Michael Crichton dead at 66

[dadioflex]

Edit.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I enjoyed his early books, but his attempts to "politicize" science and his denial of the reality of Global Warming in his dreadful book "State of Fear" really put me off him. "Pseudo-science" at its worst.

Maybe I need to reread the book. But, I don't re-call the conclusion being a denial of Global Warming. I think some facts were presented in support of the fictional narrative. Also, I think he showed that you can interpret the data in various ways. It was an interesting book. I learned some stuff, and did further research... so in that way it enriched me and I enjoyed it.

BOb

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by ggendel

I remember reading "Andromeda Strain" as a young teenager. I couldn't put it down. Typically, the movie(s) couldn't live up to the book.

Actually, I rather liked the original movie. That being said, Michael Crichton was always a gifted story teller, but not necessarily the greatest at character development. As a result, I never felt compelled to buy his sequel to the original Jurassic Park; I enjoyed it immensely but when the story was over, I felt no need to revisit the world.

As a result, I think I tended to like the movies based on his books simply because the actors often made the characters seem a lot more alive and real than they were in the book.

--
Bill

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Crichton was one of my favorite authors. No one could write "good tech gone really, really bad" novels like him. Not all of his books were gems, and some of the movie adaptations were pretty awful (cough--Looker!--cough!) (cough--Congo!--cough!). But overall, his was a great voice for exploring the potential of technology, and warning of its potential danger. He will be sorely missed.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rawlus

that remark leads me to believe you read reviews of the book, not the book itself. either that or you're getting your fiction and non-fiction mixed up.

No, I have read it. He his views in that field were well-known. He was (Heaven help us) a member of a panel which advised Mr. Bush in that area, despite having no professional expertise in the field of climatology.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I have read it. He his views in that field were well-known. He was (Heaven help us) a member of a panel which advised Mr. Bush in that area, despite having no professional expertise in the field of climatology.

Despite my admiration for the man, there's a reason a science fiction writer should not be on a presidential science panel. Bush would've been better served by Bill Nye. In fact, MC must have served to scare the bejeezus out of Bush, to make him so technophobic during his administration.

"We cain't have cloning... it'll only lead to Dineo-saurs that swim to San Diego and eat people's dogs..."

I understand where he was coming from in State of Fear, though (Note: this is based on my impression from reviews, not from actual reading of the book)... the idea of accepting any data, just because the majority accepts it, doesn't always work. (Ask Galileo.) In fact, much of his work danced around the idea/danger of one person/group using another person/group's technology, without fully investigating the possible flaws or missing information therein.

His ideas on technology were, I think, summed up very well in his movie Runaway, in which the main character, Ramsey, tells his partner: "Let me tell you how it is. People make robots. People aren't perfect. So why should we expect robots to be perfect?"

[rawlus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He was (Heaven help us) a member of a panel which advised Mr. Bush in that area.

you have facts to back this up i presume?

to the best of my recollection, he met with mr. bush as have many authors and he and GWB shared similar views and discussion on the subject. i don't take that to be an "advisory panel"

the book was less about the existence or non-existence of global warming as much as it was about the lengths to which advocates and activists might go to further their agenda. it was also a novel.

the transcript of a speech he gave to the National Press Club in Jan 2005 on the subject is on his site at the following link in it's entirety. It is quite fascinating reading if you are capable of putting aside your preconceived notions and beliefs.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...talfuture.html

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Despite my admiration for the man, there's a reason a science fiction writer should not be on a presidential science panel. Bush would've been better served by Bill Nye. In fact, MC must have served to scare the bejeezus out of Bush, to make him so technophobic during his administration.

Well, I think we need to keep things in perspective. As with many science fiction writers, Michael Crichton was not just a science fiction writer. He did also have a medical degree (though I have no idea how much medicine he actually practiced). So, he did have a solid training in science.

Further, this is true of many science fiction writers; they are often scientists who have done serious work in their fields of choice. In some cases, they turned to writing SF as a way of exploring some of their scientific hypothesis that were too radical at the time for publication in mainstream science journals.

I think the other key here is that Science Fiction writers often have a better than average grasp of the possibilities of new technological and scientific developments (By no means perfect though).

"We cain't have cloning... it'll only lead to Dineo-saurs that swim to San Diego and eat people's dogs..."

Never happen; Bush doesn't believe the dinosaurs were real.

I understand where he was coming from in State of Fear, though (Note: this is based on my impression from reviews, not from actual reading of the book)... the idea of accepting any data, just because the majority accepts it, doesn't always work. (Ask Galileo.) In fact, much of his work danced around the idea/danger of one person/group using another person/group's technology, without fully investigating the possible flaws or missing information therein.

His ideas on technology were, I think, summed up very well in his movie Runaway, in which the main character, Ramsey, tells his partner: "Let me tell you how it is. People make robots. People aren't perfect. So why should we expect robots to be perfect?"

Well, there is some truth in that; one just needs to temper what makes a good story from what might exist in the real world. Robots won't be perfect, but they are unlikely to go on killing sprees either.

--
Bill

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Well, there is some truth in that; one just needs to temper what makes a good story from what might exist in the real world. Robots won't be perfect, but they are unlikely to go on killing sprees either.

In Runaway, they were specifically programmed by a terrorist to go on killing sprees. I honestly don't see that as being too farfetched... which, of course, was one of Crichton's strengths.

I believe Crichton had an MD, but never practiced (he discovered his penchant for writing at about the time he got the degree). Not that that necessarily makes a difference in his writing, other than the fact that he clearly had a sound scientific basis for (most of) his writing.

But his writing is, I think, an indication of his general train of thought in relation to science... it may not have been directly expressed, but I'd bet it was at least subconsciously projected that he felt a serious need to examine science from all angles, and not to let the unexpected elements surprise and wreck you.

Or maybe people who listened to him, allowed their knowledge of his novels to color their conceptions of his comments...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rawlus

you have facts to back this up i presume?

See here for an assessment of the harm done by Mr. Crichton.

I was wrong on one detail - he met with Mr. Bush personally; he wasn't on an advisory panel.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

See here for an assessment of the harm done by Mr. Crichton.

I was wrong on one detail - he met with Mr. Bush personally; he wasn't on an advisory panel.

I don't understand reactions like this. _State of Fear_ is no more a technical journal that disproves global warming than is the Harry Potter series a manual of witchcraft to seduce children at a young age.

BOB

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I don't understand reactions like this. _State of Fear_ is no more a technical journal that disproves global warming than is the Harry Potter series a manual of witchcraft to seduce children at a young age.

So why does it have a bibliography?

But your argument is strange. Are you saying that all things in fiction should be read as false things with no relation to reality? So you do not have to be realistic in how you portray scientists for example?

[vivaldirules]

I haven't read the book in question nor do I have any prior knowledge about Crichton's opinions on the matter of global warming, but if you are interested in what he said on the matter in an interview with Charlie Rose, you might watch it.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

See here for an assessment of the harm done by Mr. Crichton.

I was wrong on one detail - he met with Mr. Bush personally; he wasn't on an advisory panel.

If that much damage could be done by one person, then wouldn't that suggest that the evidence in favor of "the reality" of Anthropocentric Global Warming is pretty weak?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If that much damage could be done by one person, then wouldn't that suggest that the evidence in favor of "the reality" of Anthropocentric Global Warming is pretty weak?

Why should science win in a popularity contest? In a popularity contest the one with best advertising wins.