurate novels and following a great tradition. The other sf writers I like include Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Alastair Reynolds (another astronomer), David Brin, Jack McDevitt, Greg Egan, Gregory Benford, Joe Haldeman, Nancy Kress. The classic three as well: Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein. Mark Alpert’s book FINAL THEORY is a science fiction thriller like Crichton’s, but it gets the science right and is overall science positive.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
What does “anti-science” even mean?
It’s just a propagandist euphemism.
No one know all the answers, except for the All-mighty.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Won’t somebody please put Greg Bear on their list of good sci-fi writers?
July 25th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Ah, yeah, Greg Bear! His best stuff is very good indeed.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
May I put Robert J. Sawyer out there. I have really enjoyed reading most of his work. I agree with Greg Bear as well as pretty well all the above mentioned authors.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
No L Ron?
July 26th, 2008 at 12:29 am
MarkP Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Is Jurassic Park *the book* antiscience? I think that was a theme added by Spielberg in the movie.
– - –
Slowly but Surly Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I think there was a big differnce between the book & the movie. I assumed that Crichton had less to do with the move, which was full of typical Spielberg stupid.
– - -
The problem I had with the JP movie was the ending, which, according to the feature on “The Making of . . . ” which gets tacked on whenever they show the film on TV these days to fill out a longer block of broadcast time, was entirely Spielberg’s responsibility (as if it weren’t obvious to anyone who as I did read the book first before the movie came out.)
Book: Man brings back dinosaurs through technology, something goes wrong and dinosaurs get out of control, Man fixes the problem with technology (military lands and uses bombs and nerve gas to wipe out dinosaurs).
Movie: Man brings back dinosaurs through technology, something goes wrong and dinosaurs get out of control, Man is totally helpless to do anything about the problem and the characters are saved at the last minute by plain dumb luck when the dinosaurs turn on each other.
Seeing parallels to contemporary real world situations is left as an exercise for the reader
, though ISTM that the ending of Chrichton’s book comes closer to Phil’s oft-expressed sentiment of “We (humans) did this ourselves!” than does the Spielberg’s ending for the movie.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:33 am
My biggest problem with Crichton is that the guy’s writing is ABSOLUTELY HUMORLESS.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:34 am
RL Says:
“If Crichton wants to talk about how to write fiction or get published, I’ll listen. The man obviously knows how to do that. When it comes to global warming…ehh”
Im dito with Al Gore about the global warming bit.