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.

41 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 Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's been confirmed by Netcraft.

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    2. 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.
    3. Re:I don't think there's consensus by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But a clever one, you have to admit.

  4. "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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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 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!
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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!

  12. 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!!
  13. 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").
  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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").
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Re:disagree strongly by SiriusStarr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yay for Godwin's Law!!!

    --
    Fear the penguin.
  22. 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.

  23. 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