In some odd way this book is humbling, even though it is also ridiculous and dramatic. What do we really know and why and how? It also gives me insight into my dad’s strange political turns since he retired and started hanging out with a new crowd in a small town Wisconsin.
This blog post is really list-y, but it’s what I’ve got for you today:
______________
front:
I began the book noting that there was going to be a Billy Joel song somewhere within its 714 pages, and also that the “Footnotes are real.” I read through the praise from a diverse group of publications and was surprised--though was happy to learn I would soon be more fun at cocktail parties.
back:
I made it through p. 543 so far and peeked at Appendix 1---he sets up a scenario similar to this book, in which science brainwashes everyone, and it turns out to be a reference to eugenics and anti-immigration policy. So I guess if by the end of the book I don’t agree with him, I probably am also likely to be convinced to do things like kill the babies of “inferior” people.
______________
women:
Within the first 10 pages, I thought, wow, what cliche and nauseating male-female dynamics so far. As I read on I decided to list all the female characters, just to see who was there. I think I have all the women in the first 400 pages here (maybe all of them in general but I may have been distracted by ice crevasses):
-femme fatale/trickster/murderer
-gossipy secretary
-tall beautiful blondes to entertain a rich man
-dumb mistress who flaunts her body
-hard-bodied sex athlete
-secretary who fakes illness so she can go home early
-tall, blonde glamorous assistant in tennis skirt, unsentimental, with a gun (She’s beautiful when she’s angry, did you know that?) “ice blonde”
-flight attendant, “sweetie”
-30 year old rich man’s daughter, coke addict
-secretary
-lawyer in charge of focus group, also a killer, good at karate, beautiful
-a group of older women in sun hats
-land lady
-comedian’s wife
-(actresses?)
-beautiful wife who sits on boards
-flight attendant
-girl who looks like a receptionist
-woman in skirt in distance above waterfall
He also works in the dynamic of men and women fighting over the remote. (What a regular guy!) (p. 267)
______________
lawyers:
He capitalizes quite a bit on lawyer stereotypes--they are “smart” but not street-smart, not able to fix things or figure out how to handle real-life practical situations. This creates a nice blue collar/white collar divide. (Though I’m still not sure where Kenner fits in exactly, sort of a MacGyver intellectual?)
He spends a lot of time pointing out how someone supposedly “smart,” a lawyer with lots of schooling, may actually know nothing at all (pages 422-424)
“There was no question in his mind that she was dead.” “He was sure she was dead.” “She was dead, all right” On 424--She’s NOT Dead! And if he hadn’t done CPR, contrary to his belief that she was dead, she would have been dead. This reinforces the idea that a well-educated person is easily mislead, and can take something for Truth or certainty that is not at all true. Also (448) they are trained to only really worry about malpractice, getting fired, getting in trouble themselves, not what is really true or right. And they whine.
pacifists:
Pacifists or those against violence likely are naive and suburban-raised. If they knew what real life was like out there, they would want to fight. (448)
movie stars:
He capitalizes on anti-Hollywood sentiment, with the Ted Bradley character being an arrogant buffoon who quotes talking points and really just wants attention and a great-fitting t-shirt. And rides around in a SUV Limo.
intellectuals:
Universities aren’t even smart enough to prevent a fake scientist from using their money and identities to set up a fake research base/terrorist act in Antarctica. No one at these research institutions is even paying attention. (p. 250-251)
government:
The government isn’t paying attention: “Because government oversight of foundations and charities is extraordinarily lax. They don’t get audited. The books don’t get inspected. Environmental groups in the US generate half a billion dollars a year. What they do with it is unsupervised.” (229)
news media:
The news media and its weathermen don’t report news, they just read press releases. (454)
___________________
legitimation:
seeing through common knowledge--”everyone knows” (Peter Evans, first many, many pages, the movie star, etc.); legitimation through high-profile funding; Kenner legitimated by being able to poke holes in others’ arguments; Crichton legitimated by being able to provide lots of footnotes; the Vanuatu lawsuit people trying to legitimate themselves by having fancy offices with lots of researchers; legitimation through the words of confident-sounding movie stars; legitimation through reinforcement by your peer group; legitimation by book reviewers; legitimation through state of emergency; legitimation through quoting Mark Twain and George Orwell; legitimation through having tons of graphs
Seeing Devices:
graphs, graphs and more graphs; newscasts & weathermen, seeing by going somewhere and looking with your eyes; seeing by daily experience--“it’s cold here.” “it’s hot out.”;
Issue Selection:
the conference and accompanying park disaster to select the issue of global warming;
Canadians:
Whatever you do, do NOT trust Canadians.
evil:
Lastly: There are bad people in the world and they need to be stopped. (449)
I read Kenner basically as Crichton's dream-self--smarter and sexier than the rest.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting is how Crichton nearly topples every institution the average American might trust--science, politics, news media, spokespeople, Canadians. In their place, he gives us (and Peter Evans) a simple authority--Kenner. Just Kenner. Believe what Kenner tells you.
When read that way, it comes off as more diabolical than Crichton ever intended. Or DOES IT? (dun dun DUN)
I have yet to read past page 350, so maybe another institution is coming...I dunno.
I'm still waiting for Kenner to turn out to be some sort of villain, triple tricking us all. And where is that lady in the leather skirt?
ReplyDeleteI feel the same was as Holly, it just seems like Crichton is living vicariously through his John Kenner character. He's just too perfect and flawless, it's starting to bug me. If Crichton does indeed make Kenner into some kind of bad guy in the end, I bet a lot of us will be thinking, "well THAT'S a huge surprise....not."
ReplyDeleteI wanted to touch on the part of your post that talks about how the women in the book are unbelievably cliched so far. I know other people have posted about this before as well, but I definitely made a mental note at how the women were first introduced and described - sexualized within the first sentence practically - while the men's descriptions are less detailed on their physique, but more focused on their social status, intelligence, wealth, and power. And of course we get a play-by-play of the hormone-driven thoughts that the male characters are having while they're simply in the presence of one of the beautiful women.
This instant stereotypical male-female dynamic is what made me think that Crichton mainly intended for this book to be geared towards a more male audience. Not saying women can't still enjoy the book, I sure do, it's just predictable and stereotypical character roles that Crichton plays into that make the book less believable for me, and keep me reminded that the entire thing is a work of fiction. (Even if the footnotes are real!)
I love that you summarized the female characters, every time Crichton introduced a new one I was just baffled by the silliness. I couldn't really get into these characters probably because Crichton's brain is just a random stereotype generator.
ReplyDeleteThis also brought two points to mind
You mentioned the "everyone knows" legitimation, which I thought was really silly as well. Every time Evans is asked about global warming he just basically says "well duh, everyone believes in it so it must be true". Crichton could not have made the defendants of global warming in this book more idiotic. He was pointing to a fairly real problem - a lot of people "believe" in global warming but don't really know what it is. But not including the defense of those who both believe in it and understand the science.
I agree with the previous posters as well - this book is sort of housing Crichton's ego, super ego and id. Like Robin said, baddest babes with guns and men with giant penises. He wants to be fighting a righteous war against misinformation, science, and us silly liberals who just believe in stuff, dude, and he wants to be doing it in a James Bond film, or Black Dynamite.
And his footnotes were pretty disappointing, if you ask me. I was expecting them to be all over the place, expecting he'd construct this really tight, awesome argument for his case which includes a refutation of the defense of Global Warming but... I suppose thats hard to do given that, as a previous poster noted, very very few scientists argue against GW.
Hmph. I do agree, it is pretty entertaining to read, but maybe as a study of Crichton's character more than anything.