Letters to the Editor
-
Well, Andrew, You've done it now....
I've never posted a comment to your column because you have a knack for saying it just right. Just enough that there isn't much to add, only to admire. Now that you've owned reading KSR, finding him to be all that and a bag of chips and dissing that Crichton Creep in one single post, I must praise you. Andrew, you don't get all the letters or whatever it is that passes for hot at Salon, but your work is amazing. Thank you so much for all that you do from one of your, no doubt, many faithful readers.
-
Science fiction is not Science
When will Salon get writers that don't confuse the two?
-
Robinson
Ivan, if you'd read any Robinson you wouldn't make disparaging comments about his supposed status as a 'science fiction' writer.
What Robinson writes might broadly be called science fiction, but it predicts stuff that is in the near future.
The Mars Trilogy is one of my favorite works. Robinson is amazingly good at juggling a huge cast of characters and still putting in tons of science.
In the latter part of the Mars Trilogy, one of the main characters, Nirgal, returns to Earth and observes the effects of global warming. A huge amount of land mass has been submerged, and governments have been destroyed all over the world; huge transnational corporations hold more power than the nations. It's an extraordinarily vivid picture, although of course only incidental to the main action on Mars.
I need to pick up this new trilogy, I didn't even know about it. Thanks for tipping me off. Robinson is great.
-
Yawn. I won't read this book.
Yes, science fiction is not science, and the passage quoted was on a level for early teenagers. Gee, didn't he give it to those one-dimensional world bankers, snapping the pencil and all?! Ohh I hate those world bankers, they are so evil (and cliche).
Just because the masses think something doesn't make it so. Global Warming coming into pop culture does not make it any more scientifically proven so saying "There Mr. Chrichton, everybody thinks so" is a pretty immature comment, possibly the stupidest I've seen on Salon.
And the "debate", as if it was ever not really a debate and deserves to be between quotes in this article, is still going. The debate will continue until proof, not just a concensus, is reached, conclusive proof and being open to debate, is what science is all about, nothing else (and buddhism for that matter).
Sorry but this global warming is turning into a witchhunt for some scientists, "He doesn't believe, Heathen! Cast him out! Who's with me?". This attitude is not science, this is almost a semi-religion/cult (and it sells, a lot).
Now I'm all for clean energy, I've recycled for decades, I ride a bike or walk when I can, I'm careful what I purchase, I always vote for the Greens (I'm Australian) etc. etc. but until we know for sure what is causing Global Warming how can we hope to stop it?
Thought: What if global warming is a natural process (it may not be)? Should we still take measures to stop it?
Think independantly, be doubt-driven, don't believe me.
-
Chiming in
With the love for this article. As soon as I saw the anti-Crichton headline, I couldn't get here fast enough. I just bought State of Fear (I know, I know, I hang my head in shame). I have tried several times and I cannot get through this book. It's global warming conspiracy theme and awful writing would make me put the book aside in frustration. And I thought it was me, glad to see my instincts were right.
Carry on!
-
science fiction author?
Leoniceno wrote: "Ivan, if you'd read any Robinson you wouldn't make disparaging comments about his supposed status as a 'science fiction' writer."
I don't understand what's "disparaging" about calling a science fiction writer a science fiction writer. That is, unless you think that "science fiction" is a term of disparagement, which I, for one, certainly don't.
"What Robinson writes might broadly be called science fiction, but it predicts stuff that is in the near future."
Near-future science fiction is also science fiction.
But quibbling aside, I agree with your opinion of Kim Stanley Robinson. He's one of my favourite sf authors, too.
-
Yeah.
Of course Robinson is a sci-fi writer, and of course there's nothing wrong with sci-fi.
But I don't think that labeling something 'sci-fi' is enough to invalidate it. Robinson does years of research on his books, and they're full of scientific facts.
-
From the Doubt-Driven
What if global warming is caused by whales?
But whatever, I've driven by Michael Crichton's house. He has the weirdest garden around - it's filled with plants from every different climate zone on the planet, all set cheek by jowl like there's no such thing as water management. Funny how those things work out.
Thanks for any post that mentions that World Bank guys are evil. Gotta be the Wolf Whammy.
-
Give you a hint
Watch Charlie Rose/Michael Crichton on Google Video to straighten out your skewed views a bit.
-
I've been looking for somthing compelling to read
This new trilogy quite obviously develops themes KSR touched on in his Mars ( Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars) as earthly background for the terraforming of Mars.
I was disappointed that those themes, particularly over-population; extreme gerontocracy arising from life extending genetic treatments available to Earth's plutocratic elite; the wresting of power from governments by trans-national corporations which simply bought countries outright; and the dislocations from global sea-level changes, were not explored more fully but I see now that it would take something on the order of a complete new set of writings to do justice to the situations.
It's a mistake to be dismissive of sci-fi. The best writers in the genre have consistently raised important themes about our current societies and what these characteristics mean as they play out into the future. And many are markedly and frankly dystopian, which makes the Star Trek types who insist that science and tech will magically give us a rosy future despite our species manifest self-destructive proclivities.
"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson