To: presidio9
Crichton is right on the science but State of Fear is a terrible novel. The characters are completely undeveloped and the situations in the novel are ridiculous. It read like a hastily written first draft. The man needs a new editor.
10 posted on
01/28/2005 7:37:00 AM PST by
jalisco555
("The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." W. B. Yeats)
To: jalisco555
Agreed, but then again the Martin Sheen character gets sliced up and eaten alive by "peaceful" tribesmen in touch with nature, and that scene alone was worth the price of the book.
15 posted on
01/28/2005 7:41:06 AM PST by
katana
To: jalisco555
Failed to mention the appendix and copious notes at the end of the book supporting the book's main points. I do agree with you that as a novel, it was dreck.
17 posted on
01/28/2005 7:44:32 AM PST by
katana
To: jalisco555
I agree, 'situational far-fetchedness', to coin a phrase.
41 posted on
01/28/2005 8:06:43 AM PST by
midnightson
(Mama-the ultimate prognosticator- said there'd be days like this.)
To: jalisco555
but State of Fear is a terrible novel.Now wait a minute. Any novel in which a Martin Sheen stand in is eaten by cannibals isn't all bad.
56 posted on
01/28/2005 9:40:41 AM PST by
edsheppa
To: jalisco555
Crichton is right on the science but State of Fear is a terrible novel. The characters are completely undeveloped and the situations in the novel are ridiculous. It read like a hastily written first draft. The man needs a new editor.That pretty much describes this article, too.
Except Crichton only claims to be writing fiction...
60 posted on
01/28/2005 11:34:34 AM PST by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen, ignorance and stupidity.)
To: jalisco555
I could have personally lived without the cannablism...
66 posted on
01/29/2005 3:04:05 AM PST by
SAMS
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson