Hats off to Michael Crichton: 1942 - 2008

[SirPeale]

http://io9.com/5077354/jurassic-park-creator-michael-crichton-dies-unexpectedly

[Ed_McCarron]

Eaten by a dinosaur?

[SavannahLion]

Bummer, he was one of my favorite authors. The first book I ever read that he wrote was Jurassic Park. My mom used to be a member of a book ring where they would exchange books. This was one of the few SciFi books my mom actually bothered to read which she later handed off to me.

The rest of his work is really clean and, IMHO, very consistent and thorough. Not at all like the rubbish Stephen King has been writing.

[Mauzy]

Damn. He was the first "grown up" author I read (starting with Jurassic park of course, then Congo...). Ive read 11 of his books, and haven't found one I didn't like yet. He was just gory enough to keep attention without going nuts.

I can't even pick a favorite, it would prolly be between Congo, Timeline, Airframe, and Prey.....and Sphere.... possibly Next...

[SirPeale]

Timeline is one of my favorite books of all time.  I didn't like Prey.

[Daniel270]

Hmm... first Stan Winston, then Crichton...


Is Spielberg next?

[HaRuMaN]

Timeline is one of my favorite books of all time.  I didn't like Prey.

Prey?  Was that the one about the nano-machines?

I liked that one...

[shardian]

Chricton was  a true gem of a writer and thinker. His books not only were great, but they made you think. He was very convincing in making you think we really CAN create Dinosaurs, or time travel.

I saw a teaser preview for the Jurassic Park movie when I saw The Flintstones movie as a wee lad. I bought the book the next week at an Elementary book fair. Jurassic Park will probably always remain my best book and cinematic experiences ever.

After reading Timeline, I spent alot of time researching Quantum Theory. It was really neat stuff. The book was absolutely fantastic, but the movie sucked balls.

'Next' was the first ever audio book I have done. That ended up being a great listen. The parrot was great.


So to close, R.I.P. Michael Chrichton. You have brought many a smile to my face, and re-energized my imagination many times over like no other author could.

[Ed_McCarron]

He caught the Andromeda Strain, didn't he.

Shoulda drank more sterno.

[DaOld Man]

Crichton was a good author, no doubt.
I think Jurassic Park was the first book I read by him.
I then read Timeline, and all the other Jurassic Parks.

I agree, his books were good, but the movies sucked (compared to the books).
Best way to watch a Crichton movie is to not read the book first.
But this is true for King too. (Could "Needful Things" and "Dream Catcher" be any more worse than they were, compared to the books?)

Rest in peace, MC.

[SirPeale]

After reading Timeline, I spent alot of time researching Quantum Theory. It was really neat stuff. The book was absolutely fantastic, but the movie sucked balls.

Agreed.  The book was awesome.  The movie was an abomination.  If I were Crichton I would have had my name removed from it.

[shardian]

Crichton was a good author, no doubt.
I think Jurassic Park was the first book I read by him.
I then read Timeline, and all the other Jurassic Parks.

I agree, his books were good, but the movies sucked (compared to the books).
Best way to watch a Crichton movie is to not read the book first.
But this is true for King too. (Could "Needful Things" and "Dream Catcher" be any more worse than they were, compared to the books?)

Rest in peace, MC.

Dreamcatcher was a decent as a book -  I did the audio thing with it too - but it was one of the WORST movies I have ever seen.

Congo was definitely a bad movie when it comes to Chricton books. I also hated Lost World - mainly because it drifted WAAAY too far from the source material.

[Mauzy]

That's the reason I never bothered to watch the movies. Unless I hear otherwise, Id rather read the book.

[Zakk]

You never watched Jurassic Park?

[Mauzy]

You never watched Jurassic Park?

Nope. Part of it too was the timing. I was little when it came out and I wasn't the bravest child...

[AtomSmasher]

After reading Timeline, I spent alot of time researching Quantum Theory. It was really neat stuff. The book was absolutely fantastic, but the movie sucked balls.

Agreed.  The book was awesome.  The movie was an abomination.  If I were Crichton I would have had my name removed from it.

One thing that really bugged me about the book was that they weren't actually time travelling, they were essentially travelling to an alternate earth that is currently at a different period in it's timeline, which they go into detail explaining and is fine.  The problem comes from the fact that they found a "help me" sign from their teacher in the archaeological dig, which doesn't make sense because he travelled to an alternate earth, not the past of this current earth. 

The only way it makes sense is if there's an infinite loop of earths all going through the same exact motions, so back in this earths past, an alternate teacher from an alternate earth travelled to this earth and got stuck there and left the "help me" message.  This does solve the problem, but it's never brought up in the book, they just assume the message is from their teacher, and we shouldn't be forced to come up with theories to explain away major plot holes.

Other then that, great book.   

[Ummon]

Crichton wasn't a great writer, but he could write. The Lost World wasn't bad. Sphere was ridiculously horrible. None of his stuff was really original, but he was a genre writer.

[danny_galaga]

After reading Timeline, I spent alot of time researching Quantum Theory. It was really neat stuff. The book was absolutely fantastic, but the movie sucked balls.

Agreed.  The book was awesome.  The movie was an abomination.  If I were Crichton I would have had my name removed from it.

One thing that really bugged me about the book was that they weren't actually time travelling, they were essentially travelling to an alternate earth that is currently at a different period in it's timeline, which they go into detail explaining and is fine.  The problem comes from the fact that they found a "help me" sign from their teacher in the archaeological dig, which doesn't make sense because he travelled to an alternate earth, not the past of this current earth. 

The only way it makes sense is if there's an infinite loop of earths all going through the same exact motions, so back in this earths past, an alternate teacher from an alternate earth travelled to this earth and got stuck there and left the "help me" message.  This does solve the problem, but it's never brought up in the book, they just assume the message is from their teacher, and we shouldn't be forced to come up with theories to explain away major plot holes.

Other then that, great book.   

i liked the movie, but then i didnt read the book



JE SUIS UN ESPION!

so long michael...

[SavannahLion]

After reading Timeline, I spent alot of time researching Quantum Theory. It was really neat stuff. The book was absolutely fantastic, but the movie sucked balls.

Agreed.  The book was awesome.  The movie was an abomination.  If I were Crichton I would have had my name removed from it.

One thing that really bugged me about the book was that they weren't actually time travelling, they were essentially travelling to an alternate earth that is currently at a different period in it's timeline, which they go into detail explaining and is fine.  The problem comes from the fact that they found a "help me" sign from their teacher in the archaeological dig, which doesn't make sense because he travelled to an alternate earth, not the past of this current earth. 

The only way it makes sense is if there's an infinite loop of earths all going through the same exact motions, so back in this earths past, an alternate teacher from an alternate earth travelled to this earth and got stuck there and left the "help me" message.  This does solve the problem, but it's never brought up in the book, they just assume the message is from their teacher, and we shouldn't be forced to come up with theories to explain away major plot holes.

Other then that, great book.   

I like level III myself, but I haven't explored Level IV much. Anyhow, let's toy with it a little bit. If we assume each universe is cyclic then it can be assumed that each "Earth" can be at different stages of existence. If each plane must equate to an ever changing formula, then it becomes a matter of finding a universe that can accept an additional variable (the traveler/s) which explains the minor differences between the primary Universe and the secondary universes. The same theory definitely opens up the possibility of time travel, but never into our own past, which resolves the grandfather paradox very cleanly. Of course, that presents the problem of the individual variable being able to re-enter their own Universe seeing as how their own value and the equation for their original Universe has changed. An issue that Crichton only only hints at in passing in the book. 

We should be careful with that whole theorizing thing though. Dollars to donuts this conversation is going to attract the aluminum hats.   

[Ummon]

Wow, here's a brutal commentary by another author:


Climate crank Michael Crichton dies at 66

Dead of cancer. And a medical doctor, too. I hate to see people felled by this great scourge. I feel sorry for his family.

Still -- the guy missed an awesome chance to be snatched out of his writing-chair and torn to pieces in broad daylight by a freak climate-crisis windstorm. That might have made up for the harm he did. I'd like to say that Dr Crichton's contemptibly paranoid view of climate politics will be missed, but... well... I know that if I myself, as an imaginative novelist, am ever tempted to believe that flying saucers are real or that Sasquatch lives next door, his bracing example will give me the courage to look at myself in the mirror and demand -- "am I pulling some kind of Crichton here?"

Crichton fans are writing in and complaining that I'm cruel to his memory. In a word, no. And in a lot of words, you don't understand yet, but you will. Okay: the guy was a pretty good screenwriter. Also, there have been worse novels than some of his. Especially the novels that aren't paranoid tracts about atmospheric science. But Crichton's one with the ages -- and the judgment of history will be harsh for him. He truly blotted his copybook. His legacy as a writer, thinker and public figure is shameful. Someone needs to say it now, because someday everyone will. Get used to it.

If you can't bring yourself to believe that yet, ask again in ten years.

[shardian]

Wow, here's a brutal commentary by another author:


Climate crank Michael Crichton dies at 66

Dead of cancer. And a medical doctor, too. I hate to see people felled by this great scourge. I feel sorry for his family.

Still -- the guy missed an awesome chance to be snatched out of his writing-chair and torn to pieces in broad daylight by a freak climate-crisis windstorm. That might have made up for the harm he did. I'd like to say that Dr Crichton's contemptibly paranoid view of climate politics will be missed, but... well... I know that if I myself, as an imaginative novelist, am ever tempted to believe that flying saucers are real or that Sasquatch lives next door, his bracing example will give me the courage to look at myself in the mirror and demand -- "am I pulling some kind of Crichton here?"

Crichton fans are writing in and complaining that I'm cruel to his memory. In a word, no. And in a lot of words, you don't understand yet, but you will. Okay: the guy was a pretty good screenwriter. Also, there have been worse novels than some of his. Especially the novels that aren't paranoid tracts about atmospheric science. But Crichton's one with the ages -- and the judgment of history will be harsh for him. He truly blotted his copybook. His legacy as a writer, thinker and public figure is shameful. Someone needs to say it now, because someday everyone will. Get used to it.

If you can't bring yourself to believe that yet, ask again in ten years.

So who is the 'masterful novelist' who wrote that? I suppose he was just upset that such a mainstream writer didn't share his political views.

[HaRuMaN]

So who is the 'masterful novelist' who wrote that? I suppose he was just upset that such a mainstream writer didn't share his political views.

It appears to be Bruce Sterling... who I've never even heard of...  lol. 

[SavannahLion]

So who is the 'masterful novelist' who wrote that? I suppose he was just upset that such a mainstream writer didn't share his political views.

It appears to be Bruce Sterling... who I've never even heard of...  lol. 

I've never heard of him either and I thought myself a pretty decent SciFi fan. According to Wikipedia, his works seem to be primarily in the Cyberpunk vein.

IMHO, he comes off as a desperate ---uvula--- trying to come up with the next viral concept to permanently affix himself into mainstream society. Pretty sad.

[SavannahLion]

NVM delete me.

[Ummon]

The mainstream writer's audience is the person who buys books at the grocery store book isle. This audience generally doesn't appreciate (even in concept) history, literature, and science from even a quasi-technical perspective. Essentially, fantasy is what this audience enjoys, and hence they generally know very little to nothing of true science fiction (or, more appropriately, SF).

[shardian]

The mainstream writer's audience is the person who buys books at the grocery store book isle. This audience generally doesn't appreciate (even in concept) history, literature, and science from even a quasi-technical perspective. Essentially, fantasy is what this audience enjoys, and hence they generally know very little to nothing of true science fiction (or, more appropriately, SF).

When it comes to true Sci-Fi, there is Isaac Asimov and there is 'the rest'.

[Level42]

The mainstream writer's audience is the person who buys books at the grocery store book isle. This audience generally doesn't appreciate (even in concept) history, literature, and science from even a quasi-technical perspective. Essentially, fantasy is what this audience enjoys, and hence they generally know very little to nothing of true science fiction (or, more appropriately, SF).

When it comes to true Sci-Fi, there is Isaac Asimov and there is 'the rest'.

Mmmm, how about Jules Vernes, H.G. Wells and Dan Simmons ?

Simmons' Hyperion Cantos are the best books I've read. Makes LOTR a book for children....

But yes, Asimov is in a league of his own...

[patrickl]

As far as Sci-Fi writers go, how about Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clarke, Frank Herbert and Philip Dick? I guess Douglas Adams doesn't count, but still.

[HaRuMaN]

Not to mention Piers Anthony...

[shardian]

Asimov?  Ugh.  Got caught up in his own cult of genius far too early.

Where do you get this ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---? You act like you have written a doctoral thesis on his works or something. The guy was writing technically accurate Sci-Fi when your parents weren't even born. I just can't believe you make posts like this and then have the nerve to get on Chad's case for being 'all-knowing'.

[Ummon]

Asimov and Clarke and Heinlein were just the three who happened to be the most published in the Golden Age of science fiction. There were many others, some actually better story tellers, who just didn't get the favor of the publishers. Regardless, to comprehend and appreciate their tales and styles, one needs to read from a perspective of the era.

Certainly by the 60s, there were other authors coming about who were more appropriate for the time and sense of things. By the late 70s and on through the 80s (even holding through the 90s), there were several new authors who assumed the top ranks, and this happened again in the 90s with authors like Peter F. Hamilton and Iain Banks (Banks is actually a cross-genre writer, who was first published in the mid-80s, but whose SF came out and matured in the 90s), yet still there were many (indeed, many of these, female writers) who filled the background, not necessarily less capable, just not as popular.

(And though this decade there has been a new generation of writers, under 40, who may offer a lot. I don't know because I haven't really read any of them.)

However, it could be argued that some of these top writers did epitomize SF. Some of them are still prolific. Greg Bear is one of them.

Simmons is beyond SF, as his literary bent is somewhat classical in nature, not just in the particular style he approaches in a novel, but in how he portrays characters and themes.