Saturday, February 26, 2005
State of Fear
I finished State of Fear, which I enjoyed tremendously. It’s not like it’s the world’s greatest literature, but it’s an excellent idea for a story, vivid, and says things that needed to be said.
In general, at some times more than others, you can just see it unfolding before you on the big screen. It reads like a movie. To me, anyway. Which is not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing; it just is what it is, and I don’t usually notice that in a book. I’d go see the movie, but I can’t imagine anyone making it.
I’m surprised there was that much uproar over it. The guy is more of an environmentalist than I am. Ultimately he is railing against bad science that is overly influenced by its funding sources, institutions that grow old, stodgy, fixed in their views, and come to exist more to perpetuate themselves than anything, at our tendency toward hubris when we don’t really know diddly, and against the use of fear to control and influence the population.
After finishing it, I find claims that he is anti-science to be all the more laughable. That is people caricaturing themselves and helping to make his points for him.
There weren’t as many footnotes as the buzz had led me to expect. Nor was there was much factual lecture stuff as knowing about the footnotes might have made me fear.
I don’t think I am giving too much away to say that I tremendously enjoyed Ted Bradley’s fate.
A major point one character (our favorite) made, even if it is not a viewpoint Crichton himself is fully behind, was a rather libertarian perspective. Governments control population through keeping them in a state of fear. It was the Cold War for decades. This is in keeping with the notion that there are so many laws and regulations that nobody can fail to break some of them, and it is the guilt and fear of being in violation and being potentially punishable that helps keep the populace firmly in control. Fear leads to firmer power.
Anyway, it’s an excellent read I highly recommend.