
Michael Crichton has passed away - atlbeer
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-081105-michael-crichton-dead-story,0,269418.story
======
swilliams
People slag on him for his more recent work and speeches, but at least for me,
his books really made me interested in the science presented in them. Even
stuff like Timeline, which piqued my curiosity in everything it talked about.

~~~
Prrometheus
His most recent work and speeches support the idea that we should be skeptical
of popular opinion, as wildly popular opinions in the past were both popular
and wrong. This includes opinions held by the scientific community. That
strikes me as a good point to make.

He gets flack because he applies that skepticism to mainstream views on Global
Warming, which many people insist should not be criticized because it is
really really right and ought to be beyond skepticism. I guess time will tell
who was right.

I was always a fan of his work. I loved the idea-centric fiction style that he
pioneered and that authors like Neal Stephenson still use today.

~~~
Alex3917
_He gets flack because he applies that skepticism to mainstream views on
Global Warming, which many people insist should not be criticized because it
is really really right and ought to be beyond skepticism._

Most people get their views on global warming from the media, and our media is
controlled by corporate interests who profit from being allowed to dump
unlimited CO2 into the atmosphere. If people are discouraged from criticizing
global warming, it's not because global warming is beyond reproach but because
every individual criticism is picked up by the media and given equal
credibility to the scientific consensus.

~~~
byrneseyeview
How does CBS benefit from people not thinking that Exxon should be more
regulated?

~~~
Alex3917
Companies that benefit from the status quo won't buy ads on networks that
advocate change. It's not that Americans have suddenly gotten genetically less
intelligent in the last fifty years, but rather the reason our political
system has fallen apart is (largely) because corporations came to control the
media. Noam Chomsky has something to say about this in Manufacturing Consent.

In fact until fifty years ago working class Americans used to read the paper
as much or more as upper class Americans. What happened is the papers of the
rich started being subsidized by advertisers, so the working class papers
couldn't compete and all went out of business. (Ads are worth much more in
papers that target the wealthy, so the papers of the wealthy had a bigger ad
subsidy, and thus sold for less money at the newsstand than the papers of the
working class.) That's why poor people are largely illiterate and uneducated
today, whereas only fifty years ago it was the working class that drove the
progressive movement.

~~~
astine
_In fact until fifty years ago working class Americans used to read the paper
as much or more as upper class Americans. What happened is the papers of the
rich started being subsidized by advertisers, so the working class papers
couldn't compete and all went out of business. (Ads are worth much more in
papers that target the wealthy, so the papers of the wealthy had a bigger ad
subsidy, and thus sold for less money at the newsstand than the papers of the
working class.) That's why poor people are largely illiterate and uneducated
today, whereas only fifty years ago it was the working class that drove the
progressive movement._

That sounds like nonsense. If the separate papers appealed to separate
demographics, a separate income for one wouldn't affect the sales of the
other. If people started switching newspapers they would still be reading so
you wouldn't be able to pin to this a disappearance of literacy. The only way
this could happen is if newsstands actually dropped certain papers in favor of
others, but considering the demographic split, it seems unlikely that this
would be possible in all areas.

Even if you grant that this actually happened, it's hard to say that this
caused illiteracy rather than the reverse, Considering the shear volume of
tabloids, magazines, and newspapers that cater to the relatively illiterate.

Either way, it's a massive generalization and I don't think it holds water.

------
markessien
Anyone who says that Michael Crichton wrote bad books does not understand the
point of reading. You don't read to learn, you read because it's a form of
entertainment. And Michael Crichton wrote supremely entertaining books. If you
are entertained only when you read Shakespeare, then you belong to a small
minority of people, and you should not criticize a popular and good author who
wrote books read and loved by millions of people, and was behind some of the
more spectacular films of the 90s.

Reading is like watching TV or movies to me. I like watching heavy stuff every
now and then, but the bulk of my reading is for entertainment, and Stephen
King and Michael Crichton are good examples of such work.

The same people who criticize Crichton will sit in front of their TVs and
watch Lost, and then proclaim it as an excellent show. For people who grew up
reading, Lost is the same level as most of Crichtons works.

~~~
swombat
_Anyone who says that Michael Crichton wrote bad books does not understand the
point of reading_

That's a very strong statement to make. Are you sure it's not the other way
around? Perhaps you don't understand the point of reading. Or perhaps there
are several reasons to read?

I read entertaining books too, but I do try to keep a balance between books
that merely entertain and books that not only entertain but also make me a
better person.

I think literature serves 3 purposes: 1) entertainment, 2) exposing new ideas,
3) exposing deep, ages-old pieces of wisdom. Achieving 1 is hard. Achieving 1
and 2 is harder. Achieving all 3 is hardest. I don't think Crichton ever
achieved all 3, and most of the time he achieved only 1.

 _The same people who criticize Crichton will sit in front of their TVs and
watch Lost, and then proclaim it as an excellent show_

I think you have a bad habit of over-generalising.

~~~
markessien
I don't. I really dislike people who think that reading is in some way
something special or unusual. People who think that reading is all about
literature. That's like saying movies are all about French Films with 15
minute stretches of silence.

There are many types of books, and there are many types of reading. Books are
just like talking, but written down. Talking does not fit neatly into your 3
categories. When Jay Leno does a monologue, do you criticize him for not
imparting ancient wisdoms? No. But people have nothing against criticizing a
writer of popular sci-fi for not doing the same.

Crichton was not a bad writer at all. In his genre, he was excellent. His
purpose was never to create some long lasting work, it was simply to
entertain. And succeed he did.

Books are not some mystical source of magical knowledge like so many pseudo-
intellectuals seem to think. It's just someone telling you something, but in a
written form. You may not like what a person says, but if millions like it,
then he is doing it well.

Of course, I can make this argument as long as I want, but I'll never be able
to make these people understand that having Dostoevsky on your bookshelf does
not mean you understood it. When you read it and then all you get from it is
the same as what one could get from Wikipedia, then you have failed in your
attempt to access literature that is not for you to understand.

Some of the most ridiculous dialog I have observed is usually between two
people talking about books that are noted in popular culture as being
intellectual. What most readers can do is talk about the books, but they don't
understand what the guy who wrote the words was trying to tell them. They see
the surface, they analyse the tricks, but the fail to understand the meaning.
Ridiculous!

It's often those same people who will criticize "lesser" books and "popular"
authors. I really dislike this pseudo-intellectualism.

One has to achieve humility in interacting with other minds.

~~~
swombat
_I really dislike this pseudo-intellectualism._

+

 _One has to achieve humility in interacting with other minds._

=

Seems like you need to take a bit of your own medicine, mate. On the one hand
you look down on those so-called "pseudo-intellectuals", "these people", for
having a multi-dimensional understanding of the purpose of books, and on the
other, you preach humility.

Get some humility into your own brain first. Those people you look down on see
something you don't. That doesn't make them inferior, it just means your
perspective is narrower.

~~~
markessien
I don't look down on these people. I dislike them.

And my view on books is that it's open. There are no constraints, so I don't
see my viewpoint as narrow. A book is what you make of it.

I grew up on books and nothing else. No TV, no Radio. I read books at random,
without a system, and I judge them by if I like them or not. And not by if
others tell me I should like them or not.

Humility is not really something that can be explained easily, but when you
finally become humble about the books you read, you will know it.

~~~
swombat
Are you disputing that it is possible to learn from (fiction) books?

Or are you disputing that some books do that better than others?

Or are you just disputing that some people have a preference for books which
teach them interesting things as well as entertain them?

Or perhaps you're just accepting that all those concepts exist, but you simply
find that learning from books is of no import to you?

I'm not quite sure what your argument is.

------
RobGR
The first book I read by him was the one about the bio-terror attack with a
virus. I read it because the New York Times sais that then-President Bill
Clinton had read it, and this had lead to some anti-terrorism initiative that
I thought was bullshit. I said to myself, if this novel is going to be
resulting in bullshit I have to deal with, I better read it.

What a piece of crap that book was. I much of my respect for Bill Clinton at
that point, and more with the sexual scandals, although in retrospect he
regained much ground and I like him more now.

Then I read Andromeda Strain, and that annoyed me too. It was better written,
but a book that tries to be a highly realistic science fiction can't pull a
cheaters ending like that. Supposedly the whole cloud of virus just mutates .
. . what, every single individual, all at the same time ? Dude, spend a couple
of hours scratching your head and come with an ending.

Nonetheless, one of my private dreams has always been to see a wooly mammoth
cloned and alive, and if that ever happens it will be at least partly because
of his Jurassic Park. RIP.

~~~
Tichy
I don't think it is a good idea to lose respect of somebody just because of
allegations against him by a third party. But to each their own.

~~~
RobGR
William Clinton had a large press office that was quite capable of correcting
the New York Time's reporting on his reading. In fact, knowing what we know
about how newspapers and political offices work, it is probably that Clinton's
press guys passed the stuff about reading Crighton's work to the New York
Times as a ready-made anecdote to be inserted into stories about the terrorism
boondogle.

Of course, he is still alive, and has more time now to answer correspondance.
If you think the issue in doubt, email him. If you can get him to deny
NYTime's reporting on the matter, I'll send you $100. If you are interested in
the challenge, I'll dig up a link to the exact story in question.

~~~
Tichy
Didn't you just write yourself that probably it was just a fabrication of his
press guys? Anyway, no, I am not interested in the issue. I don't know the
book in question, and I don't know Clinton.

------
hooande
Michael Crichton was an amazing scientific and creative mind and the world is
worse off for his passing. His books inspired many from my generation to have
more of an interest in science and opened a world to adults and children
alike.

------
DanielBMarkham
RIP Michael.

I recommend his biographical work Travels -- I found some parts very
insightful.

~~~
kqr2
I always thought it was interesting that he was a Harvard trained MD.

It probably took a lot of work to get there and it must have been an
interesting decision for him to leave that profession and start writing.

~~~
cowmoo
What's more interesting is that the man started writing (finished and
published) several full-length novels while he was still in med school to
"make a quick buck."

He also was suppose to declare English during his undergrad, but decided
against it after he submitted an not-well-known essay written by George Orwell
for a class assignment, and the professor gave it a B-. According to him, it
was not an act of plagiarism, but a test to verify Harvard English
Department's arbitrariness in critiquing literature. Afterwards, I think he
dropped English in favor of anthropology (inspiration for Congo), which led
him to med school (inspiration for E.R) and then later to a postdoc fellowship
in infectious disease (inspiration for Andromeda Strain).

Oh, did I also mention the Crichton was also a star basketball player in high
school? The man is quite the renaissance man.

~~~
kqr2
He's a pretty tall guy at 6' 9" or 206cm.

------
geuis
Its a shame he died. He wasn't a great author but he did have a few good ones.
Sphere(the book) was among his better ones.

~~~
mattmaroon
Really? I hated that one. Much preferred Andromeda Strain.

~~~
fallentimes
The movie absolutely sucked, but I loved the book.

Edit: was talking about the 90's Sphere movie.

~~~
ojbyrne
I loved that movie. I'm guessing you're not talking about the 1971 version. Or
if you are, then maybe you had to be there.

~~~
mattmaroon
I liked the original version. I'd put it up there with One Flew Over The
Cuckoo's Nest on the list of best adaptations. But I've seen some god awful
remakes, most notably the recent miniseries with Benjamin Bratt.

------
adldesigner
A great author indeed. May he rest in peace.

~~~
swombat
Not to be overly pedantic, but while I think he was a _good_ commercial author
and extremely successful, a _great_ author is something else.

~~~
huherto
What makes a great author?

Recently a guy in the radio was saying that someone was great author if he/she
was hard to understand. If you were able to understand him then he was not. I
do not agree with such definition but still I cannot tell what makes someone a
great author. I think it is more related to weather the author engages you and
once you start reading is hard to stop.

~~~
kqr2
One metric for greatness is how long a work survives. If people are still
reading _Andromeda Strain_ in 100 years, then it may be considered a great
novel.

For example, Charles Dickens's _Oliver Twist_ originally started out as a
newspaper serial. It probably wasn't considered great literature at its time.
Now, however, it's classic reading material.

------
deathbyzen
Man, when I was in middle school I was so proud of myself for devouring The
Lost World in like 4 days. I loved his work, and though I haven't read one of
his books in some time, I will miss him greatly.

------
brandonkm
Michael Crichton was nothing short of a legend. RIP. Thoughts and prayers go
out to his family.

------
demallien
Oh, what a shame :-( I remember reading Jurassic Park 2, and then being
appalled to see how the fairly reasonable science in the novel was just flat
out massacred in the film. Worse yet, the film absolutely killed the best
parts of the plot.

However I was yet another turned off by Timeline. It was the next book of
Crichton's that I read after JP2, and I was seriously disappointed... I don't
remember the details now, but there were several glaring flaws in the logic of
the story, not to mention some of the stuff about language just seemed so far
fetched to me.

Still, there can be no doubt that Crichton was a very talented man. His
contributions to our culture will be missed.

------
hwijaya
I always find his work enjoyable and present enough level of detail to make me
feel "reading fiction and learning heaps". RIP.

------
urajat
Most of his books appear as if they were written to be made into movies. Most
of them were thoroughly enjoyable too - Jurassic Park, Congo, Timeline, Prey
etc., though his recent works weren't as good as his older ones.

RIP

------
arien
Was so shocked to hear about this, didn't know he had cancer.

RIP and my condolences to his family :(

------
zandorg
I like his milder films, like Looker and Rising Sun

------
ivanstojic
Bummer :-(

------
byrneseyeview
Passed away? What a relief! I heard a rumor he died. Whatever happened to him
instead sure sounds ambiguously pleasanter!

