LOST WORLD TRASHED IN REVIEW!!!
del...@erols.com
One local critic said the effects were good but the plot "wasn't as good
as in the first." Damn, that doesn't sound too good
Milo D. Cooper
del...@erols.com wrote:
>
> One local critic said the effects were good but the plot "wasn't as good
> as in the first." Damn, that doesn't sound too good
Michael Crichton couldn't write to save his own shite. He's all
about the money, i.e. he was born to write Hollywood stories. I
can't wait to shut down my mental faculties on Friday, _Lost World_
is going to be a pap-lover's dream.
--
/|____Milo D. Cooper____|\
\| mdco...@san.rr.com |/
Brandon Fisher
Milo D. Cooper <mdco...@san.rr.com> wrote in article
<338406...@san.rr.com>...
> del...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> > One local critic said the effects were good but the plot "wasn't as
good
> > as in the first." Damn, that doesn't sound too good
>
> Michael Crichton couldn't write to save his own shite. He's all
> about the money, i.e. he was born to write Hollywood stories. I
> can't wait to shut down my mental faculties on Friday, _Lost World_
> is going to be a pap-lover's dream.
Crichton is not to blame for this movie. He didn't write it, and I hear it
has little resemblance to his book (saw the movie, didn't read the book)
Brandon Fisher
del...@erols.com wrote in article <338346...@erols.com>...
> One local critic said the effects were good but the plot "wasn't as good
> as in the first." Damn, that doesn't sound too good
It's not. And that is REALLY saying something when they say something
isn't as good as the plot of an almost plotless movie (although, I don't
think they really need one in order to be any good).
I was extremely disappointed. The trailer looked so cool. Well, the movie
does LOOK cool and has it's moments. Just not too many good ones, in my
opinion.
Terri Buchman
> One local critic said the effects were good but the plot "wasn't as good
> as in the first." Damn, that doesn't sound too good
With all due respect, I don't know too many folks who went to see 'Jurassic
Park' for the plot. Most folks I know went to see it because they were
promised a good show that would include real-loking dinosaurs. In that,
they were not disappointed.
Why should a plot matter for this movie when the majority of paying
customers didn't care about it the last time? Criticism is largely
irrelevent on this movie.
terrib
--
http://www.tiac.net/users/jestertb
Home of the alt.fan.jim-carrey FAQs
SANDRAMEND
Michael Crichton couldn't write to save his own shite. He's all
about the money, i.e. he was born to write Hollywood stories.
Really??? Which authors do you rate so far above him.
I personally enjoy his books. SPHERE was just that, but I picked up
JURASSIC PARK, read the intro -- which has a lot of important things to
say about the dangers of unrestrained biotechnology research -- and got
absorbed in his tale all over again.
As I did with RISING SUN and DISCLOSURE and, best of all, TRAVELS: a
fascinating memoir about his horrific training, and inner and outer
voyages. This man was trained in a form of doctorthink that he's broken
out of. Few doctors I've met ever manage that journey. We beat it out of
them while they're young.
And A CASE OF NEED, written while he was in Med school, under a
pseudonym, before he'd learned to hide how super smart he is.
I heard him give a speech at The National Press Club several years ago on
how lousy our journalism is. which is the best thinking on the subject
I've yet heard. Unfortunately, the speech was not available on the NPC
website last time I checked. Aaaaagh! I have trouble finding info online.
Ten bucks to anyone who can retrieve it for me. It's that good and that
important.
So, since I have so different a view ,could you explain to me why one of
this country's best selling authors can't write?
Sandra ;-)
Peter Lowry
>> One local critic said the effects were good but the plot "wasn't as good
>> as in the first." Damn, that doesn't sound too good
>
> Michael Crichton couldn't write to save his own shite. He's all
> about the money, i.e. he was born to write Hollywood stories. I
> can't wait to shut down my mental faculties on Friday, _Lost World_
> is going to be a pap-lover's dream.
The only thing Crichton had to do with the movie was sell the rights to
the name of his book. Micheal Crichton never wrote the movie and the book
is no where near the same plot of the movie.
Actually I enjoyed watching the movie and you should walk into it with
an open mind and not someone else's opinion. You might enjoy movies a
little more if you do that..
Peter
Joseph N. Hall
Terri Buchman wrote:
> Why should a plot matter for this movie when the majority of paying
> customers didn't care about it the last time? Criticism is largely
> irrelevent on this movie.
Maybe, but it's a *far* lamer movie than most of Friday's crowd
is expecting. I mean, it's not like it's not quite as good in
some respects as Jurassic Park. What it's like is that IT
REALLY SUCKS in a whole bunch of different ways. The only
plus is that the dino effects are a little more realistic.
But you won't care since the scenes they're in are just noisy
and uninteresting and very similar to the scenes in the original
movie. In every other way that I can think of, this movie is
inferior to Jurassic Park, and not just by a little bit.
I actually liked Congo, which was a truly terrible movie, more.
And I really disliked Congo, would have walked out on it if
I weren't killing time. I would have walked out of Lost
World except that I was sitting there with my jaw open wondering
what had inspired Spielberg to lay this egg.
By the one hour point into Lost World I was begging for Tim
Curry and his Rumanian accent.
By Saturday the word should be out.
-joseph
Ramiro Fernandez
On Fri, 23 May 1997 01:00:22 -0230, Peter Lowry <plo...@cs.mun.ca> wrote:
> The only thing Crichton had to do with the movie was sell the rights to
>the name of his book. Micheal Crichton never wrote the movie and the book
>is no where near the same plot of the movie.
>
The ending credits should have read :"Based on a title Michael Crichton stole
from Arthur Conan Doyle."
JC
Stargazer
>So, since I have so different a view ,could you explain to me why one of
>this country's best selling authors can't write?
>
>
>
Crichton can write. He can also direct. Some bad films, some good
films. However, he is not any smarter than many other writers.
I would be interested to know on what you base your unabashed enthousiasm
concerning Crichton's "super-smartness." The fact that he writes
about things he knows something about? Is that all it takes?
His science is akin to that of the late (the cosmos rest his carbon
based matter) Carl Sagan: very popular, very easy to understand
(which is good), very sketchy, very incomplete, at times very
easily misinterpreted (I consider this dangerous).
I admit I love many of Crichton's books (JP included), but reading too
much into them is unhealthy. As I said before, he has proven himself
to be more of an intelligent technocrat than a super-smart visionary
(which is what I consider Jules Verne and H.G. Wells to be, among others.)
I could also include A.C. Clarke, though he has passed his glory years.
Maybe C.S. Lewis on the fantasy/philosophy front.
I also consider Isaac Asimov to be great, though I find fault to a certain
degree with his pilosophy (but isn't that just how life is? Many people
find fault with mine. :-I )
Cheers,
--Stargazer
Atreyu
My biggest problem with Crichton is his naturalist bent. His constant
diatrabe about "man destroying nature" and anti-scientific sentiment are
extremely unrealistic and tiresome, besides being wholly irrational.
SANDRAMEND
Tamask said:
>Crichton can write. He can also direct. Some bad films, some good
films. However, he is not any smarter than many other writers.
I would be interested to know on what you base your unabashed enthousiasm
concerning Crichton's "super-smartness."
My "unabashed enthusiasm" for Crichton's "super-smartness comes from a
combination of having read and loved a number of his books: TRAVELS,
RISING SUN, DISCLOSURE, JURASSIC PARK, A CASE OF NEED:
SM: He was 26 when he published A CASE OF NEED. This mystery, which
offers an excellent pro-choice defense, has 7 appendices: on subjects
like cops and doctors, abbreviations, arguments on abortion and medical
morals. He was just bursting with the urge to share what he'd learned in
medical school. I love that in the guy!
>His science is akin to that of the late (the cosmos rest his carbon
based matter) Carl Sagan: very popular, very easy to understand
(which is good), very sketchy, very incomplete, at times very
easily misinterpreted (I consider this dangerous).
SM: I loathed Carl Sagan, thought him a bigot (whereas I find Crichton
openminded) , a charlatan, a bore, a ham actor in 19th century theatre
style: i.e. phoney. And for decades wondered when PBS would put on someone
else, a n y o n e else to discuss astronomy.
>I admit I love many of Crichton's books (JP included), but reading too
much into them is unhealthy.
SM: I'm not reading too much into them, I merely read the intro to
JURASSIC PARK and paid attention. RISING SUN has an excellent bibliography
in the back, and in the "this is a work of fiction" disclaimer section, he
averts that all references to events and activities of listed corporations
American or Japanese, and Japanese Prime Ministers are TRUE. For a time,
it was one of the most useful reference books I had. As we are now
repeating some of the same mistakes we made with Japan, with China, I
think RS a terrific, prescient book.
>As I said before, he has proven himself to be more of an intelligent
technocrat than a super-smart visionary (which is what I consider Jules
Verne and H.G. Wells to be, among others.)
SM: I've never gotten an eyelash blink's indication that Crichton
considers himself a super-smart visionary, much unlike Carl Sagan, who had
a very visibly Olympian view of self. (I helped out at a PBS fundraiser
in LA. The more I watched Sagan in the course of the evening the more I
saw to dislike. The pompous blowhard!).
>I could also include A.C. Clarke, though he has passed his glory years.
>Clarke for you, Robert Heinlein for me.
I also consider Isaac Asimov to be great.
SM: Can never get into his books, have tried, perhaps with the wrong
books. But his fiction doesn't appeal, whereas even Robert Heinlein's
books for teens do. And I own only one n-f book of Aasimov's , a very
minor one on the contributions the greek myths have made to our
vocabulary: Tantalus and tantalize, like that.
I don't like much fiction. Ayn Rand wrote about such monumental subjects
so well in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, that most American fiction or literature
thereafter bored me: Fitzgerald re the social scene? Hemingway on safari?
Go away! And I'd go back and reread Fountainhead and get even more out of
it. Don't like Stephen King, the proletarian protestant horrormeister,
but love Anne Rice, under all her pseudonyms, though I'm a couple of
novels behind, because I didn't much enjoy the last two I read. But she
has a lot of books out there and I've loved them whether written by A. N.
Roquelaure, Anne Rampling or Anne Rice. Also, Robert Heinlein instead of
Clarke or Aasimov, a lot of Michael Crichton's books with the exception of
THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, CONGO, SPHERE. And most of Tom Clancy's books,
except the new one, which doesn't seem for me. I love military strategy
and am looking for a bio of the greatest general ever in terms of skill
(defeated Hannibal) and humanity: Scipio Africanus.
Some minds speak to mine. I understand them immediately. I am fluent in
Spanish but would be considerably slower a reader, and suspect that DON
QUIXOTE would not appeal, so limit myself to reading 16th century Baltasar
Gracian's THE ART OF WORLDLY WISDOM, part of whose Spanish title, is "arte
de prudencia" a book of aphorisms. And I like Gracian, whose philosophy
is watch your back, rather than the more aggressive and evil Machiavelli.
I loathe Plato, philosopher not of philosopher-kings but of dictators and
I adore Aristotle, my master, my idol. Similarly, most Roman literature
bores me but I spent a year reading The Emperor Marcus Aurelius's
MEDITATIONS. He saved me such unnecessary pain with his teachings on
stoicism.
I don't read widely but I do read deeply. Just as to get back to this
newsgroup's topic. I watch some films I love over and over and find
things I missed the second and third and even fourth time. Perhaps I love
film more unabashedly than many professional critics because I don't HAVE
to watch bad films and write a review of them. I can follow my heart and
if a movie disappoints: Click! Next!
Bottom line: I do consider Michael Crichton smarter than most writers. I
do consider him super-smart and I would like nothing better than to live
in a reading world or real world where there were a lot of writers or
people around as smart as he is. But, alas, I don't. And there are times
I've wanted to weep out of sheer intellectual loneliness and boredom, for
the lack of not only brilliant people in my life, but much worse: the
sense that there are so few contemporary people out there for me to
admire, so few people I would love to meet. And I include film makers,
actors, directors, as well as writers. I am a romantic cursed by living in
the most boring, realistic, naturalistic era ever, an era that will go
down with the 1950's as mundane and eminently forgettable.
Sandra ;-)
When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and
clothes - Desiderus Erasmus
SANDRAMEND
Atreyu at the University of Oregon said:
>My biggest problem with Crichton is his naturalist bent.
Naturalist as in someone who studies zoology or botany????
>His constant diatrabe about "man destroying nature"
I've read several books of his that never mentioned the issue, what books
are you referring to. JURASSIC PARK ? and what others? (haven't read them
all)
>and anti-scientific sentiment
Someone just criticizedhim for the opposite. He's a doctor, trained to
think scientifically, could you elaborate???
>are extremely unrealistic and tiresome, besides being wholly irrational.
Please define your terms, document your allegations give examples of what
you mean: all the things I hope you're learning at the University of
Oregon. Or haven't you taken Freshman Comp yet. Hmmmm??
Sandra ;-)
deering
Joseph N. Hall (jos...@5sigma.com) wrote:
: I actually liked Congo, which was a truly terrible movie, more.
: And I really disliked Congo, would have walked out on it if
: I weren't killing time. I would have walked out of Lost
: World except that I was sitting there with my jaw open wondering
: what had inspired Spielberg to lay this egg.
: By the one hour point into Lost World I was begging for Tim
: Curry and his Rumanian accent.
Good Lord, homes!!! Talk about _desperate_. . . :).
C.
**
Brian John Wright
Milo D. Cooper (mdco...@san.rr.com) wrote:
: Michael Crichton couldn't write to save his own shite. He's all
: about the money, i.e. he was born to write Hollywood stories. I
: can't wait to shut down my mental faculties on Friday, _Lost World_
: is going to be a pap-lover's dream.
Your psychic abilities notwithstanding, kindly see the movie
before making such absurd comments...
-Brian
Brian John Wright
Joseph N. Hall (jos...@5sigma.com) wrote:
: I actually liked Congo, which was a truly terrible movie, more.
: And I really disliked Congo, would have walked out on it if
: I weren't killing time. I would have walked out of Lost
: World except that I was sitting there with my jaw open wondering
: what had inspired Spielberg to lay this egg.
Um, Joseph...what did you just say?!?!
-Brian
Milo D. Cooper
> future wrote:
>> On 24 May 1997 04:44:56 GMT, sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
>>
>> Bottom line: I do consider Michael Crichton smarter than most writers. I
>> do consider him super-smart and I would like nothing better than to live
>> in a reading world or real world where there were a lot of writers or
>> people around as smart as he is. But, alas, I don't. And there are times
>> I've wanted to weep out of sheer intellectual loneliness and boredom, for
>> the lack of not only brilliant people in my life, but much worse: the
>> sense that there are so few contemporary people out there for me to
>> admire, so few people I would love to meet. And I include film makers,
>> actors, directors, as well as writers. I am a romantic cursed by living in
>> the most boring, realistic, naturalistic era ever, an era that will go
>> down with the 1950's as mundane and eminently forgettable.
>
She may be on the arrogant side, but I have to sympathize with
her to some degree. Normal people suck, it's the truth. I should
say, though, that I communicated with this person via e-mail for a
couple of days, during which time she gave me the impression that
she probably has more in common with her Average Joe than she real-
izes, Michael Crichton-lover that she is.
Brian Trosko
Atreyu <atr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
: My biggest problem with Crichton is his naturalist bent. His constant
: diatrabe about "man destroying nature" and anti-scientific sentiment are
Which books had those in them? Not any of them I've read. Maybe _The
Great Train Robbery_?
Crichton's major recurring theme is man's inability to control things,
particularly complex systems, that he doesn't fully understand, but thinks
he does. It's certainly not anti-scientific by any means. It is
cautionary, but what's so bad about that?
Andromeda Strain: We're pretty sure we've got this bugger all figured out,
but even if we don't, we're in this first-rate containment facility that's
so good it's impossible for the thing to get out.
Congo: She's the right one to lead the expedition. Her psyche profile
proves it.
The Terminal Man: Yep, we've got that epilepsy all under control with this
new computer implant of ours. Say goodbye to those seizures, kid.
JP: Just like the Andromeda Strain, but with lizards. We've got 'em
contained, and we're certain they won't do anything we haven't planned
for.
future
On 24 May 1997 04:44:56 GMT, sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
>Bottom line: I do consider Michael Crichton smarter than most writers. I
>do consider him super-smart and I would like nothing better than to live
>in a reading world or real world where there were a lot of writers or
>people around as smart as he is. But, alas, I don't. And there are times
>I've wanted to weep out of sheer intellectual loneliness and boredom, for
>the lack of not only brilliant people in my life, but much worse: the
>sense that there are so few contemporary people out there for me to
>admire, so few people I would love to meet. And I include film makers,
>actors, directors, as well as writers. I am a romantic cursed by living in
>the most boring, realistic, naturalistic era ever, an era that will go
>down with the 1950's as mundane and eminently forgettable.
Talk about pompous blowhards...
TBenton933
My biggest problem with Crichton is his naturalist bent. His constant
diatrabe about "man destroying nature" and anti-scientific sentiment are
extremely unrealistic and tiresome, besides being wholly irrational.
==========================================================
BIngo!!! Never read Jurassic Park but Goldblum's nonsense about Chaos
Theory kind of ticked me off. Obviously we cannot predict everything in an
unstable environment, but if we didn't take chances we would still live in
caves.
Tom Benton
Atreyu
On 24 May 1997, SANDRAMEND wrote:
> Naturalist as in someone who studies zoology or botany????
Philosophically -- look it up.
RE: Man Destroying Nature
> I've read several books of his that never mentioned the issue, what books
> are you referring to. JURASSIC PARK ? and what others? (haven't read them
> all)
Well, in just about every film or book Crichton has written (CONGO,
SPHERE, WESTWORLD), some scientist points out how nature shouldn't be
tampered with, that we "shouldn't go into the big cave," that we
"shouldn't be trying to play god." Basically, he's being an environmental
witch-doctor, saying "Booga-Booga! Watch out for Bad Things from Nature
if we touch it!" What utter dogma.
> Someone just criticizedhim for the opposite. He's a doctor, trained to
> think scientifically, could you elaborate???
He's also said publicly on several occasions in interviews and print-media
(can't cite you examples, because I don't memorize the #s on STARLOGs or
CINEFANTASTIQUEs) that he thinks man tampers too much with nature and that
there are Just Some Things Man Was Not Meant to Know. Again, his
statements defy reason.
For example, look to *Jurassic Park* and Ian Malcolm as the "voice of
reason" (sic) with a Chaos Theory that does -not- exist in real-life,
spouting off about how -everything- at the Park is going to go wrong
because -- well, because Man shouldn't be Doing things like -that-! It's
just -wrong-. Add to this Malcolm's apparent belief in a god (as a means
to invoke a higher power to deny man egress from the garden of ignorance)
and the other characters' constant reminders to "think with your heart"
and not just your mind or your desire for self-interest, and you've got a
writer with a decidedly naturalist bent.
Milo D. Cooper
epbrown wrote:
> =
> sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
> =
> =BBSo, since I have so different a view ,could you explain to me why on=
e of
> =BBthis country's best selling authors can't write?
> I'll jump in on this one. There are several archetypes of write=
rs, such
> as Masters, Storytellers, Craftsman, and so on. Crichton is (like Steph=
en
> King, whom you mention) a Storyteller. These authors tend to be popular=
not
> because they're good with words (Craftsmen) or great artist (Masters);
> they're popular because they have the knack of telling a not-too-comple=
x
> story in a way that a wide range of people can understand, enjoy, and
> relate to, and possibly learn from.
> But as a craftsman, I find his prose rather ordinary; I can't r=
ecall a
> time when I've admired his word-choice, which has happened with King ev=
en
> though I don't much care for him. He tends to structure his stories so =
has
> to create a self-proving hypothesis of some idea he's had, and I don't
> often find his views balanced in any way. If you disagree with him on s=
ome
> point, you'll find enjoying his work hard going, because alternate view=
s
> are not represented or discounted out of hand (i.e., a usenet junkie na=
med
> "word warrior" uses a primitive version of this style, should you run
> across her). Notice how Crichton's work is limited in it's interpretati=
on.
> You agree or disagree with him, but nothing new has been proposed that =
you
> can argue about.
> This style also tends to make his work suffer on things like pl=
ot and
> structure, because it's used to support an fixed idea, rather than used=
to
> explore one, and the characters tend to be archetypes needed to debate =
the
> idea, rather than characters. RISING SUN, for example, has the Initiate=
to
> teach us, the Novice to ask our questions and give someone for the Init=
iate
> to explain to, and Examples to provide the Initiate something to
> demonstrate his ideas with.
> Because of this style, I think Crichton would make a better ess=
ayist
> than he is a novelist. Is his work popular despite this? Sure, because =
a
> lot of people are interested in his ideas, not so much because they're
> impressed with his writing. Popular fiction tends to be more about
> presentation of the author's ideas than his skill. It's why you remembe=
r
> what the story was about, rather than *who* it was about and what it sa=
id.
> So, I view him as a decent essayist (qualifid because I don't o=
ften
> agree with him :-), but not a particularly good writer.
This is very close to what I told "Sandramed" when we discussed
Crichton in e-mail. The man is a political essayist, not an artist.
Philosophical abstraction is mostly absent in his works; he elects,
instead, to appropriate generic versions of contemporary theories
and use them as essay topics. He has virtually no metaphorical
skill of which to speak; I suspect that his medical training has re-
inforced his analytical, scientific mind to the detriment of his
skills of abstraction. His characters are, in large measure, ideo-
logical debatists, through which he pushes his half-baked views
via filters of dialogue based on modern science or sociology. His
approach often makes his stories internally tautological: if Ian
Malcolm and John Hammond are already debating the dangers of meddl-
ing with nature versus the rewards that such interference can bring,
if Malcolm is concretely expounding on principles of chaos theory,
then why the heck do we need a plot that attempts to demonstrate
just these subjects in a contrived fashion? No, Crichton is very
clearly a right-brain, analytical type, and I fully agree with
"epbrown" that he makes a better essayist than a writer.
If any of you Crichton-freaks think that the man is an artist,
I suggest you read Kazuo Ishiguro's _Remains of the Day_ for an
example of contemporary literature that really *is* art (or, you
can just see the superb movie, if you don't care to read the book).
*This* is metaphor, *this* is abstraction. Even Stephen King --
heck, even Dean Koontz -- is more of an artist than the good doc-
tor. Crichton is like Robin Cook, he just writes essays thinly
disguised as art literature.
R J Briggs
In article <338890...@san.rr.com>, "Milo D. Cooper"
<mdco...@san.rr.com> writes
[snip] His
>approach often makes his stories internally tautological: if Ian
>Malcolm and John Hammond are already debating the dangers of meddl-
>ing with nature versus the rewards that such interference can bring,
>if Malcolm is concretely expounding on principles of chaos theory,
>then why the heck do we need a plot that attempts to demonstrate
>just these subjects in a contrived fashion? No, Crichton is very
>clearly a right-brain, analytical type, and I fully agree with
>"epbrown" that he makes a better essayist than a writer.
Fair point. But Crichton, for better or worse, has decided his future is
as a novelist. And anyway, there's a fairly noble tradition of explicit
comment followed by resprentative fable in novels - think of Defoe,
Austen, Hemingway. Not that I'm comparing qualitatively; just saying
that Crichton's is a legitimate approach.
> If any of you Crichton-freaks think that the man is an artist,
>I suggest you read Kazuo Ishiguro's _Remains of the Day_ for an
>example of contemporary literature that really *is* art (or, you
>can just see the superb movie, if you don't care to read the book).
>*This* is metaphor, *this* is abstraction. Even Stephen King --
>heck, even Dean Koontz -- is more of an artist than the good doc-
>tor. Crichton is like Robin Cook, he just writes essays thinly
>disguised as art literature.
I don't understand the comparison you're making. Sure, Crichton's
nothing like Ishiguro. So what? Neither are Salman Rushdie or Martin
Amis (to take a couple of partisanly British examples - I'm sure you
could come up with your own). In fact, he's definitely not as good.
Again, so what? As far as the other names you mention, just to
demonstrate that this kind of thing is pretty subjective, I'd say that
King is a better writer than Crichton (as you say, he can deal with
metaphor and allegory, as well has having a much better handle on
character, especially when compared to Crichton's recent - JP & later -
works), but Koontz is worse (despite an knack for high-concept ideas
that's comparable to Crichton's), and Cook is far far worse (for me
virtually unreadable, although I managed to get through "Coma" years ago
when I was at school, back in the late '70s or early '80s).
I have to admit that IMO all of Crichton's books I've read from the
early '80s onwards seemed kind of half-formed, as though they were
waiting - expecting even - to be turned into movies. That's JP, Rising
Sun, Disclosure & Airframe I think. But I'm not sure that lessens
Crichton as an artist; we're living in the last breath of the 20th
century, where mass communication is visual and the printed page is the
domain of crazy people like ourselves ;-). It seems to me that Crichton
has just adapted to the market and his position within it. And his
storytelling ability hasn't been lost. If anything, IMO, it's improving:
Disclosure was my favourite Crichton novel since The Andromeda Strain
(which seems, incidently, to get a pretty negative press on this ng -
I'm curious as to why?).
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the great man (irony, in case it wasn't
obvious). Any response(s) will be received with interest.
Cheers,
R J Briggs
SANDRAMEND
In a message dated 5/25/97 11:52:49 AM, you wrote:
<<Naturalist as in someone who studies zoology or botany????
Philosophically -- look it up.
>>
I did, and my American Heritage desk size dictionary's obviously not up to
the task:naturalism: (2) Philos.The system of thought holding that all
phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws without
attributing moral, spiritual or supernatural significance to them.
Sounds good to me. Where do you differ?
Am sitting here with W.T Jone's A History of Western Philosophy: The
Classical Mind and couldn't find it in the index either.
The Ayn Rand Lexicon uses the term naturalism only as applied to
literature. And so does Benet's THE READER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Regards,
Sandra ;-)
P. S. your reply to this post was:
[snip]
"Without attributing moral . . . " Without moral. Immoral.
> Sounds good to me. Where do you differ?
See above.
To which I must respond: ????????????????
Sandra ;-)
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> Naturalist as in someone who studies zoology or botany????
His rather clear obsession with the enviroment vs man
> I've read several books of his that never mentioned the issue, what books
> are you referring to. JURASSIC PARK ? and what others? (haven't read
them
> all)
JP 2, Sphere, Congo. All I have read. It is always present.
> Someone just criticizedhim for the opposite. He's a doctor, trained to
> think scientifically, could you elaborate???
I disagree. In my opinion he uses his knowledge of sceince to make it seem
scary and uncontrolable in order to build dramatic tension in those with
little or no knowledge of science. Each new sceintific discovery can be
used as tbasis for the next Abomb, at leasy according to Crichton and his
ilk.
> Please define your terms, document your allegations give examples of
what
> you mean: all the things I hope you're learning at the University of
> Oregon. Or haven't you taken Freshman Comp yet. Hmmmm??
Exactly what terms are you having trouble understanding, dear? Perhaps if
you were take an ap and eat a sandwhich you see that is complaints are
quite clear. Crichton's obsession with the enviroment is clear in he
introduction to JP2. Read it and get back to me.
-- Plain and Simple Cronan, X O of the USS Megadittos <*>
Now egos *are* like assholes. Everyone, no matter how strange,
has one; they vary in size and shape; your sexual orientation
can have a great effect upon it and the stench, although
variable, is always present.
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> openminded) , a charlatan, a bore, a ham actor in 19th century theatre
> style: i.e. phoney. And for decades wondered when PBS would put on
someone
> else, a n y o n e else to discuss astronomy.
I thought you an AOLer and hence fool. Now I am sure you are complete
buffoon. I must insist that you burn your computer. Your choice of role
models is further proof that AOL is analagous giant bus that picks up the
mentally disabled allowing them to spew their bodily waste onto the
information superhighway
SANDRAMEND
sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
»So, since I have so different a view ,could you explain to me why one of
»this country's best selling authors can't write?
EPBrown replied:
I'll jump in on this one. There are several archetypes of writers, such
as Masters, Storytellers, Craftsman, and so on. Crichton is (like Stephen
King, whom you mention) a Storyteller. These authors tend to be popular not
because they're good with words (Craftsmen) or great artist (Masters);
they're popular because they have the knack of telling a not-too-complex
story in a way that a wide range of people can understand, enjoy, and
relate to, and possibly learn from.
SM: Very interesting classifications. Judith Krantz (terrible writer, fairly good storyteller) Jacqueline Susann (truly terrible writer, fair storyteller)
EPB:But as a craftsman, I find his prose rather ordinary; I can't recall a
time when I've admired his word-choice, which has happened with King even
though I don't much care for him.
SM: I read for ideas and so long as the word-choice is clear I'm happy. Am much stronger in the field of philosophy than in poetry, where I also go for ideas. What I read of Keats and Shelley bored me so I never pursued the study of poetry. Too bad.
EPB: He tends to structure his stories so has
to create a self-proving hypothesis of some idea he's had, and I don't
often find his views balanced in any way. If you disagree with him on some
point, you'll find enjoying his work hard going, because alternate views
are not represented or discounted out of hand Notice how Crichton's work is limited in it's interpretation. You agree or disagree with him, but nothing new has been proposed that you can argue about.
This style also tends to make his work suffer on things like plot and
structure, because it's used to support an fixed idea, rather than used to
explore one, and the characters tend to be archetypes needed to debate the
idea, rather than characters. RISING SUN, for example, has the Initiate to
teach us, the Novice to ask our questions and give someone for the Initiate
to explain to, and Examples to provide the Initiate something to
demonstrate his ideas with.
SM: Gee! I should try that. What a perfect structure to discuss ideas!
EPB: Because of this style, I think Crichton would make a better essayist
than he is a novelist.
SM: Not if he wanted to make a living at writing and support his family. Remember, Crichton went to Med School so as to have a way to make a living. Never knew how successful he'd be or he might have skipped it.
SM: Harry Kemelman wanted to write a comparative study of Judaism and Christiantity. No one wanted to publish. So... he created a great Rabbi and an Irish copy and wrote the ON MONDAY, THE RABBI...ON TUESDAY, THE RABBI mystery series. With the most hateful congregation ever. Why do Jewish writers create characters that if created by a Christian would be considered rabid, rabid anti-semitism? Philip Roth comes to mind. A very cultured friend of mine was horrified by the film GOODBYE COLUMBUS and thought it shouldn't be shown west of the Hudson.
EPB:Is his work popular despite this? Sure, because a
lot of people are interested in his ideas, not so much because they're
impressed with his writing. Popular fiction tends to be more about
presentation of the author's ideas than his skill. It's why you remember
what the story was about, rather than *who* it was about and what it said.
SM: Good, clear writing tends to be invisible. I'm stimulated by his ideas (how many writers are there who discuss ideas? I'll tell you: NOT NEARLY ENOUGH!) and happy that an attempt to be *literary* is NOT there to get in the way. And I think he's very skilled. I ALWAYS remember what it said. I underline and use post it tape flags to remind me of where I can find what I may want to go back and reread.
EPB: So, I view him as a decent essayist (qualifid because I don't often
agree with him :-), but not a particularly good writer.
SM: And I applying a different set of standards, find him a terrific writer.
Sandra ;-)
"That's the most maddening thing about American popular criticism....It is so slipshod, so uneven, and it's so without any tradition of accuracy or excellence that it DOESN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE VIEW of the perception of a book either in academia or among readers generally (Caps mine). CONVERSATIONS WITH ANNE RICE by Michael Riley.
....Anybody can review a book, and they can write any stupid thing they want, and they can do it in the L.A. Times and The New York Times too, most of the time, if they play their cards right...There are frequently reviews of my work written by people who haven't read the other books....Let them buy it if they want to tear it to pieces and call it the worst book every published, like they did to VAMPIRE LESTAT."
SANDRAMEND
Cronan, the barbarian spewed:
I thought you an AOLer and hence fool. Now I am sure you are complete
buffoon. I must insist that you burn your computer.
Sig Heil????
Your choice of role
models is further proof that AOL is analagous giant bus that picks up the
mentally disabled allowing them to spew their bodily waste onto the
information superhighway
Am looking for a new server that will allow me to use a less simplistic
newsreader, one with a filter. Guess who will be among my first filterees.
>-- Plain and Simple Cronan, X O of the USS Megadittos <*>
Now egos *are* like assholes. Everyone, no matter how strange,
has one; they vary in size and shape; your sexual orientation
can have a great effect upon it and the stench, although
variable, is always present.
Yes, Cronan, but not everyone uses theirs to think with.
Sandra ;-)
You must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.
SANDRAMEND
Milo D. Cooper said re. SANDRAMEND:
I shouldsay, though, that I communicated with this person via e-mail for a
couple of days, [ 2 posts from him to me and 2 from me to him] during
which time she gave me the impression that she probably has more in common
with her Average Joe than she realizes, Michael Crichton-lover that she
is.
Here is the gist of the e-mail. It ends with a demand for an apology on my
part and a refusal on his. I found Mr. Cooper to have half-digested Ayn
Rand. He misapplies her concepts (wobbly as to the difference between
perceptions and concepts, and also not clear on what abstractions are.
half-baked could be another way to describe his parroting of Rand) but is
a somewhat rigid Randroid. I, have a great admiration for my old teacher
and mentor in some ways, not in others. I am no longer an objectivist :
ethically. (her views on selfishness produce monsters.) politically. (I am
no longer a libertarian and seem to become more liberal on a daily basis)
metaphysically, (am no longer an atheist). Mostly, I admire her talent for
definition,(epistemology, where I respect most of what she says) I wish I
had a lexicon for Aristotle, as I don't I have the next best thing, one
for the philosopher who truly stands on his shoulders. I have one for
Rand and find it extremely useful (most of the name-calling has been
edited out) in this era of mediocre dictionaries. . I also respect her
aesthetic theories about which more later. esp. re. plot about which she
wrote brilliantly. On to the Randroid:
5/22:
MC: Also, since his [Crichton's] approach to writing is more scientific
> than it is philosophical, his stories are too concrete; he evinces
> very little abstract (artistic) skill, and his work comes off as
> preachy and didactic.
>
> SM: Jurassic Park = the dangers of unrestrained biotechnology. (read the
> Intro)
Milo: You call this abstract? It was practically an essay on what
happens when people meddle with the forces of nature. There
weren't even any metaphors for scientists or science or the sci-
entific threat; they were, all three, concretely represented.
You have *got* to be kidding.
>SM: A Case of Need = a pro-choice stance in the guise of a murder
mystery.
Milo: Haven't read it.
> Rising Sun = a critique of both Japan and the US in the guise of a
murder
> mystery.
Milo: Of course, neither Japan nor the US are depicted conceptual-
ly. Both are presented *perceptually*, i.e. instead of providing
any metaphor for the cultures, Crichton simply provides the cul-
tures themselves, turning the story into another of his conceptu-
ally barren, didactic novels.
>SM: Disclosure = sexual harassment turned on its head.
Milo: And it wasn't the least bit abstract, it wasn't art. It was yet
another political essay disguised as literary art/entertainment. I
look for abstract thought, abstract philosophy, in my art, not poli-
tics.
> SM: Looks as if he's writing in fundamentals to me. And what's preachy
to you is didactic to me and I looooove didactic fiction. Read THE
FOUNTAINHEAD 25 times between ages 15 and 21.
Milo: He's not "writing in fundamentals," he's discussing political
issues, which aren't fundamental concepts. Politics aren't ab-
stract principles, they are only the result of them.
> MC: His medical background is very conspicuous
> in his literature; if he has anything to say, it is incited by and
> filtered through that background, which makes his scope of philo-
> sophical and artistic ability extremely limited.
>
> SM: Hmmmm! Doesn't seem to me that you've read TRAVELS, which covers
inner journeys as well as outer. Crichton has broken free from
medicalthink more than any American doctor I've ever met, listened to or
read. There is a speech at the end of TRAVELS that he planned to give to
a group of really close-minded scientists. Very interesting and
open-minded indeed.
Milo: Perhaps I'll give it a read.
> MC: Crichton is a pop star of written art, like his contemporaries
Stephen King and Anne Rice, and in the long run, his work will be valued
as generally insignificant.
>
> SM: That's what they said about Ian Fleming 25 years ago. And before
that didn't they say the same thing about Doyle and before that Dickens?
Milo: Are you suggesting that Fleming and Doyle are in the same league
as Dickens?
5/24
SM: I'm turned off by the TONE of [Ayn Rand's ]FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL,
I am turned off by the name-calling, the consigning of an intellectual
opponent to Hell, the diatribes which, of course, makes persuasion or
conversion, impossible. It was her tone more than anything else that
closed so many minds against her. I often reread Barbara's THE PASSION OF
AYN RAND, and THE AYN RAND LEXICON where Ayn is at her Aristotelian best.
I'm just sorry that, like you, her rage was such a terrible turn-off.
Milo: Mmm. I admit, her tone is often very harsh, but that's a side
effect of the general beauty of absolutist intellectualism. I have
no taste for opinions diluted by diplomacy, so ultimately I can
appreciate what someone like Rand has to say regardless of her ex-
ternal attitude. For me, it's a turn *on*, even though I don't
agree with some of Rand's philosophical tenets. That someone's de-
portment is severe one way or the other (i.e. negatively or posi-
tively) is, to me, a clear indication of both passion and ideologi-
cal commitment, much clearer than can be evinced via more timid com-
munication or intellectual views.
Milo: Or, to look at it another way, your admiration of Cricthon
>> isn't strictly limited to what little artistic skill he possesses.
>> He's rich, tall, handsome, and charming; what's not to love about
>> his books? Or more precisely: his allure to the average woman.
>
SM: Hmm, bilious aren't we? No. Mr. Crichton doesn't appeal to me because
of his looks or wealth. I have enjoyed several of his books very much:
CONGO and SPHERE excepted) and merely wonder at the rage that he excites
in some of his critics.I have also learned from speeches and interviews
he's been on. What appeals to me in Mr. Crichton is what I starve for in
this culture and what to a much higher degree appealed to me in Ayn Rand.
Intelligence, high intelligence.
>
SM: I have posted too many intelligent posts, started too many threads in
the past month and few days, gotten too much favorable response to think
that you could have any honest basis for trying to paint me as a silly
groupie beguiled by an author's looks. Without an apology, we will not
speak again.
Milo: What an egregious double standard. You can make the absurd
insinuation that my criticism of Crichton is based on jealousy,
but when I retort with the possibility that his appeal to you is
founded on the same superficial qualities that I purportedly envy,
you want *me* to apologize. Not in a million years, lady. Have
a nice life.
______
And there the dialogue ended.
Sandra ;-)
Sandra ;-)
Tom Cavender
In article <19970524044...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
>Tamask said:
>>His science is akin to that of the late (the cosmos rest his carbon
>based matter) Carl Sagan: very popular, very easy to understand
>(which is good), very sketchy, very incomplete, at times very
>easily misinterpreted (I consider this dangerous).
>
>SM: I loathed Carl Sagan, thought him a bigot (whereas I find Crichton
>openminded) , a charlatan, a bore, a ham actor in 19th century theatre
>style: i.e. phoney. And for decades wondered when PBS would put on someone
>else, a n y o n e else to discuss astronomy.
Maybe this can still be considered "on-topic" with the upcoming release of
"Contact", but where in the cosmos did you come up with the idea of Sagan
being "a bigot"?
======================================================
Note: the address in the header is used to thwart would-be spammers.
The real address is below.
Tom Cavender (to...@jaxnet.com)
Jacksonville, Florida, USA
"We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the moment, unpopular."
--Edward R. Murrow, "See It Now", 7 March 1954
"We must make good the demands of reason and create a life worthy of ourselves and of the goals we only dimly perceive."
--Andrei Sakharov, physicist, Academician, citizen of the world
"I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel by night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night."
-- Ralph Reed, soon to be former executive director of the Christian Coalition, on his political philosophy
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> Sig Heil????
Quite possibly. Hitler is a hero of mine
> Am looking for a new server that will allow me to use a less simplistic
> newsreader, one with a filter. Guess who will be among my first
filterees.
Please. In fact make it your lifes goal to filter me. I, OTOH, will hunt
you down, stomp on your head while eating your entrails with fava beans and
nice a Sprite
> Yes, Cronan, but not everyone uses theirs to think with.
My ego or my asshole?
> You must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Another distinct possiblity. I would put forward that at least I understnad
what the gene pool is.
SANDRAMEND
>SM: I loathed Carl Sagan, thought him a bigot (whereas I find Crichton
>openminded) , a charlatan, a bore, a ham actor in 19th century theatre
>style: i.e. phoney. And for decades wondered when PBS would put on
someone
>else, a n y o n e else to discuss astronomy.
Maybe this can still be considered "on-topic" with the upcoming release of
"Contact", but where in the cosmos did you come up with the idea of Sagan
being "a bigot"?
Without feeling the need to offer a scintilla of proof, Sagan would
frequently dismiss astrology as being utter nonsense. I believe he also
had an involvement in the disgraceful attempt by an astronomer (who
regularly got trounced in debates with Sidney Omarr, journalist and
astrologer.)to get 2,000 scientists to say astrology was bunk. The good
ones said they had no idea as they hadn't studied the evidence to make
such an assertion.
To quote from a column that outraged my Journalism Dept. Chairman (who
fumed: "what next, Ann Landers?" not at the content but the idea of
astrology in a Journalism Dept. paper.
"What kind of people believe in Astrology?
"Carl Jung, the great Swiss psychiatrist, called Astrology "the
accumulated psychological wisdom of the ancient world," and frequently
cast charts for especially difficult cases. He also successfully matched
100 couples based solely on charts. He was wrong in matching a couple of
people who weren't married -- but they later did.
"John H. Nelson, radio engineer and founder of the RCA Observatory,
discovered that short wave radio interference could be predicted by the
use of astrological aspects.
"Benjamin Franklin, Rosicrucian and Astrologer, reputedly chose the time
of birth of our republic, July 4, 1776, by astrology.
"John O'Neill, Pulitzer Prize winning science editor of the New York
Herald Tribune, successfully predicted earthquakes according to eclipses
and the New and Full moon periods.
"Galileo cast charts for his children at the time of their birth and was
consulted by friends and colleagues for interpretation of their charts.
"Kepler worked on his astronomical laws in order to sharpen the accuracy
of his astrological predictions.
"Sir Isaac Newton's interest in the question of planetary "influence"
sparked his investigation of light and gravity. And his response to
disdainful critic, Haley, who merely saw a comet was:
I, Sir, have studied the subject. You have not."
Sandra ;-)
Milo D. Cooper
> SANDRAMEND wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper said re. SANDRAMEND:
>>
>> couple of days, [ 2 posts from him to me and 2 from me to him] during
>> which time she gave me the impression that she probably has more in common
>> with her Average Joe than she realizes, Michael Crichton-lover that she
>> is.
>
> Here is the gist of the e-mail. It ends with a demand for an apology on my
> part and a refusal on his.
How convenient for you to have left out the accusation you
made that begot the response for which you requested that I apol-
ogize. But I still have it, and I've posted it below. By the
way, you might show some of the diplomatic decency that you
wanted of Ayn Rand, and *not* publicly post private communica-
tions. In this case, it's also for your own good.
> I found Mr. Cooper to have half-digested Ayn
> Rand. He misapplies her concepts (wobbly as to the difference between
> perceptions and concepts, and also not clear on what abstractions are.
> half-baked could be another way to describe his parroting of Rand) but is
> a somewhat rigid Randroid.
If anything is "half-baked," it's your perception of my men-
tality. "Randroid"? Um, as the e-mail clearly indicates, I ac-
tually disagree with some of Rand's *basic* philosophies. That
hardly makes me a "Randroid." In any case, though, I *do* have
infinitely more respect for her than Crichton, with regard to
both intellectual and artistic prowess. Perhaps you have elected
to polarize my opinion of the good doctor so far away from your
own high appreciation of him that you have pegged me as well more
extreme in my anti-Crichton/pro-Rand sentiment than I really am.
Here is the excerpt from the e-mail that you left out, and
its immediate follow-up:
>SM: I think the criticism of Crichton may be based on the incredible amount
>SM: of money he's made, plus he's tall, handsome and charming. What's not
>SM: to hate ? or more precisely: envy.
>
>> Milo: Or, to look at it another way, your admiration of Cricthon
>> isn't strictly limited to what little artistic skill he possesses.
>> He's rich, tall, handsome, and charming; what's not to love about
>> his books? Or more precisely: his allure to the average woman.
It was here that I was asked to apologize. Puh-leez.
Rob Rodgers
sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
>Without feeling the need to offer a scintilla of proof, Sagan would
>frequently dismiss astrology as being utter nonsense.
I see what your problem is. You're not one of those imbeciles who
believe in astrology, are you?
That would explain everything. There are reasons to dislike Sagan
(the way he pushed "nuclear winter" was an unparalleled low for the
soft-science press), but his astrologer baiting was one of his best
features. If a few tree-hugging, black-wearing starbabies kooks got
their mystical feathers ruffled when he did his best to remove the
cultural cancers of laughable "new ager" philosophies, well, more
power to him.
SANDRAMEND
Milo Cooper said:
>By the way, you might show some of the diplomatic decency that you
>wanted of Ayn Rand, and *not* publicly post private communica-
>tions. In this case, it's also for your own good.
Milo Cooper had earlier said:
>I should say, though, that I communicated with this person via e-mail for
>a couple of days, during which time she gave me the impression that she
>probably has more in common with her Average Joe than she realizes,
>Michael Crichton-lover that she is.
SM:
1)You referred to private e-mail on the basis of which you announced I
was dismissable, not worth talking to.
2) And you wanted me to keep private on what basis you came to that
conclusion??
3) In your dreams, Milo. I thought people should be allowed to judge for
themselves. There was nothing of a personal nature in your e-mail, just
the same sort of intellectual posturing that half-baked Randians and
Buckleyites engage in. Gives superciliousness a bad rap.
Sandra ;-)
Hello, welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline:
If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 -- Repeatedly!
If you are codependent, please ask someone to press 2.
If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6.
If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are -- just stay on
the
line so we can trace the call to learn what you think you want.
If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a voice will tell you
which number to press.
If you are manic-depressive, it doesn't matter which number you
press.
No one will answer.
---Have a nice day -- if you can. :-}
Sandra ;-)
SANDRAMEND
SM: Remember, Crichton went to Med School so as to have a way to make a
living. Never knew how successful he'd be or he might have skipped it.
(Writer's Market?)
that he claimed to have written an entire book over Christmas break to
help
pay for med school. At that stage in his career, it's expectable. But
right
now, I'd say the risks of his family becoming homeless are pretty much
nil,
and he's got a proven audience for his ideas as they stand, rather than
his
fiction. Why cloak good essays in bad art?
Because essay readers number in the thousands and fiction readers number
in the millions???
SM: Good, clear writing tends to be invisible. I'm stimulated by his ideas
(how many writers are there who discuss ideas? I'll tell you: NOT NEARLY
ENOUGH!) and happy that an attempt to be *literary* is NOT there to get in
the way. And I think he's very skilled. I ALWAYS remember what it said. I
underline and use post it tape flags to remind me of where I can find what
I may want to go back and reread.
epb: I don't think I agree with the word "invisible." Acceptable writing
shoudn't interrupt the flow of thoughts, but the reader should still be
aware of various styles between writers. PD James and PG Wodehouse are
good
clear writers, but because I know that James favors long descriptions
about
the English countryside while Wodehouse beautifully describes faces,
dialogue and actions. From Crichton I don't get a sense of style, tone,
pace and so on.
SM: I loved P.G. Wodehouse's letters but his fiction about a class life I
cared nothing about bored me and PD James is easier for me to take on PBS
where there's that wonderful cello theme, than to waste several hours
reading a book that leaves me with so little. Purely personal. I LOVE
what someone scorned as *didactic* fiction: that is, Ayn Rand THE
FOUNTAINHEAD (collectivism psychologically and artists real and phoney)
WE THE LIVING,(what living in Russia during the revolution was really like
by someone who was there) Josephine Tey's THE DAUGHTER OF TIME (the
Richard II controversy, did he really kill his nephew or was this a
rewriting of history) Tom Clancy's RED STORM RISING, or how the Russians
would get trounced if they started a land World War III (they read this
one in the Kremlin, blanched and said: "we give up")
epb: I've got a bit of an hobby, trying to say that all art is similar in
it's basics, to painting and drawing. I'd say that Crichton is a good
technical draftsman, even down to the details, but working in a monochrome
medium and without iany impressionistic fuzzy shadings. Kind of like the
writing equivalent of MC Escher, without the outrageousness.
SM: BRILLIANT Analogy. Great insight.
»EPB: So, I view him as a decent essayist (qualified because I don't often
»agree with him :-), but not a particularly good writer.
»
»SM: And I applying a different set of standards, find him a terrific
writer.
epb: Fair enough. But below...
»"That's the most maddening thing about American popular criticism....It
is so slipshod, so uneven, and it's so without any tradition of accuracy
or excellence that it DOESN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE VIEW of the perception
of a book either in academia or among readers generally (Caps mine).
CONVERSATIONS WITH ANNE RICE by Michael Riley.
epb: What's wrong with American popular criticism is that there isn't any.
Everything tends to be reviewed as a serious artwork rather than a
"popular" work.
A serious critic of *anything* is likely to be interested in that
work
as a work of art, and judge it on those grounds. Unfortunately, these
people refuse to believe that *every* art form has it's "pop" equivalent.
LOST WORLD is no more a work of art than the famous painting DOGS PLAYING
POKER. Holding such work up to the standards of art looks ridiculous for
all concerned - the work looks bad and the reviewer looks like he mistook
the work for art when it obviously wasn't.
What's best is what we have, right here on Usenet; people
interested in
the art discussing it, arguing about it, and disagreeing with each other.
We get
the artisans' perspective from those artists among us, and the
popular view from the people who go to see the film, and the
ability to discuss it further with either
(something we don't get from Siskel and Ebert, or the NYT reviewers).
SM: Yesssssss!
epb: A bit more understanding between the two camps, and life would be
perfect (well, okay, just usenet).
SM: Hear, Hear
Sandra ;-)
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> SM: Good, clear writing tends to be invisible. I'm stimulated by his
ideas
> (how many writers are there who discuss ideas? I'll tell you: NOT NEARLY
> ENOUGH!) and happy that an attempt to be *literary* is NOT there to get
in
> the way. And I think he's very skilled. I ALWAYS remember what it said.
I
> underline and use post it tape flags to remind me of where I can find
what
> I may want to go back and reread.
Allow us to snip to the heart of your upper middle class, liberalist,
pseudo-intellectual bullshit. You believe Crichton does thigns that many
other writers do not do. Got bad news for you there. I can 100. Count'em
100 who do it better and another 100 of equal skill. They will all be
currently published authors who may ot have sold as many books as Crichton
but are twice the writer. Crichton relies overly aon archetypes and
cliches. He happens to weave them together well eough for their blatant
repetivness to go straight over the average joe's head. This is, I suppose,
commendable. He would have had a great future as a politician.
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> Without feeling the need to offer a scintilla of proof, Sagan would
> frequently dismiss astrology as being utter nonsense.
Most scientists do. In fact astrology continually proves it self onsense.
I believe he also
> had an involvement in the disgraceful attempt by an astronomer (who
> regularly got trounced in debates with Sidney Omarr, journalist and
> astrologer.)to get 2,000 scientists to say astrology was bunk. The good
> ones said they had no idea as they hadn't studied the evidence to make
> such an assertion.
Excuse me. I had no idea you had such a firm basis upon which to form your
opinion. Gosh. It is good to know that Dione Warwick has a customer
forllife on these very newsgroups.<sarcasm/>
Reality check: No respected, creible scientist wil lever say they believe
in any type of magic let alone one as ridiculously funny as astrology.
No wonder you have such problems with Sagan. He didn't believe in magic.
Milo D. Cooper
> SANDRAMEND wrote:
>> Milo Cooper said:
>>
>> By the way, you might show some of the diplomatic decency that you
>> wanted of Ayn Rand, and *not* publicly post private communica-
>> tions. In this case, it's also for your own good.
>
> Milo Cooper had earlier said:
>
>> I should say, though, that I communicated with this person via e-mail for
>> a couple of days, during which time she gave me the impression that she
>> probably has more in common with her Average Joe than she realizes,
>> Michael Crichton-lover that she is.
>
> SM:
> 1)You referred to private e-mail on the basis of which you announced I
> was dismissable, not worth talking to.
No. I merely commented that your unquenched thirst for intel-
lectual kinfolk was/is unwarranted, based on my experience. Whe-
ther you are/were dismissable is beside the point. I wanted others
to know that I had come to my opinion empirically.
> 2) And you wanted me to keep private on what basis you came to that
> conclusion??
Aside from the fact that the excerpt that you posted had much
less to do with my observation that other parts of our conversa-
tion, you would have been much better off requesting me to explain
my bases in public, rather than attempting to represent me with a
selective presentation of our exchange. It would have been better
for you and everyone else had you *not* assumed to know just how
I came to my opinion.
> 3) In your dreams, Milo. I thought people should be allowed to judge for
> themselves. There was nothing of a personal nature in your e-mail, just
> the same sort of intellectual posturing that half-baked Randians and
> Buckleyites engage in. Gives superciliousness a bad rap.
Again, people can better judge for themselves when they have
data from the source (me) rather than data filtered through ano-
ther's assumptions (especially when that someone is the source's
*opposition*). The small section of our communication that you
brought out was NOT the section most relevant to my declaration
that your intellectual lonliness is not wholly justified.
Milo D. Cooper
> Tom Cavender wrote:
>> SANDRAMEND wrote:
>>> Tamask said:
>>>
>>> His science is akin to that of the late (the cosmos rest his carbon
>>> based matter) Carl Sagan: very popular, very easy to understand
>>> (which is good), very sketchy, very incomplete, at times very
>>> easily misinterpreted (I consider this dangerous).
>>
>> openminded) , a charlatan, a bore, a ham actor in 19th century theatre
>> style: i.e. phoney. And for decades wondered when PBS would put on someone
>> else, a n y o n e else to discuss astronomy.
>
> Maybe this can still be considered "on-topic" with the upcoming release of
> "Contact", but where in the cosmos did you come up with the idea of Sagan
> being "a bigot"?
And besides that, that's some pretty severe name-calling, from
someone who's turned off by the same from Ayn Rand.
SANDRAMEND
Cronan, he of the acute cranial-rectal inversion said:
>Please. In fact make it your lifes goal to filter me. I, OTOH, will hunt
you down, stomp on your head while eating your entrails with fava beans
and
nice a Sprite,
Hmmm. Isn't that considered *stalking* ???????
Sandra ;-)
SANDRAMEND
Cronan, my *stalker* said:
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> Without feeling the need to offer a scintilla of proof, Sagan would
> frequently dismiss astrology as being utter nonsense.
Cronan:Most scientists do. In fact astrology continually proves it self
onsense.
SM: Actually, they prefer not to look at the proofs.
SM: "Even if all else in the astrological canon should prove wrong, the
Gauquelin [Michel Gauquelin, French statistician/psychologist who in
massive statistical surveys was able to demonstrate powerful correlations
between positions of planets at birth and specific personality types, and
also planetary hereditary links between parents and children] data, until
or unless disproved substantiates the astrological premise at its most
basic and its most crucial. There IS a relationship between the positions
of planets at birth and the human personality.
SM: "...Gauquelin's data has been checked and rechecked by skeptics..
...to make the requisite check is a very simple matter, and not at all
expensive. All that is required is a representative sample to determine if
"experimenter effect" is involved. Since the entire basis of Rationalist
science is at stake if Gauquelin cannot be overthrown, the excuse that the
challenge is "too crazy and flimsy" for scientists to bother with seems
more than a bit crazy and flimsy in its own right.
."...CSICOP [Comittee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal] had fudged its own data when it began to be clear that
Gauquelin's results would be vindicated....everyone...knew that the
account released to the press by CSICOP was a concoction of lies and
misrepresentations that fairly reeked at a distance." -- THE CASE FOR
ASTROLOGY, John Anthony West.
.
Sandra ;-)
J.P. Morgan - Millionaires don't use astrologers. Billionaires do.
Sandra ;-)
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND, my court jester prattled:
> SM: Actually, they prefer not to look at the proofs.
Please name some of those proofs.
> SM: "Even if all else in the astrological canon should prove wrong, the
> Gauquelin [Michel Gauquelin, French statistician/psychologist who in
> massive statistical surveys was able to demonstrate powerful correlations
> between positions of planets at birth and specific personality types, and
> also planetary hereditary links between parents and children] data, until
> or unless disproved substantiates the astrological premise at its most
> basic and its most crucial. There IS a relationship between the positions
> of planets at birth and the human personality.
>
> SM: "...Gauquelin's data has been checked and rechecked by skeptics..
> ...to make the requisite check is a very simple matter, and not at all
> expensive. All that is required is a representative sample to determine
if
> "experimenter effect" is involved. Since the entire basis of Rationalist
> science is at stake if Gauquelin cannot be overthrown, the excuse that
the
> challenge is "too crazy and flimsy" for scientists to bother with seems
> more than a bit crazy and flimsy in its own right.
>
> ."...CSICOP [Comittee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
> Paranormal] had fudged its own data when it began to be clear that
> Gauquelin's results would be vindicated....everyone...knew that the
> account released to the press by CSICOP was a concoction of lies and
> misrepresentations that fairly reeked at a distance." -- THE CASE FOR
> ASTROLOGY, John Anthony West.
There is also a relationship between shoe and penis size. If you look at a
large enough statisical base with loose enough criterion you can prove
whatever it is that you sought. Loose personality archetypes applied to
huge segments of the population using uncertain means in no way proves
anything. According to my own research Gauquelin's has been debunked
numerous times primarily because he sought what he wished to find. Give me
a lab and some insanely loose criteria and I can proove to you that IQ is
directly affected by the amount of soda that is taken in as a child.
> J.P. Morgan - Millionaires don't use astrologers. Billionaires do.
As I remember JP Morgan died broke.
SANDRAMEND
According to my own research
SM: What research? using what methods? where published? CSICOP's frenzied
attempts to discredit Gauquelin reads like Keystone Kops comedy complete
with scientists leaving the organization in disgust and publishing their
own accounts of the lousy scientific method used not by Gauquelin but by
CSICOP.
Cronan: Give me a lab and some insanely loose criteria and I can proove
to you that IQ is directly affected by the amount of soda that is taken in
as a child.
SM: Give YOU???? a lab. The mind boggles.
> J.P. Morgan - Millionaires don't use astrologers. Billionaires do.
As I remember JP Morgan died broke.
"J. P. Morgan/Last Will: The male members of the family (one son, 2
sons-in-law) were willed $5 million outright. The distaff side (wife, 3
daughters) were left a total of $10 million, in trust with the power to
will the principal...His art treasures were given to his son, with the
advice that they be placed on permanent display "for the instruction and
pleasure of the American people." (Thank you. JP. My husband and I enjoyed
visiting The Morgan Library and seeing the displays). Morgan also gave
each employee of J. P. Morgan and Co. a year's salary. p. 1331, THE
PEOPLE'S ALMANAC, by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace.
Notice a difference in methodology? I cite books, authors, facts,
evidence, whereas Cronan......
Sandra ;-)
SANDRAMEND
I loathed Carl Sagan, thought him a bigot (whereas I find Crichton
>> openminded) , a charlatan, a bore, a ham actor in 19th century theatre
>> style: i.e. phoney.
Milo: that's some pretty severe name-calling, from
someone who's turned off by the same from Ayn Rand.
--
SM: On a higher level you must admit than "Carl Sagan sucks", which is how
some in this newsgroup would have stated it.
Let me return to my main thesis that I find Michael Crichton remarkably
open-minded for someone"skilled in rational, linear thought", indeed,
trained to disregard anything else.
Having just been reading about the hilarious doings at CSICOP, when faced
with "The problem of data in conflict with existing theory", I returned to
Michael Crichton's book TRAVELS and reread the speech he had planned to
deliver to the CSICOP group at Caltech (had he been invited, which he
ultimately wasn't. God, those guys have a genius for evasion). In
preparing his speech, Crichton read a book of essays from The Skeptical
Inquirer, their journal, in a volume called SCIENCE CONFRONTS THE
PARANORMAL, and was "disturbed by the intemperate tone of many writers I
admired: there was a tendency to attribute the basest motives to their
opponents...."
My objection to Ayn Rand's FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL was identical, her
calling those who disagreed with her "witch doctors" or "Attilas."
Rational Rand?? So scornful was Rand of statistical evidence that it
wasn't until her doctor showed her her cancerous X-rays that she agreed to
give up smoking. Rational? I think not.
Ultimately, I see Rand and Sagan on one side and Michael Crichton on the
other. I stand with Crichton. I used the scientific methods devised by
John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher, the methods of difference,
variations and correlations, and agreement to disprove astrology. I
couldn't. I did what any intellectually honest person without an axe to
grind would do. I investigated further.
Sandra ;-)
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
>
> SM: Give YOU???? a lab. The mind boggles.
Far better than trusting the bull in Venus' apex
> "J. P. Morgan/Last Will: The male members of the family (one son, 2
> sons-in-law) were willed $5 million outright. The distaff side (wife, 3
> daughters) were left a total of $10 million, in trust with the power to
> will the principal...His art treasures were given to his son, with the
> advice that they be placed on permanent display "for the instruction and
> pleasure of the American people." (Thank you. JP. My husband and I
enjoyed
> visiting The Morgan Library and seeing the displays). Morgan also gave
> each employee of J. P. Morgan and Co. a year's salary. p. 1331, THE
> PEOPLE'S ALMANAC, by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace.
Doesn't sound like a billionaire to me. Sorry I could have sworn the quote
was "J.P. Morgan - Millionaires don't use astrologers. Billionaires do."
Now I am pretty sure there are at least 10 people who were able ot leave
behind twice that amount who scorned astrology.
> Notice a difference in methodology? I cite books, authors, facts,
> evidence, whereas Cronan......
Not a difference in intelligence? She cites long debunked sources, authors
who have the respect of people who spend the preponderance of their time
reliving acid flashback, facts so dubious you couldn't even get the
American Public to believe them and evidence very similar to that presented
in the OJ trial and I... I am god.
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> SM: On a higher level you must admit than "Carl Sagan sucks", which is
how
> some in this newsgroup would have stated it.
Translation: I did it better than Bubba, the 300 pound gerbal, HYUCK!!"
<<snipped>>
> Ultimately, I see Rand and Sagan on one side and Michael Crichton on the
> other. I stand with Crichton.
Of course you would. You are given the choice between to of the greatest
and most well repected thinkers of this generation and a hack writer whose
politics and beliefs coincide with yours and you choose latter. BIG SURPISE
I used the scientific methods devised by
> John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher, the methods of difference,
> variations and correlations, and agreement to disprove astrology. I
> couldn't.
Personally I used the techniques detailed by Norman, my 3 inch discorpreal
blue elf, Leanne, my 2 inch rock troll, to come to the firm conclusion
that you used said technique without an open mind. You approached it with
the samer closed mindedness that accuse Sagan and Rand .... with the
opposite point of veiw.
I did what any intellectually honest person without an axe to
> grind would do. I investigated further.
I have done what any person with a adze would do. Chopped into your big
wooden head.
Nap time.
Lars Joreteg
On 29 May 1997, SANDRAMEND wrote:
> Cronan said:
>
> I have done what any person with a adze would do. Chopped into your big
> wooden head.
>
> To Usenet moderators. Is there no rule against threats of physical
> violence? This is the third one Cronan has hurled at me.
Usenet moderators? He he. Since when is this a moderated group?
> Please e-mail me. This man sounds very disturbed.
Get used to it. This is usenet.
And, BTW, learn to quote properly. (where did he say that for example...)
- Lars ________
| _____] "It was a new age.
Lars F. Joreteg | | ___ It was the end of history.
|__|[_ \ It was the year everything
<ljor...@puc.edu> B A B_ Y \L |O N changed.
http://www.puc.edu ( \__/ | The year is 2261.
/Students/ljoreteg \______/ The place: Babylon 5."
SANDRAMEND
Cronan said:
I have done what any person with a adze would do. Chopped into your big
wooden head.
To Usenet moderators. Is there no rule against threats of physical
violence? This is the third one Cronan has hurled at me.
Please e-mail me. This man sounds very disturbed.
Rob Rodgers
sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
>I have done what any person with a adze would do. Chopped into your big
>wooden head.
Aren't you supposed to be using a Ouiji board or something?
>To Usenet moderators. Is there no rule against threats of physical
>violence? This is the third one Cronan has hurled at me.
Usenet moderators. Congratulations, you and AOL are well met.
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> To Usenet moderators. Is there no rule against threats of physical
> violence? This is the third one Cronan has hurled at me.
IT is quite clearly hubris but if you wish to fear for yur life simply
because I am delusional and know where you live.... go right ahead.
> Please e-mail me. This man sounds very disturbed.
LOL. Usenet Moderators? HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Insert 50 more lines of hahas.
Paul Hager
sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) writes:
>Cronan said:
>I have done what any person with a adze would do. Chopped into your big
>wooden head.
>To Usenet moderators. Is there no rule against threats of physical
>violence? This is the third one Cronan has hurled at me.
He was being metaphoric, if offensive. Note the tense. No threat,
not actionable.
--
paul hager hag...@cs.indiana.edu
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON
SANDRAMEND
Dear Paul:
You said Conran's charge was in the past tense and hence not actionable.
OK How about this threat?.
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> Sig Heil????
Conran:Quite possibly. Hitler is a hero of mine
SM: Am looking for a new server that will allow me to use a less
simplistic
> newsreader, one with a filter. Guess who will be among my first
filterees.
Conran: Please. In fact make it your lifes goal to filter me. I, OTOH,
Tom Cavender
In article <19970528025...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
>I loathed Carl Sagan, thought him a bigot (whereas I find Crichton
>>> openminded) , a charlatan, a bore, a ham actor in 19th century theatre
>>> style: i.e. phoney.
Again, why was Carl Sagan, in your words, a "bigot"? And what made him
"phoney", i.e. anything other than what he presented himself to be?
>
>Milo: that's some pretty severe name-calling, from
>someone who's turned off by the same from Ayn Rand.
>--
>SM: On a higher level you must admit than "Carl Sagan sucks", which is how
>some in this newsgroup would have stated it.
>
>Let me return to my main thesis that I find Michael Crichton remarkably
>open-minded for someone"skilled in rational, linear thought", indeed,
>trained to disregard anything else.
Having not read Crichton's "Travels", I can't respond to your assertion that
he is more open-minded than Sagan. (The only way this thread is still on topic
in this group is the connection of the two men with two films being released
this summer). Still, having read Sagan's last book, "The Demon Haunted World"
(and currently reading "Contact"), I still have yet to see evidence that Sagan
is "a bigot" in any sense of the word. So Dr. Sagan rejected crop circles and
sees no evidence for much paranormal activity and, especially, claims of alien
abductions. Such a rejection, (or an apparent dislike of the TV show "The
X-Files" he hinted at in "Demon Haunted World") does not make Sagan a "bigot"
any more than his predilection for using the word "billions". Reading his
refutation of paranormal phenomena in "Demon Haunted World", especially his
treatment of alien abduction claims and Dr. John Mack of Harvard, do not smack
of a man with an axe to grind. Instead, there are many instances in which
Sagan says, in effect, "show me the evidence". He also presents more than
adequate data to support his skepticism. At times, he is also critical of
some of his CSICOP colleagues (read what he says about James Randi, for
example, although he states that he admires Randi). Again, read "Demon
Haunted World", which pretty much sums up Sagan's views about paranormal and
UFO claims, and post what you think, perhaps in a group like rec.arts.books.
>
>Having just been reading about the hilarious doings at CSICOP, when faced
>with "The problem of data in conflict with existing theory", I returned to
Please elaborate.
>Michael Crichton's book TRAVELS and reread the speech he had planned to
>deliver to the CSICOP group at Caltech (had he been invited, which he
>ultimately wasn't. God, those guys have a genius for evasion). In
>preparing his speech, Crichton read a book of essays from The Skeptical
>Inquirer, their journal, in a volume called SCIENCE CONFRONTS THE
>PARANORMAL, and was "disturbed by the intemperate tone of many writers I
>admired: there was a tendency to attribute the basest motives to their
>opponents...."
Perhaps you are "attributing the basest motives" to the group in question. Is
there any evidence that Crichton was dumped because he was coming to criticize
the group? Who was the replacement speaker? What were the specific
circumstances, as recalled by both Crichton and the group? I could
understand, as an example, if a Nobel laureate (say, for example, Steven
Weinberg) or a prominent scientist (Stephen Hawking, as an example) were to
become available and Crichton given a raincheck. Not knowing what transpired
before Crichton's planned speech at Cal Tech, I can't make a judgment.
>Ultimately, I see Rand and Sagan on one side and Michael Crichton on the
>other. I stand with Crichton. I used the scientific methods devised by
>John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher, the methods of difference,
>variations and correlations, and agreement to disprove astrology. I
>couldn't. I did what any intellectually honest person without an axe to
>grind would do. I investigated further.
Are you saying that you couldn't "disprove" astrology? We're getting a little
far afield from the topic of the ng here, but I doubt that Sagan would say
that he had "disproved" astrology, but rather that he had shown it to be
highly improbable and, as a whole, inconsistent with the scientific evidence.
Interestingly, Sagan states in "The Demon Haunted World" (p. 302, paperback
edition) that he refused to sign a manifesto a colleague had drawn up
denouncing astrology because he felt its tone was "authoritarian". "The
statement stressed that we can think of no mechanism by which astrology could
work. This is certainly a relevant point but by itself it's unconvincing, "
Sagan says. He goes on to state that continental drift was roundly rejected
in the beginning on the same grounds. The statements of a "bigot"? I don't
think so. Sagan then goes on to enumerate more concrete objections to
astrology.
You haven't shown that Sagan did not use scientific methods, or that he
reached his conclusions a priori. Again, read "The Demon Haunted World",
which addresses many of these questions And post your reaction, preferably in
a newsgroup like rec.arts.books or maybe sci.skeptic.
Getting back to the movie end of all this:
As for Crichton, I've only read his fiction, and find it to be mostly a
platform to express his socio-political views. Aside from that, I find it
interesting that "The Lost World" (the movie) seems to have a widely different
message than the novel. The novel speculates (with some intelligence) about
extinction, while the movie is (simplistically) about preservation. (Note: I
wasn't crazy about the book, but I didn't like the movie). I enjoyed
"Westworld", mostly as campy fun, and I found "The Great Train Robbery" a
pleasant diversion. "Twister" (a script Crichton co-wrote with his wife),
however, was one of the worst screenplays I've seen filmed in the past few
years, a real howler. ("He's in it for the money and not the science!") Some
would argue that "Congo" was worse, but I don't think so. I don't doubt Dr.
Crichton's intelligence, but I don't think it's time to hand the guy a
Pulitzer just yet (an honor Dr. Sagan received for "The Dragons of Eden"):-).
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970530010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Dear Paul:
>
> You said Conran's charge was in the past tense and hence not actionable.
> OK How about this threat?.
Do you suffer from an extreme case of autism or is your apparent insular
nature simply a manefestation of your badly damaged faculties? I ask
because if you have not figured out that the Usenet not only has no
moderators but is so filled with vitriolic hubris that what I have said is
extremely mild then you must be the only person truly worthy of that AOL
account. You have a nice one now.
Tom Cavender
In article <19970526184...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, sandr...@aol.com (SANDRAMEND) wrote:
>>SM: I loathed Carl Sagan, thought him a bigot (whereas I find Crichton
>>openminded) , a charlatan, a bore, a ham actor in 19th century theatre
>someone
>>else, a n y o n e else to discuss astronomy.
>
>Maybe this can still be considered "on-topic" with the upcoming release of
>
>"Contact", but where in the cosmos did you come up with the idea of Sagan
>being "a bigot"?
>
>frequently dismiss astrology as being utter nonsense.
Perhaps you missed my previous post on this in the "Crichton trashed" thread,
but Sagan once refused to sign a fellow astronomer's manifesto against
astrology because he felt the tone was "too authoritarian". (The Demon Haunted
World, p. 302) Sagan then goes on to state his objections to astrology on
grounds other than the other astronomer's statements that "astrology could
never work".
Dismissal of astrology as "utter nonsense", especially when backed by
scientific data and logic, is hardly "bigotry". As one of Sagan's key
characters in "Contact" (played in the film version by Tom Skerritt) has it,
science is a cautious process, and it is a business that centers about
skepticism. Such a scientific rebuttal of astrology, rather than a cursory
rejection of the topic, is what Dr. Sagan engaged in.
Without getting too far afield from the topic of the ng, I believe the central
theme of "Contact" (the novel) is that science affords endless wonders, much
more fascinating than pseudoscience could offer. The focus on ideas in
"Contact" have more depth than most of Crichton's work. Crichton's novels (and
their film adaptations) sometimes exhibit some intelligence, but they rarely
ask "hard questions" and are thinly disguised messages. Take, as examples,
"Jurassic Park" and "Rising Sun". "Jurassic Park" was a thinly disguised
update of the Frankenstein story (hard one there), and "Rising Sun" was a
screed about Japanese economic ascendancy and East/West differences.
"Contact" (the novel), on the other hand, takes an old idea (first contact
with an alien civilization) and deals with the social, political, religious,
and scientific consequences. Sure, Sagan wants to make a point ("science is
good, superstition is bad"), and some subplots of the novel (Soviet politics,
for example), have been made outdated by political developments since the
novel's publication in 1985. Still, if Zemeckis, Michael Goldenberg (the
scriptwriter), and the others behind the film don't drop the ball, the film
could be one of the most intriguing SF films made since 2001.
> I believe he also
>had an involvement in the disgraceful attempt by an astronomer (who
>regularly got trounced in debates with Sidney Omarr, journalist and
>astrologer.)to get 2,000 scientists to say astrology was bunk.
Who was the astronomer involved? What are Sidney Omarr's journalistic
credentials? What made the attempt "disgraceful"? And what credible
scientific testing has Sidney Omarr's horoscopes, for example, undergone?
> The good
>ones said they had no idea as they hadn't studied the evidence to make
>such an assertion.
Read Dr. Sagan's views in "The Demon Haunted World" vis a vis astrology and
get back with me, preferably in rec.arts.books or sci.skeptic.
David Hines
In article <33931046...@news.mindspring.com>,
Serenleono, the Serene Lion <ve...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I suspect that most of us would be more impressed by your
>argument if you were *arguing* your case and not simply
>applying the "vitriolic hubris" of which you write. All
>this flaming is pointless. If you disagree with Sandra,
>then disagree and give your reasons for disagreeing; posting
>that her socks smell only makes you appear rather petty.
On the other hand, it's perfectly okay for you to call me
evil and lacking in integrity for documenting your dependency
on morphs... and you don't have to address any of the evidence?
Pot, kettle, black.
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/dzhines/sftv/archive/ian.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| David Hines d-h...@uchicago.edu |
| http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/dzhines |
====================================================================