Is the scenario of recreating dinosaurs from DNA which was the premise of Jurassic Park really plausible? In The Science of Jurassic Park and Lost World, authors Rob Desalle and David Lindley carefully assess the plausibility of Crichton's premises. I don't know the details of the science well enough to assess their assessment. But, my reaction to it was that it was reasonably fair. It was a good read and I would recommend. However, it misses the point.
First of all, in science fiction all you need is plausibility not actuality. The space travel science fiction of the 1950's and 1960's assumed space ships that did not exist at the time and still don't exist. However, the existence of such vehicles at some point in the future is plausible. Time travel science fiction assumes a capability to travel in time which may never be possible based on our current understanding. And yet we allow that as well.
Desalle and Lindley spend 240 pages to argue that the scenario of bringing back dinosaurs from DNA is not currently possible. It seems to me that if it takes 240 pages to argue that a single point is not possible, then it is still more plausible than space travel or time travel. Further, it is not possible given our current technology. There is no reason to assume that a breakthrough won't be made in the next 50 years that makes it possible. Compare this with time travel. All of our current understanding of time/space suggests that this will never be possible. And in the case of recreating dinosaurs from DNA the best we can say is that the technology is not there yet.
Why is Crichton being held to such a higher standard? I won't question the motives of Desalle and Lindley as their treatment seems to be reasonable fair. That is they do not reveal any obvious bias. But, in general, Crichton is a lightning rod for criticism. He takes an unflinching stand raising uncomfortable issues. And while it is difficult to counter his narrative arguments, it is much easier to attack his scientific argument. And that, as I said, misses the point.
We will see this again in his later book State of Fear which questions the Global Warming movement. But before I wade into those turbulent waters, I thought I should lay a little groundwork.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Pirate Lattitudes Revisited
I am a much better listener than I am a reader. That is to say that I read slowly but listening to a recorded book is completely effortless. I know people vary on this point because some I have talked to say that reading is effortless while listening is tedious. When I listen to a book I get a much better sense of story and am more likely to remember small details about the characters and the plot. However, when I read a book, I am much more likely to notice conceptual aspects such as the structure of the story and am more likely to relate the story to other stories I have read. I will notice deeper symbolism and philosophical issues when reading while missing character and plot development. I don't know why this is. But it is. Consequently, when studying a book I like to read it and listen to it often multiple times. If the book has been made into a movie, I like to see the movie as well.
The Andromeda Stain, which I need to post a bit more about, is a good example. I read the book, watched the movie, watched the mini-series remake, read the book again and watched the videos again. There is something in the back of my mind that has yet to coalesce about all this. So, I am holding off posting more until it does. In the meantime, I am trying to get a recording of it from the library and will probably watch the movies again.
All this is to lead up to the point that when I read Pirate Latitudes, a while back, I suggested that the book may not have been finished. Characters were introduced somewhat heavyhandedly, threads were dropped, and some of the action felt unmotivated. However, I just listened to a delightful recording from Recorded Books, narrated by John Bedford Lloyd that was free of these flaws. Or, at least, I didn't notice them. Perhaps because reading is more difficult for me I tend to be more critical. On the other hand, perhaps the fact that I am more critical makes reading more difficult. Who knows.
Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed this recording and thought I should give both Crichton and the narrator their due.
The Andromeda Stain, which I need to post a bit more about, is a good example. I read the book, watched the movie, watched the mini-series remake, read the book again and watched the videos again. There is something in the back of my mind that has yet to coalesce about all this. So, I am holding off posting more until it does. In the meantime, I am trying to get a recording of it from the library and will probably watch the movies again.
All this is to lead up to the point that when I read Pirate Latitudes, a while back, I suggested that the book may not have been finished. Characters were introduced somewhat heavyhandedly, threads were dropped, and some of the action felt unmotivated. However, I just listened to a delightful recording from Recorded Books, narrated by John Bedford Lloyd that was free of these flaws. Or, at least, I didn't notice them. Perhaps because reading is more difficult for me I tend to be more critical. On the other hand, perhaps the fact that I am more critical makes reading more difficult. Who knows.
Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed this recording and thought I should give both Crichton and the narrator their due.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
What Is the Ethics of Technology?
Much of Crichton's work can be seen as writings on the ethics of technology. So, it bears explaining just what exactly the ethics of technology entails. First, ethics are a set of guidelines in an area of human activity that tell us appropriate ways to behave in order to find an appropriate balance between the well being of individuals and the need for harmony in society. Or, in very simple terms, what do people need to do in order to get on and get along. As ethical behavior becomes institutionalized and grounded in our grand narratives, it become morality.
The ethics of technology addresses those situations that arise as a result of new technologies. Recall from previous posts that technologies, in the large sense, are ways of bringing out reliable changes, or altering the future from its natural course. When we produce a new future, intentionally or unintentionally, we must take responsibility for it. Better yet, we should take responsibility before it happens and decide what a desirable out come would be.
The ethics of technology differs from traditional ethics in that in traditional ethics we may determine the ethical quality of an alternative based upon its consequences. However, in the case of new technologies we may not be able to determine consequences. For example, if a new technology were developed that allowed you to read minds would this be a good thing? We have no idea because we have no prior experience with such a thing.
In the ethics of technology we must consider possible consequences and we can do this through stories. Many of Crichton's works can be seen as cautionary tales in the ethics of technology. The Andromeda Stain, which was briefly discussed last week, asks "what if our explorations of space brought back a deadly microbial life form that we were not prepared to handle?" This is certainly a possible consequence. Jurassic Parks asks "what if science and technology were used strictly for profit making ventures?" And in both the book and the movie we saw some possible consequences and their sequels.
This is a theme that runs through many, possibly most, of Crichton's works and we will return to it often.
The ethics of technology addresses those situations that arise as a result of new technologies. Recall from previous posts that technologies, in the large sense, are ways of bringing out reliable changes, or altering the future from its natural course. When we produce a new future, intentionally or unintentionally, we must take responsibility for it. Better yet, we should take responsibility before it happens and decide what a desirable out come would be.
The ethics of technology differs from traditional ethics in that in traditional ethics we may determine the ethical quality of an alternative based upon its consequences. However, in the case of new technologies we may not be able to determine consequences. For example, if a new technology were developed that allowed you to read minds would this be a good thing? We have no idea because we have no prior experience with such a thing.
In the ethics of technology we must consider possible consequences and we can do this through stories. Many of Crichton's works can be seen as cautionary tales in the ethics of technology. The Andromeda Stain, which was briefly discussed last week, asks "what if our explorations of space brought back a deadly microbial life form that we were not prepared to handle?" This is certainly a possible consequence. Jurassic Parks asks "what if science and technology were used strictly for profit making ventures?" And in both the book and the movie we saw some possible consequences and their sequels.
This is a theme that runs through many, possibly most, of Crichton's works and we will return to it often.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Andromeda Strain
The Andromeda Strain is a science fiction cautionary tale that proved to be a major turning point in Crichton's writing career and a harbinger of things to come. His unique style that seemed to coalesce in this book was unlike anything at the time and set the tone for many of his books to follow.
Perhaps the most significant characteristic of The Andromeda Strain was that it used science fiction to explore issues in the ethics of technology. In this story, a space probe picks up an alien microbe and brings it back to earth suggesting consequences of space exploration that were not being considered at the time. It is a very different life form from anything the scientists had seen before suggesting that if we do find other life in the universe it may not be cute little green men. It is far more likely that it would be a microbial form possibly a life threatening microbial form.
In the story, the government had created a secret laboratory for dealing with such events called Wildfire. Wildfire had all the latest technology but failed to control the microbe. Instead, the microbe just mutated into harmlessness suggesting that nature will go its way and all of our technology is powerless to stop it. These themes of unexpected consequences and the uselessness of our technology for dealing with them will become common themes in later books and brought to a crescendo in his masterpiece Jurassic Park.
We also see one of Crichton's signature techniques in The Andromeda Strain. He provides ostensibly factual material sprinkled throughout the story to provide greater credibility to the story. This technique works in two ways. First, it serves to make the fantastic scenario in the story more believable. And as we believe the story, we cannot help to see how easily we believe things when they are presented as factual scientific information.
Most readers were first introduced to Crichton in The Andromeda Strain as it was his first best seller book. And it has held up well over time. Although space travel is not the focus that it was in the late 1960's, nothing has happened since then to make this book seem out of date. We still have space probes. We still run the risk of bringing back harmful micro organisms. And we are no more prepared to deal with such an eventuality today than we were in the late 1960's.
Perhaps the most significant characteristic of The Andromeda Strain was that it used science fiction to explore issues in the ethics of technology. In this story, a space probe picks up an alien microbe and brings it back to earth suggesting consequences of space exploration that were not being considered at the time. It is a very different life form from anything the scientists had seen before suggesting that if we do find other life in the universe it may not be cute little green men. It is far more likely that it would be a microbial form possibly a life threatening microbial form.
In the story, the government had created a secret laboratory for dealing with such events called Wildfire. Wildfire had all the latest technology but failed to control the microbe. Instead, the microbe just mutated into harmlessness suggesting that nature will go its way and all of our technology is powerless to stop it. These themes of unexpected consequences and the uselessness of our technology for dealing with them will become common themes in later books and brought to a crescendo in his masterpiece Jurassic Park.
We also see one of Crichton's signature techniques in The Andromeda Strain. He provides ostensibly factual material sprinkled throughout the story to provide greater credibility to the story. This technique works in two ways. First, it serves to make the fantastic scenario in the story more believable. And as we believe the story, we cannot help to see how easily we believe things when they are presented as factual scientific information.
Most readers were first introduced to Crichton in The Andromeda Strain as it was his first best seller book. And it has held up well over time. Although space travel is not the focus that it was in the late 1960's, nothing has happened since then to make this book seem out of date. We still have space probes. We still run the risk of bringing back harmful micro organisms. And we are no more prepared to deal with such an eventuality today than we were in the late 1960's.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Five Patients: The Hospital Explained
Most of Crichton's work is fiction. However, he did write a few nonfiction, and Five Patients is the first of those. It is basically five case studies of patients at Massachusetts General Hospital that Crichton uses as a vehicle to introduce the reader to what actually goes on at a hospital and to make a few points regarding the state of medicine, health care and even insurance. It is not, in my opinion, a great read. But it is an important work to examine when looking at the evolution of Crichton's style.
Prior to this book, Crichton was writing primarily in the detective genre under the pen name of John Lange. A Case of Need written under the pen name of Jeffrey Hudson was a transition novel that combined a mystery with commentary on the medical profession as well as public policy issue. If Crichton had continued to write detective fiction, following in the trajectory established by his novels prior to Five Patients, he almost certainly would still have been a major author. His books were promising and he was beginning to take on larger social issues such as the issue of abortion in A Case of Need.
It is also interesting to note that if you consider the emerging trajectory which included A Case of New and Five patients and later went on to include the long running TV series ER, we can see another path to success. The roots of ER show clearly in Five Patients where Crichton exposes the reader to the raw human dynamic side of life in the ER along with a heavy does of technical medicine.
At this point we see several themes emerging. Crichton offers a healthy dose of nonfiction science to inform the reader and bolster the credibility of what he is saying. And, he comments on public policy issues. In five patients, he takes on health insurance and the rising cost of health care. In fact, in the Afterward, he states "Hospitals are becoming so expensive that financial considerations will soon become the paramount determination of function." Yes, that was nearly forty year ago and rings eerily true considering our recent debates on health care.
So, at this point there are two competing trajectories: detective fiction and medical fiction. Which way will he go? Well, since we already know about the success of the TV series ER it appears that the detective fiction died out in favor of the medical fiction. But in reality a new trajectory would emerge beginning with a book published a year earlier. The book was his first major best seller and set the course for much of his later work. It was The Andromeda Strain and that is the book we will look at next.
Prior to this book, Crichton was writing primarily in the detective genre under the pen name of John Lange. A Case of Need written under the pen name of Jeffrey Hudson was a transition novel that combined a mystery with commentary on the medical profession as well as public policy issue. If Crichton had continued to write detective fiction, following in the trajectory established by his novels prior to Five Patients, he almost certainly would still have been a major author. His books were promising and he was beginning to take on larger social issues such as the issue of abortion in A Case of Need.
It is also interesting to note that if you consider the emerging trajectory which included A Case of New and Five patients and later went on to include the long running TV series ER, we can see another path to success. The roots of ER show clearly in Five Patients where Crichton exposes the reader to the raw human dynamic side of life in the ER along with a heavy does of technical medicine.
At this point we see several themes emerging. Crichton offers a healthy dose of nonfiction science to inform the reader and bolster the credibility of what he is saying. And, he comments on public policy issues. In five patients, he takes on health insurance and the rising cost of health care. In fact, in the Afterward, he states "Hospitals are becoming so expensive that financial considerations will soon become the paramount determination of function." Yes, that was nearly forty year ago and rings eerily true considering our recent debates on health care.
So, at this point there are two competing trajectories: detective fiction and medical fiction. Which way will he go? Well, since we already know about the success of the TV series ER it appears that the detective fiction died out in favor of the medical fiction. But in reality a new trajectory would emerge beginning with a book published a year earlier. The book was his first major best seller and set the course for much of his later work. It was The Andromeda Strain and that is the book we will look at next.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
What Is Technology?
Science and technology are constant themes in Crichton's work. In previous posts, I attempted to clarify what science is and some of the social problems that surround it. In this thread, I will attempt to clarify what technology is and some of the social and ethical problems surrounding it.
Technology is not what most people think that it is. So before attempting to define it, I want to dispel two common misconceptions regarding the nature of technology. First, many people think of technology as applied science. Science figures things out and technology applies that knowledge. This seriously misses the contributions of technology itself to those applications; and saying that technology is applied science is like saying that the culinary arts are just applied agriculture. The analogy is apt because, in both cases, necessary raw materials are produced by the former, but the later still has a lot of work to do.
Second, people often think of technology as the gadgets that populate and sometimes even define the modern world. Computers, DVD players, cell phones, the Internet, and so on are all examples of technology.
A few posts back, I stated "Science is, first and foremost, a process". While we tend to view the products of that process as science, science is the process and the products are the products. Similarly, technology is a process and we also tend to view the products of that process as technology. But, again, technology is the process and the products are the products.
So, what is technology? If we go back to the roots of the word we can get some insight into its nature. Technology comes from two ancient Greek words: techné and logos. Techné is a reliable process by which a desired result is produced. We can think of the word as meaning craft although our modern understanding of a craft is a bit less disciplined than techné. Logos is a rigorous understanding of an area of inquiry. So, biology (bios logos), for example, is a rigorous understanding of life. Technology is a rigorous understanding of how to produce desired results. Our modern word, engineering captures much of this. Unfortunately, our modern understanding of the word engineering is, perhaps, a little too disciplined for the concept of technology. Persuasive rhetoric is certain a body of knowledge about how to produce a desired result. But, few people would refer to it as persuasion engineering.
Nonetheless, technology is a body of knowledge about how to produce desired results. The focus of science is the things that make up the natural world. The focus of technology are the things that are not yet part of the natural (or social) world but could be.
Technology is not what most people think that it is. So before attempting to define it, I want to dispel two common misconceptions regarding the nature of technology. First, many people think of technology as applied science. Science figures things out and technology applies that knowledge. This seriously misses the contributions of technology itself to those applications; and saying that technology is applied science is like saying that the culinary arts are just applied agriculture. The analogy is apt because, in both cases, necessary raw materials are produced by the former, but the later still has a lot of work to do.
Second, people often think of technology as the gadgets that populate and sometimes even define the modern world. Computers, DVD players, cell phones, the Internet, and so on are all examples of technology.
A few posts back, I stated "Science is, first and foremost, a process". While we tend to view the products of that process as science, science is the process and the products are the products. Similarly, technology is a process and we also tend to view the products of that process as technology. But, again, technology is the process and the products are the products.
So, what is technology? If we go back to the roots of the word we can get some insight into its nature. Technology comes from two ancient Greek words: techné and logos. Techné is a reliable process by which a desired result is produced. We can think of the word as meaning craft although our modern understanding of a craft is a bit less disciplined than techné. Logos is a rigorous understanding of an area of inquiry. So, biology (bios logos), for example, is a rigorous understanding of life. Technology is a rigorous understanding of how to produce desired results. Our modern word, engineering captures much of this. Unfortunately, our modern understanding of the word engineering is, perhaps, a little too disciplined for the concept of technology. Persuasive rhetoric is certain a body of knowledge about how to produce a desired result. But, few people would refer to it as persuasion engineering.
Nonetheless, technology is a body of knowledge about how to produce desired results. The focus of science is the things that make up the natural world. The focus of technology are the things that are not yet part of the natural (or social) world but could be.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
A Case of Need
A Case of Need occupies an interesting transitional place in the works of Micheal Crichton, and, I have to confess, that, at this point, I have far more questions than answers. The premise of the book is that a young woman has died of a botched abortion and a doctor who performs illegal abortions is charged with the murder. The protagonist, another doctor and a friend of the one charged does not believe the charge is legitimate and sets out to find out what happened.
Even though the book is published under the name of Jeffery Hudson, it is not a major departure from the preceding books published under the pseudonym of John Lange. I am not sure, at this point, why Crichton decided to switch names. I will have to look into that. I heard him say, in an interview, that Jeffery Hudson was a dwarf, and he found that amusing since in real life Crichton was very tall. But that does not seem to be an adequate explanation. The book is a mystery, written in a noir style not unlike Grave Descend, and the protagonist is a doctor, as was the case in Zero Cool. Had this been the last John Lange book, it would have fit right in.
On the other hand, we see some indications of where Crichton will be going in the future. You can see the roots of ER in his unflinching, perhaps even cynical, look at the realities of life in the medical profession. He enhances the credibility of the story by providing abundant medical information. And he takes on a social cause. The book was published in 1968. Roe v. Wade was not until 1973. So illegal abortions were still, very much, a social issue.
I found the book to be a very enjoyable read. As I approached the end, I slowed down not wanting it to end. At the very it weakened a bit almost as though it had to be finished to meet a deadline of some kind. But, overall, it was a delightful book and I will revisit it from time to time in future posts.
Even though the book is published under the name of Jeffery Hudson, it is not a major departure from the preceding books published under the pseudonym of John Lange. I am not sure, at this point, why Crichton decided to switch names. I will have to look into that. I heard him say, in an interview, that Jeffery Hudson was a dwarf, and he found that amusing since in real life Crichton was very tall. But that does not seem to be an adequate explanation. The book is a mystery, written in a noir style not unlike Grave Descend, and the protagonist is a doctor, as was the case in Zero Cool. Had this been the last John Lange book, it would have fit right in.
On the other hand, we see some indications of where Crichton will be going in the future. You can see the roots of ER in his unflinching, perhaps even cynical, look at the realities of life in the medical profession. He enhances the credibility of the story by providing abundant medical information. And he takes on a social cause. The book was published in 1968. Roe v. Wade was not until 1973. So illegal abortions were still, very much, a social issue.
I found the book to be a very enjoyable read. As I approached the end, I slowed down not wanting it to end. At the very it weakened a bit almost as though it had to be finished to meet a deadline of some kind. But, overall, it was a delightful book and I will revisit it from time to time in future posts.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Social Issues in Science
Following up on the previous posts on science, we can identify at least three major issues with respect to science that science, as an epistemology, cannot answer for us. These are questions about science that cannot be answered by science and consequently can be thought of as limitations of science.
First of all, when can we treat knowledge that was acquired through scientific inquiry as truth? There are abundant examples of scientists changing their mind about things and this is a good thing. It would be terrible if scientists stuck steadfastly to old ideas despite new evidence or new thinking. However, at what point along the discovery process do we accept scientific truth as true enough for now? When do we teach it as truth and when do we use it in making decisions?
Second, if we think a bit of knowledge is true or true enough, what does it mean and what are the implications? For example, penicillin was discovered to be an effective antibiotic. That relationship between penicillin and microbes was discovered and validated scientifically. But what does that mean? Does it mean you can give people penicillin to cure bacterial illnesses? It would seem so. But it isn't quite that clear. Some people have allergies to penicillin. Using penicillin creates bacteria that are resistant to it. Saving lives means additional population and a greater strain on resources. What do we do about those things? Science is not quite as well equipped to give us answers there.
Third, what should we do about the knowledge we acquire scientifically. Let's say that a particular ethnic group is discovered to excel at a particular kind of work or prone to a particular kind of anti-social behavior. Should than information be used in public policy decisions? Science is prudently silent on that issue.
The problem here is that we take what science is good at - discovering reliable knowledge, over time, about the natural world - and extrapolate that to things science is not good at - implications, meaning, and possibilities.
This is a theme that Crichton returns to time and time again. We have almost a blind faith in science to answer all of our questions (beyond knowledge about the natural world) and this blind faith is seriously misplaced.
First of all, when can we treat knowledge that was acquired through scientific inquiry as truth? There are abundant examples of scientists changing their mind about things and this is a good thing. It would be terrible if scientists stuck steadfastly to old ideas despite new evidence or new thinking. However, at what point along the discovery process do we accept scientific truth as true enough for now? When do we teach it as truth and when do we use it in making decisions?
Second, if we think a bit of knowledge is true or true enough, what does it mean and what are the implications? For example, penicillin was discovered to be an effective antibiotic. That relationship between penicillin and microbes was discovered and validated scientifically. But what does that mean? Does it mean you can give people penicillin to cure bacterial illnesses? It would seem so. But it isn't quite that clear. Some people have allergies to penicillin. Using penicillin creates bacteria that are resistant to it. Saving lives means additional population and a greater strain on resources. What do we do about those things? Science is not quite as well equipped to give us answers there.
Third, what should we do about the knowledge we acquire scientifically. Let's say that a particular ethnic group is discovered to excel at a particular kind of work or prone to a particular kind of anti-social behavior. Should than information be used in public policy decisions? Science is prudently silent on that issue.
The problem here is that we take what science is good at - discovering reliable knowledge, over time, about the natural world - and extrapolate that to things science is not good at - implications, meaning, and possibilities.
This is a theme that Crichton returns to time and time again. We have almost a blind faith in science to answer all of our questions (beyond knowledge about the natural world) and this blind faith is seriously misplaced.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Should Pirate Latitudes Have Been Published?
Should Pirate Latitudes have been published? Jane Julius Honchell raised this question last week in an interesting article on the perils of posthumous publishing. She makes some good points.
The heirs don't really need the money and we don't know if the author (Crichton) would have approved of releasing the book in its current form.
However, I am glad that it was published. There are three reason why this is the case. First, I enjoyed the book; perhaps not as much as Jurassic Park. But I enjoyed it. Second, I have been making the case that Crichton has attempted to write in a variety of styles, perhaps mimicking the styles of other authors. Pirate Latitudes provides us with yet another example of this.
But one of the things I found most interesting about Pirate Latitudes was the fact that it was clearly not ready for publication. There are endless amateurish mistakes that a master like Crichton would not have made in a final product. These mistakes give us insight into the writing process and help us understand why a master is a master.
The real question here is who really owns the work of an artist? Not from a legal perspective but from a moral perspective. Next time I will argue that once the writer is finished with a work, it is owned by the readers.
The heirs don't really need the money and we don't know if the author (Crichton) would have approved of releasing the book in its current form.
However, I am glad that it was published. There are three reason why this is the case. First, I enjoyed the book; perhaps not as much as Jurassic Park. But I enjoyed it. Second, I have been making the case that Crichton has attempted to write in a variety of styles, perhaps mimicking the styles of other authors. Pirate Latitudes provides us with yet another example of this.
But one of the things I found most interesting about Pirate Latitudes was the fact that it was clearly not ready for publication. There are endless amateurish mistakes that a master like Crichton would not have made in a final product. These mistakes give us insight into the writing process and help us understand why a master is a master.
The real question here is who really owns the work of an artist? Not from a legal perspective but from a moral perspective. Next time I will argue that once the writer is finished with a work, it is owned by the readers.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Pirate Latitudes
I am about half way through Pirate Latitudes and I think it is a delightful book. It is a bit out of sequence, in this blog, since I have been trying to be somewhat chronological in my review of his work. But, it is also current and people are talking about it. So, I wanted to get some initial impressions recorded.
Most of the reviews I have read have damned the book with faint praise. It is good, they say, but not up to Crichton's level. Others have warned, somewhat ominously, that I wait till the end before making a judgement. The implication being that it will be disappointing.
I think they may be missing the point. If you read Pirate Latitudes expecting another Jurassic Park, you will be disappointed. If you read it as a novel that he polished and released rather than a work that was published postumously, you may be further disappointed. But if you look at it in the right context, I think you will enjoy it much more.
I mentioned earlier that with some of his mystery fiction, it felt like Crichton was trying to write in the style of some well known mystery authors. The more I read, the most I become convinced that this is a pattern in his work.
I am also about halfway through The Great Train Robbery which is very different from his other works. It feels, in this book, like he is trying to write in style of serious historical fiction, perhaps like Barbara Tuchman, but not quite that serious. Pirate Lattitudes feels like he is trying to write romantic historical fiction, perhaps in the tradition of Mary Stewart, Jane Auel, or an abreviated James Michner.
I don't want to overstate or over specify here because this idea needs a lot more work and a lot more investigation. However, if you view this book as an attempt to write in a style and genre outside of his normal fare, the book becomes much more impressive.
Most of the reviews I have read have damned the book with faint praise. It is good, they say, but not up to Crichton's level. Others have warned, somewhat ominously, that I wait till the end before making a judgement. The implication being that it will be disappointing.
I think they may be missing the point. If you read Pirate Latitudes expecting another Jurassic Park, you will be disappointed. If you read it as a novel that he polished and released rather than a work that was published postumously, you may be further disappointed. But if you look at it in the right context, I think you will enjoy it much more.
I mentioned earlier that with some of his mystery fiction, it felt like Crichton was trying to write in the style of some well known mystery authors. The more I read, the most I become convinced that this is a pattern in his work.
I am also about halfway through The Great Train Robbery which is very different from his other works. It feels, in this book, like he is trying to write in style of serious historical fiction, perhaps like Barbara Tuchman, but not quite that serious. Pirate Lattitudes feels like he is trying to write romantic historical fiction, perhaps in the tradition of Mary Stewart, Jane Auel, or an abreviated James Michner.
I don't want to overstate or over specify here because this idea needs a lot more work and a lot more investigation. However, if you view this book as an attempt to write in a style and genre outside of his normal fare, the book becomes much more impressive.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Scientists are Human
In the last post, I emphasized the fact that science is a process. Over time it produces good results, but at any given moment in time, it can be way off. Another, factor that we tend to forget is that scientists are human. While this statement is obvious, we often forget to acknowledge the implications of it.
Scientists are people just like people who are not scientists. They have hopes and aspirations; goals and objectives. They have families, social ties, and political leanings. They have beliefs and assumptions and inclinations. And sometimes these things get in the way of their science.
Just like the process of science is self correcting over time, the biases of one scientist are compensated for by opposite biases of another science. And, again over time and over a large number of people, it sorts itself out.
Consider the scientists in Jurassic Park. There is Henry Wu, a young scientist trying to make his mark in the world. There is Dr. Grant who's primary concern is funding for his digs. There is Ian Malcolm (a mathematician actually, not a scientist) who's primary concern is supporting his theory. And there is Dennis Nedry, the computer scientist, who does not feel that he gets enough respect.
Martin Hollis, in The Philosophy of Social Science offers the observation "The schoolroom image of modern science is one of unprejudiced Reason exploring an independent realm of nature." It is a 'schoolroom image' because it does not hold up in reality. And it certainly does not hold up with these characters.
This is another theme that Crichton explores repeatedly. We cannot take what 'scientists say' and accept it uncritically as though it were the unvarnished and absolute truth. It is not. Over time it does seem to get better. But at any given moment in time, what 'scientists say' is really just another data point.
Scientists are people just like people who are not scientists. They have hopes and aspirations; goals and objectives. They have families, social ties, and political leanings. They have beliefs and assumptions and inclinations. And sometimes these things get in the way of their science.
Just like the process of science is self correcting over time, the biases of one scientist are compensated for by opposite biases of another science. And, again over time and over a large number of people, it sorts itself out.
Consider the scientists in Jurassic Park. There is Henry Wu, a young scientist trying to make his mark in the world. There is Dr. Grant who's primary concern is funding for his digs. There is Ian Malcolm (a mathematician actually, not a scientist) who's primary concern is supporting his theory. And there is Dennis Nedry, the computer scientist, who does not feel that he gets enough respect.
Martin Hollis, in The Philosophy of Social Science offers the observation "The schoolroom image of modern science is one of unprejudiced Reason exploring an independent realm of nature." It is a 'schoolroom image' because it does not hold up in reality. And it certainly does not hold up with these characters.
This is another theme that Crichton explores repeatedly. We cannot take what 'scientists say' and accept it uncritically as though it were the unvarnished and absolute truth. It is not. Over time it does seem to get better. But at any given moment in time, what 'scientists say' is really just another data point.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Science is a Process
Science is, first and foremost, a process. It is a process for producing reliable knowledge about the natural world. Certain tenets of this process increase the likelihood of reliable knowledge. Claims must be based on evidence. Claims must be falsifiable. It must be possible for scientists to test the claims of other scientists. And so on. Over time, due to these and other tenets of the scientific method, the process of science tends to produce reliable results. However, this does not mean that what a given scientist, or group of scientists, happens to believe at a particular moment is true. There are endless examples of mistakes made along the way. Sometimes the entire community believes something that turns out not to be true. Sometimes the entire community rejects something that does turn out to be true. Sometimes the entire community just changes it mind on an issue because there is a better way to look at it. And, there is nothing wrong with this. It is the way science works. The goal is not to be right at every step along the way. The goal is to be as close as you can be every step of the way while ensuring the most reliable knowledge over time.
"Over time" is the key phrase here. And problems arise when people take something that scientists believe at a give moment in time as gospel. It is not. Over time, as the process continues, it becomes more reliable. But, sometimes it takes quite a while to achieve any degree of reliability. Imagine taking a Thanksgiving turkey out of the over when it is half cooked and serving it for dinner. Since the process of cooking is not finished, this would be a really bad idea. Similarly, taking claims from an ongoing scientific debate as gospel before they have had a sufficient opportunity to be tested and refined is also a really bad idea. And it is an idea that Crichton brings out repeatedly.
"Over time" is the key phrase here. And problems arise when people take something that scientists believe at a give moment in time as gospel. It is not. Over time, as the process continues, it becomes more reliable. But, sometimes it takes quite a while to achieve any degree of reliability. Imagine taking a Thanksgiving turkey out of the over when it is half cooked and serving it for dinner. Since the process of cooking is not finished, this would be a really bad idea. Similarly, taking claims from an ongoing scientific debate as gospel before they have had a sufficient opportunity to be tested and refined is also a really bad idea. And it is an idea that Crichton brings out repeatedly.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Grave Descend
Grave Descend is the second John Lange book to be reprinted by Hard Case Crime. John Lange, of course, is a psuedonym of Crichton's. A couple weeks ago I commented on the exceeding poor writing quality of Zero Cool. But Grave Descend is much, much better. It falls quite a bit short of Ross MacDonald or Robert B. Parker. But, as far as your run of the mill detective stories go, it is quite good.
Grave Descend was published only a year after Zero Cool and it feels like it was written by an entirely different author. This, I believe, supports my claim that Zero Cool was a pastiche. I will go even further out on a limb and say that in places Grave Descend has a distinct Ross MacDonald feel to it and maybe there was a bit of mimicing going on there as well.
It would be fun to get the other Lange books and try to further this line of investigation. Unfortunately, those that remain appear to be quite pricey and I am not going to have immediate access to them. Hopefully, I will stumble on to one or two of them at used book stores or libraries. Or maybe more will be reprinted over time.
But, as of Grave Descend, we can say that Crichton can write a reasonably good detective story and had he stayed with it he probably would have ranked up with the best. Although these books are a bit rough around the edges they are no more rough that the earlier works of many of the masters. But, that was not his fate. Grave Descend was published in 1970. Few people today have heard of it and enven fewer remember it.
A year earlier he published a very different book which most people have heard of, and most people remember. In fact, it would begin to define him as a mainstream science fiction writer and a philosopher of technology. That book, of course, is Andromeda Strain and it would launch Crichton on the path toward literary significance.
Grave Descend was published only a year after Zero Cool and it feels like it was written by an entirely different author. This, I believe, supports my claim that Zero Cool was a pastiche. I will go even further out on a limb and say that in places Grave Descend has a distinct Ross MacDonald feel to it and maybe there was a bit of mimicing going on there as well.
It would be fun to get the other Lange books and try to further this line of investigation. Unfortunately, those that remain appear to be quite pricey and I am not going to have immediate access to them. Hopefully, I will stumble on to one or two of them at used book stores or libraries. Or maybe more will be reprinted over time.
But, as of Grave Descend, we can say that Crichton can write a reasonably good detective story and had he stayed with it he probably would have ranked up with the best. Although these books are a bit rough around the edges they are no more rough that the earlier works of many of the masters. But, that was not his fate. Grave Descend was published in 1970. Few people today have heard of it and enven fewer remember it.
A year earlier he published a very different book which most people have heard of, and most people remember. In fact, it would begin to define him as a mainstream science fiction writer and a philosopher of technology. That book, of course, is Andromeda Strain and it would launch Crichton on the path toward literary significance.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
What Is Science?
One of the recurrent themes in Michael Crichton's work is our unchallenged belief in Science as a source of answers. To be fair to both Crichton and to Science, I should say that Crichton does not have a problem with Science itself as much as he has a problem with our misunderstandings and misuses of Science. So, this post will begin an attempt to explain the phenomenon of science as well as Crichton's concerns about it.
Some time around the 6th century BCE we began to look away from supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and toward natural explanations. Before this there were stories about Zeus and Apollo. After this there were questions like what are things made of, what are they, and why do they behave the way they do. People who asked these questions were called "natural philosophers" because their focus was the natural world. Contrast this, for example, with "moral philosophers" whose focus was on how people should behave. Note also, that questions of how people should behave is completely out of scope for natural philosophers.
Natural philosophy toddled on for over two millenia before it got two important boosts. Francis Bacon wrote The New Organon which updated the methods of Aristotle, and Isaac Newton discovered gravity. Bacon's method added a new level of rigor to natural philosophy and Newton showed how powerful it was for gathering knowledge.
Over time natural philosophers began to focus less on the larger ideas (how the heavens works) and more on the smaller ideas (what are the different kinds of rocks and plants). The word "scientist" was not actually used until the mid 19th century to distinguish between those people who contemplated the large ideas (natural philosophers) and those who focused on the details (scientists).
Nonetheless, in the past two hundred years science has been amazingly productive leading people to believe that science 1) is infallible and 2) can answer any question. These two beliefs are untrue and it is important to distinguish between was is true and what is untrue about science. That is a theme that crops up over and over again in Crichton's works and it is the theme we will take up next.
Some time around the 6th century BCE we began to look away from supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and toward natural explanations. Before this there were stories about Zeus and Apollo. After this there were questions like what are things made of, what are they, and why do they behave the way they do. People who asked these questions were called "natural philosophers" because their focus was the natural world. Contrast this, for example, with "moral philosophers" whose focus was on how people should behave. Note also, that questions of how people should behave is completely out of scope for natural philosophers.
Natural philosophy toddled on for over two millenia before it got two important boosts. Francis Bacon wrote The New Organon which updated the methods of Aristotle, and Isaac Newton discovered gravity. Bacon's method added a new level of rigor to natural philosophy and Newton showed how powerful it was for gathering knowledge.
Over time natural philosophers began to focus less on the larger ideas (how the heavens works) and more on the smaller ideas (what are the different kinds of rocks and plants). The word "scientist" was not actually used until the mid 19th century to distinguish between those people who contemplated the large ideas (natural philosophers) and those who focused on the details (scientists).
Nonetheless, in the past two hundred years science has been amazingly productive leading people to believe that science 1) is infallible and 2) can answer any question. These two beliefs are untrue and it is important to distinguish between was is true and what is untrue about science. That is a theme that crops up over and over again in Crichton's works and it is the theme we will take up next.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
John Lange
Before he was famous and before he had decided to eke out a living as a professional writer, Crichton wrote pulp detective fiction under the pen name of John Lange. These works are a little hard to come by as most used copies are collectors items and quite pricey. However, two of them were republished by Hard Case Crime. These two were Zero Cool published originally in 1969 and Grave Descend originally published in 1970. I ordered them and had a opportunity to read Zero Cool over the past week. The thing that struck me most about Zero Cool was the astonishingly poor quality of the writing.
I teach a course in writing and can attest to the fact that first time writers often make some very predictable mistakes. Events and actions are often unmotivated. Characters are non believable. Dialog is cliched. That sort of thing. Zero Cool reads like an undergraduate writing assignment. How could this be?
I should be clear that I am not attacking Crichton's writing ability. Indeed, I use Jurassic Park as an example of consummate writing technique. And, I started reading Grave Descend which is markedly better and published only a year later. In addition, Zero Cool is not his first published novel. I don't have the numbers handy, but it is more like the fourth or fifth. So, what would explain this lapse in writing skill?
I am going to speculate. This is a somewhat wild speculation and hopefully, later, I can accumulate evidence to support or refute it. I think Crichton was trying to write like Dashiell Hammet and doing a horrible job of it. Before I give my evidence for that wild speculation, let me point out that we know, from later works, that Crichton liked taking on writing challenges. Books like Eaters of the Dead, The Great Train Robbery, Travels, and Electronic Life are very different than his usual fare of cautionary science fiction. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility that he would try a Hammet pastiche.
Hammet's most famous work is The Maltese Falcon in which the lives of an odd cast of characters revolve around an elusive object (a statue of a falcon) rumored to be encrusted with priceless jewels. It is a fiction noir version of the Holy Grail. In Zero Cool we have an odd cast of characters whose lives revolve around the pursuit of a similar priceless object the Emerald of Cortez.
The dialog in Zero Cool is often the clipped repartee characteristic of fiction noir peppered with cynical, hard boiled remarks. Only it doesn't quite measure up to the masters. It sounds more like a twelve year old standing in front of a mirror with his t-shirt sleeves rolled up, eyes squinting to look tough, and a pencil hanging out the corner of his mouth to represent a cigarette saying words like doll and dame and don't be a fool.
The characters are also very weak. There are thugs, gangsters, villains, tough guys and mysterious walk-ons. All unbelievable except in the mind of a twelve year old Sam Spade wanna be.
I have to admit that I had to force my way through Zero Cool and was quite disappointed in the writing. I thought he had just not hit his stride yet. I could not understand how somebody who would get so good at this later could start off so poorly. But, when I started Grave Descend and saw the marked improvement, I decide that it wasn't just poor writing as much as it must have been an experiment.
I teach a course in writing and can attest to the fact that first time writers often make some very predictable mistakes. Events and actions are often unmotivated. Characters are non believable. Dialog is cliched. That sort of thing. Zero Cool reads like an undergraduate writing assignment. How could this be?
I should be clear that I am not attacking Crichton's writing ability. Indeed, I use Jurassic Park as an example of consummate writing technique. And, I started reading Grave Descend which is markedly better and published only a year later. In addition, Zero Cool is not his first published novel. I don't have the numbers handy, but it is more like the fourth or fifth. So, what would explain this lapse in writing skill?
I am going to speculate. This is a somewhat wild speculation and hopefully, later, I can accumulate evidence to support or refute it. I think Crichton was trying to write like Dashiell Hammet and doing a horrible job of it. Before I give my evidence for that wild speculation, let me point out that we know, from later works, that Crichton liked taking on writing challenges. Books like Eaters of the Dead, The Great Train Robbery, Travels, and Electronic Life are very different than his usual fare of cautionary science fiction. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility that he would try a Hammet pastiche.
Hammet's most famous work is The Maltese Falcon in which the lives of an odd cast of characters revolve around an elusive object (a statue of a falcon) rumored to be encrusted with priceless jewels. It is a fiction noir version of the Holy Grail. In Zero Cool we have an odd cast of characters whose lives revolve around the pursuit of a similar priceless object the Emerald of Cortez.
The dialog in Zero Cool is often the clipped repartee characteristic of fiction noir peppered with cynical, hard boiled remarks. Only it doesn't quite measure up to the masters. It sounds more like a twelve year old standing in front of a mirror with his t-shirt sleeves rolled up, eyes squinting to look tough, and a pencil hanging out the corner of his mouth to represent a cigarette saying words like doll and dame and don't be a fool.
The characters are also very weak. There are thugs, gangsters, villains, tough guys and mysterious walk-ons. All unbelievable except in the mind of a twelve year old Sam Spade wanna be.
I have to admit that I had to force my way through Zero Cool and was quite disappointed in the writing. I thought he had just not hit his stride yet. I could not understand how somebody who would get so good at this later could start off so poorly. But, when I started Grave Descend and saw the marked improvement, I decide that it wasn't just poor writing as much as it must have been an experiment.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Some Background
I have been reading, listening to recorded books, and watching movies in an attempt to get my arms around the vast quantity of Crichton's work. I am making good progress but there is still a lot to do especially if I want to study it in depth. So, I thought I would sprinkle in a few posts on background issues that are key to understanding what MC has done. Over the next few weeks or months, I will toss in posts to address the following questions:
1) What is Science?
2) What is Technology?
3) What is the relationship between Science and Technology?
4) What is the Ethics of Technology?
5) What do we mean when we say something is True?
6) Why do most people disregard the Truth?
7) Why are Writing and Storytelling becoming increasingly more important?
Understanding the answers to these questions is key to understanding Micheal Crichton. And hopefully, it will peak your interest enough to keep you reading.
1) What is Science?
2) What is Technology?
3) What is the relationship between Science and Technology?
4) What is the Ethics of Technology?
5) What do we mean when we say something is True?
6) Why do most people disregard the Truth?
7) Why are Writing and Storytelling becoming increasingly more important?
Understanding the answers to these questions is key to understanding Micheal Crichton. And hopefully, it will peak your interest enough to keep you reading.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Some Initial Observations
I have been reading, listening to recorded books and watching movies that MC wrote, produced or was in some way involved trying to get a net over his body of work. A few initial themes have emerged. I will sharpen this focus over time but wanted to document my initial impressions.
First, MC likes to blur the lines of fact and fiction. He explicitly states this in the appendix to Eaters of the Dead and refers to other modern efforts along the same lines. There are probably references to this idea elsewhere so I will keep an eye open for them.
Second, people do not consider the consequences of technology. The protagonist in Prey says something along these lines and this is a key element in the ethics of technology which I will discuss in due course. It is also the theme in several works including Westworld, Jurassic Park and Prey.
Third, people tend to flock to one side of an issue without giving adequate consideration of other sides. We can see this on the issue of sexual harassment in Disclosure and on the issue of global warming in State of Fear.
Fourth, MC seems to be attracted to projects because they look like the might be fun, challenging, interesting or lucrative. The variety of works he has done attests to this without pointing to specific works.
Finally, the fractal metaphor used in Jurassic Park where a pattern becomes clear over time is not limited to Jurassic Park. It is an oft used theme and, I suppose, it is exactly what I am doing here as well.
First, MC likes to blur the lines of fact and fiction. He explicitly states this in the appendix to Eaters of the Dead and refers to other modern efforts along the same lines. There are probably references to this idea elsewhere so I will keep an eye open for them.
Second, people do not consider the consequences of technology. The protagonist in Prey says something along these lines and this is a key element in the ethics of technology which I will discuss in due course. It is also the theme in several works including Westworld, Jurassic Park and Prey.
Third, people tend to flock to one side of an issue without giving adequate consideration of other sides. We can see this on the issue of sexual harassment in Disclosure and on the issue of global warming in State of Fear.
Fourth, MC seems to be attracted to projects because they look like the might be fun, challenging, interesting or lucrative. The variety of works he has done attests to this without pointing to specific works.
Finally, the fractal metaphor used in Jurassic Park where a pattern becomes clear over time is not limited to Jurassic Park. It is an oft used theme and, I suppose, it is exactly what I am doing here as well.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Establishing a Baseline
I have already begun digging into things, but thought I should pause and try to establish some sort of a baseline on my knowledge with regard to Crichton. I do this because, as I learn more, I might develop different impressions and it is useful to know what I knew when and what I thought when.
I knew that Crichton's first major book was Andromeda Strain. I had read it many years ago. I also knew that he had written A Case of Need under a pseudonym but did not know that he had written detective stories under the pen name of John Lange. Nor did I know that he had written those to help pay for medical school. I attempted to get some of these from used book stores, but the price is outrageous. I will look into that later but for now I ordered a couple that had been reprinted by Hard Case Crime.
I knew that Crichton had written a fairly wide variety of books. I was vaguely aware of The Great Train Robbery. I had read Eaters of the Dead years ago. I was aware of Travels but had not read it. I knew he had written something called Electronic Life but did not know it was about Basic Programming. I suspect that early on in his career he was attracted to 'cool ideas' of things to write about whereas later he fell into a more predictable pattern.
I knew that he was involved in movies and tv and knew he had a large role in the TV series E/R. I did not know that he had written the screen play for Westworld and Twister.
On a more personal level, I knew he had attended Harvard Medical School and that he was very tall (6'9"). I knew he was extraordinarily intelligent. I did not know that his height and IQ made him feel separated from other people.
In short, I know what most people know and maybe just a tad more. But, I am far, far from an expert and am looking forward to developing some expertise. This is a fascinating, talented, highly intelligent person who leaves behind a fascinating trail.
I knew that Crichton's first major book was Andromeda Strain. I had read it many years ago. I also knew that he had written A Case of Need under a pseudonym but did not know that he had written detective stories under the pen name of John Lange. Nor did I know that he had written those to help pay for medical school. I attempted to get some of these from used book stores, but the price is outrageous. I will look into that later but for now I ordered a couple that had been reprinted by Hard Case Crime.
I knew that Crichton had written a fairly wide variety of books. I was vaguely aware of The Great Train Robbery. I had read Eaters of the Dead years ago. I was aware of Travels but had not read it. I knew he had written something called Electronic Life but did not know it was about Basic Programming. I suspect that early on in his career he was attracted to 'cool ideas' of things to write about whereas later he fell into a more predictable pattern.
I knew that he was involved in movies and tv and knew he had a large role in the TV series E/R. I did not know that he had written the screen play for Westworld and Twister.
On a more personal level, I knew he had attended Harvard Medical School and that he was very tall (6'9"). I knew he was extraordinarily intelligent. I did not know that his height and IQ made him feel separated from other people.
In short, I know what most people know and maybe just a tad more. But, I am far, far from an expert and am looking forward to developing some expertise. This is a fascinating, talented, highly intelligent person who leaves behind a fascinating trail.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
First, A Personal Note
Michael Crichton, author, screenwriter, director and so much more died unexpectedly in Los Angeles Tuesday, November 4, 2008 leaving a legacy of literature, film and commentary that will be explore, explained, interpreted, analyzed and admired for years, possibly decades, possibly even centuries to come. William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens were both very popular in their times much like Michael Crichton. And it was only much later that people began to realize the artistic value of their achievements beyond capturing the popular imagination. Shakespeare used drama to explore what it means to be human. Dickens used literature to explore social policies and their implications. Crichton used literature, and to a lesser extent film, to explore the ethics of technology.
I first encountered Crichton’s work as an undergraduate when I read Andromeda Strain. After reading several more of his novels, I became a fan. And, by the time Jurassic Park came out, Crichton was one of only two authors whose books I would buy as soon as they came out without waiting to hear what anybody else had to say about them. But, Jurassic Park took on a special role.
In the early 1990’s I became an academic, and one of my research interests was computer ethics. I began working on an idea using stories to explore the ethics of technology. Jurassic Park was a perfect example. Much later, when I turned the idea into a class, I used Jurassic Park not only as an example of the basic theme, but as an example of effective writing techniques that could be used to teach creative writing. I will explain more about that research and the class later.
However, in the meantime, I should confess that for years my opinion of Crichton was that his writing peaked with Jurassic Park. He became famous and wealthy and his writing went downhill from there. I could not have been more wrong. It was not Crichton’s writing that was amiss. It was my understanding of what he was doing. Often times when an author takes literature in a new direction, we do not fully understand until we have ample perspective and the benefits of hindsight. Just recently, I began to take a second look. And the more I looked, the more I understood and the more I appreciated it. So, I thought, in the sadness of his passing, it may be a good time to revisit what he has done from a more serious, more scholarly perspective. And that is what this blog is about.
This is not a daily blog, or a weekly blog. It is a public research notebook. As I read or reread his works, watch or re-watch his movies, discover new things or gain new insights, I will record them here. My goal is to look for common themes and common techniques in his work and present them in a coherent framework so other can appreciate his works more deeply.
I first encountered Crichton’s work as an undergraduate when I read Andromeda Strain. After reading several more of his novels, I became a fan. And, by the time Jurassic Park came out, Crichton was one of only two authors whose books I would buy as soon as they came out without waiting to hear what anybody else had to say about them. But, Jurassic Park took on a special role.
In the early 1990’s I became an academic, and one of my research interests was computer ethics. I began working on an idea using stories to explore the ethics of technology. Jurassic Park was a perfect example. Much later, when I turned the idea into a class, I used Jurassic Park not only as an example of the basic theme, but as an example of effective writing techniques that could be used to teach creative writing. I will explain more about that research and the class later.
However, in the meantime, I should confess that for years my opinion of Crichton was that his writing peaked with Jurassic Park. He became famous and wealthy and his writing went downhill from there. I could not have been more wrong. It was not Crichton’s writing that was amiss. It was my understanding of what he was doing. Often times when an author takes literature in a new direction, we do not fully understand until we have ample perspective and the benefits of hindsight. Just recently, I began to take a second look. And the more I looked, the more I understood and the more I appreciated it. So, I thought, in the sadness of his passing, it may be a good time to revisit what he has done from a more serious, more scholarly perspective. And that is what this blog is about.
This is not a daily blog, or a weekly blog. It is a public research notebook. As I read or reread his works, watch or re-watch his movies, discover new things or gain new insights, I will record them here. My goal is to look for common themes and common techniques in his work and present them in a coherent framework so other can appreciate his works more deeply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
