Topic: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

ITT we discuss Michael Crichton, as brought up by Gregory in the Jurassic Park thread. Reproduced here:

Anyone else reading the new Crichton book "Micro"? It's essentially "Honey I Shrunk The Scientists", but it's an interesting concept that I'd love to see get filmed. It's kind of impressive that Crichton's ideas got harder and harder to film as time went on, as Micro coud only be done on a budget of about $150 million to be done right, and only with today's technology, but Jurassic Park could be filmed in '92 for about $60.

Spoilers for "Micro" until the red text below. And they're not really super spoilers, it's just me saying what Crichton always seems to do in his books, and it does apply in the case of Micro.

Michael Crichton was getting more and more predictable, for the most part, with every book. Here's the plot for the new Michael Crichton book - not "Micro," or "Prey," or the one about the humanzee, or Reamde, or whatever...just, generally, you could assume this was the plot of the new book: sympathetic, weary man of the sciences is called into some sort of meeting with some sort of specialized group relating to emerging technology where you get a brief, too-short explanation of the technology before some sort of emergency forces the protagonist/s to succumb to the technology and thusly involve themselves inextricably in the new world to deal with interesting fictitious problems related to the world afforded by said technology, until all but two of the characters are killed or in some way absorbed into the technology, at which point the protagonist/s extricate themselves, showdown with the leader of the group who facilitated the technology, who gets a dose of their own medicine and probably dies.

End of spoilers for Micro.

A. Bam, suck my balls, Crichton formula. B. Holy shit, Back to the Future is almost a Crichton story. The only difference is we'd keep getting flashbacks to Doc Brown in the '80s, seeing him become more and more implausibly evil, until at the end he accidentally gets killed in a time machine related accident after Marty gets back.

Micro was okay. I was interested, because it's fun to imagine fending off attacks by giant wasps and stuff. On the other hand, it felt more contrived than Crichton has felt since the end of "Prey," and was generally kind of texty. (As opposed to subtexty.) I think another seventy pages in the right places would have helped that part of it.

Unrelated to this book, I'm generally a fan of Crichton, for the same reason I'm a fan of Nolan. Smarter than average pulp fun. Don't look too too hard, and you'll have fun with the thing. My favorite of his is probably "The Lost World," followed by the mileage-my-vary "Sphere."

You? Go.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

Well, Crichton has been dead for three years - so it was inevitable that the quality of his work would decline...

Micro, to be fair, was only partially completed upon Crichton's death and Richard Preston finished it.  I like Preston's non-fiction, but haven't read any of his novels.

Re: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

Yeah, and you could smell it. Sort of like Douglas Adams gave his "blessing" on some incomplete ideas on the HHGTTG movie, and those parts felt really undercooked, same here. It lacked a bit of confidence in the taking-its-time department, like someone wasn't sure this is the kind of thing Mike would have liked.

I'm still in awe of Michael Crichton, generally. For the same reason you've got to hand it to the Red Hot Chili Peppers; I'm not a huge fan, but you have to admit, having a few hit singles per album for twenty straight years isn't a fluke.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

I love Michael Crichton books, those were always amazing reads as a kid and helped fuel my geeky love of technology. I stopped reading when he started going crazy anti-global warming, but I think he really had a knack for writing excellent pulp stories that introduced the reader to emerging technological trends.

I was going to start listing favorite novels, but then I realized there's literally like 10-15+ awesome Crichton books.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

Jurassic Park is my favorite novel, and the single book that has affected my life more than any other.

My Dad loved Michael Crichton, and gave me Jurassic Park when I was a dinosaur-loving fourth grader, just a couple of years before he died. I didn't get to see him much even when he was alive, because my parents were divorced and lived on opposite coasts, so giving me books was the biggest way he impacted my childhood. Up until then, I had been kind of indifferent to the books he gave me.

My mother forbade me from reading Jurassic Park, so I read it, and it transformed me as a person. Overnight, I went from a non-reader to one of the most voracious readers of science fiction and fantasy you've ever met. I am now a computer programmer with a CS degree, and I write sf in my spare time.

Anyway, that doesn't necessarily translate into me worshipping Crichton or anything. He wrote a whole lot of mediocre stuff in between his greats. I'd give somebody The Andromeda Strain, Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, or The Lost World any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

A lot of his books feel like his ideas and writing are coming into clearer and clearer focus, and that all of his storytelling came to a point in Jurassic Park. Compare, for example, Congo to JP. The role the gorillas play in the story is almost a prototype of the role raptors play in JP. Post-JP, I think he gets a little bit indulgent with himself as far as his writing goes. It gets more and more bloated.

Some people say that most people only have one story to tell, and that they tell it in different forms for their whole life. I'm not sure if I really agree with that, but Crichton is a good example in its defense. You only have to look at Teague's Crichton Template. That's Michael Crichton's story, and I think Jurassic Park was the greatest telling of it.

He definitely went a bit kooky with regards to stuff like, y'know... science towards the end there. The aforementioned global warming denialism is a good example. I also seem to remember a speech delivered by a character at the end of The Lost World (obviously acting as a mouthpiece of the author, something Crichton did quite a bit) about how people used to believe in Fairies and now they believe in electrons, but that those things will pass, and future generations will think that we're foolish for believing in those things. Which... just... no, dude. There's a difference between those two things, and the difference is that we can prove electrons exist. Just... gah.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

Aerik wrote:

There's a difference between those two things, and the difference is that we can prove electrons exist. Just... gah.

I like you.

Re: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

The only Crichton books I've read are Jurassic Park and The Lost World. I absolutely adore Jurassic Park, it's one of my favourite books - but I was never able to get into The Lost World anywhere near as much.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

To be fair, he had some books that broke the typical mold. The Great Train Robbery being my favorite example, and I'd say that's up there as one of his best novels.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Michael Crichton (Spoilers warned.)

Great Train Robbery is a goodie, and the movie version wasn't half bad either as I recall, though it seems mostly forgotten now.

Andromeda Strain - though it's been quite a while since I last read it - has a lot of significance for me because I read it when I was quite young, and found it fascinating.   The movie came out not long after, and I got to go see it for my birthday. smile   The movie I did see again not that long ago, and like most older movies it's a little slow by modern standards, but it's almost entirely about scientists doing science, actual credible science at that.  For that reason alone it still rates high on my list.

I have to say Eaters of the Dead is another fave book, though maybe just because I felt so smart when I realized Crichton was creating a "real" version of the origin of the tale of Beowulf.   I even like the movie version, even though it's one of those movies that got a reputation for being bad before anyone ever saw it.  Yeah, Antonio Banderas as an Arab is a stretch, but there's a lot of good stuff in that one.

/lo, there do I see the face of my father....