Oh, boy. Where to start with this one?
I should preface this by saying that I really enjoy Michael Crichton's novels. They are usually excellent for shlocky beach reads or perhaps something to take with you when you travel. In other words, they’re good for when you’ve got some extra time on your hands. I’ve heard his novels referred to as the science fiction equivalent of “bodice ripper” romance novels, a statement with which I don’t disagree. I still like them, however. Seriously, what’s not to like about “Jurassic Park”? The guy’s good!
“State of Fear” is no exception. As the dust jacket of my edition says, “State of Fear” is an “exciting and provocative techno-thriller”. International espionage, Eco-terrorists, killer tsunamis, annotated bibliographies: this stuff is science fiction gold!
Except for the part about how it isn’t entirely fiction. And the part where Crichton asserts: “Everybody has an agenda. Except me.” This has to be the most horseshit I’ve ever seen packed into six words.
Regardless of whether or not Crichton has got his facts straight, he chose to go after some politically charged subject mater. Thus, “State of Fear” is undeniably a politically motivated novel. Remember, apolitical is still a political stance. Essentially, Crichton attempts to convince the reader that global warming is something that’s too complicated to fully understand. Therefore, we should, according to Crichton, not give credence to any supposed authority, scientist or politician, about the nature of the beast. But we should listen to him. Because Crichton says that he knows that he doesn’t know, which is just as good as knowing, no?
I think Crichton’s choice for the name of the terrorist group in “State of Fear” is also a good indicator of the author’s political stance. Crichton has an eco-terrorist group, the ELF, engineering completely implausible environmental disasters to coincide with another environmental group’s speech tour regarding the impending doom global warming will create. Crichton’s ELF is supposedly modeled after the non-fictional version. Crichton has really gone after some low-hanging fruit equating this real group to the one featured in “State of Fear”. By perpetuating the stereotype that environmentalists are all just a bunch of dirty hippies and Ed Abbey quoting nut-jobs, willing to blow shit up at the drop of a hat, it makes it much easier to discredit “their” theory of global warming.
Given the nuanced scientific tone that Crichton gives his prose in “State of Fear”, it’s difficult for me to understand why Crichton didn’t simply write a journal article and submit it for peer review. This is especially confusing, since he includes an entire querulous section of the appendix devoted to the evils of pseudoscience, as seen through the lenses of eugenics and Lysenkoism. I think if you are going to talk the talk, you should be prepared to walk the walk. Crichton’s celebrity affords him no exception in my book.
I agree with you for the most part, however, I feel as though your comment about Crichton’s statement that “Everybody has an agenda. Except me.” is slightly wrong. I read Crichton’s comment as being sarcastic, making a statement that actually strengthens the idea that everybody does have an agenda, though nobody will outright admit it. I don’t think he is truly saying that he has no agenda. Which is why I feel like he saved that comment for the end, a sort of Author’s last word on the subject.
ReplyDeleteThis novel IS incredibly politically charged, propelled forward by controversy. He constantly beats into the reader’s head that this subject is very difficult for the average person to understand, a statement that, in my opinion, is made more so to point out that most people are sadly misinformed on many things in “science,” whether this is a result of lack of availability to information, or simply a disinterest in furthering one’s knowledge of such things. And honestly he makes a pretty good point, it is possible to persuade people out of something that either is frightening, threatening, or just plain too complicated. I don’t think it would be too difficult to convince a group of people that global warming is just something the government made up to scare people. Much like the people who believe 9/11 was an inside job, or people who are convinced the Holocaust was staged and exaggerated.
I think reason he goes to such lengths writing a pseudo-journal article into a novel is two-fold. Most people don't even have access to scientific journal articles (except through the libraries) and he is trying to shift the public perception, all those references really have the effect of snow-blinding a lay reader with too many things to refute, it makes it impossible for an average reader to critque scientifically. The other reason is that such an article would likely never be published in a significant journal precisely because those editors and readers would be able to critique it scientifically, outside that system he can really say whatever he wants. This second bit plays perfectly into his narrative. In most peoples mind Crichton is a very smart man (and he is), so being unable to publish this in a journal might lead many to believe there is something wrong with the journal, and by inference the scientific establishment, in apparently stifling scientific debate. The people pushing intelligent design or antivaccination use the same Monty Pythonesque PR strategy -- Help, help I'm being oppressed.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I agree with your post wholeheartedly. Secondly, I think the reason he wrote State of Fear is so that he can say whatever he wants and not get creamed for it!!!! It has nothing to do with getting his opinion out to the masses who aren't otherwise able to attain it, it has everything to do with the author being able to state his opinion under the title "FICTION." He is then able to pass it off as legitimate science, and the masses eat it up!
ReplyDeleteWhile I enjoy this post and take side with a good portion of it, I do think that both Lucas and Shae have good points. Regarding the six words of horseshit, I was definitely thinking that it was him just being a little sarcastic and even possibly poking fun at himself a little. As for Lucas, I wholeheartedly agree; I was going to comment in a similar fashion until I saw your post. If nothing else, I feel that Crichton is one of those people that likes to get reactions out of others. What better way to do so than to write a fictitious novel that gets everyone all hot and bothered about touchy subjects?
ReplyDeleteYeah, the 'fiction' convention has real power. So does irony ('I didn't say what I just said,' and 'the jury will disregard what they just heard.') But it also WORKS in a way that no 'journal article' can; we identify.
ReplyDelete