Alright, I've waited to review this book long enough. The fact is, I waited so long because I could never find enough hate filled words to accurately describe my opinion of this book. However I don't think I'll ever find them, so here it goes. A new goodreads friend asked me why I hate Michael Crichton. I decided I'll post my response here as my review:As for Crichton, well it's kind of a long story. I'll tell you, but I'll understand if you choose to skip it. You'll notice that Jurassic Park and Time Line are still some of my favorite books, but he really lost me with his "State of Fear." It's not just that he is a climate change denier, but more that he completely and totally misrepresents and LIES about science in the process, then claims that he is the only person without an agenda. And even though it is a work of fiction, he makes sure to emphasize that he is writing about the truth in an afterward.I'll give you a specific example. In State of Fear he calls out a lot of "real" research on climate change. One of the arguments he makes is that climate models are not even close to accurate and then he shows a graph from a peer reviewed publication from several years ago that modeled current climate and was grossly incorrect. Then he basically said "see, climate models are inaccurate." But, if you look at the publication he supposedly took it from, the author had 3 possible climate models-one that shows predicted climate if there was a dramatic decrease in carbon emissions, one, the most likely one, shows predicted climate if there was no change in carbon emissions and one that showed what the climate would look like if there was a dramatic increase in carbon emissions. The author stated that this model was incredibly unlikely. Still, this is the only graph Michael Crichton put in his book, claiming that the author exaggerated the effects of climate change. The most likely graph was actually incredibly accurate.Further, his entire shitty book is one straw man argument after another, with a ridiculous plot and characters. Every person in his book that believes climate change is happening is a caricature. He has a naive grad student, who learns better once someone explains to her the "truth," a hypocrite actor that preaches for environmental causes but rides in a private jet and has a huge house, a greedy lawyer and environmental groups that profit from the belief in climate change. The characters that don't believe in climate change are suave government agents in nice suits that basically go around and school everyone about how climate change is a farce.The "plot" is that the environmental groups (terrorists, of course) are going to blow things up (like a piece of Antarctica and glaciers) and create fake tsunamis and such in order to prove that climate change is real so that they can get protection and money from the government. That's right, they are going to destroy the environment and alter the weather so that they can get money and support to stop the destruction of the environment and a changing climate. ????What finally got me though was his claim that stopping DDT use ended up causing more cases of malaria and implied that Rachael Carson (he never said her name, but you knew who it was) was responsible for the death of thousands of children. This hit home because now he's in MY field. Climate science is not my area of expertise, but biology IS. As Rachael Carson points out in "Silent Spring" (I noticed it's in your to-read list-yay!) using DDT just selects for DDT resistant mosquitoes, who reproduce and have immunity against our pesticide. Plus, since the chemical kills other animals as well, it kills off the natural predators of the mosquitoes, and since prey items always reproduce faster than their predator counterparts, populations of mosquitoes actually greatly increased in areas where DDT was used after a period of 2-3 years. Rachael Carson cites REAL studies. Not to mention in "The Coming Plague" the author explains in detail the work of scientists in Bolivia, where using DDT killed off the birds of prey and many cats, causing an increase in rat populations that allowed the deadly spread of a hemorrhagic disease. This type of misinformation is what I'm constantly fighting against on a daily basis (through my job). I have heard many of Crichton's arguments repeated back to me and it drives me insane. I've even heard people talking about it on the bus. Look at the reviews for this book! How many people have been taken in and feel as if they're more informed because they've read it. It's disgusting. What worse is that everything he says has a hint of truth in it. It's believable. It makes sense, on the surface, that ending the use of a pesticide that kills mosquitoes would increase malaria. It's so easy to believe if you don't know more about it. Anyway, if you doubt anything I just said, just pick up the book. You'll be shocked at what you read. I don't know that you'll be able to stomach it long enough to finish it (I read over 600 pages of it, but stopped 70 pages before the end. I just couldn't go on; it was making me sick.)I don't know what happened to Crichton, but it was an incredible disappointment. I used to like his writing, too. But I can't forgive this pack of lies that has aided in ignorance on such a grand scale.End of Michael Crichton rant. On to a happier place with better books.
اشتريت هذا الكتاب منذ يومين.لا أميل عادة إلى هذا النوع من الكتب، رغم أنها من أظهر أنواع الأدب الحديث، أي الأدب الذي صنع خصيصا ً لإمتاع القارئ، ولأنه كذلك فهذا الأدب يتميز بميزة مهمة، وهي أنه أدب سهل، سريع، يمكن أن يقرأ في أي مكان، وأي زمان، أي قارئ متعمق سيبتعد عن هذا النوع، فنحن نكره المباشرة، نكره السطحية والسرعة، نريد أدبا ً معقدا ً، ليس لأننا نعشق التعقيد، ولكن لأن الحياة معقدة، كل شيء يبدو بسيطا ً، هو نتاج ظروف وعوامل متداخلة، متشابكة تتوه فيها أعظم العقول، فلذا نحن نعشق الأدب الذي يأخذنا إلى تلكم المناطق المتداخلة.ولكننا نعرف جيدا ً، أن أدبا ً كهذا يحتاج إلى بال صافٍ، وإلى وقت، فلذا عندما نفقد الوقت، ونكون من النوع الذي لا يتوقف عن القراءة، من النوع الذي جعل القراءة جزءً كبيراً من حياته، بحيث أن مرور يومين من دون كتاب يعادل كارثة شخصية، عندها تأتي أهمية هذا النوع من الكتب، أنت تعرف أنها سهلة، أنها لن ترهقك، فلذا تشتريها، تضعها بجانب فراشك، وعندما تعود ليلا ً، مرهقا ً، قضمت منك الهموم أشياءً، وجمد البرد فيك أشياءً أخرى، عندها تريد ذلك الدفء الذي يرفق بأعضائك، تريد تلك الحروف السهلة التي تأخذك إلى وادي النوم، تتداخل الحروف بسرعة، وتسقط نائماً، وعندما تنهض في الصباح، لا تشعر بأي ندم، الكتاب ليس مهماً جداً بحيث تخشى أنه سيفقد قيمته مع كل هذه القراءة المتقطعة المتداخلة، كما أنه يعدك بأن يكون مشوقاً، فلذا ربما يفلح في تصفية بالك.مشكلة هذه الكتب أنها غير محظوظة، فصفاء البال والفراغ يأتيان سريعاً، فلذا تجد هذه الكتب نفسها نصف مقروءة عادة، وتخلي مكانها لكتب أكثر أهمية.------------- وبعد الانتهاء من قراءة الكتاب ---------------------حالة رعبكنت قد كتبت عندما حصلت على هذا الكتاب، أنني سأقرؤه بنصف بال، لأنني لا أمتلك وقتا ً ولا ذهنا ً صافيا ً، ولكن الأخوة مشكورين نصحوني بقراءة معمقة لأن الكتاب مختلف.والآن وأنا اختتم الكتاب، أجد بالفعل أنه لا يناسب المشغولين، فحجمه الكبير وموضوعه يحتاجان إلى صفاء أكثر، ولكنني أختلف مع الأخوة حول أهميته، أو حول اعتباره مرجعا ً، الكتاب يلعب أحد أدوار الرواية بامتياز، وهو دور إثارة الاهتمام حول موضوع معين، بحيث نندفع لقراءات جادة حول الموضوع، ولكنه للأسف يخفق في الجانب الآخر، ألا وهو إثارة الاهتمام بالقصة نفسها، فيما يلجأ المؤلف لإظهار الصراع العلمي والسياسي حول موضوع البيئة بشكل عام، والاحتباس الحراري بشكل أخص إلى الحوارات التي يجريها بين أبطالها، حيث يضمنها وجهات النظر المختلفة، ويناقش الأفكار والأطروحات من خلالها.الكتاب بشكل عام جيد، ولكن كان يمكنه أن يكون أجود، والأهم هو أنه يثير القارئ للبحث في قضايا، ربما لم يكن يعلم أنها مثار الجدل علميا ً، حيث حولتها الدعاية الكبيرة والقوية إلى قضايا شبه محسومة ومتفق عليها.
What do You think about State Of Fear (2005)?
If you've read many of my reviews you know it's not unusual for me to open a review with something like "This is an interesting book" or simply "Interesting". That applies here also.I looked through some of the other reviews of this book and I find that in many if not most cases the "number of stars in the rating" depends heavily on whether you agree with the stance of the main character (or one of the main characters, Kenner is the spokesman in most of the narratives but the protagonist is Evans). Anyway...where was I? Oh, Yeah. The book's story telling isn't bad and while I've read better by Crichton, I've also read worse. I did get involved with the plot and liked the characters fairly well (though Peter did gripe me a bit for a while. The thing is he was supposed to so I really can't complain). I found the objections raised by several other reviewers to be unfounded, the book is pretty good...and since I largely agree with it, I gave it a bump from 3.5 to 4 stars. The book itself deals with the global warming controversy. The main character is a lawyer (sorry attorney) working for a large environmental organization. During the course of the book buried (or scattered) amidst the book's plot are dialogs and discussions about said controversy. AND YES the book's point is that much that is assumed about global warming is just that, assumed. While it is the case that if an author wants to make a point and he's writing both sides of a conversation the cards are a bit stacked in his favor, here Crichton does a fairly credible job of offering objections. (though from the other reviews I've read some disagree with me.) I've run on many of the things said here and I've experience situations like the ones pictured in the book. It would have been easy for Crichton to have indulged in Straw Man arguing, mostly he avoids this. The picture of these debates (and the people who try to prove the unprovable and when they can't mostly refuse to acknowledge reality is real. I know some of them) sets the backdrop for a story of environmental terrorists who set out to engineer environmental disasters. From this they will establish credibility...and get money from donors. In retrospect I can see why reviewers in sympathy with said position might not care for the book. So, be aware and if you're basically a global warming zealot maybe you give this one a pass. If on the other hand you think the evidence for human caused global warming may have been somewhat overstated (like Nobel Prize winner Dr. Ivar Giaever who "quit" the America Physics Society over their stance that the evidence was "incontrovertible" with which he "strongly" disagreed) or if you consider yourself to still be undecided, maybe you try the book. Hey the story's pretty good. The arguments aren't bad (though I see some who disagree with me there...wonder why?) In other words, not a bad read and at times pretty good. There's a nice unusual murder weapon and some satisfying action to go with the debates. Enjoy...if it's your cup of tea.
—Mike (the Paladin)
This book was intriguing to me. It is not what I would consider my normal genre, but the student I tutored last year did a report on Michael Crichton and this book was in a lot of the research we did. I had no idea Michael Chrichton was so multi-talented. Anyway, my husband had listened to this book on CD while driving, and really enjoyed it, so I picked it off the shelf. Once I started reading, I had trouble stopping for food, drink, bathroom breaks, or even sleep. (This is the reason I can only read in the summer.) State of Fear shows many viewpoints on global warming and the environmental movement. I got a little defensive at the beginning as the data and plotline seemed to go against environmentalists. However, as I read on, I struggled with how much of the book is fact and how much is fiction. The plot got a little over done for me in the end (like a John Wayne movie- every good guy dodging the bullets of machine guns and killing 10 of the bad guys singlehandedly without a weapon), but the book provoked some interesting discussions in my house. In the Author's Notes at the end:"I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes. Ideologues and zealots don't." I am not sure this book should be anyone's only source of information on this topic, but it might spark your interest enough to have you look elsewhere.
—Rachel
For those who haven't had the time nor the inclination to dig into the debate over anthropomorphic global warming, State of Fear is a great intro. Crichton's unique hybrid of fiction thriller and scientific apologetics for those who express doubts over the human origins of our planet's warming climate is gripping; it's also i petit legal drama for those who like that angle.I now smile whenever I hear a broadcaster on NPR refer assumingly to the man-made phenomenon of global warming. And if you want another contemporary issue that exhibits the dangers of politicized science, look no further than the debates raging in town halls, legislatures and even in the SCOTUS over human sexuality.
—Elliott
