Slashdot Mirror


Michael Crichton Dead At 66

Many readers have submitted stories about the death of Michael Crichton. The 66-year-old author of Jurassic Park and The Andromeda Strain died unexpectedly Tuesday "after a courageous and private battle against cancer," a press release said. In addition to writing, he also directed such sci-fi classics as Westworld and Runaway. Crichton was married five times and had one child.

96 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Sad. RIP by zymano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Andromeda Strain was an excellent scifi movie.

  2. Sad news ... Michael Chrichton, dead at 66 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just read some sad news on Slashdot - Sci Fi writer Michael Chrichton was found dead in his Los Angeles home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

  3. I don't think there's consensus by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't think there's consensus on whether he's actually dead or not.

    Further study is required.

    1. Re:I don't think there's consensus by lionheart1327 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You, sir, are an asshole.

    2. Re:I don't think there's consensus by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's been confirmed by Netcraft.

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    3. Re:I don't think there's consensus by fyoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would suggest preserving some of his dna for later cloning but chaos theory dictates that something bad would happen if we tried that. Not sure why, I'm not an expert on chaos theory.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    4. Re:I don't think there's consensus by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But a clever one, you have to admit.

  4. Re:Sad. RIP by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The 1971 version was one of my favourites as a kid... haven't seen the remake yet.

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
  5. "andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by bipbop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the risk of being modded troll or flamebait, let me be the first to say that whoever put that tag on this article is an asshole.

    1. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was about to post the same. An extremely insensitive tag. I understand some morons may be trying to rant against the commercialisation of the "Jurrasic Park" franchise, but you can't pin that on this extraordinary author. I doubt anyone who marked that tag up actually read any (of his, in particular, but not necessarily exclusively) books.

    2. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, he's dead. His feelings can't be hurt. And really, he hadn't written anything worthwhile in the last 20 years. And some really awful stuff, most notably "State of Fear", a very dishonest attack on the global warming idea, presented as fiction, so his bogus science can't be questioned, yet often cited as fact. Like a lot of thriller writers he started with some great ideas and treatments of old themes, then with his name established and fat advance checks guaranteed for anything he put his name to, ended up with tedious sequels and curmudgeonly diatribes. (c.f. Frederik Forsyth, Tom Clancy.)

      Jurassic Park succeeded because of Spielberg and CGI, not really much to do with the story, which was, if you think about it for a moment, dumb. But some of his early stuff -- books and movies like Andromeda Strain, Westworld -- was really entertaining and had a few decent ideas.

    3. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by sleeponthemic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thinking about it, the story of Jurassic Park wasn't "dumb". Whilst it is certain a broad exaggeration of a concept, that concept it is based upon is on a day by day basis, becoming more likely. It's hardly a stretch to imagine a moment in the future where extinct animals are exhibited, either.

      If anything, making it a pop culture movie diminished its reputation as an interesting piece of fiction.

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    4. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The basic premise of Jurassic Park wasn't dumb. The science background was, and the "chaos theory means that they must run amok and kill us all!" part was just utterly nuts.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    5. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      "chaos theory means that they must run amok and kill us all!"

      And also happened to be an embellishment of the film.

      People should really learn to read again.. the book series was much better than the Hollywood treatment.. as is often the case.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Informative

      Was it? I read the book many years ago so it all sort of runs together for me, but I distinctly remember each chapter beginning with a picture of successive iterations of a fractal, and I'm pretty sure that this tied in somehow with chaos theory. Wikipedia says:

      Both are pessimistic, but Malcolm, having been consulted before the park's creation, is emphatic in his prediction that the park will collapse, as it is an unsustainably simple structure bluntly forced upon a complex system.

      Is it not so?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    7. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by izomiac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And really, he hadn't written anything worthwhile in the last 20 years. And some really awful stuff, most notably "State of Fear", a very dishonest attack on the global warming idea, presented as fiction, so his bogus science can't be questioned, yet often cited as fact.

      Nothing worthwhile? "In December 1994, he achieved the unique distinction of having the #1 movie (Jurassic Park), the #1 TV show (ER), and the #1 book (Disclosure, atop the paperback list)." I can only assume that you're not talking about popularity or influence. As far as opinions go, I personally liked Jurassic Park tremendously because it came out right when I was in the "Dinosaur phase" as a young boy. Sure, the other day I was talking about all the stuff it gets wrong, but it was probably the first exposure I had to genetics (my eventual concentration).

      As for State of Fear, while I thought the plot was mediocre, I found the arguments quite thought provoking. I started the book as an alarmist, ended as a skeptic. It caused me to read more on the matter, and now I'm more in the middle. In any case, the book doesn't hide behind fiction, as all the anti-global warming stuff is properly cited and logically argued. It's also quite good in exposing many of the misconceptions that people have/had about the topic, hence what makes it effective in convincing skeptics and pissing off alarmists. A point that needed addressing regardless of the author's opinion and the book's conclusion. Although, "global warming is a myth" isn't even the conclusion of the book, it was essentially "politics needs to be removed from science" and global warming was the case study.

    8. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
      I can only assume that you're not talking about popularity or influence.

      I said "worthwhile". Bestsellers are mostly just ways to pass the time on a commute.

      all the anti-global warming stuff is properly cited and logically argued.

      Bullshit.

    9. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by ciderVisor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I won't miss the books themselves, or his anti-science agenda.

      He wasn't anti-science; He was pro-science ! However, the theme that came through in his books was that of man's hubris in thinking that because you understood science and developed technology through it, you were ultimately never 100% in control of that technology. In other words, all real-world systems have a flaw, and humans always seem to stumble over that flaw at some point. His books made an entertaining plot point out of that and for a while he was my favourite author.

      His speeches such as 'Aliens Cause Global Warming' and 'Why Speculate' are must-read too, IMO.

      --
      Squirrel!
    10. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by xenobyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I call "Bullshit!" on the articles I've read on that realclimate.org website...

      They do a great job at debunking other theories but they still fall flat on two very basic scientific premises:

      1) You cannot use a data set to predict anything with a greater accuracy than the accuracy of the worst data in your set. The accuracy of estimated temperatures just 200 years ago are bad and the guesses on temperatures a millennium ago are just that - barely qualified guesses.

      2) Any theory that tries to explain something either already covered by another still-valid theory or which has a major hole in the middle due to the alternate theory still being valid, is basically bullshit. As we have major historic climate changes during the interglacial periods which hasn't been understood or explained fully, it is scientifically impossible to claim that any change we see today are solely or primarily the result of human activities. As the best theories on the ancient climate changes involves a combination of variations in solar output, cosmic radiation and ionization of the atmosphere, variation on the chemical makeup of the atmosphere or the interplay between all these, combined with singular events like volcanic eruptions, meteors and similar, which cannot be ruled out today, Occams Razor tell us that instead of inventing a new theory to explain the changes we may be seeing today, stick to the original one which still cannot be eliminated to be partially or fully responsible for any change observed.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    11. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by VoiceOfDoom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Disagree.

      If you actually read his notes at the end of "State of Fear", it stated that the arguments against global warming were not his own personal view, he was just using them to illustrate the zealotry that surrounds scientific debate on this issue. He was a talented enough writer to be able to present opposing points of view regardless of his own personal biases, which is a rare commodity in this day and age where people seem to be unable to engage in rational debate without emotional investment warping their viewpoints.

      --
      "Life is pain Highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something"

      Westly, The Princess Bride

    12. Re:"andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You cannot use a data set to predict anything with a greater accuracy than the accuracy of the worst data in your set.

      This is wrong, and indeed is elementary statistics. For example, do a regression with some data points that have small error bars and some that have large. The large-error data points have little influence on the prediction (for better or worse); since they're so uncertain, they're mostly irrelevant.

      The correct statement is that the worst data in your set doesn't help you as much as the best data: if some data is much worse than others, then its importance gets downweighted.

      The strongest evidence in favor of anthropogenic warming is not based on comparison to climate hundreds of years ago anyway. It's based on measuring the various natural and human sources of warming, now, and seeing which ones have changes which can explain the observed warming, now. Paleoclimate helps some, but it's not the main line of evidence.

      As we have major historic climate changes during the interglacial periods which hasn't been understood or explained fully, it is scientifically impossible to claim that any change we see today are solely or primarily the result of human activities.

      That's also wrong. This is a typical misuse of the word "fully", coupled with misunderstanding of what we actually know about the glacial-interglacial cycle, coupled with a misunderstanding of what we actually know about the current climate.

      First, "fully" is a weasel word. We rarely understand anything "fully" in science, but that doesn't mean we don't know a lot of things.

      Second, while we can't "fully" model the glacial cycle, we do know that if we leave the CO2 effect on climate out, we get a much larger disagreement with the real climate.

      Third, we don't have to be able to explain every past change in climate in order to explain the current one, particularly since we have vastly better data on current climate factors than past ones. We know exactly how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in the air, we know what solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions are, we have satellite observations of global cloud cover, we know the distribution and photosynthetic activity of plants, and so on.

      Yes, we can't explain everything about climate change hundreds of thousands of years ago. But we also know far less about the vegetation cover, biotic activity, land surface albedo, the state of the ocean circulation, and so on. These are all things we do know a lot about now, so we can examine their roles in current climate change.

      As the best theories on the ancient climate changes involves a combination of variations in solar output, cosmic radiation and ionization of the atmosphere, variation on the chemical makeup of the atmosphere or the interplay between all these, combined with singular events like volcanic eruptions, meteors and similar, which cannot be ruled out today,

      Yes, they can be ruled out today. That's the whole point. There haven't been major meteor strikes to alter the climate. There have been volcanoes, their temporary cooling effect has been measured, and we can thereby infer the warming effect due to a lack of eruptions. We can measure solar output and cosmic rays, and their trends disagree in rate, timing, and magnitude with the observed warming since the latter half of the 20th century. (Solar effects can explain fair bit of warming earlier than that.) We have tons of satellite and instrumental observations of the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, including CO2, methane, NOx, water vapor, CFCs, sulfates and sulfate aerosols, black carbon, and so on.

      Please note, by the way, that the current warming has been attributed mostly to "variation chemical makeup of the atmosphere" (mostly CO2, due to humans). We have evidence of past climate changes due to variations in greenhouse gases, and lo, we see the same thing today. Paleoclimate evi

  6. Recently finished reading Travels by joeflies · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm somewhat confused by why his books spend so much time writing about science (or at least science fiction) when he appears to have been personally bent on the unscientific new-age mysticism activities. Travels talks extensively about his beliefs in fortune tellers, auras, astral planes, and spending two weeks talking to a cactus. It seems contradictory to build a career on science and not approach mysticism with a more cynical eye.

    Then again, the science in Critons' books usually end up trying to kill man, so perhaps it's not his love of science that drove him to write, but rather his belief that science with have its retribution on man.

    1. Re:Recently finished reading Travels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Travels talks extensively about his beliefs in fortune tellers, auras, astral planes, and spending two weeks talking to a cactus.

      That was Marge Simpson, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Recently finished reading Travels by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 3, Informative

      I didn't exactly respect him more after reading Travels. It was hard to escape the conclusion that Crichton was a guy who would believe literally anything anyone told him. That's one reason I was somewhat surprised to see him arguing in favor of more objective thinking in the global-warming debate. His bio made him sound like a real New Age woo-woo type.

    3. Re:Recently finished reading Travels by theodicey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was hard to escape the conclusion that Crichton was a guy who would believe literally anything anyone told him...I was somewhat surprised to see him arguing in favor of more objective thinking in the global-warming debate

      Have you considered that, well before the time Crichton wrote State of Fear, climate change denialism had become the woo-woo position?

      For whatever reason, climate change denialists got to him first, and made him feel cleverer and more imaginative than everyone else for listening to them. What if climate change is a conspiracy of poor environmental interests? Well, what if a powerful woman sexually harassed a man?

      Could have been much worse-- could have been 9/11 truthers.

  7. A Giant Has Passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Michael Crichton was great author, but also a scientist. He was one of few people who warned about the the dangerous trend of mixing politics into science, especially in regards to global warming.
    His Aliens Caused Global Warming speech is a must read.

  8. Funny how you never see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "after a courageous and private battle against cancer,"

    They never say stuff like "after capitulating to cancer like a big pussy,"

    But anyway, to employ another cliche-- he will be missed. Forget Jurassic Park- I still get creeped out by the proto-Terminator robot in "Westworld". And who can forget the classic 1981 cloning/CG extravaganza, "Looker". Well, everyone.

    Here's an hour-long video interview with him on Charlie Rose.

    1. Re:Funny how you never see... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Funny

      They never say stuff like "after capitulating to cancer like a big pussy,"

      Well, at least one reputable news source has done so.

  9. The Wikipedia on Michael Crichton... by Mish · · Score: 5, Funny

    An earlier Wikipedia entry that told the truth about his death has been 'corrected'...

    Michael Crichton has died on November 5, 2008 after a long, private battle with a velociraptor.

    1. Re:The Wikipedia on Michael Crichton... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now there's a real tribute. Add in a few XKCD comics and you've got a proper shrine.

  10. Lost World by ezratrumpet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember reading "The Lost World" when I was a under-read, newly minted college graduate. One of the characters, Sarah Harding, had a sequence where she talked about George Schaller reading everything that had ever been written about a subject before he began field studies - and that once he got to the field, he discovered that almost everything he had read was wrong. The two ideas - of mastering a subject and of discovering new things about that subject - intrigue me to this day. I will miss his work.

    1. Re:Lost World by sootman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember reading "The Lost World" when I was a under-read, newly minted college graduate.

      After four years of being required to read every crappy book ever written* in high school I was pretty much burned out on reading. (I always liked reading, ever since I was young... I even remember reading Iacocca's biography instead of whatever I was supposed to be reading at the time.) But by the time Hight School was done I was only reading car magazines and stuff like that.

      The summer after my first year in college I found (literally--someone left it behind in the movie theater where I was working) a copy of Jurassic Park and I started reading it. I got sucked in right away, literally to the point of hiding it in my cash drawer and reading it at the concession stand that I was working at when it was slow. I burned through it in no time, then started reading his other stuff. I remember reading Andromeda Strain and Terminal Man early on and reading Congo and Sphere later on. (Sphere and Jurassic Park are my favorite books by him and I've read and re-read them both several times.) Then I remembered liking some Stephen King stuff that I had read in the past so I went and looked for more by him (Christine, Firestarter--his early stuff) and then I found more and more authors and I got back into reading and I've been reading steadily ever since. But I'll always remember that it was him and Jurassic Park that got me back into reading for fun. Thank you, Mr. Crichton. You will be missed.

      * a couple, like Mosquito Coast, were OK, and I loved Catcher in the Rye, but overall, I hated all the selections at my HS. About 10 books a year, including 2 or 3 to read over the summer. The Guns of Navarone, On the Beach, stuff like that.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    2. Re:Lost World by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah yes, that passage has stayed with me over the years.

      'But the thing is, boys donâ(TM)t like girls who are too smart.â
      Sarahâ(TM)s eyebrows went up. âoeIs that so?â
      'Well, thatâ(TM)s what everybody saysâ¦â
      'Like who?â
      'Like my mom.â
      'Uh-huh. And she probably knows what sheâ(TM)s talking about.â
      'I donâ(TM)t know, Kelly admitted. âoeMy mom only dates jerks, actually.â
      'So she could be wrong?â Sarah asked, glancing up at Kelly as she tied her laces.
      'I guess.â
      'Well, in my experience, some men like smart women, and some donâ(TM)t. Itâ(TM)s like everything else in the world.â She stood up. âoeYou know about George Schaller?â
      'Sure. He studied pandas.â
      'Right. Pandas, and before that, snow leopards and lions and gorillas. Heâ(TM)s the most important animal researcher in the twentieth century-and you know how he works?â
      Kelly shook her head.
      'Before he goes into the field, George reads everything thatâ(TM)s ever been written about the animal heâ(TM)s going to study. Popular books, newspaper accounts, scientific papers, everything. Then he goes out and observes the animal for himself. And you know what he usually finds?â
      She shook her head, not trusting herself to speak.
      'That nearly everything thatâ(TM)s been written or said is wrong. Like the gorilla. George studied mountain gorillas ten years before Dian Fossey ever thought of it. And he found that what was believed about gorillas was exaggerated, or misunderstood, or just plain fantasy-like the idea that you couldnâ(TM)t take women on gorilla expeditions, because the gorillas would rape them. Wrong. Everything⦠just⦠wrong.â
      Sarah finished tying her boots and stood.
      'So, Kelly, even at your young age, thereâ(TM)s something you might as well learn now. All your life people will tell you things. And most of the time, probably ninety-five percent of the time, what they tell you will be wrong.â
      Kelly said nothing. She felt oddly disheartened to hear this.
      'Itâ(TM)s a fact of life,â Sarah said. âoeHuman beings are just stuffed full of misinformation. So itâ(TM)s hard to know who to believe. I know how you feel.â

      Thatâ(TM)s a passage from The Lost World, by Michael Crichton. I read it when I was 11, and this lesson stayed in my mind for years. Eventually, with Americans going berserk with panic over Muslims after 9/11, I somehow remembered this moral out of nowhere. I actually went to the library and tried finding books about Islam. In retrospect, nearly everything I learned about Islam and Muslims was exaggerated, or misunderstood, or just plain fantasy. It made it all the more frustrating to explain to people, since they refused to part with those notions.

  11. Poor dude getting reamed by some on the left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've seen the global warming killed him on other sites and similar cracks on this very site.

    Much of his career he wrote very thoughtful science-based pulp fiction that was very influential to many of us. Time and again he was very skeptical of many of the uses of technology and almost universally anti-corporate and anti-military with his evil characters. He was a friend to the techno-luddite left until he wrote one damn book that dared questioned the religious-left's view of climate catastrophe and questioned the role of science propaganda used by both the left and right. Sadly damned him forever in many eyes.

  12. RIP Mr. Crichton by GRH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For any of you folks who have only seen some of MC's movies, don't judge his storytelling ability without reading the books first. The Andromeda Strain is clearly a classic, but some of his later books like "Airframe" and "The Rising Sun" are good reads too.

    I've don't know why, but for whatever reasons, Hollywood has slaughtered just about every title they tried to turn into a movie. The ~1970 Andromeda Strain is probably about the only one where they came close (including Jurassic Park).

    Rest in peace, Mr. Crichton.

    1. Re:RIP Mr. Crichton by The+Bungi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anybody else think The 13th Warrior (based on his Eaters of The Dead) is actually a good film?

      I liked it. Still do. I think it's unappreciated.

      /ducks

    2. Re:RIP Mr. Crichton by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ~1970 Andromeda Strain is probably about the only one where they came close (including Jurassic Park).

      The "Great Train Robbery" (1979 - also directed by Crichton) was an enjoyable film. Here's the trailer:

      http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=h_QathS_8Ok

  13. Re:Sad. RIP by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stay the fuck away from the TV remake. Forgive me for beint this blunt, but it really is that bad.

    The 1971 is perhaps the most accurate book-to-movie conversion i've seen. I first saw it arround 5 years ago, and it found it gripping. There was little a remake could improve over it.

  14. For those that don't get the joke by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those that modded the parent "Troll": Michael Crichton's Web site seems to be down now, but he gave a speech called "Aliens Cause Global Warming" in which he claimed to debunk "consensus science." The gist was that political discussion of global warming too often invoked "scientific consensus," where he argued that science was not consensus-based and that such claims were therefore meaningless.

    Similarly, though we may not have consensus that Michael Crichton is dead, it makes absolutely no difference to him.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:For those that don't get the joke by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
      he argued that science was not consensus-based and that such claims were therefore meaningless

      .

      Consensus is meaningful when you have to make decisions.

      In 1952 there were 58,000 new cases of polio reported in the U.S. and over 3,000 deaths.

      The vaccine that most everyone agrees will probably be ready for distribution before 1955 gets more resources than the one which most won't likely become available before 1960.

    2. Re:For those that don't get the joke by Michael+Wardle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Calling it denial is to equate skepticism with other taboo topics such as Holocaust denialism, and to attempt to shut down debate, rather than offering meaningful theories or evidence.

    3. Re:For those that don't get the joke by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wasn't actually referring to people with legitimate skeptical opinions. There are in fact a few scientists who potentially know what they're talking about (given education, etc) that don't buy the consensus opinion. I think they're wrong, as do most climate scientists around the world, but that's how science works - people have theories they try to test and poke holes in.

      I'm talking about denialists, people whose response to the (fairly overwhelming) consensus that exists is to say stuff like "the geocentric universe and flat earth views were also scientific consensus, once upon a time." That's true as far as it goes, but it utterly fails as a critique of the science, the theories, or the models. It's not skepticism, it's just ignoring and refusing to discuss. Similarly, when people latch on to localized variations in temperature as proof that global warming doesn't exist. That's shutting down debate before it begins - it's not the presentation of an argument, or evidence, or meaningful flaws in existing theories - it's ignoring the issue, declaring victory, and plugging one's ears.

      This latter category of person is primarily who you find here, and in most places on the intertubes.

    4. Re:For those that don't get the joke by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, both of those predate science, and have not been consensus for over two thousand years.

    5. Re:For those that don't get the joke by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Once, when I was younger I had great respect for Crichton. I read Jurassic Park in high school and was so amazed by it I had my mother arrange for me to go talk to a paleontologist about what was right and wrong in the book. Most of it was wrong, rather not at all probable, but the journey of discovering why it was wrong was fascinating. I also saw a talk by the T-Rex expert after who the paleontologist in the book was modeled. Those experiences along with one or two other things led me to become a geology major and 15 years later I'm still at it.

      However, there were three points where I lost a massive amount of respect for Crichton. The first was when I saw the movie westworld on an airplane once, for which he wrote the screenplay. It's the exact same plot as Jurassic Park, only substitute dinosaurs with robots. Exact same plot. The second and third books after Jurassic Park were so bad that I don't think I even finished them, that's the second point, it was obvious he was writing books to get made into Spielberg movies.

      The third was when he wrote State of Fear and testified before congress. I never read the book, but just to watch the kind of anti-intellectuals like Inhof invite a science fiction author to be regarded as an expect on climate change. Focusing on whether the consensus view is necessarily correct or not has nothing to do with the irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing and the likely probability that humans are causing it completely or contributing to it.

      While I have very fond memories of how cool it was to read Jurassic Park the first time (way way before Spielberg got his dirty little paws on it), my opinion is that the guy was a hack, a very very clever one, but a hack nonetheless. He won't be remembered as one of the "great authors", in my opinion.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    6. Re:For those that don't get the joke by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chrichton wrote great anti-science fiction and was entitled to his opinion. What I find unbelivable is that certain US senators cannot tell the difference between science and fiction, so much so that Chrichton was introduced to a senate commitee as a climate expert.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:For those that don't get the joke by scottrocket · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One could say the same thing about Jules Verne: Protagonists embark on a fantastic journey (center of the earth; submarine; airborn), encounter fantastic things (new environments with: giant lizards; giant squids; dinosaurs), then escape at the last minute following some cataclysm and have a great story to regale to their peers. Although a bit formulaic, that doesn't make the stories any less compelling or romantic to read.

    8. Re:For those that don't get the joke by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless I missed something, he only wrote one sequel to Jurassic Park...The Lost World. And I liked it much better than the first. The movie version of that one was absolutely horrible. Almost as bad as the Sphere movie, which I thought was his best book, personally.

      Sounds like you just got pissy that his views on global warming didn't line up with your own and found reasons not to like him before that.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    9. Re:For those that don't get the joke by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless I missed something, he only wrote one sequel to Jurassic Park...The Lost World. And I liked it much better than the first. The movie version of that one was absolutely horrible.

      Agreed. For one thing, they completely ignored what was an essential plot point of the book -- that studying resurrected dinosaurs to learn more about them was nearly pointless. They wouldn't act like dinosaurs did because they had no other dinosaurs to learn behavior from. The dinosaurs in the book were out of control, with raptors in a pack turning on each other over a meal; they'd never been taught better, essentially. That negated the idea that some good would come of the project and wasn't just a waste of both lives and money.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    10. Re:For those that don't get the joke by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Focusing on whether the consensus view is necessarily correct or not has nothing to do with the irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing and the likely probability that humans are causing it completely or contributing to it.

      Crichton predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C.

      So taking out that "irrefutable" phrase out of your statement since Michael Crichton (in his book or in real life) wasn't even trying to refute that part of it in the first place.

      We're left with:

      Focusing on whether the consensus view is necessarily correct or not has nothing to do with [...] the likely probability that humans are causing it completely or contributing to it.

      ...and yet your statement still doesn't make sense. The "likely probability that humans are causing it completely or contributing to it" is your conclusion. We know that. We know Crichton disagreed with it. You can't use the fact that Crichton disagreed with you to discredit him. That's just silly.

      The third was when he wrote State of Fear and testified before congress. I never read the book, but just to watch the kind of anti-intellectuals like Inhof invite a science fiction author to be regarded as an expect on climate change.

      Michael Crichton spoke on "the politicization of Science". Here is the google-cached written reproduction of that talk (which I found on his site, but his site is currently down). And here is the educational background of Michael Crichton. That being said, don't just rely on his educational background. And don't rely on the fact that he was seen testify in front of an idiot. His talk speaks for itself. It's quite short, and to the point.

      Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C. (His conclusions have been widely misstated.)

      Crichton's interest in computer modeling went back forty years. His multiple-discriminant analysis of Egyptian crania, carried out on an IBM 7090 computer at Harvard, was published in the Papers of the Peabody Museum in 1966. His technical publications included a study of host factors in pituitary chromophobe adenoma, in Metabolism, and an essay on medical obfuscation in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    11. Re:For those that don't get the joke by mrsquid0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that there are a lot of people out there who have no clue what the science actually is, have not studied the issue beyond readying a few Web sites, and then claim to be informed skeptics. In fact, most of them are just denying something that they barely understand, which is not skepticism. Denial is a good term to describe many of the people who claim that they do not believe in climate change. Belief has nothing do do with it. It is a matter of science, not belief.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    12. Re:For those that don't get the joke by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Degrees in medicine and biology do not make one an expert on climate change. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Crichton had written "GOTO Considered Just Fine, Thankyouverymuch."

      Crichton botched the science that he was trying to criticize. I think that's a much stronger condemnation than the presence or absence of any given piece of university-derived parchment.

      The first article disputes his 0.8C prediction, pointing out that the trend he attributes his predicted rise to should actually have a bit of a cooling effect.

      Here is a list of other, specific rebuttals to Crichton (primarily his novel "State of Fear"), in case you're interested.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    13. Re:For those that don't get the joke by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the links from the RC wiki was broken, and (despite being a wiki) I couldn't fix it. Here:

      http://audubonmagazine.org/profile/profile0505.html

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    14. Re:For those that don't get the joke by dhudson0001 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      When comparing Crichton with Verne, please don't forget that the latter was a sci-fi pioneer who lived in the 19th century.

      There was no excuse for Prey...IMO it desperately sucked..especially as the laypersons introduction to the nascent field of Nanotechnology at the turn of this century.

    15. Re:For those that don't get the joke by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The grandparent is correct, I was mistaken and there is only one sequel to Jurassic Park, I got confused with the movies. Yet, I stand by my point that a) Lost World sucked and b) Crichton was a hack.

      You talk about it being neat that studying the behavior of dinosaurs is nearly pointless because of these dinosaurs had no mothers to learn from. Do you know what how much "nature vs. nuture" was in dinosaurs, i.e., genetic vs. learned behavior? Considering we don't even know how much is even in humans, talking about it being pointless to study recreated dinosaurs for their behavior is itself pointless. If we were to do recreate dinosaurs and study them, it would be just about as good a guess as studying the long dead bones of dinosaurs to get clues about behavior, which is precisely what we do right now because we have nothing else (mostly we just infer anatomy, but sometimes we get some ideas about behavior). Writing that book, he forgot that he's supposed to be entertaining us, not getting on a soap-box about his paranoid beliefs about science.

      Anyway, this is all fine until you start applying this clever, but incorrect logic to the real world instead of your private science fiction --it's called pseudoscience and the U.S. is rife with it. For State of Fear, my opinion of Crichton was only lowered a little bit when he testified, it was already low because of Lost World. I was more annoyed at Inhof and the members of congress and the administration about their denial about the possibility of climate change at first, then their stonewalling to keep from doing anything about it.

      As for Crichton being a hack, let's put it this way, if I read a Jack London novel, even a not so good one, it's still pretty entertaining. If I read a lesser known Hemingway or Steinbeck I am still entertained. I was not entertained by Lost World, and I was not entertained by him again putting those idiot children in those books, and I was not entertained in the least by Westworld because I had seen that movie before, the same way that Lost World was sorry and predictable. From reading this thread, some people are entertained by his other novels, so maybe I'm wrong and he is a good author, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Jurassic Park won't make it into any school reading lists the way H.G. Wells stuff does or George Orwell, or some other science fiction by truly great authors.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    16. Re:For those that don't get the joke by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except for, you know, the SCIENTISTS.

      And they really don't tend to fall in the "skeptic" camp.

    17. Re:For those that don't get the joke by boxlight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's the exact same plot as Jurassic Park, only substitute dinosaurs with robots. Exact same plot.

      This is a stupid comment. GILLIGAN'S ISLAND, SURVIOR, CAST AWAY, LOST -- "exact same plot". JURASSIC PARK is about genetic science, DNA, dinosaurs, some Chaos Theory and a little bit of computer engineering. WESTWORLD is about grown men wanting to live out a wild west fantasy.

      The second and third books after Jurassic Park were so bad that I don't think I even finished them, that's the second point, it was obvious he was writing books to get made into Spielberg movies.

      You don't know what you are talking about.

      There was only one sequel to the novel JURASSIC PARK. It was called LOST WORLD, and LOST WORLD the movie bares little resemblance to the novel. JURASSIC PARK 3 was a movie, not a book.

      Besides, Crichton was as much about movies as he was about novels. Crichton wrote the screenplay for WESTWORLD and TWISTER, he wrote and directed COMA and THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, and he created ER. It's no wonder his written work has appeal as movie and tv projects.

      Focusing on whether the consensus view is necessarily correct or not has nothing to do

      Crichton's point is it doesn't matter how many people *think* he's is wrong about climate change, it only takes one person to *prove* him wrong. Science isn't consensus, and nothing has been proven. Every computer model has been shown inaccurate, and now the environmental lobby are explaining away our years of stable weather and record low hurricanes as the result of lack of sunspots.

      with the irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing and the likely probability that humans are causing it completely or contributing to it.

      I've been around for a while, and I've seen this happen before. Now that the Republicans are out of the White House, expect the climate change crisis to conveniently fade away from the public consciousness. Everything will be hunky dory for about eight years until another Republican gets elected and then the next great fabricated crisis will raise its head -- maybe they'll say we're running out of clean water, or that the rubber we use in tires is evil or something, and those damn Republicans won't spend the billions of dollars needed to make the problem go away! -- and it'll get pounded into the minds of young people and the environmentally sensitive until the next Democrat gets elected and everyone will breath another big sigh of relief and move on.

      While I have very fond memories of how cool it was to read Jurassic Park the first time

      JURASSIC PARK is still a very strong novel. Probably one of the best techno-thrillers ever. It holds up. As does A CASE OF NEED, DISCLOSURE, SPHERE, PREY, and TRAVELS was a fascinating autobiography.

      my opinion is that the guy was a hack, a very very clever one, but a hack nonetheless.

      A HACK? Your opinion is wrong. Crichton was thought-provoking and insightful, and he was a gifted story-teller

      He won't be remembered as one of the "great authors", in my opinion.

      Do tell.

    18. Re:For those that don't get the joke by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read the real peer reviewed papers, and you will see that Skepticism is entirely justified.

      No, I will see no such thing. Perhaps if I pick and choose a few papers presented to me by those who want to promote the denial of global warming, I might think so, however.

    19. Re:For those that don't get the joke by delt0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have come across, the ones lacking seem to be the "skeptics".

      So Al Gore piece was what? Its politics, and its going both ways. Mention anything against AGW and BAM your getting paid off by oil companies. No evidence required. Or your not a real climate scientist etc. The opposite is also true. But really the debate even here where we are suppose to be just a little more technically inclined, the dissuasion is no more informed. The whole thing is political not scientific. I think that was the point about science is not a consensus by M.C.

      Having worked with climate scientist I can assure you that the general options are far from general consensus. So why do you think its trolling to ask for your sources?

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    20. Re:For those that don't get the joke by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if you have, can you cite some examples for actual scientific journals, then?

      And can you show that those are in any way not just a few exceptions?

    21. Re:For those that don't get the joke by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But please realize that media and other popular source overstate confidence in science all the time.

      You're the only one who's bringing up the media. I've been following this since long before it was even a media topic, you know.

    22. Re:For those that don't get the joke by J-1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You implied, and I agree, that non-scientists *should* consider scientific consensus. Because they aren't climate scientists themselves, and they don't even have the tools to discern a good scientist from a bad one. So going with consensus is a very sane choice. It's not science, but it may be the best choice.

    23. Re:For those that don't get the joke by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having worked with climate scientist I can assure you that there is a general consensus. So why do you think its trolling to ask for your sources?

      Here is a clue, show some studies that show a different cause. Show some good papers explaining why the studies are wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. extraordinary author? by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe his work isn't bad for reading that you don't have to think about, but the man was barely a cut above John Grisham as a fiction writer.

    1. Re:extraordinary author? by Smackintosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure about extraordinary, but certainly a cut or two above average. I'd like to know which of his works you read as there were quite a few that were at a minimum thought provoking, if not quite novel in context of the time they were written. Maybe not in complexity of plotline, but at least in terms of interesting and somewhat unusual topics.

  16. anti-technologist FUD-mongerer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a guy who had a scientific education, he always struck me as being squarely against technology and science. I know it sells books, but why do the engineers/scientists always have to be portrayed as being arrogant and irresponsible? Surely there is some good that can come out of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, outsourcing, etc...??

    1. Re:anti-technologist FUD-mongerer by stormguard2099 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe a story about scientists being cautious and thoughtful doesn't lead to dire consequences which just doesn't make a good book.

      chapter 20: After verifying his results once again the scientist then circulates his findings amongst peers to scrutinize his work from a different perspective.....

      Yeah, I'm gonna preorder that puppy!

      --
      http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
    2. Re:anti-technologist FUD-mongerer by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's the usual crypto-Luddism common in lots of hack sci-fi writing. And kind of common on Slashdot, too: How many stories every week get the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag?

  17. reading the summary... by gillbates · · Score: 2, Funny

    I expected it to end with ...There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  18. I read the book (SPOILER) by joeflies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I found the book Andromeda Strain entertaining, it was something that was easy reading and there was a puzzle to unravel. Then I reached the end of the book and thought, "That's it?". Usually the protagonists are somewhat involved in the solution to the problem.

    1. Re:I read the book (SPOILER) by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Usually the protagonists are somewhat involved in the solution to the problem.

      Meh. Not in The War of the Worlds, and that's an acknowledged classic.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:I read the book (SPOILER) by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Usually the protagonists are somewhat involved in the solution to the problem.

      You must be new to Michael Crichton's work. See also Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, etc. All of them have a major deus ex machina component to their endings. (Technically, in Sphere, they remove themselves from relevance to the problem.)

      The man knew how to write towards a climax damned well but has no idea how to resolve the story afterwards. Andromeda Strain is just one of the most jarring in that regard.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:I read the book (SPOILER) by InlawBiker · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was here that he first discovered the formula he would use over and over: humans discover science - humans abuse science - humans pay.

      He did cop out the ending of that one, but it was an early novel. I like to think of him as mostly a sci-fi writer, because the ideas were more important than the characters.

    4. Re:I read the book (SPOILER) by Bassman59 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must be new to Michael Crichton's work. See also Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, etc. All of them have a major deus ex machina component to their endings.

      Speaking of adapting books to movies, and deus ex machinas, the film Adaptation neatly ties this all together. Brian Cox plays a veteran screenwriter who offers the following advice to a depressed, panicky Charlie Kaufman:

      "I'll tell you a secret. The last act makes a film. Wow them in the end, and you got a hit. You can have flaws, problems, but wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. Find an ending, but don't cheat, and don't you dare bring in a deus ex machina. Your characters must change, and the change must come from them. Do that, and you'll be fine."

      I wonder what Crichton would've thought of THAT!

      I mean, when he wasn't busy attempting to debunk global warming.

  19. berry fuddy by mblase · · Score: 3, Funny

    A Giant Has Passed

    Now, there's no need to poke fun at his height.

  20. Best "Common Sci-Tech" Writer by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least of modern times, anyway. He was writing "techno-thrillers" before critics coined the term for Tom Clancy... he gave incredibly descriptive narratives about telecom technology in Congo, years before Clancy wrote The Hunt For Red October. Like many great genre authors, he could also write outside his genre... see Eaters of the Dead and The Great Train Robbery. I was completely unaware of his battle with cancer, and news of his death made an already rotten day worse.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  21. Crichton Was A Supporter of Tech Tips Website by olivermomo · · Score: 3, Informative

    This post by the founder of the Mac tips website, macosxhints.com, states that Crichton was an early donor to the site. Although I didn't care for every one of his books, I was certainly a fan of his body of work and I find it very cool that he donated to a website that collects technical tips for Mac fans.

  22. Re:Lower than this Slashdot cannot sink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't feed the trolls. Let them be modded down without any replies. Thanks.

  23. Travels by monkeymanatwork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you haven't read Travels, you're missing a fascinating autobiography and vicarious insight into what it was like to be a young man in the 1970's. Crichton documents his search for the meaning of life among every New Age craze and pursuit of that decade, intermixed with stories of his many bedroom conquests. It will lead the religious reader to conclude that he was looking in the wrong place, but the secular reader will realize that his search never ends -- the hallmark of a true scientist.

    Then again, there's the part about the bedroom conquests.

  24. never liked his writing... by eyebum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I personally found Crichton's work to be shallow. It was not much more than a film script fleshed out with a few more articles and conjunctions. The characters were wooden and a bit too one-dimensional. His vehement rejection of global warming pretty much showed his analytical skills were out of whack too. Not such a big thing except that he bought the political lines spun to deny global warming. The movies made from his books will, in my opinion, really only be remembered for their special effects and the inclusion of the "one novel idea" that he could inject into it. Proof: Sphere.

  25. Re:Sad. RIP by repapetilto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Listen to parent, the tv remake was one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. For example, the whole multilevel decontamination procedure was replaced by what looked like a rave party with everyone dancing through foam with lights strobing.

  26. You had it backwards by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was hard to escape the conclusion that Crichton was a guy who would believe literally anything anyone told him. That's one reason I was somewhat surprised to see him arguing in favor of more objective thinking in the global-warming debate.

    It's not so much that Crichton believed anything people told him so much as he didn't believe in science. While his science themed books show a great interest in reading about science, the conclusion is always that Science is Wrong and Scientists are Evil or Recklessly Stupid. The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, and Prey are all about the futility of trying to contain living things. In Next, the drug that saves his brother makes him age and die early. State of Fear is no different, really. It's more strident than the rest of his books about how scientists are all arrogant fools who will destroy the world, but it really matches the theme of the rest of his work.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:You had it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point wasn't that science was bad; he point, as stated by Jeff Goldblum in Jurrassic Park was that scientists often realize that then can do something, but almost never ask if they should. An important question I might add.

      I read an article the other day that indicated some scientists were currently researching, and believed they could create, designer babies. At no point did they ever actually ask themselves, "Hey, is this a good idea?" That's what he argued against (along with "consensus science", which is more accurately defined as coming to a conclusion with consensus, rather than definitive evidence.)

  27. Re:Sad. RIP by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Terminal Man was interesting reading. Many of the ideas in it are starting to poke onto the feasability horizon now.

    (anyone else want to get electrodes wired into their brain?) ...
    (would you reconsider if it made your response time quicker in an FPS?)

    -ellie

  28. I'm sorry to hear it... by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... one of the first full-length books I read was The Andromeda Strain.

    Later, I read the condensed version of The Terminal Man, and remembered (and loved) the line where a doctor explains to a policeman that the subject had a radioactive battery, making him a possible contamination threat. The policeman's response was "Alpha or beta particle emitter?" When the doctor looks surprised, he adds, "I went to college. I can even read and write."

    That was where I learned that even cops could have the geek nature.

    --
    Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    1. Re:I'm sorry to hear it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Full Disclosure: he was always in a State of Fear in the land of the Rising Sun. He was on his way to the Lost World, betting his Odds On a Case of Need to Easy Go to the Next Timeline. After being attacked by the Eaters of the Dead, he was admitted to the ER in a Coma. Turns out he was, after all, The Terminal Man. Let us Prey for him. The funeral will be held at Jurassic Park.

      P.S: Did he Grave Descend by overdosing on his Drug of Choice?

      P.P.S: Too soon?

  29. easy solution by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    just make all of the clones of michael crichton you create female so they can't breed. of course, this approach ignores the possibility of spontaneous hermaphroditism or parthenogenic reproduction in a given population of unmonitored feral michael crichtons on say a large remote tropical island

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  30. Re:Married 5 times? by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 3, Funny
    Divorced once: plausible deniability.

    Divorced twice: you make bad choices.

    Divorced three times: you're a ... challenge to get along with.

    Divorced four times: you're a colossal dick.

    Just some observations I've made about human nature throughout the years.

  31. Don't worry... by dexmachina · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...all we have to do is combine his DNA with some amphibian genes and resurrect him.

  32. Re:Sad. RIP by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yep really REALLY bad. The 1971 had a "countdown to extinction" feel that really gave it a sense of danger. And the ending on the remake was so damned lame it'll make you want to pull an Elvis on the TV. The only remake I can say was worse was Salem's Lot. Rutger freaking Hauer as the damned master vampire? WTF??? IMHO if you want to watch Andromeda watch the original and pretend the remake never existed. Trust me you'll be better off having never saw it.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  33. Re:disagree strongly by SiriusStarr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yay for Godwin's Law!!!

    --
    Fear the penguin.
  34. Hanging on just long enough... by EdgeyEdgey · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    [Intentionally left blank]
  35. Re:Sad. RIP by ishmaelflood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, yes, it was a faithful transcript of the book. But the book was as boring as bat shit, and the movie was worse.

  36. Environmentalists by bugeaterr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Notice how most of the posts mocking, belittling and having fun with the man's death are coming from the "How dare he question Global Warming" crowd.

    State of Fear had hundreds of footnotes referencing the 3rd IPCC and actual scientific studies from actual scientists.

    Regardless your view on Global Warming, he has a valid point in the book:
    *Enviornmentalists feed on fear.
    *The media feeds on fear.
    *Politicians feed on fear.
    Results in
    *Echo chamber effect.

    It's hard to get elected saying or to get a story on the news about how: "The sky is NOT falling, or not falling that fast, or it's not our fault that it's falling".

    Apparently that is all it takes to get the altruistic, gentle Green movement dancing on your grave.

  37. Why... by pngmangi42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...does everyone just mention Jurassic Part, Sphere, and The Andromeda Strain? He wrote other great books, such as Eaters of the Dead, The Great Train Robbery, and Timeline! I'll admit, though, that Next did suck.

    --
    I tried to walk into Target, but I missed. --Mitch Hedburg
  38. The thing people are forgetting by slapout · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Michael Crichton used to write articles for computer magazines. I remember reading one where he talked about the timing how long it took you to type your name and password to determine if it was really you.

    http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/index/index.php?author=Michael+Crichton

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  39. Not every great author has to be a GREAT author by IronChef · · Score: 2, Informative

    So Crichton isn't Hemingway. Big deal. He wrote enjoyable books, for the most part, and did so for decades. He wrote stories that kept you thinking about them after you put the book down, even if they had flaws.

    Books, like movies and even food, don't have to be "art" to be worthwhile and worthy of some respect.

    As a (hack) writer myself I have much respect for authors like Crichton, (old) King, and even Dean Koontz. Their works won't be taught in school, but they sweep you away for a few hours, and get under your skin. And for me anyway, they make me want to write a book myself.* They make it look easy, in the way only real talent can.

    Compare Crichton to a real hack like Robin Cook. Ugh!

    I will be lifting a glass in his memory tonight, and I rarely drink. The world's a poorer place without him and his tales of Science Run Amok.

    * Not that I have written a book lately because hey, I am lazy, but that's another story.