Michael Crichton is a tool - Page 2  

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

I just read the op-ed that inspired Crichton's response.

First let me say that I have quite a few of MC's books (more than 10 I think, over the years). That said, I did notice a lot of what is in the article about him by my own powers of observation, prior to reading that piece.

That piece about Crichton is fairly accurate, in my opinion, and not very vitriolic. I don't see anything in there that would warrant depicting the writer as a child molester character in his next book. My thought is the old Han Solo line: "Must have hit it pretty close to the mark to get [him] all riled up, eh kid?"

And he certainly did.

If you've followed Crichton's career (and I've read as early as Andromeda and as late as State of Fear), the article about him draws some pretty astute and accurate conclusions.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

Two things disturbed me beyond the obvious. First of all, this Michael Crowley thinks profiteering is worse than raping a child:


Second of all, he did not realize the character was based on him until...
Gee, I woulda thunk that my first clue was the character's name was Mick Crowley. But I guess that's just me.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

Uh, that was pretty clearly humor and sarcasm.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

Subtler lies are often the most damaging. Or perhaps Crowley was indulging in a bit of irony.


Strange as it might seem, a name is rarely unique.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

No offense Hunter, but I think you took Crowley's response far too seriously. Both of the sections you quoted were meant humourously. I actually laughed out loud when I read the "And, perhaps worse, falsely branded me a pharmaceutical-industry profiteer" line as he clearly didn't mean it.

I think he's slightly flabbergasted at Crichton's jab at him in the book and is making fun of it.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

It is nice to think of Michael Crowley as a journalist who has been innocently wronged by having a version of his name come up in Crichton's novel as a rather seedy character. Certainly a man who is a journalist has it within him to naturally rise above such cheap shots and not be prone to duplicity. Right? It may be helpful to look at an example of Crowley's writings to see if he's above sexual innuendo cheap shots.

Now you have to be a subscriber to "The New Republic" but with the magic of Google we can read the following article: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
Note the title, "Local Yokels". Certainly not a dig at the average person is it? Maybe you? Maybe me? In it, Crowley writes
and a bit later in the same article...

If you read Crowley's writings, they may well resonate with you and you won't be of the opinion that his work constitutes pissing. Not all are of this opinion and look upon Crowley as a person who pisses on those who don't piss back. This time, it seems he found someone who not only pissed back but managed to get his face. Like I said, I like a good pissing match. Fuck the little crybaby.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

And yet we suckle on Al Gore's testes because he represents the "popular" view point. What makes Gore such a more qualified authority than Crichton? Gore has obviously done a lot of research on the subject, but so has Crichton. Also, on paper, Crichton does have a scientific background. I'm not saying medicine makes him an expert on Global Warming, but that course of education does immerse you in Scentific Theory and Reseach. Why is Al Gore so credible, yet Crichton is nothing more that a Republican shill (which is a charge that has been suggested more than once in this thread) Oh, yeah, I forgot, it's just another example of the larger media/Hollywood's elitism and ignorance and intolerance of any viewpoint that dissents from the "popular" opinion.


Yeah, the reaction to "State of Fear" reminds me of that line.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

Not as much as a PhD in a relevant field (which, considering the focus of his statement, might have been "philosophy", or "history of science."). Still, I'll chalk it up to mere politeness. Were we living in Britain, it might have been different: the medical degree is known as a bachelor of medicine, and while younger physicians don't necessarily mind being addressed as "doctor so and so", persons who have received a Masters in surgery do. There's a further doctoral degree that centers around research...


Jeff Gannon did work in the sex industry

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

So did various political figures, Republican and Democrat while in office. Crowley takes shots in only one direction.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

Will, I appreciate you expressing your view but please let's keep it nice. Political discussion of the type you are posting is not legal in the HTF, even in the after hours forums. There are places on the web for that, use them. You've made several posts alluding to "liberal conspiracies" and the down-trodden Republicans who can't seem to catch a break with the American public. Regardless of the truth or merit of these claims, it is explicitly stated in the forum rules that these sorts of comments are not allowed.

I understand how strong feeling can be hard to contain on the boards, but please let's not take ourselves to mud throwing and petty jabs. I'm not saying you've done this, but it seems to be looming closer and closer. I have political feelings different than your own, but I respect your right to voice your opinion and not talk about you "suckling on Michael Crichton's testes." That sort of stuff gets us no where, please let's not go there.

----

To get to your point, I would argue the difference is that Al Gore is basing his opinion on a rather robust amount of scientific data and the findings of many climate scientists over the last 50 years. Those who trust Gore aren't basing their opinion on the man, but on the scientific community that seems to be behind him 98.4% on what he has claimed. Critchon seems to be saying that the data is inconclusive and not iron clad. This is true, but the same can be said about the science of evolution, gravity, quantum physics, nuclear reactions, the formation of the universe. Science is NEVER sure of almost anything, but the BEST fit hypothesis (or theory) must be used until a better one takes it's place. A scientific law is only a law until something better knocks it aside (ask Sir Isaac Newton about what Einstein's theory of relativity did to Newtonian physics.) Crichton does not offer a better theory (backed by the observed data), therefore I don't put as much store in his opinion as I do Al Gore. I trust Gore only so much as the scientists back him up, Crichton is backed by who (reps paid by big oil, anyone else)?

Care to state your position more clearly?

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

I don't think Crichton needs big oil to back him as he's probably a very wealthy man. One could convincingly argue that many of the organizations that back man's signficant role in global warming have a very strong leftist bent too. It's good to use the best hypothesis or equations, but when the equations are force fitted by data and fail to explain events, in essence breaking down because of discontinuities, it strongly suggest that the model has some deficiencies. There may be a consensus in the press, there may be one in the UN, but IMO impartial analysis of complex problems is not what drives organizations such as these.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

With all due respect Joe, I think you may be misunderstanding my posts or reading more into them they I intended to convey.



Yes, I am aware of that, and this is why I have tried to be careful about wording my posts in a way that avoids any direct mention of political views. I have never said what my own opinions of Global Warming are nor, have I accused either Gore or Crichton of being right or wrong in their conclusions. I've never mentioned anything about a "liberal conspiracy" I have mentioned, what I believe to be very apparent biases and elitism within the greater media and Hollywood, but I don't consider those terms to be the same, YMMV. I am not trying to push any kind of political agenda. I'm just calling it as I see it when an author whose many works I have enjoyed seems to be getting slammed by a lot of people for what I believe to be dissenting opinion regarding a very hot topic issue.



How do we know this?...Not trying to start an arguement, but I admit, I have not done the research so how do we know what the vast, vast majority of the scientific community thinks. Oh sure, I hear it on the news and read the papers. But, as you may have inferred, I don't trust the media to be objective, and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of dissenting opinion does get ignored. Let's not forget, there have been countless examples of things we "knew" throughout history. There have been many doomsday theories that have come and gone.

All I'm really trying to point out is that Crichton, by some in this thread, is being charged with being a shill for a certain "faction" (is this not an example of the political innuendo of which you speak?). Or, he's just simply a hack Ever since "State of Fear" was released, he has been vilified by many and I believe it is because he is going against the grain of popular opinion and "what we know" and it's an unfair double standard especially when it is based on a point that is quite inconclusive and obviously is debatable. Once again, I'm not saying who's right or wrong, but I think the judgement pronounced on this obviously intelligent man by many is quite unfair.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

I don't know about that. But certainly the Crichton defenders in this thread all seem to be doing so. I'll bet a million dollars that if Crichton's politics were different, his defenders would abandon him in a flash.

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

Perhaps the post wouldn't even have been made either?

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

Crichton's "politics" are actually quite liberal, except when it comes to GW. So exactly who is abandoning who?

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

And if his those politics were different I'd bet that his detractors would be a lot more supportive.

And let's just say for the sake of arguement that I am Right Leaning, by that logic, wouldn't that make me an opponent of like 99.5% of the entertainment world?

Re: Michael Crichton is a tool

You know, people, after suffering through three pages of this horrible thread I'm closing it down for the obvious reasons. If you have complaints, just PM me.