Michael Crichton

[StarLab]

I tell you, I love Crichton's work. Here's the string to discuss it.

Lemme start:
I understand he came out with a new book...anyone read it yet?

[rahuldandekar]

Yes He did , but I read a review on newscientist or nature.com which highly criticised the book. By the way, I have read and likes 'Prey' and 'The lost world' .

[Tinaa]

I just read Timeline. It is a most excellent read. I did find a problem with the plot. Has anyone else read it? I hate to write too much and spoil someone else's fun.

[antoniseb]

Michael Crichton writes fun, fast-paced, easy to read stories that are really full of bologna, science-wise.

[Betelgeuse]

Wasn't he the author of Jurassic Park? He went to Harvard if that's right and he was the creator of Westworld.

[Duane]

Timeline the book was OK, the movie pretty much sucked. I think Crighton's science is far-fetched but certainly not totally out of the realm of possibility. He is very careful to research his science before he commits to paper to ensure he is incorporating the very latest findings. Admittedly he takes artistic licence with the material to put life into his stories, but it is not fair to say the science is complete junk.

Crighton brought to life the idea that microbes could survive in space, to arrive and cause problems for humans. (The Andromedae Strain) This was at a time when very few people understood that this could occur.

He also looked very closely at the idea of reconstructing DNA of extinct species, especially involving insects trapped in amber, which was very much a fringe idea when he wrote his book. (Jurassic Park) The fact that later discoveries flushed some of his ideas (using amphibian DNA as a bridge, for example) doesn't change the fact that there is a great deal of excitment about the idea of bringing back a species like the Australian tiger.

I think Crighton is very good at bringing fringe science to public notice. His earlier work is better, but I would still read his stuff over alot of the fluff that passes as science fiction these days.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Duane@Dec 29 2004, 06:13 PM
Crighton is very good at bringing fringe science to public notice.

I suppose. I like him as a story teller, which I value highly, but the anti-science and anti-progress aire in most of his books is appalling to me.

[StarLab]

Anton, dear dear, :shakes head:, I&#39;m not sure you undestrand the whole concept of satire. <_< :unsure: :P

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by StarLab@Dec 29 2004, 11:31 PM
I&#39;m not sure you undestrand the whole concept of satire.

Perhaps not. I&#39;ve spent the last 15 years performing improvizational political and social comedy to great reviews, but satire might be beyond me. Why don&#39;t you try and explain it to me? Is MC a satirist? I suppose that whole thing with smart apes with lasers guarding King Solomon&#39;s mine had to fit some comic genre, but I&#39;d have guessed it was parody.

[Duane]

Ha&#33; That&#39;s satire right? :huh:

[StarLab]

So Anton, would you mind telling me how you came to the conclusion Crichton has an anti-progress aire?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by StarLab@Dec 30 2004, 12:32 AM
mind telling me how you came to the conclusion Crichton has an anti-progress aire?

Name a book of his where the main invention helped mankind, or where the scientist wasn&#39;t a naive unattached nitwit.

[StarLab]

Uh...Andromeda Strain?

He just looks for an angle, Anton, on the brink between Science and Scifi. He has nothing and no one in particular to put down. His plots usually are about an innovative new idea or discovery of some sort that ends up backfiring on a few main characters, but I see that as no reason to criticize him.