"This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author’s imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real."
- disclaimer from "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton
As Bruce Barcott pointed out in the New York Times, "there's a problem with Michael Crichton's new thriller, and it shows up before the narrative even begins. . . Footnotes? Yes, there will be footnotes."
Much has been made of the footnotes in Mr. Crichton’s new book, "Stae of Fear." However, all this talk of footnotes may lead those who haven’t read the book to think that his position on global warming (he thinks it’s all just a conspiracy by ill-informed, or worse, malevolent, tree-huggers) is a well-researched and considered opinion, presented in the form of an intriguing novel.
Nothing could be further from the truth. "State of Fear" is a ham-handed, sorry excuse for a thriller, a pot-boiler of the most pedestrian sort, occasionally punctuated with random and misleading footnotes, charts, manifestos and appendices.
Mr. Crichton’s writing abilities have clearly suffered a decline. Consider, for example, the following segment which opens up Section IV of State of Fear, unfortunately named "Flash:"
"What are we going to do?" Sarah asked, panicked.
"Take your clothes off."
"What?"
"Now. Do it." He was stripping off his shirt, ripping it off, buttons flying. "Come on Sarah. Especially the sweater."
She had a fluffy angora sweater, and bizarrely, she recalled it had been a present from her boyfriend, one of the first things he ever bought her. She tore it off, and the T-shirt beneath.
"Skirt," Kenner said. He was down to his shorts, pulling off his shoes.
"What is this?"
"It’s got a zipper!"
She fumbled, getting the skirt off. She was down to her sports bra and panties. She shivered. The computer was counting backward. "Ten . . . nine . . . eight . . ." (page 283-4)
That passage is so poorly written, it’s almost painful. The masturbatory fantasy of Kenner the commanding and powerful ("he was stripping off his shirt, ripping it off, buttons flying") barking orders at the confused but compliant Sarah is, frankly, embarrassing. And why does Mr. Crichton feel compelled to add that the "fluffy angora sweater" (are there non-fluffy angora sweaters?) was "a present from her boyfriend?" How could Kenner be "down to his shorts" if he hadn’t yet taken off his shoes? And which character is asking "What is this," and which replies "It’s got a zipper?" At least Mr. Crichton included the countdown for those of us unsure what a computer counting backward might sound like.
His technical challenge to global warming isn’t presented much better. For example, on page 43, he cites a paper that appeared in the journal Climatic Change in the first of the much-ballyhooed footnotes. The selected quote seems to suggest that the climate in Greenland is not "following the current global warming trend." This reference is particularly amusing because if we are to accept the legitimacy of the paper, we have to accept its premise that there is in fact a "current global warming trend," exactly the opposite of the argument that Mr. Crichton is trying to make. So eager is Mr. Crichton to identify an anomaly, that he doesn’t even seem to realize that he is documenting the opposing argument.
The graphs make their first appearance on pages 84-88, with two more footnotes, one explaining the source of the graphs, the second a non sequitur from a 1996 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research. The reader is spared any more footnotes for the next 150 or so pages, with only a single graph appearing on page 190. However, a few more footnotes appear between pages 247 and 249, and then he gets back to the graphs and footnotes again in pages 369-381. Another footnote on page 384. More graphs on pages 393-394.
On page 406, a single footnote plugs a book by fellow anti-environmentalist Alston Chase, and a footnote on page 421 discuses the current retreat of the Sahara across the African Sahel. Much has been made by the anti-warming crowd of the fact that desertification of the sub-Sahara seems to have stopped. However, their reliance on this observation merely underscores their misunderstanding of the mechanics of global warming. The prior advance of the desert across the region was not a result of the Earth getting warmer, but of a prolonged, but unrelated, drought.
The dam bursts by page 421, where Mr. Crichton has placed no less than 14 footnotes between pages 421 and 426. There’s a single footnote on page 442, but it has nothing to do with global warming – it’s about the toxin of the blue-ringed octopus, which Mr. Crichton had worked into a poisoning subplot. There’s no dramaturgical or scientific reason for the footnote, it appears to be there just to keep the reader feeling that this must be a well-researched book.
Another random footnote appears on page 457, this time documenting his estimate of the cost of "the phony power-line cancer scare." Two more footnotes appear on pages 478 and 479, and seven footnotes about DDT are provided on pages 487-489. The final footnote is a non sequitur about cannibalism on page 503.
And that’s it. A book of over 600 pages, and less than 40 footnotes, at least half of which are condensed into two short, gratuitous and self-indulgent sections (pages 421-426 and 487-489), and at least a half-dozen of the remainder total non sequiturs.
In a 2003 speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Mr. Crichton said:
"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
"There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
"Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
"And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."
Clever words, and there’s probably some truth in them. But merely because concern about the planet we live on, that sustains us, may in certain people have some interesting similarities to religion, doesn’t mean that the fundamental and basic science behind global warming needs to be ignored or rejected.
Mr. Crichton suggests that belief in environmentalism is a matter of faith, not fact, and in his 2003 speech throws up his hands at any attempt to try to change the minds of the eco crowd. So, what is one to make of the footnotes, charts, flip charts and drop-down graphs in State of Fear? Has Mr. Crichton changed his mind, and is now attempting to convince the unconverted that global warming is a sham? Or is he merely preaching to the choir, the Rush Limbaughs and Creationists and other denizens of the ark that doesn’t believe in rising sea levels?
This, in turn, brings up a more disturbing series of questions. Was the book written specifically to be pitched to the Ann Coulter crowd to increase sales? And if so, does Mr. Crichton, the former medical student and scientist, really believe the narrow and unscientific views he proposes, or is he just writing what he thinks will sell? If the latter, the book is not only cynical and manipulative, but also irresponsible and dangerous, as it will only serve to reinforce the public opinions and government policies that have led to the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto protocols and under-regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
And Mr. Crichton is not very well positioned to be criticizing others about blind faith in quasi-religious beliefs. In his 1988 book "Travels," Mr. Crichton documents his experiences and unblinking acceptance of, among other things, clairvoyants, faith healers, seeing auras and astral projection. Now, I’m the last person in the world to criticize another for their religious beliefs, but I’ve always despised hypocrisy. Wouldn’t it have been more honest of Mr. Crichton to state in his opening disclaimer, instead of "Footnotes are real" (not to mention his closing statement, "Everyone has an agenda. Except me."), something along the lines of "I do not accept the science of global warming, but I do believe in mind-readers, prognostication, divination, levitation, and talking cacti?"
3 comments:
Oh my, look at your own bias. I can smell it from here. I think that Michael Crichton got some of it right, however, the point that really got to me was how the media and politicians are always trying to keep us in a state of fear by their constant scare tactics, as described in the book. If you keep harping that something is goind to happen, "The Sky is Falling", a lot of people are going to believe that. When I was twelve years old, during the Cuban Missle Crisis, I truly believed that we were going to be obliterated. In other words, sometimes we have to take things with a grain of salt, because if we don't, we're all going to die from being scared to death.
Madalyn Conrad
Shokai, it appears you're proving Crichton's religious theory. What does a true religious person do when he is given something against him? He denies it and then insults him or persecutes him. This is not a review of Michael Crichton's book, it's a retaliation of a religiously devoted environmentalist who has had his beliefs questioned.
The example you used to cast doubt on Mr. Crichton's writing ability was very poorly chosen. Once I saw the bias in your critique of his writing, it became difficult to consider seriously your subsequent criticisms. You throw in sexism, too.
I read and re-read the passage, and your criticisms just don't hold weight. In this passage, Kenner is a brilliant scientist and federal agent. There were 30 seconds to take decisive action, before both would be fried by machine-generated lightning bolts. It had to be done, NOW! As the genius and scientist, he had to formulate an instantaneous plan, with a half-minute window of opportunity. Her only hope to survive would be if she followed his directions (and his actions) "Now!" No time for discussion or modesty. (Her own competence is displayed in other parts of the book.)
You point out: "And which character is asking "What is this," and which replies "It’s got a zipper?"
Any reader of the story would know exactly who said what. Writers have no business adding redundant "he saids and she saids" after or before every line. The action and flow of dialogue makes clear who said what.
You also cite: "And why does Mr. Crichton feel compelled to add that the "fluffy angora sweater" (are there non-fluffy angora sweaters?) was "a present from her boyfriend?"
...Why not? As an author myself, I realize that description, along with dialogue, is essential to the readers' visualization and enjoyment of the action. In the scene, while struggling with the immediacy of the situation and her need to cope with numerous emotions, including abject fear (she had already witnessed the power of the lightning) she had a thought come bursting through about the origin of the sweater. So, what?
Your criticism of Mr. Crichton's writing was lame, forced, and indicative of bias. How can we take seriously whatever else you wrote?
Post a Comment