Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Thursday, December 3. 2009The Michael Crichton Challenge
But those aren't the only ways to judge an author. What about ingenuity? Originality? The brilliance of an idea never thought of before? A correlation; a conjunction of ideas that few others, if any, have made? Some guy chases a big whale all over the place. Moby-Dick. A lawyer defends an innocent black man. To Kill A Mockingbird. A bunch of Okies migrate to California. The Grapes of Wrath. Architect makes it big. The Fountainhead. These are original ideas? They might read well, and there are certainly some deep, underlying truths running around the place, but, by my definition? Pretty boring, really. Below the fold I present the case that the late Michael Crichton was perhaps the greatest original author of all time. I'll present the argument. You answer the challenge. I am going to briefly describe a number of Crichton's books below, and after each one will be this snippy little challenge: Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first. Now, I know that sounds a little snarky, but it has to be asked precisely that way just because it's a challenge, and a pointed one, at that. Not only does the challenge aim to evoke a "No" out of you, but an honest, resounding "Not even close!" I readily confess the latter was my own answer in every case. And the challenge actually becomes mildly comical after a while, as it slips from slightly insulting to downright rhetorical. This guy was so far ahead of us mere mortals that it has to be seen to be believed. Allow me.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
Go ahead, tell us you thought of it first.
In this case, I bet a lot of people thought of it first. "It", being a means of communicating to the masses what a hoax so-called global warming is. But Crichton was the one who did it, and did it well. It is my humble opinion that we, as Americans, were blessed with having one of the greatest authors who ever lived, here in our country, and here in our time. Traditionally, the role of the 'ingenious' or 'original' author has been that of the science fiction writer, such as Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein. But their adventures usually take place in the distant future, often on other worlds, in galaxies far, far away. Compare that to the above.
It also comes with a small warning. After Jurassic Park became such a smash movie, Crichton altered his writing style dramatically. Unlike most authors, Crichton is virtually guaranteed that whatever he writes will be turned into a movie, and his next book, Lost World (a sequel to Jurassic), reflected this — and badly. The whole thing (at least as far as I got before I dropped it in the waste basket) read like some Grade-B Hollywood screenplay, with contrived plots and outlandish coincidences around every corner just to keep the audience's attention. I'm sure he got roundly criticized for it, and the following novels went back to their usual style. Next, however, is back to the screenplay-ish mold, with contrived plots and outlandish coincidences around every corner, but I believe it was done this way for a reason. Because there's no obvious protagonist (dinosaur, gorilla, scientist, etc) in a story about genetic engineering, Crichton obviously had to do some stretching to wrangle up a tale where the many problems with genetics could be woven into the story line. If it had come across as 'dry', Crichton knew that Hollywood would have jazzed it up, and I'm sure he didn't want to go through the legal battles that authors such as Tom Clancy have gone through trying to keep the script reasonably close to the book. So if you find yourself going "Huh?" a few times along the way, just go with the flow. Like State Of Fear, when you strip away the yarn, it's a very sobering and important work. It might also be pointed out that Mr. Crichton wrote a handful of books that, while not belonging on the above list, are terrific stories, nonetheless:
We'll miss you.
Posted by Dr. Mercury
in Our Essays, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation
at
11:30
| Comments (26)
| Trackbacks (0)
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Addendum:
Okay, so how did the silverback gorilla react to his brothers and sisters of the wild? Now, with almost any other author, he'd have the domestic silverback feel some kind of 'primal' kinship and start communicating with them on a rudimentary level, and they, in turn, would start learning the wise and knowing ways of humans and become better apes for it. Suddenly, some bioterrorists accidentally develop a supertoxin that's 10,000 times more deadly than anything seen before, it escapes the building and every person on the planet dies except for the two groups of humans and apes secreted away in a hidden African valley. The domesticated gorilla acts as a bridge between the two groups who eventually live together and, a million years later, it's Planet of the Apes. That would be the usual way. Crichton, however, did it correctly. The silverback watched the wild gorillas for a while, then turned to his owner and basically asked, "Who are these idiots?" He referred to them in sign language as 'dumb animals', the same term he used for cats and dogs. And, realistically, that's probably correct. The grunts and groans and shrieks and baring of teeth and all of the other communicative devices of the wild gorillas were learned, not instinctual. The only things the domestic silverback shared with his wild bretheren were the same primal urges that almost all living creatures share. You must eat. You must procreate. You must survive danger to eat and procreate again. I would also note in passing that it isn't just Crichton's prescient ideas that make him such a great author. He has a great command of the language, interweaves the various story lines superbly, and knows just where to leave the reader hanging as he dashes off to cover some other event unfolding in the book. 'Master storyteller' is the term used in most tributes. And, for an extra treat, in some of his recent books ("Fear", "Next") he writes as himself in an epilogue, clarifying and encapsulating what he's expressed in the novel. The damn epilogue's just as scary as the rest of the book. Hope you enjoyed the post, Doc He has made an important contribution to contemporary life in that he presents systems thinking in such a way as to make it understandable for the average reader of his novels. He recognized the climate fraud, because he was a very informed "systems thinker". This is a subject that most of our leaders in academia try desperately to avoid because it requires a breaking down of the current silo situation on campus. However, it would also enable a truly interdisciplinary curriculum similar to the "Great Books" pedagogy. Mr.Chrichton will be missed because he gave this important science (systems thinking) a viable place in our dialogue. However, you do have to understand the big words!! ;-)
He had a real knack for picking up on a new area of technology that most of his readers would barely have heard of yet, and working the new idea into a suspenseful plot. He did a great job of keeping his technical details plausible. But, golly, his characters were dry -- they were almost impossible to remember the moment you'd shut the book. It would have been nice if he'd teamed up with a more humane writer, the way Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle did.
A great storyteller, and an excellent speaker on scientific topis too.
His being an MD helped. I still put Dickens at the top of my list of great popular English-speaking storytellers. Crichton didn't get into character much - which is not a flaw, just an observation. Nicely put, FW.
"However, you do have to understand the big words!!" Oh, you mean like "interdisciplinary curriculum" and "pedagogy"? Yeah, I know just what you mean! (as I frantically scramble for my dictionary) As far as this goes: "Mr. Chrichton" James Taranto, editor of the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal and daily columnist, once spelled it that way. I immediately emailed him and he corrected the column. He replied "Oops!" I told him, "Don't worry about it. Crichton refers to you as 'James Tarantino.'" :) Tex & BD - Interesting observation, and I'd tend to agree, but I'd wonder if it wasn't done that way on purpose. He's usually not telling a story about people, but about concepts and ideas (and how they usually go terribly wrong due to mankind's nosiness), so maybe he purposefully didn't embellish the characters too much, lest it distract from the main message? Hard to say. Thanks for mentioning 'Travels' - I was going to if you hadn't. It's a delightful read.
If you think you have your mind made up about paranormal phenomena, this book will open it back up to some fascinating possibilities for us that the world has yet to explain. You also get a nice look into Crichton's own personality; and he includes a wonderful vignette about Sean Connery, too. Bruce - Yes, he passed away last year at the age of 66 from cancer. He was responding to chemotherapy just fine, then suddenly it became ultra-aggressive and took him within a few weeks. Sad, certainly, but perhaps better to go quickly than linger with such a nasty disease.
Fred - The fun thing about 'Travels' is that it's real, so when he was describing that rock slide (on Kilimanjaro?), although you knew he'd make it through, it was still petrifying to read just because you knew that's what really happened. Good stuff. So I should be surprised that he very nearly predicted Climategate?
I've always liked Crichton. I was tepid about "Andromeda", but he got progressively better. "Congo" was offbeat, in my early estimation. I had a hard time understanding how that fit in with all his other writing. But over time it seems to fit in very nicely. He had some broad themes regarding the human condition and what can be expected of people, and those themes ran through each book. By and large those themes matched closely the behaviors we see from people in our everyday lives. I think "State of Fear" should be required reading. Rick - When 'Fear' came out, I emailed Steve Miilloy of JunkScience.com and told him we needed to start a collection campaign so we could buy a thousand copies of the book and send one to every politician in Washington. Never came about, but the thought was there.
Speaking of 'required reading', the first time I finished 'Rising Sun' my first thought was, "This should be required reading for every high school senior in America." Of course, that was back when Japan was a player. Today, you'd have to scribble out the word 'Japanese" and replace it with "Chinese". Either way, it was fair warning on Crichton's part. Oh, speaking of books, I was reading a 20-year-old novel the other day and the author was referring to the gov't spending tons of (our) money and it was so much money that he actually italicized the word billion. It was such a huge amount of money, a figure that was almost inconceivable at the time, that it needed to be stressed with italics. A billion dollars. I had to laugh. Two comments:
1. Your example classics hardly got the same shake as MC... if you limited your descriptions of MC books to 5 words or less, or elaborated into 2-3 sentences on those example classics, it would be easier to tell. 2. I think you like speculative fiction (the general lumping of hard sci-fi/fantasy), but you've just limited yourself to one author, so you think he invented the genre. That's fine, but you need to read more. M.C. is a good author, but there are others in that genre who are also good because they ALSO thought up plots and scenarios noone else (like M.C.) did. Bo -
"but you've just limited yourself to one author" Well, er, this was a tribute to just one author. I hope it didn't imply it's the only author I've ever read. I've read everything by Kurt Vonnegut, Tom Robbins, Richard Brautigan, Tom Clancy, Dale Brown, and a few others. I tend to gravitate toward specific authors, rather than specific books. But if it's got a submarine or a battle tank on the cover, I'm reading it. "but there are others in that genre who are also good" Any suggestions? Given how much crap is out there (the same holds true for movies), suggestions are always welcome. Jules Verne seems to have made more radical predictions considering the speed of technological advances. Of course some claim Nostradamus beats them hands down.
Eric - Hey, that's a great idea! If there was any author in history who could give Crichton a run for his (prescient) money, it would be Verne. It would make for a fun comparison post.
Re: Nostradamus, have you ever actually looked at his book of predictions? I was killing some time in a library one day and blundered my way across it. There were literally thousands of predictions. It's like the guy predicted every possible scenario imaginable or conceivable by the human mind -- some of which were bound to come out right. I confess to being seriously unimpressed with the guy. I know it isn't science fiction, but Disclosure was a one-night read for me. Having been employed by the federal government for many years, and having been forced to attend countless "Prevention of Sexual Harassment" briefings, I welcome anything that is non-PC like this book. Never saw the movie because it could never be anywhere as good as the book. Also, agree with your assessment of Airframe. Another page-turner.
'Squito - Wasn't 'Airframe' a riot? I confess I was as clueless as anybody else until the truth was revealed. And did you happen to notice it was renamed "Turbulences" for a few years? That's what I originally wrote in the post, then I was double-checking some book dates on Amazon and noticed it had been renamed back. Odd.
Michael Crichton has always been one of my literary heroes, a true polymath, a giant thinker in so many different fields. I have his State of Fear on my coffee table, where it reassures me that there are some other folks who also believe that AGW climate change is a huge 'con' played by politicians against busy, hardworking grown-ups. As the Cap&trade bill has crept ever nearer to being passed by Congress, I needed Crichton to help me believe that somewhere out there, on Maggiesfarm, for instance, there are other rational people not confusing religion and science and politics in one big mishmash.
Marianne Doc: Yep. I read Airframe one night at a B&B where I found it on a shelf in our bedroom. Also, I never read all of Travels except the part where he was a med student, and had made a "deal" with the other students on his "gross anatomy" team (cadaver dissection). IIRC the "deal' was that he would not have to do any of the "carving" except sawing the top part of the cranium off to expose the brain. Man, that was riveting reading. After reading that I was convinced nothing else in the book could come close. Glad I'm an engineer and not an MD.
I've read just about everything Crichton ever wrote and the impression I have - especially from Travels and State of Fear is that this is a guy who loved science. Not in the gee-whiz-look-at-all-this-futurey-stuff way - he loved the dirty-hands-in-the-trenches, nuts-and-bolts, banging-your-head-on-the-blackboard-for-ten-years, painstakingly detailed methodology and proofs, hard-core stuff. The discipline and the process. He worshiped at the alter of the scientific method. My impression in State of Fear was that he was less horrified with the specifics of the fraudulent climate science than he was with the perversion of science itself in the name of politics. Great stuff and he'll always be near the top of my Parthenon of speculative fiction authors. If there's an afterlife, I hope he's hanging out with Asimov.
Timeline
The year is 1999. About the only people who have heard the terms "quantum mechanics" and "chaos theory" are those who read or watched Jurassic Park. Um - excuse me, but I did. :>) Prey The year is 2002. Relatively few people know what nanotechnology is. Er...um...ah... Star Trek - TNG, Episode 49 - 1989 had a very similar plot line to "Prey" and that theme bled over to the other "ST" clones. Also, Eric Drexler’s Engines of Creation (1986) which was a popular book about nanobots from which a lot of "Prey" was written from. Rising Sun The year is 1992. The Digital Age has just dawned. The word "video" means nothing to most people, and certainly not the term "video image manipulation." Oh my friend - how wrong - how very wrong. Ever hear of "Star Wars"? 1977? Ring a bell? How about "Silent Running" in 1972 starring Bruce Dern? Would you like me to continue? :>) Look, there isn't much under the speculative fiction sun that hasn't been done in one form or another prior to Michael Crichton. Heck, you can even make a case for Heinlein's "Puppet Masters" being, in a sense, an early model for "Andromeda Strain" - admittedly, a stretch, but it could be argued. Now was Crichton a genius and one hell of a good story teller? Damn straight he was and his novels were terrific - the man was not only a scientific polygut, but he was an entertaining one. In fact, I would go so far as to say he out Saganed Sagan. To say that he thought of it first is just not true. By the way, the movie "The 13th Warrior" starring Antonio Banderas as Ahmad ibn Fadlan and Vladimir Kulich as Buliwyf - based on "Eaters of The Dead" is a much under appreciated and under exposed movie - it's terrific and in my opinion, one of Banderas's best efforts as a actor. Tom -
I said "about the only people". I said "relatively few people". I said "to most people". "Would you like me to continue?" Well, uh, sure. I'll say "relatively few people", and then you say "But I did!!", and then we can move on to the next book. Sounds quite engaging -- at least until we run out of books. "Look, there isn't much under the speculative fiction sun that hasn't been done in one form or another prior to Michael Crichton." That's very true. And? Was there some implication in my post that there weren't other speculative fiction authors out there? Your challenge is to show me one with a list like the above. Verne's the only one I can think of that even comes close. "To say that he thought of it first is just not true." Nowhere in the post did I say he thought of any of these ideas first. "one of Banderas's best efforts as a actor." I'll say. Remember the 'transition' scenes around the camp fire when he learned the Norsemen's language? I've got the clip here. Double-click inside the window after it starts playing to pop it open to full-screen size. Ah - forgive me my friend - a thousand pardons. I parsed the question was "thought about it first" as in - "Yeah, I've thought about it because I've seen it before I read Crichton" and having a scientific bent being a mathematician/physics major by training and an engineer by necessity. :>)
Again - my apologies. By the way, did you know that John Crichton of the SyFy series "Farscape" last name was an homage to Michael Crichton? MC actually offered to write an episode for David Kemper, but never managed to pull it off. The episode "Eat Me" was a sort-of homage to MC as it was a concept he wanted to explore - twinning and clones. Tom -
Well, this'll teach me to read comments after I've only been awake for a few minutes: "By the way, did you know that John Crichton of the SyFy series "Farscape" last name was an homage to..." I read that as "Farside", like the comic strip, and sat there for two minutes trying to figure out WHAT the hell you were talking about. :) I never saw Farscape (don't have a TV), but a buddy used to rave about it. Oh, as far as the cringeworthy term "SyFy" goes, I agree with this guy. Sheesh. Dude - I don't want to get into a rant about that name change - different demographic my a....
The problem with SciFi Channel has always been it's leadership - there has never been a true scifi fan in charge of SciFi and while Bonnie Hammer, who was in charge during it's heyday in the late '90s/early 'Oughts tried hard, she was at the mercy of NBC's higher ups who hated the concept from the start. The ground breaking "Farscape" was SciFi's first independant effort (which suffered from the massive egos of it's producers during it's third and fourth season) and Ms. Hammer never kept total control of the production which affected SciFi from that point forward. Part of the problem is that NBC and it's progeny SciFi never understood it's audience. Geeks and Nerds? Not really - "Farscape" attracted a wide audience in it's first season - every trade, profession, personality type and gender (the main two and every other "trans" or single sex adherent) - they totally misunderstood what attracted scifi fans - good stories and fantastic futures. Apparently, they still don't get it which is unfortunate because they are going to become an also ran. The majors, including their own network, have taken over producing goood scifi ("Heros", "Lost", "V", etc.) and SyFy is left with the dregs like wrestling - although I suppose that professional wrestling could be considered scifi - it's certainly fiction and there is a certain science to throwing 200 and 300 pound bodies around willy nilly. Eaters of the Dead, hands down my personal favorite. I read this as a teenager and it forced me to go back and read everything he had written up to that time.
I was also intrigued by Timeline, sadly the film was terrible. I have to support the thesis. An insightful guy with outstanding literary technique and reading this plus all the responses highlights what a loss his death was. Crichton's best novels, on primarily literary grounds, are "The Andromeda Strain" and "Jurassic Park." Both have compelling characters and plot-turns that are driven by the characters' innate personalities, flaws, mistakes, and strengths.
While I agree with your overall thesis about Crichton's originality, in terms of his writing, he could be less than wonderful. For me, a novel has to be well-written not only full of great ideas. Crichton never claimed, so far as I know, to be a great writer; it wasn't his ambition. He was occasionally a great writer, more often a good one. I'd put up Greg Bear's novel "Slant" up beside most of Crichton's, in terms of both sheer imagination and originality, and vivid writing. Bear's novel "Blood Music" also is a better take on the nano-life gone out of control and destroying the planet scenario. (And a much better novel than "Prey," which was a thriller, not a good novel.) The thing is: I respect Crichton a lot. "Travels" was a terrific book. I always enjoyed reading his novels. But I can point to science fiction writers, in many cases, who did it first, and often did it better. This is not to take away credit from Crichton, because he did do it first a few times (as you point out), but not every time, and some of the examples you cite were done first and better by writers in the science fiction genre, as I pointed out. This is situation parallel to all the praise that was heaped on Cormac McCarthy's novel "The Road" by people who never read SF, and have no knowledge of the history of post-apocalyptic literature, therefore have no context to place that novel in. In fact, McCarthy's novel was a very poor entrant to that genre. As for "Eaters of the Dead," John Gardner's novel "Grendel" is at least as original take on the Beowulf legend, if not more so. |
These are what I consider my better pieces: "Do these genes make me look fat?" — As these things go, this is probably the most official 'exposé' on the site. It's amazing how we're being lied to. Beautiful Camp Elmwood — I jus
Tracked: Apr 20, 18:20
These are what I consider my better pieces: "Do these genes make me look fat?" — As these things go, this is probably the most official 'exposé' on the site. It's amazing how we're being lied to. Beautiful Camp Elmwood — I just love getting the r
Tracked: Aug 04, 16:26
These are what I consider my better pieces: "Do these genes make me look fat?" — As these things go, this is probably the most official 'exposé' on the site. It's amazing how we're being lied to. Beautiful Camp Elmwood — I just love g
Tracked: Aug 28, 06:54
These are what I consider my better pieces: "Do these genes make me look fat?" — As these things go, this is probably the most official 'exposé' on the site. It's amazing how we're being lied to. Beautiful Camp Elmwood — I just love g
Tracked: Aug 28, 08:31
No, not Lord of the Rings. That's not a trilogy; it just one big book broken into three pieces so the gigantic binding doesn't snap in half partway through. I'm speaking of River God, The Seventh Scroll and Warlock, authored by the irrepressible
Tracked: Oct 01, 10:14