On the theme of global warming, in the past year I've enountered two friends who are Global Warning Deniers. In both cases, they'd taken their ammunition from the recent novel "State of Fear" by sci-thriller author Michael Crichton. In both cases my friends were bright people with little formal education; they read a lot, and as they enjoy Chrichton's work, they assume it's true.
And that is precisely why "State of Fear" is dangerous. I'm not saying no one should read it. Merely that the book's premise is laughable -- and its author more so. By insinuating himself into the role of pop-science maven, Crichton commands a large fan-base, most of which, in my experience, perceives Crichton as a superior, somehow more "acceptable" alternative to genre science fiction. (As Roger Ebert has noted, they're missing out.)
I don't especially enjoy criticizing commercially successful but clueless novelists; I'd much rather discuss the good ones. But Crichton is an exception; in the case of "State of Fear," one's genuinely left wondering, like Rucker, why the book is so stridently anti-science . . . and how far-reaching the scope of his misrepresentation.*
*It bears mention that Gregory Benford, a scientist/author Crichton cites in the notes to "State of Fear," has publicly accused Crichton of selective, misleading use of his research. I fear Benford's complaint is merely the tip of the swiftly melting iceberg.
2 comments:
If one could be in further doubt about Crichton's bias, this story might shed a little light, if you didn't catch it the first time round back in February. A journalism award...from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no less. I smell money.
Crichton's obviously really enjoying the "acclaim" he's gotten. I've never thought he was smart; looks like I was right.