Card verus Crichton
I've been a fan of Orson Scott Card for over two
decades and a fan of Michael Crichton for about 15 years. Despite
disagreeing with many of Card's political views, I still am a huge Card
fan. I can no longer read Crichton
I recently read and enjoyed Shadow of the Giant by Card, the eighth and probably last book in the Ender series. I read and enjoyed this book despite knowing that Card is a Clinton hater, at one point supported the Iraq war (don't know whether he does now), and has made some homophobic comments at times. I do wonder how this same person who writes brilliantly about children and the horrors of war can also be all of those things but that doesn't stop me from enjoying his fiction.
On the other hand, I have no intention of reading Crichton's State of Fear. Nor do I plan to read (or at least buy) anything else by him. I have asked myself what is the difference.
To me, the difference is that Crichton now has an agenda in his fiction. I haven't read SOF but I have read several essays from different points of view about the book. The science that Crichton "footnotes" seem like Coulter "footnotes". In addition, the right is using Crichton and I see Crichton as willing to go along with the ride. It wouldn't surprise me if Crichton had been (ala Armstrong Williams and others) paid in some way. Even if he wasn't paid, he's still a shill. On the other hand, there's no overt political agenda in Card's books-- and he writes from several perspectives.
Card is also a much better writer than Crichton. Crichton never was particularly good at either building characters (they are mostly dino fodder or microbot fodder) or even in plotting. Crichton's strength was the "big concept". Card creates wonderful, complex characters that even manage to grow in beliveable ways. His Peter Wiggin alone is worth the price of admission.
I recently read and enjoyed Shadow of the Giant by Card, the eighth and probably last book in the Ender series. I read and enjoyed this book despite knowing that Card is a Clinton hater, at one point supported the Iraq war (don't know whether he does now), and has made some homophobic comments at times. I do wonder how this same person who writes brilliantly about children and the horrors of war can also be all of those things but that doesn't stop me from enjoying his fiction.
On the other hand, I have no intention of reading Crichton's State of Fear. Nor do I plan to read (or at least buy) anything else by him. I have asked myself what is the difference.
To me, the difference is that Crichton now has an agenda in his fiction. I haven't read SOF but I have read several essays from different points of view about the book. The science that Crichton "footnotes" seem like Coulter "footnotes". In addition, the right is using Crichton and I see Crichton as willing to go along with the ride. It wouldn't surprise me if Crichton had been (ala Armstrong Williams and others) paid in some way. Even if he wasn't paid, he's still a shill. On the other hand, there's no overt political agenda in Card's books-- and he writes from several perspectives.
Card is also a much better writer than Crichton. Crichton never was particularly good at either building characters (they are mostly dino fodder or microbot fodder) or even in plotting. Crichton's strength was the "big concept". Card creates wonderful, complex characters that even manage to grow in beliveable ways. His Peter Wiggin alone is worth the price of admission.