This is topic Umbelievable Crichton in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/9620.html

Posted by fizz (Member # 1706) on :
 
I did not tought that somebody could fall so low... compared to this even the worst slashdot trolls seems quite innocuous...

Article
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Holy crap! What an ass.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
That's what you call "going for the jugular."

Damn.

Too bad he doesn't realize that this discredits him far more than whatever satsifaction he gets from this stunt.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
"What?!? That's crazy! I completely, totally forgot about you. Ha! Ha! Silly ol' brain, forgetting that your name was Michael Crowley, too. Boy, am I ever embarassed."

There's got to be grounds here for defamation. Something.

[ December 15, 2006, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
As it stands right now, this seems like something that is way over the top. I wonder what drove it? Crowley says he wrote "a critical 3,700-word cover story about Crichton" which I read and while it was critical it wasn't anything Crichton should et worked up about - it didn't get very personal and he's surely had worse critiques of his work. Crowley's "critical" cover story doesn't seem anywhere in the ballpark sufficient to warrant the shot Crichton takes at him in this new book.

I think we're missing some part of the history between these guys that led to this. It just doesn't seem to add up.

EDIT to add: I'm not defending Crichton on this one, it's pretty poor any way you slice it. I'm just saying I don't think we've heard the whole story.

[ December 15, 2006, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Of course we haven't heard all the details. I'm sure the 2-year old boy asked for it.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
I have a bad feeling about this. Do you think we should start looking for our names in his latest novel? [Eek!]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Maybe you should be looking in OSC's latest?
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
I apologize in advance to my countrymen...
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
All sympathy for this guy evaporates on the last line of his post:

quote:
In lieu of a letter to the editor, Crichton had fictionalized me as a child rapist. And, perhaps worse, falsely branded me a pharmaceutical-industry profiteer.

 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
Anally raping a 2 year old? With a small penis to boot? I think its safe to say that Michael Crichton's credibility has officially jumped the shark.

Adam
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Dag, I'm pretty sure he was speaking tongue-in-cheek there.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
Dag, I'm pretty sure he was speaking tongue-in-cheek there.
So am I. Still makes me think he's an ass.

Most of what I think Crichton did wrong is casually using child rape to score cheap points against in political cat fight.

This guy is taking a swan dive from the high ground he had.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It would take a HECK of a swan dive to abdicate the high ground in this case. You really think his throwaway dig at Big Pharma is enough?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Dag, I'm pretty sure he was speaking tongue-in-cheek there."

TD, that's *sick*. [Wink]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
groan
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
yar...
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Certainly this type of displacement is shocking SHOCKING!

I'm glad that noone else (certainly not from the high brow liberal set) indulges in such childish antics like writing films wishing the death of their policital opponents and calling it mere analysis, flinging seniors off cliffs or honestly suggesting that children were being sent off to die for mere stock shares in non fiction venues without a shred of proof [Razz]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
It would take a HECK of a swan dive to abdicate the high ground in this case. You really think his throwaway dig at Big Pharma is enough?
Yes, I do. Had Crichton actually accused this guy of doing that, he'd still be several miles below. But no one reading the book thinks the reporter actually did those things. So it's a dickish, childish attack on a rival writer. Definitely a scummy thing to do to the guy.

But what really pisses me off about Crichton's act is that he uses something that actually happens - I've been peripherally involved with one such case - to render his juvenile insult, and in doing so makes it cartoonish. The harm to Crowly is almost non-existent - no one will think he's a child rapist, and he's going to get good play out of it.

So what does Crowly do? Uses the opportunity handed to him by Crichton on a silver platter to take a backhanded, ignorant swipe at pharmaceutical companies AND - worse in my opinion - trivialize the same problem Cricthon trivialized to make his swipe.

The fact that his comment is throwaway makes it worse. It demonstrates that he can't let go of his agenda for two seconds to call Cricthon to task for what he did. It demonstrates that he cares more about his smug echo-chamber of a blog than what actually happened to him.

(To point out to some who might not catch this - none of this is a defense of Crichton nor does it make the gravity of what he did any less.)
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
It struck me more as a "I'm such a big man that Crichton's insult didn't really bother me. Here, I'll make a joke to prove it." thing.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
(To point out to some who might not catch this - none of this is a defense of Crichton nor does it make the gravity of what he did any less.)
Well, I think it does reduce the gravity of what Crichton did, because you are equating it to something far less. I read your explanation, but I'm just not seeing it. It was a light-hearted quip, which may have been in poor taste (though if you can keep your sense of humor after being so attacked, then I say bravo), but in no way compares to the vicious and petty actions of Crichton. Honestly I'm suprised that you can consider the two equivalent. One guys fictionizes the other as a child rapist, the other deflects it with a joke. They aren't even remotely the same.

Adam
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
Well, I think it does reduce the gravity of what Crichton did, because you are equating it to something far less.
Only if you force my weighing of what Crowley did into your own views, not mine.

I am telling you, specifically, that I think what Crowley did is very, very bad. Unless you are able to look into my head and see the weights I'm giving each action morally, you have no basis for saying whether I find what Crichton did to be as bad as you find it to be.

Edit: Of course, you can disagree with my assessment of what Crowley did - and you have. But you can't truthfully say that my statement has reduced the gravity of what Crichton did.

[ December 17, 2006, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
We can truthfully say that's what it seems like you and Fly are doing, to us at least. Is there nothing the right does that some of you won't defend? Even in a backhanded way?

(Unfortunately, Dag, we know you. We may not be able to look into your heart but we can read what you've written. And here that's good enough to base an opinion on. Heck, that's all we have to go on. Throwing a denial end at the end of a post, saying you weren't doing what you just did doesn't cut it.)

quote:
But you can't truthfully say that my statement has reduced the gravity of what Crichton did.
No, but nice try.

quote:
The harm to Crowly is almost non-existent - no one will think he's a child rapist, and he's going to get good play out of it.

No harm? He's going to get good play out of it? Damn, turns out Crighton did him a favor by painting him as a pedophile that enoys anally raping two-year-olds!

Geez, I don't know why anyone would ever think you were trivializing what Crighton said?


KE

[ December 17, 2006, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
It would take a HECK of a swan dive to abdicate the high ground in this case. You really think his throwaway dig at Big Pharma is enough?

Yes, I do.

Thus is a pretty clear indication that you think that what Crowley did is as bad as what Crichton did. And to suggest that either magnifies what Crowley did, or minimizes what Crichton did, because they are in no way equal offenses.

Adam
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
Unfortunately, Dag, we know you.
No, YOU don't know me at all. You know some cartoon villain you've made up and substituted for me.

quote:
We may not be able to look into your heart but we can read what you've written. And here that's good enough to base an opinion on. Heck, that's all we have to go on.
Exactly. All you have to go on is what I said. And what I said is that I was NOT minimizing what Crichton did. Which means that I was increasing the severity of what Crowley did.

quote:
Throwing a denial end at the end of a post, saying you weren't doing what you just did doesn't cut it.
To those without some irrational grudge against me, the last sentence is a tool to help interpret the rest of what I said. Clearly I disagree with most people as to the level of harm associated with Crowley's joke.

quote:
No harm? He's going to get good play out of it? Damn, turns out Crighton did him a favor by painting him as a pedophile that enoys anally raping two-year-olds!

Geez, I don't know why anyone would ever think you were trivializing what Crighton said?

Geez, had you bothered read the sentence right before what you posted ("But what really pisses me off about Crichton's act is that he uses something that actually happens - I've been peripherally involved with one such case - to render his juvenile insult, and in doing so makes it cartoonish.") you would have seen that I'm not trivializing it: I'm simply disagreeing that the reason this is very bad is because of the harm done to Crowley.

Scratch that. You wouldn't have seen that, because you are utterly irrational where I am concerned.

People can think something is wrong for entirely different reasons than you and still think it's wrong.

quote:
Thus is a pretty clear indication that you think that what Crowley did is as bad as what Crichton did. And to suggest that either magnifies what Crowley did
Exactly. You can stop there. Clearly I think what Crowley did is much, much worse than you do. Again, disagree with me. Give reasons why I'm wrong. Just don't tell me what I think.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Didn't OSC right the forward for "The Sphere" by Michael Crighton? Or was that that other movie about going to the bottom of the ocean?

KE

[ December 17, 2006, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Try as I might, I can't find a logical reason that disliking the actions of one party means that one is minimizing the actions of the other.

Believing that Crichton's gimmick was vile and childish does not mean one can't also believe that the response to it was problematic.

I don't see a need to compare the two, either; the fact that one was a reaction to the other doesn't mitigate the reactor's moral culpability for what *he* says. Otherwise, we'd condone crimes of passion and the like. If you say something vile to me, and I say something vile back, what I've said is still vile. Context is neither causality nor a reliable consideration in harm or responsibility.

That said, I think Crowley was heedless and flip--possibly out of a misguided desire not to seem to overreact (personally, I think overreaction would be just fine)--but I don't think he intended to set up a genuine equivalency between child rape and pharmaceutical apologia (indeed, the lame joke is only "funny" insofar as the comparison is absurd), whereas Crichton's intent was much more obviously seriously malign.


eta: KE, "The Sphere" is the last Crichton book I read, the one I threw across the room as his objectionably personal prejudices were SO darn obvious in his wooden, stock characters. It's a shame because he has decent plot ideas. He just needs to get someone less hateful and more talented to actually write them.

more edit to fix a double/triple negative thicket, sheesh.

[ December 17, 2006, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Funean ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Thus is a pretty clear indication that you think that what Crowley did is as bad as what Crichton did. And to suggest that either magnifies what Crowley did

Exactly. You can stop there. Clearly I think what Crowley did is much, much worse than you do. Again, disagree with me. Give reasons why I'm wrong. Just don't tell me what I think.

What if you had made a statement saying "jaywalking is as bad as murder"? And I followed up by saying that your statement minimizes murder? Essentially, your defense here is like saying "No, I just think jaywalking is really, really bad." To which I can only reply "either way you want to cut it, your ethical priorities are pretty skewed if you think jaywalking is equivalent to murder." Or, in this case, a tasteless quip is equivalent to fictionalizing someone as a grotesque child rapist. Why not just state that you have a problem with what Crowley wrote without insisting that it is somehow in the same league as what Crichton did?

Adam
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
Why not just state that you have a problem with what Crowley wrote without insisting that it is somehow in the same league as what Crichton did?
Well, I did in my first post, but then I was asked to explain.

quote:
Or, in this case, a tasteless quip is equivalent to fictionalizing someone as a grotesque child rapist.
I don't consider this just a tasteless quip, anymore than walking into traffic while holding a baby is just "jaywalking."
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
KE,

I know exactly what I'm doing. You call it defense. I call it perspective. It happens all the time against "the Right" whatever that is. Mostly it is met by titters and rationalizations.

This time, Crichton moved past the subtle (though the subtlety of Bush dressed as a Nazi, or Dracula, or Rove in a Sith outfit escapes me) and he gored a journalist, who seems to have a thicker skin then the folks here.

I don't consider it any big dea but this sudden high dundgeon is...amusing.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I think the "dundegeon" (sic) is, if anything, due to the specific insults directed at and crimes ascribed to the journalist, and not that he chose to attack his critics in fiction (which is if anything a long-standing tradition).
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Yes, because Nazi, war criminal, and terrorist are such softer terms. [Roll Eyes]

[ December 17, 2006, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
You guys crack me up.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1