science fact

The first thing that caught my eye when I started reading was the line which claimed that "Footnotes are real". The idea is that even though this is a work of fiction, it is based in fact. Michael Crichton writes blending fact and fiction together in such a way that it may become difficult to remember what is real. I mean, of course the characters and situations are fake (as even Crichton admits), but is the science real? That's what the footnote comment appears to imply.

On page 54 of my copy, we encounter a scientist being pressured to more or less rewrite the facts which he has observed, that global warming is not being observed in Iceland (accompanied by a footnote). The scientist character argues over what the "reality" is and what he is being encouraged to write about. This immediately makes the reader wonder. We all accept global warming as a fact. Is it possible that maybe the data is being misreported or misrepresented when it doesn't match what "they" want us to know? I guess this is like Latour's black boxing- we know global warming is happening, but we don't know very much of the process behind how we know. Crichton points this out to us throughout the book.

It becomes clear as the book goes on that there is a lot behind what we think about global warming. It's not just an issue about the environment; politics, public opinion, and money is also involved; a hybrid issue, in Crichton's opinion. It's interesting because it seems, at times, that Crichton wants to be above the fray, an observer who has no agenda, as the post below me mentions, other than to tell the truth. In my opinion, however, he is definitely another part of the hybrid he sees.

As far as writing, Michael Crichton's writing is basically in the style of most any thriller. The beginning chapters with POV changes every few pages confused me and left me distraught, a little like some of his other books. It's not till you're nearly 100 pages in that you know who the throwaway characters are and who to pay attention to. None of the characters appear to have any depth thus far, and I'm not feeling particularly concerned for anyone.

The sentences are usually short, probably to give a "tense" feeling to the book. The women are all described in terms of how sexy they are. Non-white characters are often described as being "dark and _____", like "the man watched him, dark and watchful" (not a direct quote from the book, but you get the point). Basically, it's not great writing, but it reads very quickly, perfect for airplanes or something.

In terms of how it works as science fiction, that's actually kind of interesting to me. I think that a lot of sci-fi can be cautionary in nature, the idea that someday we'll go too far. Michael Crichton appears to think that we'll be just fine, and that it's the people who caution us that we need to be worried about. In his own words, "I suspect that the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy ... I don't think we have to worry about them."

He also utilizes a huge bibliography for a work of fiction, which I think is supposed to lend him some credibility- the idea that he did significant research in science fact before writing science fiction. Several of his other books have also had short notes on the facts... Terminal Man (don't judge me) has 5 pages of bibliography, but State of Fear has nearly 30, which doesn't even include appendices I and II.