McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Science Fantasy worlds
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Sameth on August 23, 2007, 07:47:12 AM ---As a fan of Crichton, I take umbrage to your assumption that that is the point that he's trying to get across. Crichton has no hidden agenda. There's nothing to read between the lines.
--- End quote ---
I'll agree this far. This isn't subtext; this is text.
--- Quote ---Think of it this way, when someone makes a movie and they depict the villain as being a Russian radical, are they condemning ALL of Russia? Hell no.
--- End quote ---
If that was the only thing they ever made movies about, it would start to suggest an underlying agenda.
--- Quote ---Ever read Sphere? Sphere has nothing to do with technology malfunctioning. The underwater habitat never malfunctioned until it was hit by a squid several times and had an electrical surge. That one, Crichton exploits the human race and their minds being dangerous given the power of manifestation combined with fear. So is he condemning us? No.
--- End quote ---
Sphere; humans find a mysterious artifact of unknown advanced technological origin which provides great power. This provides horrible danger and what is presented as a happy and satisfying ending is to get rid of it.
Jurassic Park: humans learn to clone dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are horribly dangerous and the
happy and satisfying ending is to get the humans way from them and get rid of them.
Prey: humans learn how to make active nanotech. It turns out to be horribly dangerous, and, for a change, the ending is not quite sure whether it's been got rid of, but again, that's where the sympathies are going.
The possibilities for positive outcomes to technological progress or change of any sort are not in these books. The status quo is good and change is bad. This is Luddism plain and simple.
Spectacular Sameth:
I think you're taking the wrong thing from it and I believe I have a quote from the Jurassic Park movie that helps:
John Hammond: When we have control—
Ellie Sattler: You never had control — that's the illusion! I was overwhelmed by the power of this place. But I made a mistake, too. I didn't have enough respect for that power, and it's out now.
The point here is that it's more about knowing what you're doing rather than condemning new technology. What was the single biggest mistake they made in the Jurassic Park novel? Hiring a guy who was untrustworthy and then paying him little. He was the one that sabotaged the park. The dinosaurs running amok are the same as opening the cage to the big predators at a zoo. If they want to eat humans, they will try.
The whole reason they destroyed the island at the end was to prevent the dinosaurs from going to other islands like they had managed to do. But they lacked control because they made more than they could keep track of and they didn't know much about the dinosaurs at all. You have to know about the creature you're holding captive to be able to keep it captive.
See, in Jurassic Park it was more of people taking short cuts than the new technology. The fencing system is pretty standard. I'll admit that he did make the dinosaurs a bit TOO aggressive at times, but that was for conflict reason. I honestly can't see how this would be cloning failing, but more or less a zoo that was poorly ran. Think about it: Hammond was more obsessed with making money than showing off his creation. Okay, I could see a greed thing about this, but that's about it.
Also, I think part of the reason they were killed was for a conclusive ending. Closure. I mean, reasoning was to prevent the dinosaurs from spreading to other islands seeing as Costa Rica was having a problem with compies attacking their young.
Let's look at Sphere:
Like I said, Sphere has nothing to do with technology malfunctioning. The Sphere worked perfectly. It did was it was built to do. The problem here was that those that got the power didn't know how to use it. Harry was the first one to get it and he didn't have control over it because no one had had that power before him. He didn't know what it could do. He didn't know he was doing anything.
Beth was emotionally and mentally unstable. She had no control there and it effected how she used her powers.
Norman, on the other hand, having observed both Beth and Harry, had known what to do. He had control over it. Truth be told, Norman is a perfect example of what I'm getting at. The technology works for him. Nothing bad happens when he gets it. He doesn't manifest a giant squid or anything of that nature. Why? He has control of both the powers and of his own emotions.
At the end, the Sphere was thought to have been destroyed because the three didn't think that humans could handle the power. I think it's the same as not going around town handing out guns and doing background checks on people who do have guns. Can you imagine a whole lot of people like Beth with that power?
In Prey:
I can't really say much about this one. I read it once back in 2004 (or whenever it was new) and haven't reread it since. But I will say this: the methods in which they made nanobots was unknown to them. They got out and ran amok because they were unaware of their capabilities. I don't recall the nanobots being taken care of in this one, either. I thought the threat was still rampant.
I still think it's the arrogance of thinking you have control and really not having it. There's no way Crichton COULD write technology in a positive light without writing essays, but he'd rather write fiction, which means he needs conflict. Rather than having this impressive technology in the background of a novel, he opts to portray it in a "negative light" so as to have conflict.
I'm going to have to pull out more examples for my point:
In Crichton's book Next, there was nothing NEGATIVE about bioengineering. In fact, I recall a happy ending with a talking parrot and an ape kid. The good guys were trying to save them both from people who wanted them for selfish reasons. If nothing else, I think Next is a perfect example of when he doesn't follow the formula.
Steve Alten wrote several books about Megalodon sharks. The sharks attack humans and large sea mammals. Does that mean he hates sharks? Probably not. In fact, I'm pretty sure he likes them. In fact, a lot of people write about what they like. I've written dragons in a negative light before, but I really like dragons. I added them because I liked dragons. I just thought it more sensible to put them in a negative light.
Nessus_Wyndestrike:
My idea on any well-written, compelling world is one that can keep expanding, imagining and thinking about even after you've finished all the books available to read. I started out with a basic concept of my own "world" as it were.
As time went on, I became fascinated-obsessed with the cultures and races and even the climate in each city. The way things were governed on one continent to the next, how each city and it's boundaries interacted with one another. Trade and commerce, clothing styles, cultural hairstyles, architecture. Even the variants of food and travel. For example, one of my continents has to import horses, and they are very expensive both to transport and to care for.
A truly captivating world is "alive" and convincingly "real".
~N.W.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Sameth on August 23, 2007, 08:04:02 PM ---I think you're taking the wrong thing from it and I believe I have a quote from the Jurassic Park movie that helps:
John Hammond: When we have control—
Ellie Sattler: You never had control — that's the illusion! I was overwhelmed by the power of this place. But I made a mistake, too. I didn't have enough respect for that power, and it's out now.
The point here is that it's more about knowing what you're doing rather than condemning new technology.
--- End quote ---
That's the point exactly.
If you know what you are doing, it isn't research. The scientific method is about finding new things and figuring them out. You don't and can't know what you're doing when it's something new; the value system here is asking for something that is by definition incompatible with actual science.
I'll believe Crichton gets this when he writes one novel in which research finds something new and useful with a net-positive effect.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Sameth on August 23, 2007, 08:04:02 PM ---There's no way Crichton COULD write technology in a positive light without writing essays, but he'd rather write fiction, which means he needs conflict.
--- End quote ---
.
There is a truly amazing amount of SF out there that presents technology in a positive light, much of it a more nuanced light allowing for the positive and the negative, without being lacking in conflict. To some ways of looking at it that's kind of core to the genre.
--- Quote ---In Crichton's book Next, there was nothing NEGATIVE about bioengineering. In fact, I recall a happy ending with a talking parrot and an ape kid. The good guys were trying to save them both from people who wanted them for selfish reasons. If nothing else, I think Next is a perfect example of when he doesn't follow the formula.
--- End quote ---
I've not read that one, and that response to it does make me feel somewhat better. Though it's unlikely to get into my readpile anytime soon.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version