|
I'm taking a hint from a few posts in recent threads: this response is me trying to write solely as a member. This isn't modness, and it isn't policy at all.
I'm not really sure which political persuasion I subscribe to, but I'm going to be really, really honest here. Crichton's characterization of his critic is a low and juvenile blow. That's obvious. But who would want to discuss anything with the authors of the first couple of posts in this thread?? Guys, I know your feelings are genuine, but it really looks like you're starting threads and attempting to mark your territory by pissing all over them. Honestly, how could presentation like that invite serious or rational discussion with anyone who didn't already agree with you?
I read Crichton's latest book. As a work of fiction, it's crap. As a work of science, it's also crap. However the whole thing is just a vehicle for making a couple of points about the absurd state of patent law and genetics. He's completely open about this, and even has a prologue where he drops the guise of fiction-writer. State of Fear was certainly a lopsided work, but I'm not really entirely sure which party or philosophy Next supports. Maybe (in addition to being extraordinarily thin-skinned and juvenile) the guy is using what scientific credibility he has in conjunction with his enormous popular appeal to a) make a tall stack of cash, and b) stimulate some public awareness of issues that are strikingly one-sided in the "intellectual" world. That's what it looks like to me.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|