State of Fear
category: science fiction, author:
Michael Crichton
published by HarperCollins, original copyright 2004, read in April 2010
Agamedes' opinion: 6 out of 10
Is this really -- as I have categorised it --
science fiction? The blurb on the back calls it a "techno-thriller"... According to Macquarie dictionary, a
thriller deals with crime (etc) "in an exciting or sensational manner."
State of Fear certainly does that. Wikipedia references another website to state that, "A thriller is villain driven plot, whereby he presents obstacles the hero must overcome." With the added criteria that the hero, "must thwart the plans of more powerful and better equipped villains."
Yes, it's exciting. Yes, it's sensational. But there is no "hero"; the story revolves around a "protagonist", who barely knows what's going on and, mostly, just follows instructions from stronger characters. Speaking of whom... the villains are powerful and well equipped -- but the good guys are even more so! The good guys are able to call on money, technology and knowledge which, frankly, makes the villains look like second-rate wimps.
Loosely speaking, this book could be a "thriller". I prefer to label it as "action".
Then there's science fiction: "which draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc" (Macquarie). With, as Wikipedia adds, "a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief", where the reader reads for enjoyment and does not question the science. (Although in "hard" science fiction the science should, at least, be plausible if viewed at some not-too-distant period into the future.)
State of Fear is definitely science fiction. The science is central to the plot and is backed by references to what I guess are actual, scientific papers. Though Crichton admits that some of the action -- guiding a storm, for example -- is still just a theory. So, yes, science fiction.
What the book really is, though, is a rant against environmental activists who exaggerate environmental threats. Exaggeration which includes the use of limited "evidence" to support their scare tactics.
Which is interesting, really. Since Crichton does exactly the same.
Science fiction...
Crichton presents, in this book, lots of references to "prove" his case. He makes no pretense at showing the
range of arguments, for and against. "Here is," he says, "
One paper which supports my view. Therefore... my view is right." Rubbish!
He also has some appalling lapses in logic:
In Appendix 1, Why Politicized Science is Dangerous -- the author's own argument, not just a part of a fictional novel -- Crichton discusses the way in which scientists follow politics. The scientists, apparently, follow political thought, even though no external pressure has been applied.
Crichton quotes from research which states that scientists in pre-World War 2 Germany had "adjusted their research interests" to suit Nazi policies, even though "no external pressure can be documented." Having stated that scientists voluntarily followed Nazi policies, Crichton then adds, "And those few who did not adjust disappeared."
"Disappeared"!? Why did they "disappear"?! Could it be, perhaps, that their non-compliance was noted -- and these scientists were forced to disappear? Were they, in fact, killed?
You are a scientist. A fellow scientist disagrees with Nazi policies. That fellow scientist "disappears" -- presumed dead. And Crichton does not see this as evidence of "external pressure" on scientists...
Crichton takes a point of view. States evidence that directly contradicts that point of view. And does not even recognise it.
Yes, State of Fear is a rant in science fiction format.
Unfortunately, the book is also half filled with various characters spouting Crichton's one-eyed views. Shades of Robert Heinlein!
... action packed adventure
Still, like Heinlein, Crichton can write an entertaining, action-packed, science fiction novel. The characters fly around the world, defeating villainous plots, getting in various degrees of danger, flying in the face of logic...
The protagonist deliberately leaves his bugged mobile phone in the villain's office. Later, he checks his messages. Later still, he switches his mobile back on, to catch up on what's been happening. All without ever getting his phone back from the villain's office!
The good guys finally manage to identify the location for the final confrontation. They make a last-minute dash to save the world (or California, at least). They battle cannibal rebels -- to demonstrate that the concept of "the noble savage" is entirely false. Having arrived on the spot with only two hours to spare -- they meet up with another good guy who had been there for more than a week! Why didn't he phone?!
Oh yes... Then, having battled the cannibals, wiped out the bad guys, destroyed all means of transport... the good guys apparently just walk back past the cannibals. There are three people carrying two others who are near-death, a journey which was apparently near-impossible, in full health, on the way out. A journey which is now so simple that it is not even worth a paragraph.
Switch off your logical faculties. Sit back, read, enjoy...
If only it were set off the Earth, I would have added the category, "space opera".
..o0o..
These reviews are provided by Agamedes Consulting. For an independent and thoughtful review of your processes, problems or documents,
email nickleth at gmail dot com. |
Afterthought
This book is a lot of fun. Totally ridiculous action, but a lot of fun. Its problem is with the author's tone: a strong attack on "accepted" views of environmental threat. Crichton treats his own barely supported views as gospel. Widely accepted, opposing views are -- in his opinion -- unbelievably stupid and naive.
It is difficult to read this book without feeling either stupid or insulted.
Yet some of Crichton's espoused opinions are -- possibly -- sound. Why does he do his best to set the reader offside?
Let me suggest...
Why insult the reader? Why write a book with such a simplistic plot? Why throw in supposed solutions in just a few pages in the last chapter? Rather than being totally negative -- why not take a more positive view?
Crichton claims (in the last paragraph) that he knows all the answers to environmental problems. He took the easy approach and simply attacked every other idea. He could have set himself a real challenge -- and written a more readable book -- with a positive approach to his ideas of solutions...
In the final chapter, Crichton sets the protagonist and his partner a challenge, to run an effective environmental support group. Now that sounds like the basis for a good book: Set up the group, tackle a major environmental issue, face challenges -- and overcome them!
I compared Crichton to Heinlein. Crichton states his views, insults the reader and throws in a lot of unbelievable action. Heinlein states his views -- and has his characters implement them. If Crichton had done that he could have made his points -- very strongly -- and written a more enjoyable book.
