On of the most alarming exchanges of dialogue in Crichton's State of Fear, for me anyways, was on page 470 when:
Kenner says, "If you oppose the death penalty, does it mean that you support doing nothing about crime?"
"No," Ted said.
"You can oppose the death penalty but still support punishing criminals."
"Yes. Of course."
"Then I can still say that global warming is not a threat, but still favor environmental controls, can't I?
"Yes, but it doesn't sound like you're saying that."
Kenneth sighed.
Crichton uses comparisons like this throughout the rhetoric of the State of Fear which have the effect of pushing my away from the plot and his characters because of their extreme assumptions. Comparing global warming to the death penalty seems rather extreme, and the connections seem sparse - there is whole line of questions that are raised about whether or not we "deserve" global warming, if global warming is the "be all, end all" of environmental issues, etc. Crichton seems to be writing for an audience that won't question his authority - which he legitimizes by using an array of "evidence" - though a lot of these sources are actually solid evidence in favor of the existence of man-made global warming rather than not (for more specifics - he uses this study incorrectly in his downplay of the evidence for global warming). He certainly did his homework, with pages and pages of different sources, graphics, and footnotes, yet it all seems like he is ignoring the facts - though this came out in 2004, I remember most scientists being in agreement that humans have added to global climate change (though we all know Bush didn't, or the MN GOP).
Despite his misuse of "evidence," and to get to State of Fear has a literary text (instead of a science text), Crichton's book seems oversimplified, especially when it comes to characters. Plot "twists" like Evans and Jones being the romantic pair were tediously obvious - and the fact that Evans is portrayed as an "underdog" character by being shy and having authority figures like Morton in his life (even though Evans is a hotshot lawyer turned global secret agent...) seem too good (or bad) to be true. The terrorists are associated with complex technology, as opposed to the team of global warming naysayers, which has the affect of me almost siding with the terrorists who have a strong grasp of actual science (let's face it, the terrorists were smart and could kill people in pretty awesome ways) - which was a weird juxtaposition of legitimization. Worst of all, Evans also seems to be the "guide" character in to the dialogue of State of Fear because he isn't an extremist and seems to have some reason/logic, unlike a majority of the characters of the novel. I didn't have a strong connection to Evans because of my relationship to the rhetoric of the State of Fear, which I believe drastically thwarted any chance of me liking the novel.
After doing a bit of research in to the novel, Crichton had serious intervention in to the global warming debate - even testifying to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I was shocked to read this. People actually (people including real U.S. Senators) looked to Crichton as a scientific or authoritative source on global warming. This is my least favorite part of the book - the "hybrid" effect. If Crichton had simply wrote the novel without the scientific legitimizers of evidence, footnotes, and fancy graphics, people would more likely take the novel for what it is: a New York Times best selling science fiction thriller, and not a scholastic or academic work created by someone with an actual grasp of the science she/he is writing about. Therein lies the dangers of the book, and its something that tarnishes my ideas of Crichton.
Granted, Jurassic Park is still an awesome movie (insert Goldblum-ing joke).
Eric Best
Hi Eric, I also found that this work of fiction was used as a form of legitimate evidence in Senate hearings and influential environmental policy debates. This shows me how politicians are willing to take everything that they can in order to fulfill their agendas. Furthermore, it scares me that active environmental policies are being determined and shaped by politicians educated in elaborate speechmaking and the art of convincing; not the actual scientists and climate experts who are hard at work in the background. In addition, I was confused by what Crichton’s intentions were when writing this novel. Clearly, he did not want to create just an entertaining story. But if he wanted to make a point with his insertions and side-notes of statistical graphs and reports, I wonder why he hadn’t simply written a nonfiction book about his case against environmentalism? The hybrid of nonfiction and fiction is confusing, and it undermines the hard work that scientists actually invest in the topic by flinging their data in the midst of a melodramatic thriller and lowering the credibility of their hard-earned conclusions.
ReplyDeleteTo go against what you said I actually really liked the exchange that you pointed out. I get very weary of hearing and seeing people go head to head on the global warming debate. It seems like one side just shouts that the world is ending and the other side shouts that it's not. Looking at it, with the death penalty analogy, is a good way to help bring balance to the debate and have some people accept that either way something is happening and it's good to be conscious about where our environment is. And just to clarify I'm not saying global warming is at all the same sort of issue as the death penalty, just that it can help us see things in a new light.
ReplyDeleteI think that what you said and your connection to the politicians is extremely accurate and very disturbing. As Jeehye stated it really does say something about the agendas and power that politicians can have. The scientists work really seems to only present one side or the other and I think that this topic is a lot more indepth than that.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jeehye's reply, I believe that Crichton chose fiction as a medium precisely because of his desire to weave fact and fiction into a convincing narrative. If Crichton had decided to stick to nonfiction, he would be limited in the kinds of claims he could make, which would weaken the overall story that he wants to tell. In order to convince the public of his position on climate change, it is useful for Crichton to be able to depict all environmentalists as greedy, stupid, evil, or misinformed, in contrast to the integrity and courage of characters like Kenner. For many readers, Crichton's work could draw them into the climate change debate at an emotional level that scientific writing could not accomplish. Crichton's audience is not the scientific community, it is people without significant scientific training who would be much more likely to read a work of fiction than nonfiction. In the same way that Ayn Rand, through books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, inspired a wave of thinkers that maintain a strong presence in mainstream economic discourse today, Crichton uses fiction to gain hold of public consciousness at a deep emotional level.
ReplyDeleteCrichton used fiction because it was effective. The American Geophysical Union states, "We have seen from encounters with the public how the political use of State of Fear has changed public perception of scientists, especially researchers in global warming, toward suspicion and hostility." Crichton's goal is to remove funding from climate research, and spend it on things that he believe will be more beneficial for the economy. State of Fear worked to create public pressure on U.S. politicians to withdraw support for legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.
Like many novels written to get a point across, State of Fear's plot and character development are thin and cliche, with lots of loose ends and cheap devices. The analogy that Kenner makes between global warming and the death penalty is annoying not because it is extreme, but because it is a poor analogy. Someone who opposes the death penalty STILL BELIEVES THAT CRIME EXISTS. A more accurate analogy would have been if Kenner had asked Ted something like "You can believe that rape is not a problem in your society and yet still support apprehension and punishment of criminals for other crimes, right?" Or, if he wanted to keep the original statement about the death penalty ("You can oppose the death penalty but still support punishing criminals."), Crichton could have had Kenner say "Then I can oppose extreme legislation to regulate CO2 emissions while still supporting justifiable environmental regulations." As the passage reads in the book, however, it doesn't really make sense.
MY literary challenge is to explain how, over and over, stuff I KNOW is pure crap, and whose crapi-ness I notice while I'm reading it STILL gets read and works on me. It's almost a Pinker / Oggadamm effect: like it's my genetic disposition to like crappy novels....
ReplyDelete