From: I William Wiser (will@wiserlife.com)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 22:23:34 MDT
Seems like such a formula would be easy to spin in the other direction.
Luddites warning of technological risks but secretly involved in nasty plots
for their own greedy purposes. Technologies hero obviously smart but
not listened to. Just in time some disaster is averted by the technology
heroes using the feared technology. Luddites are incidentally killed due
to their own stupidity (or grudgingly accept new technology). Seems like
I have seen a few movies like this. But someone might do well by
specifically copying Chrichton's style.
I like some of the Luddite ideas. They provide a balance to our enthusiasm.
Some people just will not form opinions until they have seen it spun both
ways. Perhaps Ludites are necessary for rapid progress. As for bad
science (or other factual discrepancies) in fiction, oh well, it happens.
:)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emlyn O'regan" <oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:27 PM
Subject: Prey (was RE: Fiction Books)
> The book is bloody awful. It's the horrid Chrichton combination of
hideously
> bad plot that only seems plausible/non-contrived to people who know SFA
> about the subject matter (ie: practically everyone), combined with an
> incredibly readable style that makes it impossible to stop reading once
you
> begin (like watching daytime soaps).
>
> It's the worst of intellectual junk food masquerading as a banquet.
>
> No, it's much worse than that. Chrichton is an arch-luddite. I've read
Prey
> and Timeline recently (yes I'm an idiot), and his standard plot seems to
> go...
>
> - Startup technology company has a big idea. They develop it in secret
> - Enough detail is laid out about the technology, and the background, to
> convince the lay reader that Chrichton knows his stuff. So the reader may
> feel free to accept that he/she is reading Truth.
> - We get to see the detail of the secret labs in which the technology is
> even now being operated.
> - All technology is fundamentally bad, and corrupting. Tech company top
> execs are corrupted and turn out to be the bad guys, this is hinted at
from
> the start (although is it really necessary... after all, it's obvious,
isn't
> it?)
> - So the technology, which had some excellent promise, ends up having the
> potential to Destroy Everything
> - The story unfolds, and we find the true evil in the tech company's
> approach - a combination of hubris, greed, and lack of due care.
> - The hero, who has known all along that this technology is too dangerous
to
> tinker with, and been marginalised by all and sundry as a naysayer, now
> takes control. "We must stop it before it is too late"
> - At this point, the superficial attempt at a consistent plot based on
> actual science goes directly out the window.
> - Cue killer monsters, showdowns with evil tech execs, smaller explosions,
> bits of roof falling in, and the heroes saving everyone just in time.
> - Evil tech exec's base/headquarters explode, likely with them inside. Or,
> they get their come-uppance in some other horrible but ultimately
> just-desserts implying way.
> - Epilogue - whew, we did it just in time. See, technology X is really
bad,
> well, all technology is really bad, really.
> - End of screenplay (I mean book).
>
> "Prey" is a novel of monumental stupidity. Chrichton absolutely twists
> himself in knots, combining really interesting stuff - nanotech
replicators,
> distributed agent software, evolutionary algorithms - and melodramatically
> evil tech execs to come up with... Raptors. His take on nanotech gone
wrong
> are nanotech swarms that behave like killer dinosaurs: they replicate,
they
> hunt in packs, they even behave exactly like predatory killers (because
> that's how they were programmed, but gosh, they are evolving even smarter
> tactics!). And, wow, was I ever surprised when it turned out that the
> nanotech macro-critters were reproducing by consuming mammalian flesh! Oh
> dear!
>
> You will note that Chrichton sold the rights to the movie of Prey before
the
> book was published (indeed, before it was written I'll wager). The book
(and
> Timeline) read like they were written to a cynical formula (technology
gone
> bad, symptomatic of the evils of the modern world), designed solely to
> appeal to the uninformed as a movie.
>
> Timeline annoyed me in a different way; it's just so boneheaded that it's
> unbelievable. Granted, the timetravel in the novel is just an excuse to
put
> modern characters in the 14th century and play knights (I wonder why no
one
> ever thought of that before), but really. This is a novel where the tense
> climax plays out as the people in the present day rush to fix their time
> machine apparatus in time, before the people in the past run out of time
and
> can't come back. We get to see lots of parallel stuff - This is what's
> happening Now, in the past; this is what's happening Now, in the future.
> It's a race against time, across time. If only they had a f*cking time
> machine! Cretinous. The guy is not a sci-fi writer's scrotum.
>
> You may have noticed that I'm pretty pissed off with Chrichton and his
> novels. The reason is that he is a thriller writer, masquarading as a
sci-fi
> writer, masquerading as a serious science writer. The implication at all
> times is that Chrichton has researched his material, and that his
> novel/movie is a serious warning to the people about the dangers of these
> hidden new technologies. We must stop them all before it's too late! And
> people believe this bastard, who I am betting couldn't actually give two
> shits about technologies like cloning, genetic manipulation, nanotech, or
> (saints preserve us) pseudo time travelling through the quantum foam. He's
> hit on a formula that will continue to make him an extremely rich man, and
> all it requires is to publish dangerously, often deliberately misinformed
> novels one after the other.
>
> Maybe I'm overreacting. It's just that, when I see mention of cloning the
> Thylocine, or stem cell research, or Dolly the sheep, I can usually count
on
> a reference to Jurassic Park. People believe this crap. Our lives are
> affected by it.
>
> Next time you hear of someone who could benefit from stem-cell
technologies,
> except that progress hasn't been what it should, what with banning of part
> or all of it across the western world, think of Jurrassic Park, and
> Chrichton. And ponder what effect Prey, the movie, will have on this world
> of ours.
>
> Personally, I think I'll boycott it, and rent an old copy of Superman,
> instead.
>
> Emlyn
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gts [mailto:gts_2000@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 11:44 AM
> > To: extropians@extropy.org
> > Subject: RE: Fiction Books
> >
> >
> > My girlfriend just last night finished the fiction book
> > _Prey_ by Michael
> > Crichton. While reading it over the last week or two she
> > spoke to me in
> > general about the suspenseful "white knuckle" situations in
> > the plot. She's
> > raving about it now. She says that given her knowledge of my
> > interests I
> > must read it immediately.
> >
> > The book is about some sort of nanotech experiment gone wrong.
> >
> > -gts
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 22:32:44 MDT