Michael Crichton Dead at 66

See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/05/print/main4575403.shtml

Don't worry. They'll be churning out plenty more hack work under his name before long.

Wow. That's too bad. He's not a great artist but, like Madonna, a great talent even so...

...and we can at least be thankful he won't peddle his climate change balderdash any longer.

They should hire you for funerals, Lola :)

>2 iansales: Not to kick someone when he's down, but somebody has been churning out plenty of hack work under his name for a long time already.

The Andromeda Strain was, in my opinion, very good and The Terminal Man was almost as good. The last thing of his I read was Congo and I have to agree that it was very, very, bad. He also is responsible for the TV show ‘ER’, which, again in my opinion, was very, very good the first 4 or 5 seasons. I thought of him as more of a medical writer than a science fiction writer even if his work was on the edge of medical science.

I don’t think that his later works can completely erase the quality and originality of his first works.

I am sorry to hear this news and think some of the comments here are rather uncalled for. Admittedly, his last 2-3 novels have been weaker than his earlier work, but they do at least contain ideas that challenge people's thinking, whatever one thinks of the conclusions he reaches. For that alone, I don't think even his latter works can be simply dismissed as hackwork.

John

This is sad news. I enjoyed Sphere very much and I've heard good things about Eaters of the Dead, but I've never read it. I've just added it to my TRB list.

I had a love/hate relationship with Crichton's work. I read almost all of it, despite ultimately finding it formulaic and predictable, with limited character development. I often asked myself why I kept reading him. It wasn't IMHO just his last few novels; he was a bright man with good ideas, but just wasn't more than mediocre in setting them to fiction. Nevertheless, he was a major influence since I was a child, and I feel a closeness with him for all the years I spent with him.

I am saddened.

#8 my opinion of Crichton or his books hasn't changed because he's dead, and I don't see why it should. He wrote populist, often ill-informed - if not malevolently mis-informed - potboilers.

Very very harsh. He was a great ideas writer, and he buried many messages in many of his plots, underneath the 'obvious' themes which were, granted, sometimes a bit silly. Although often science sounding they aren't science fiction at all, they are social commentary.

His latest works were not his best, I found prey to be particularly weak and timeline not much better. But State of fear asked reasonable questions about the hype surrounding MMGW, and more importantly, about why there is overblown hype, how governments function etc. Ditto Airframe about how the media operates.

Like all popular authors, one can ask did he deserve the accolades sometimes attributed to him? maybe not, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss his work out of hand.

What great ideas? Crichton was an anti-intellectual. Disclosure was misogynistic, Sphere was a flying saucer novel, without even the benefit of an explanation. And he spouted a lot of damaging crap about climate change. When Michael Crowley criticised Crichton, Crichton put him in his novel Next as a child molester.

Anti-intellectual? any evidence for this at all? He's got a A Harvard Medical School degree.Most of his books feature science in one form or other, and while corporate financed scientists don't always come out smelling of roses, it is not their intelligence or persuit of knowledge that is picked upon. Have you read any of his books? rather than rely on superficial media coverage of their topics try them for yourself.

I've read a couple of them, and I didn't care for them. Just because he died yesterday, it doesn't make his books magically better. As for his anti-intellecutalism... He was very vocal in his distrust of climatologists and other experts, denigrating their science as much as their results or their interpretation of their results. And if you google for "Crichton anti-intellectual", you get far too many hits for it to be a minority opinion.

"I've read a couple of them, and I didn't care for them. Just because he died yesterday, it doesn't make his books magically better"

All valid points. Some of his books were better than others, and some appeal to different people.

Which is a far cry from 'hack' or 'potboiler' or 'misinformed'. Skeptical is not anti-intellectual. Skepticism is the very basis of science, especially regarding argument from authority of (often self proclaimed) experts. It is something I wish far more media reporting of science required. And whether or not you agree with him, he was not misinformed. All his books came with lists of copious references, something far too few authors provide when commenting on current social issues. If you disagree with the opinion he based a novel on, at least you have the option of tracing how it was arrived at.

Was he the greatest techno-thriller writer ever? of course not. But I will certainly miss the anticipation of finding out what topic, with what spin, he was going to tackle next.

His climate change "scepticism" was anything but informed. It was just plain wrong. The science in Jurassic Park was also dodgy - viable DNA found in a mosquito's stomach? I think not.

Besides, sceptisim is not the basis of science. Observation, experimentation and reasoning is. Sceptisim is politics masquerading as science. If something is an observable fact, then what is there to be sceptical about? If something cannot be verified by experimentation, then it is not a scientific fact and so scepticism is inappropriate.

As if I needed a reminder of why I avoid this Group. Someone dies and everyone has to jump in with their derogatory dig. Real classy, folks. Apparently your mothers never taught you what to say in situations like this?

So we should be dishonest and say nice things about him because he's died? His family have my sympathies, but that won't change my opinion of his books. It would be hypocritical to do so.

"So we should be dishonest and say nice things about him because he's died?"

Yes. Yes you should. And saltmanz: this is why I generally avoid the message boards. Why are people so hostile?

Mr. Crichton is dead, cannot defend himself. Lets try to remember the positive contributions he made during his lifetime. Even if you hated his books or didn't agree with his philosophies: would there be such an interest in Dinosaurs and paleontology without the success of Jurassic Park? Any of you bitter people ever relax in front of the telly and watch ER? Thank Michael Crichton.

And at the very least, if you can't think of anything nice to say, keep your mouth shut. I think even in our society it is still considered rude to speak ill of the dead.

>18 saltmanz: - what do you want people to say? To proclaim every author that dies was "a fantastic writer" regardless how you really feel about them. What happens to truth and honesty then?
While Michael Crichton's death is a loss to his family, and I'm sure everyone has sympathy for them, it doesn't alter his work at all. Crichton was a highly successful writer in terms of sales but he wasn't a great novelist, and it is very unlikely his work will last. William Wharton, a genuinely talented American writer best known for Birdy, died last week and it went virtually unreported but his work has a chance of surviving. If there was any justice in the world the headlines would have been about Wharton and not Crichton.

No one requires any other person to say something nice about a dead person because s/he is dead. How about the OTHER old adage (beyond "don't judge people, or they get to judge you back"): "If you can't say something nice, clam up."

This is a place to say we're sorry to see a person leave this earth. If you're not sorry, okay...but belt up about it.

Safe journey home, Michael Crichton.

"So we should be dishonest and say nice things about him because he's died?"

Sure, if you want. I certainly never suggested it. I'd prefer that if you have nothing nice to say, you don't say anything at all -- as opposed to jumping in to a thread just to say how horrible someone (or his ideas, or his books, or whatever) was.

What happened to the concepts of democracy and free speech? What about perspective? This phony sentimentality that surrounds death is just that - phony sentimentality.

That would be hypocritical. If you want to be a hypocrite, be one. But I won't. I didn't like those of Crichton's book I read, and I didn't like what the man stood for or the way he behaved on occasion. His death hasn't changed that. If I'd known him personally, perhaps I'd have felt differently, and perhaps my sympathies would actually mean something to his family. But he's a complete stranger to me, and I know him only from his books and his public persona.

Or are we supposed to praise the good qualities (if any) of the next inmate on Death Row to get the needle?

26 > Keeping your mouth shut is not being hypocritical.

25 > Free speech comes with responsibility which means dealing with the people who disagree with you, their speech is also allowed.

this thread was started announce the passing of an author to allow people to express their condolences, not as a platform to attack the man. Feel free to start a new thread for that topic.

Away from the books he did direct Westworld and Coma which were fun, and Looker and Runaway which were fun in a different way. (I think everyone who has seen the latter can't help being gobsmacked by Gene Simmons performance).

> 23, 24

Part of the problem here may be that a single thread is being asked to serve as venue for two fundamentally incompatible activities: 1) A virtual wake for Crichton as an individual; 2) A retrospective discussion of his work and ideas.

They're both valid ways to remember the guy, but they work according to different rules. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" produces harmonious social gatherings, but bland history, watery literary criticism, and sterile science. It's appropriate to (1) but antithetical to (2).

Perhaps we need another thread for assessing Crichton's work.

It says this thread was started so people could offer condolences? Sorry, I must have missed that.

No, wait. It says no such thing.

#27

How do you know why this thread was started? The thread title (and the first post) doesn't make that clear. It is just a statement and link to a news article that Crichton has died.

Whilst my distaste is not as great as Ian's I have observed that has time has gone one Crichton had become more and more entrenched in a mindset which seemed petty and antagonistic to differing opinions. His anti-climate change views were probably more damaging to his reputation than any dodgy science in books. Crichton wasn't a great writer but rather a utilitarian one. Having said that some of his earlier works do remain diverting (e.g. Andromeda Strain and Eaters Of The Dead). Also some of the films he was involved with are pretty decent films (from Westworld to The Great Train Robbery).

30:Actually I'm starting to regret posting at all. As far as why I did it it was because it was newsworthy and like it or not the man did write SF.

jmnlman, had it not been you then someone else.

Not too crazy about most of his books, but Travels was absolutely amazing, and I recommend it highly.

This is ridiculous. Consider this: Dan Brown is probably my least favorite major author currently working, but if he died today I wouldn't jump online just to non-critically bash him and his work. I'd either state my condolences or keep my mouth shut. I'd make a display of his work (I work in a library.) While I may hate Brown's work and dislike the man himself, it is rude and childish to make statements like some of those in this thread. Insulting a man and his work is not offering sympathy to his family. Regardless of the actual reason this thread was created, it is hardly an appropriate place to call him a hack. That is not a critique of his work, it's just an insult, whether he deserved it or not. Maybe a separate thread should be created to examine his body of work, but is it too much to ask to see a little civility?

I stated my opinion of his work. My opinion has not just changed because he has just died. My opinion will probably be the same a year from now. This thread simply informed the group of Crichton's death. There was no stated agenda. Nor was there any mention of "condolences only". These groups on LT are to foster discussion, not to provide a forum to mouth inane and insincere platitudes. Some have argued against my dismissal of Crichton's novels, which is fair enough. But claim it's "rude and childish" to offer an opinion... well, it's not me that needs to grow up.

Damn. I must be channelling Cliff...

It appears you do quite well on your own. All of your comments are critically nonnutritious and deliberately designed to provoke.
You give nothing. You serve your own vanity. People have eyes and they can see who you are.
Or as you would put it:
"Pfft."

Writers are books to readers, not real live people. (Or real dead people.) It's not like a horde of anti-fans crashed the man's wake and started pelting the bereaved with his bestsellers, pulped.

Compare this:

The NY Times published yesterday (on the day he died, if anyone missed it) this appraisal of Crichton's work. I'll leave the portions of (faint) praise out and quote a little of the damning bits he received on that sad day, in a forum somewhat more influential than LT's Science Fiction Fans:

As a writer he was a kind of cyborg, tirelessly turning out novels that were intricately engineered entertainment systems. {...}

No one — except possibly Mr. Crichton himself — ever confused them with great literature, {...}

Most of his books relied on a simple formula. {...}

And sometimes the problem was human beings, like the Japanese businessmen in “Rising Sun” intent on taking over the United States economy, or the rapacious female executive in “Disclosure.” The implicit prophecies embedded in those two books — a world run by sinister, unreadable Asians or castrating female honchos — proved to be wide of the mark, which was perhaps slightly embarrassing to Mr. Crichton, but that did not deter him from speculating, in his 2004 novel, “State of Fear,” that global warming might be a hoax. {...}

His gizmos, as some critics never tired of pointing out, were often more subtle and more interesting than his characters. {...}

Like most genre fiction, the Crichton novels are windup toys of a sort, and in memory it’s hard sometimes to keep them all straight. {...}

I haven't read Crichton's fiction myself, nor do I plan to, not after THAT.

There's no question that the man seemed to lean uncritically, towards a conservative frame of mind, but that can happen to anyone (Ezra Pound?). I think the point is what is your goal by pointing this out? And especially your goal, Lola W, if you've never read any of the guy's work? What conclusion are people supposed to conclude about you chiming in about his shitty politics having never read his work? That you're a good soldier? Or is it merely to provoke? Why do you care so much to post about a writer you've never read? What makes you so sure that people who are fond of his early fiction tacitly accept his later work as well?
Is Jack Kerouac's work all shit because he ended up a cranky antiCommunist in his mother's house? Is Huysmans a sellout because he went back to the church? Should I not read these guys because of where they ended up? And who says so, and what am I getting from them?
Where are you coming from ? Isn't that just as important as anything else?

Helloooo, Arthur!

There you go with the most unexpected digressions again. Keeping up with you is a real roller coaster ride, and I suffer from vertigo. :)

I posted the NY Times review to show that other people, highly paid for their opinion in respectable newspapers, pronounced some underwhelming criticism of Crichton's work, on the day he departed this valley of tears, thereby making the example of SF rogues here perhaps a smidgen less reprehensible.

But all of that's in the eye of the beholder.

Now where were, Kerouac, Communism, Huysmans, good soldiers... whew.

Sorry, I'm lost.

But no doubt I shall yet be found. By dog's amazing grace... or something.

ta-ta!

"Now where were, Kerouac, Communism, Huysmans, good soldiers... whew.

Sorry, I'm lost."

I know, you haven't a clue. Winky winky, have a nice day. :)

Aw, who needs MY clues when we have you.

Winky winky, have a nice day. :)

You betcha!

;)

"You betcha!"

See, you make me think of Sarah Palin when you say stuff like that. That really messes with my entire mental identity construction process. Most unkind. ;)

Ian, I wasn't claiming that it's rude and childish to offer an opinion. I said that some of the statements made in this thread (not necessarily yours) have been rude and childish, such as:

"Don't worry. They'll be churning out plenty more hack work under his name before long."

"Not to kick someone when he's down, but somebody has been churning out plenty of hack work under his name for a long time already." Which is at least prefaced with a near apology.

"Or are we supposed to praise the good qualities (if any) of the next inmate on Death Row to get the needle?" Which I am admittedly taking out of its context, but it is still a bit of a non sequitur.

I'm not saying that anybody should be spouting praise for the man, genuine or not. If you don't like his work, that's fine. Ian, many of your posts in this thread have offered some genuine critique of his work, and that's great. I seconded the suggestion to create a seperate thread to discuss the merits of his work because I think it would be fair to draw some of the arbitrary bashing away from this thread. Forget about it.

Arthurfrayn, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not sure if you were addressing me (now I think you were probably not), but I wasn't trying to provoke anybody or anything. In my previous post, I was merely calling for a little civility, something that has not so far followed.

Edit: Wow, I got sidetracked, and by the time I posted this I was several messages behind.

>37 iansales: Ian, Cliff has the sense not to get involved in this one.

I'm going to take my shot. Second shot, actually.

I never met Michael Crichton, never heard him speak, never saw him on the telly as far as I know, and know nothing about what kind of man, husband, or father he was. He was obviously very smart, energetic, and creative. He had his fingers in quite a few pies.

I have been a steady viewer of ER since about the fourth season onward (we were Chicago Hope fans) and have enjoyed the show, however I must say it's not going to be as hard to see it go as, say "Deadwood" or "The Wire", of course neither of them ran for fourteen seasons, either.

I have read the following (this from memory):

The Andromeda Strain - good entertainment, not great
Sphere - pot boiler - the movie was better
Congo - see Sphere, except the movie suffered from its association with the book
Jurassic Park - great opening, downhill from there, GREAT movie
Eaters of the Dead - a yeomanly effort at retelling the Beowulf story, but Grendel is much better and might even be considered literary.

All comments are my opinion, take them for what they are worth.

I will say his were a notch above the few Stephen King books I've read, but then my wife thinks Stephen King is the bee's knees and persuaded me to read The Stand, three novels in one. But they both suffered from the same problem: shaky prose and a problematic style. I bring this up only because they are contemporaries writing in the same oeuvre.

I have not read any of his later works and probably never will simply because there are too many good books out there. After all, I'm a Henry James fan (I think The Golden Bowl is arguably the epitome of the writer's craft).

My condolences go out to his family and to the many people in jobs he created.

Rest In Peace.

"Arthurfrayn, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not sure if you were addressing me, but I wasn't trying to provoke anybody or anything. In my previous post, I was merely calling for a little civility, something that has not so far followed."

With all due respect, how ON EARTH did you get the idea I was talking about you, when I was in essence agreeing with you?
I think I was right about staying away from this board, and here I gooo againnnn.....
Neverrrrr tooo returrnnn to this horiblllllle,horiblllllle,horiblllllle place......

#18

To be fair, there have been other authors that have died, and because the posters enjoyed their works, they lavished praise on him. Thomas Disch springs to mind here - deemed to be an author under-appreciated contrasted to the quality of his works.

One of the things that we should do for an author after their death is to examine his influence on the genres in which he or she write, and the quality of his works. If people perceive no quality to the works that an author has written, in comparison to their wide readership, I see no problem with discussing this.

Myself, I have not read any of Crichton's books, but I might have a look at one or two to see if the criticisms here are valid or not.

#47> Sorry, I was getting a little befuddled with all of the back-and-forth going on. My apologies.

I've read a couple of the books, but my main response to Crichton is related to films and tv; I've watched all of ER and I've probably seen The Andromeda Strain twenty times or so (the original, not the horrible recent remake); I also enjoyed Jurassic Park. I'm not that critical about the plausibility of science in science fiction--I'm just interested in a good story, which I thought those were.

I don't think he was a great writer--very few popular authors are, frankly. But he entertained me sometimes and I admire his success (maybe that's shallow, but I have enough trouble acquiring money that I admire those who are much better at it than I am!).

>46 geneg: I think Stephen King is a decent writer. Not great, but fairly good, and underrated, possibly in part because his books sell well. He is a far better writer than Crichton, especially in that he is capable of rendering a few characters believable now and then. Crichton no doubt possessed more scientific knowledge. That is its own reward.

What is the value of an opinion? You see a comment on a board. You don't agree with it. You post a response. The next thing you know, you're banging your head on the keyboard waiting for the valium to kick in.

I'm going to read now.

</i>That quote about James Dean on his death springs to mind: "good career move, kid." After all, under what other circumstances would we have spent so much time discussing Crichton?

#40, So, Arthur, a opinion you disagree with is "critically nonnutritious"? Now there's a fertile philosophy for debate...

#45 - actually my original comment about churning out hackwork was more of a comment on the way publishers extend the shelf life (so to speak) of best-selling authors. Cf Virginia Andrews™. Alistair Maclean. No doubt we can all think of examples. Crichton shifted units. Why should a publisher - or his estate (Herbert Limited Partnership, I'm thinking of you here) - allow his death to stop revenue?

But if it's the characterisation of his books as "hack work" that offended you... well, I pretty much classify all non-literary fiction as hack-work. And that includes the vast majority of sf.

#46 Gene, you might remember Cliff bowed out of the group a week or two ago precisely because of the behaviour of some posters on this thread.

And finally, I've never seen "ER" - has it ever been broadcast in the UK? - so while you might give him some credit for that, I've no personal experience of the programme.

Oops. Inadvertently submitted the same post three times. Hence the deletions.

actually my original comment about churning out hackwork was more of a comment on the way publishers extend the shelf life (so to speak) of best-selling authors. Cf Virginia Andrews™. Alistair Maclean. No doubt we can all think of examples. Crichton shifted units. Why should a publisher - or his estate (Herbert Limited Partnership, I'm thinking of you here) - allow his death to stop revenue?
There was an article on the radio this week about the pressure publishers are now exerting on popular authors - a number of bestselling thriller writers have been told that they need to produce a book a year or they are out of the game commercially. When one writer mentioned 'quality', his publisher effectively told him, "stuff the quality, give us product".
Looking at Crichton's sales figures and popularity in Hollywood does anyone really think that his publishers and estate will not be exploiting his name soon. Is this not true disrepect - to the man and to his public?

It seems ironic that we're discussing the death of a man who treated those who disagreed with him by characterising them as child molesters... by attacking anyone who doesn't have anything nice to say about him.

oh well..i liked the Andromeda Strain and was surprised to find he was 6'7". (There's a pair of unrelated thoughts joined by a conjunction..that's glory for you). JPark was a perfectly fine summer blockbuster movie and the book, too, was enjoyable. All SF is based on "what if" and many whatifs are impossible..at least working from current knowledge at the time, JP wasn't completely implausible..Hell..someone's been brewing beer from yeast caught in amber that's 50k yrs old at least...No idea as to it's cost or taste. (one of those odd tidbits i caught in NScientist or science news and didn't note the issue)

(but then John Crowley is v. tall too, i hear..when he came to talk to our son's SF class at macalester, adam was taken abake by his height..but then adam's pretty small.)

My opinion of Michael Crichton's work is best expressed by the reviews I have written of them. I have no opinion on Crichton himself, having never met the man.

>56 Jargoneer: "There was an article on the radio this week about the pressure publishers are now exerting on popular authors - a number of bestselling thriller writers have been told that they need to produce a book a year or they are out of the game commercially. When one writer mentioned 'quality', his publisher effectively told him, "stuff the quality, give us product".

Sounds like time for a writers strike. Let the publishers print the kind of dreck being self published these days (I can't speak about your work, Cliff), suffer the concomitant decline in "product shift" and the ones that survive may be less opposed to "quality".

If there were a writer's strike, all we would get are biographies by rockstars and politicians, and new cooking and diet books. So, no thanks.

I might as well chime in; I thought Andromeda Strain pumped up SF popularity for a bit and I enjoyed the book & concept.

Jurassic Park was fantastic, the mosquito gut DNA stuff was a great fictional innovation- it made sense to me with mosquitoes preferring birds from what I already knew and the human Genome project was getting off the ground then, which was great background for the concept. Those Japanese scientists who cloned the mice from frozen mice brains may yet be a stepping stone for bringing back woolly mammoths.

I can live with his tirade against Global warming, climatologists as scientists have no problem defending themselves. I am just struck with the irony of his being a somewhat famous and talented doctor and dieing from cancer at such a {these days} relatively young age.

I too enjoyed Andromeda Strain, both the book and movie. It seemed quite novel to me at the time.

I also found many of his books great "summer reads" for the science and technical minded. Sure, he made questionable leaps here and there, but he could write action scenes better than many and he always seemed to have an interesting big concept. They may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but what is.

As for the Jurassic park thing, I have to respond...

#17 "The science in Jurassic Park was also dodgy - viable DNA found in a mosquito's stomach? I think not."

Yet, it was just quite recently that this bit of news showed up...
"Ancient Yeast Reborn in Modern Beer
Eric Bland, Discovery News
Sept. 23, 2008 -- Trapped inside a Lebanese weevil covered in ancient Burmese amber, a tiny colony of bacteria and yeast has lain dormant for up to 45 million years. A decade ago Raul Cano, now a scientist at the California Polytechnic State University, drilled a tiny hole into the amber and extracted more than 2,000 different kinds of microscopic creatures."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/09/23/ancient-yeast-beer.html

Find out more about the beer here:
http://www.fossilfuelsbrewingco.com/