Book 3 of 50: State of Fear, Michael Crichton
(I'm going to try the 50-books-in-a-year thing. Books 1 and 2 were Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett and The Farthest Shore by Ursula K. LeGuin, which were brilliant and amazing and need no comment.)
Okay, so. I literally JUST finished State of Fear. I got it on the bargain shelf at B&N the other day (oh bargain table, I love you!). After reading it as well as a couple reviews, I have a few things to say about it.
First off, when I started reading it at work, I hated it and all its typical thriller nonsense. Especially grievous were the incredibly flat, beautiful female characters whose only roles were as seductresses or sex objects. I realize thrillers are generally directed at males, but god, that really pisses me off. I expect more from literature in this day and age (especially from Crichton... Jurassic Park is one of my favorite books). The technobabble mystery stuff is supposed to make you want to find out what's happening, but it kind of just annoyed me.
That said, at page ~150 it got good. The action's what he's really good at, and it's fun, and scary (that paralysis thing is holy shit scary). Unfortunately it's broken up by dissections of the global warming theory which start out fascinating and quickly become dull. He keeps doing it right to the end; it reminded me of Mercedes Lackey and her incessant infodumping in Arrows of the Queen. Honestly, I cared more about whether Peter and Sarah were going to get together (their thoughts about each other seemed thrown in as an afterthought, and the story could have used more of it and other more character-related stuff). Peter's chat with the rabid professor was particularly random and preachy, even though what he had to say was very interesting and made sense to me. From a writing standpoint it was atrocious.
Crichton's footnoting, with references, of just about every "fact" in the book is impressive, but it's also loaded to his side (which is that global warming is a conspiracy and certainly no t a problem and scientists are biased toward whoever is funding their research). In citing a science fiction novel he presumes to be expressing true, unbiased fact, when he isn't. Without the footnotes, the bias would be perfectly acceptable, since this is, in fact, a work of fiction.
He says in his presumptuous "Author's Message" in the back that "Everyone has an agenda. Except me." No, Michael. You have an agenda: to sell books, and apparently to sell your idea (which, honestly, at its core is a good one). Everyone has an agenda except me, who, in writing this in her internet blog, is getting nothing but personal satisfaction.
So here's my story. I've never been concerned with global warming. It sounds like one of those things that people like freak out about, like avian flu and anthrax (which, admittedly to my gratification, is something the crazy professor man brings up in that extraneous conversation*). I have no doubts that the media exaggerate to get attention (and, therefore, money). It seems entirely likely that the government uses constant states of fear to keep people under control. Even if that's not the case, people -- especially Americans -- are so incredibly paranoid. Every day there's a new threat to all of society, and THAT is a real problem. But there are a lot of problems with society.
The movie The Day After Tomorrow really irritated me, even though I never saw it. My parents borrowed it, and the description on the back of the DVD case begins, I kid you not, "Global warming causes a new Ice Age...". Anyone with half a brain cell can see the problem with that (and it was hilariously lampooned on South Park, which is truly the epitome of modern satire, following the steps of Voltaire. Or something. Occasionally).
I think it's impossible to truly measure global climate trends. The earth is still a mystery to us. I think it's possible that there is no general warming trend. I think it's possible that if there is a warming trend, it could change in the near or distant future, without warning
Now, there's another reason I'm not concerned about global warming -- and this is another thing that is brought up in the book -- which is that humans are really fucking arrogant if they think they have that much of an impact on the earth. You, you stupid apes, honestly think you can bring about the destruction of the earth?
Give me a fucking break. Even if there's a nuclear war that destroys every human being on the planet, something will survive. Something will always survive. And that something will start the entire cycle of life over again.
Nature > humanity. Deal with it.
This is something I've been saying for a long, long time now, and I'm only twenty years old, and certainly not the smartest person on the planet. Come on, people. Wake up.
Bottom line: with the "dangers" of global warming being pounded into your head pretty much every day, it's nice to see the other side of the argument. But, like everything, take what you read with a grain of salt. If long, preachy scientific ramblings bore you, pick up a different Crichton book (Prey was pretty good). If you can tolerate it (or don't mind skipping over those parts), you'll enjoy the book. Really, there's a good book under there, buried under all that self-important stuff Crichton keeps on shoving in your face. That's just bad writing. Come on, Michael, not even Paolini does-- oh, wait. Paolini does do that. Nevermind.
*He does, however, make a really awesome but unrelated statement, which is as follows: "Everybody is a lawyer these days. Extrapolating the statistical growth of the legal profession, by the year 2035 every single person in the United States will be a lawyer, including newborn infants. They will be born lawyers. What do you suppose it will be like to live in such a society?" (p 449) Hehe.
Okay, so. I literally JUST finished State of Fear. I got it on the bargain shelf at B&N the other day (oh bargain table, I love you!). After reading it as well as a couple reviews, I have a few things to say about it.
First off, when I started reading it at work, I hated it and all its typical thriller nonsense. Especially grievous were the incredibly flat, beautiful female characters whose only roles were as seductresses or sex objects. I realize thrillers are generally directed at males, but god, that really pisses me off. I expect more from literature in this day and age (especially from Crichton... Jurassic Park is one of my favorite books). The technobabble mystery stuff is supposed to make you want to find out what's happening, but it kind of just annoyed me.
That said, at page ~150 it got good. The action's what he's really good at, and it's fun, and scary (that paralysis thing is holy shit scary). Unfortunately it's broken up by dissections of the global warming theory which start out fascinating and quickly become dull. He keeps doing it right to the end; it reminded me of Mercedes Lackey and her incessant infodumping in Arrows of the Queen. Honestly, I cared more about whether Peter and Sarah were going to get together (their thoughts about each other seemed thrown in as an afterthought, and the story could have used more of it and other more character-related stuff). Peter's chat with the rabid professor was particularly random and preachy, even though what he had to say was very interesting and made sense to me. From a writing standpoint it was atrocious.
Crichton's footnoting, with references, of just about every "fact" in the book is impressive, but it's also loaded to his side (which is that global warming is a conspiracy and certainly no t a problem and scientists are biased toward whoever is funding their research). In citing a science fiction novel he presumes to be expressing true, unbiased fact, when he isn't. Without the footnotes, the bias would be perfectly acceptable, since this is, in fact, a work of fiction.
He says in his presumptuous "Author's Message" in the back that "Everyone has an agenda. Except me." No, Michael. You have an agenda: to sell books, and apparently to sell your idea (which, honestly, at its core is a good one). Everyone has an agenda except me, who, in writing this in her internet blog, is getting nothing but personal satisfaction.
So here's my story. I've never been concerned with global warming. It sounds like one of those things that people like freak out about, like avian flu and anthrax (which, admittedly to my gratification, is something the crazy professor man brings up in that extraneous conversation*). I have no doubts that the media exaggerate to get attention (and, therefore, money). It seems entirely likely that the government uses constant states of fear to keep people under control. Even if that's not the case, people -- especially Americans -- are so incredibly paranoid. Every day there's a new threat to all of society, and THAT is a real problem. But there are a lot of problems with society.
The movie The Day After Tomorrow really irritated me, even though I never saw it. My parents borrowed it, and the description on the back of the DVD case begins, I kid you not, "Global warming causes a new Ice Age...". Anyone with half a brain cell can see the problem with that (and it was hilariously lampooned on South Park, which is truly the epitome of modern satire, following the steps of Voltaire. Or something. Occasionally).
I think it's impossible to truly measure global climate trends. The earth is still a mystery to us. I think it's possible that there is no general warming trend. I think it's possible that if there is a warming trend, it could change in the near or distant future, without warning
Now, there's another reason I'm not concerned about global warming -- and this is another thing that is brought up in the book -- which is that humans are really fucking arrogant if they think they have that much of an impact on the earth. You, you stupid apes, honestly think you can bring about the destruction of the earth?
Give me a fucking break. Even if there's a nuclear war that destroys every human being on the planet, something will survive. Something will always survive. And that something will start the entire cycle of life over again.
Nature > humanity. Deal with it.
This is something I've been saying for a long, long time now, and I'm only twenty years old, and certainly not the smartest person on the planet. Come on, people. Wake up.
Bottom line: with the "dangers" of global warming being pounded into your head pretty much every day, it's nice to see the other side of the argument. But, like everything, take what you read with a grain of salt. If long, preachy scientific ramblings bore you, pick up a different Crichton book (Prey was pretty good). If you can tolerate it (or don't mind skipping over those parts), you'll enjoy the book. Really, there's a good book under there, buried under all that self-important stuff Crichton keeps on shoving in your face. That's just bad writing. Come on, Michael, not even Paolini does-- oh, wait. Paolini does do that. Nevermind.
*He does, however, make a really awesome but unrelated statement, which is as follows: "Everybody is a lawyer these days. Extrapolating the statistical growth of the legal profession, by the year 2035 every single person in the United States will be a lawyer, including newborn infants. They will be born lawyers. What do you suppose it will be like to live in such a society?" (p 449) Hehe.