Michael Crichton, RIP

Was he the inventor of the techno-thriller? ("The Andromeda Strain" was probably the first grown-up book I ever read, in fourth grade or so!)

I've been rather peeved about his global warming stance, but you can't deny he's had an effect on popular culture. What this is exactly . . . ?

I would define it in much the same way I define Orson Scott Card. Inspiring and talented science-fiction author (although a few of the later projects grew increasingly politicized) whose undeniably impressive work should be viewed independently, separated from a person who's ideological views moved him further and further into Wingnuttia as public appearances became more common. From there, it's a question if you want to focus on the legacy of Crichton himself or that of his work, which tend to do diverge more often than I'd like to admit.

(That said, both Crichton and Card did some pretty dispicable things that have caused me to issue caveats when I recommend their books. But I still recommend them.)

Michael Crichton was an enormously gifted storyteller and I loved getting lost in his books, especially Jurassic Park. He captured the world's imagination and that should be his legacy.

State Of Fear defines his legacy. In most of his other novels, his anti-science attitudes were toned down, but visible nonetheless.

He did not invent the 'techno-thriller'. Ian Flemming (also not a favorite of mine, though I read a lot of his stuff when younger) wrote techno-thrillers before Crichton did, as did many others.

I won't try to figure out who wrote the first techno-thriller. But they were around a long time before the name was coined.

"ER" executive producer John Wells said Wednesday. "No lunch with Michael lasted less than three hours, and no subject was too prosaic or obscure to attract his interest. Sexual politics, medical and scientific ethics, anthropology, archeology, economics, astronomy, astrology, quantum physics, and molecular biology were all regular topics of conversation. I was blessed to have known him and proud to be able to have called him my friend."

'Nuff said

He was an entertaining writer, knew how to tell a story with elements of technology and science fiction and medicine all wrapped up together.

But his anti-intellectual take on environmental issues, and his dead-wrong take on some issues (like DDT) will taint him in our memory. He said:

"I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn."

That's incorrect so many different ways; and yet those philosophically aligned with him lapped it up as truth milk. And he did that on a lot of issues. Sad that someone so gifted could have such a warped POV.

Somewhat talented but completely confused about what was reality and what was the fantasy that he wrote. His defining moment, playing scientist before reality-deniers like Inhofe (IIRC) and Bush.

A writer of popular fiction.

Brian D - "Right On Dude" - I think you nailed it with Card and Crichton - and I still recommend Eaters of The Dead.
Crichton did get a little hinkey the last couple of years.

In discussing the legacy of Mr. Crichton, one must not overlook his racism. Let's not forget his novel, "Rising Sun," which invoked the notion of the "yellow peril," from anti-japanese and anti-chinese bigotry from the 1920s. This, of course, in addition to his rejection of global climate change, a subject which he was totally incompetent to blather about.

Sadly, while Chrichton might have been an ambassador for science like Sagan (in kind even if not in degree), he chose instead to sacrifice scientific accuracy for cheap thrills (think Jurassic Park) and to boost his own ego (think State of Fear, meeting with George Bush, etc)

In my opinion, Chrichton did more damage than good when it came to actually informing the public about science.

He wrote fanciful stories ("science fiction" in the literal if not literary sense) that made for good (albeit fairly mindless) entertainment.

That's his "legacy", if you can call it that.

I don't really think he was so great. Yeah, of course 66 is way too young to check out and it's a shame and all that, but if Dean Koontz or James Ludlow died tomorrow, would we seriously talk about their "legacies"? He will live on forever in airport bookstores.

I'm sure many have enjoyed his books but his real popularity was from the movies made of them. His legacy is of the class jock coming up to the bookis kid and saying "hey, I loved that movie. Big lizards are cool. Hyuk."

State of Fear was only controversial to those who had some ideological axe to grind, and resented his popular appeal. Look at the BODY of his work - Crichton was a gifted author of scientifically oriented fiction, and deserves to be remembered that way.

"State of Fear was only controversial to those who had some ideological axe to grind, and resented his popular appeal."

A strawman if ever I have met one.

Real Climate has a good take on the "science" in "State of Fear" and NASA climate scientist James Hansen also has some things to say about Chrichton's use of one of his (Hansen's) graphs that had been "doctored" by Pat Michaels:

...does Crichton really use the scientific method? Or is it something closer to scientific fraud?

....
In my testimony to congress I showed one line graph with scenarios A, B, C and observed global temperature, which I update below. However, all of the maps of simulated future temperature that I showed in my congressional testimony were for scenario B, which formed the basis for my testimony. No results were shown for the outlier scenarios A and C.
Back to Crichton: how did he conclude that I made an error of 300%? Apparently, rather than studying the scientific literature, as his footnotes would imply, his approach was to listen to "global warming skeptics". One of the skeptics, Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud?

Crichton's approach is worse than that of Michaels. Crichton uncritically accepts Michaels' results, and then concludes that Hansen's prediction was in error "300%".

But State of fear was hardly the only book in which Chrichton took (great) liberties with the facts and the science. He seemed to have a habit of doing so.

I've read several of his books and they are not particularly good in my opinion.

But maybe I'm just biased because I was educated as a scientist and have low tolerance for BS masquerading as science.