Global warming (or climate change) is such a fascinating issue. I don’t really have any position on it, however. I simply haven’t reviewed the science and don’t feel like I could make an informed decision. Unlike Peter Evans, I don’t feel comfortable with going with conventional wisdom just because.
The seeing device used in this book is a complete inversion from life as I know it. The majority of characters reject the idea of global warming, where as the few who embrace the idea are looked down upon as naïve “sheeple.” Quite frankly, this makes me feel better about my lack of belief. Not that I actively reject global warming, but shaking up norms is always refreshing. It shows that maybe some people that are adamant about global warming aren’t as well informed as they appear, and are just parroting Al Gore instead of looking at articles published by universities for themselves.
I noticed another curious writing style of Crichton’s. I haven’t read any of his other books, but in this one I noticed (like Julie) huge discrepancies between men and women. Men had long introductions describing credentials: employers, education, and other accomplishments. Women were introduced by their looks and sexual abilities/potential. No matter how smart a woman is in this book, the readers know her hair color, eye color and body type before the character has a chance to speak. Men, on the other hand, get a fanfare praising their Ph.D.’s. I still have no idea what any of the male characters look like, yet I know what Margo (who isn’t even a major character, at least so far) looks like in a towel.
Appendix 1 is a controversial piece of writing; Crichton had a lot of guts putting it in. Comparing anything to Hitler is as far as you can go on the evil scale. Unfortunately for Crichton, people who do this lose credibility (in my mind at least) for being ridiculous and melodramatic. It’s a cliché. The only similarity I see between eugenics and global warming is the suppression of the opposition: calling them ignorant and uninformed, etc. The difference is that global warming is a matter of hard numbers and observation, whereas “inferior people” is subject to multiple opinions. Eugenics would be a difficult topic to study in a science department at a university, whereas global warming, while labor-intensive, seems more measurable. Indeed, Crichton admits that “there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was” (727). So how does that compare to a controversy that actually has a scientific basis? Perhaps a better comparison would have been the evolution/intelligent design controversy. At least one side there has science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
nice post, i must admit i didnt really notice how he introduced the men and women in the novel, but it does kinda show some type of sexist view.
ReplyDeleteI had a memory yesterday of a friend. She'd just had a baby, like within a few weeks of this story--so she was likely very sleep deprived. She and her husband, who is from Italy, had just watched "An Inconvenient Truth." They were REALLY into it--they were calling all their friends and telling them the HAD to see this movie. I did finally see the movie and the next time I saw her, maybe a few weeks later, I said, "Oh, hey, I finally watched Al Gore's movie, you can cross me off your list." She and her husband looked at each other. "Oh..." they said, "We actually found this website and now we don't really believe any of it is true." and went on to tell me their new theory. I was so confused. What had happened to them? Was it the result of hormones and sleep deprivation? Or had they perhaps found Crichton's website?
ReplyDeleteNot long after that they told me they'd seen this AMAZING movie, K-Pax. I bit my tongue so hard. K-Pax was sort of a joke between my husband and I because it's hilarious, (in our opinions) because it is so bad, and Kevin Spacey wears sunglasses and is visiting from outer space. But not to digress too far--at that point I think I equated their movie credibility with their scientific credibility, adding a bigger grain of salt to things they would encourage me to believe. This memory has made me think about who we give credibility to and why, and how credibility in one area might shift over to other mostly-unrelated areas. And again, the influence of our peer groups.
Now that I read your post, I really realize that you are right about men and women being introduced in this book. I pretty much by passed this and didn't really pay much attention just because I was trying to keep the characters and the plot straight. I think that it was an interesting thing you picked up on and now I will be more conscious of it as I finish the book!
ReplyDeleteYour comment about how many people in fact know the true facts about global warming, i mean have read the graphs and such, is probably much smaller than people think. Even though it may seem harsh it reminds me of my grandparents, they are ALWAYS sending all of us in the family lengthy political emails (some of us call them propaganda, but that's another discussion) written by other people. It feels as though they are just passing on information and not creating anything new.
ReplyDelete