One thing I find interesting about reading a book like State of Fear is the whole concept of discussing something based and founded in real world issues under the guise of fiction. Granted, we know Chriton is doing extensive research and trying to hunt for the truth, but he's given himself a beautiful little gift in that this is a novel we are reading, not a research article. He may try to stay truthful, try to expose something that a pure scientific article never could, and he may be successful, but whether he is or not is less important than whether he can entertain an audience. He has the luxury of being able to say that anything which isn't accurate, any character's statements that are too extreme or too inflammatory are not intended to be fact, but was merely his effort to create interesting characters and a compelling plot. While people may be compelled to talk about the science behind the book, he always has the cushion of being able to say that it is a work of fiction.
Chriton acknowledges the important of wording on pg 55 when Drake is trying to coerce Einarsson into framing his opening paragraph in such a way that it would back up global warming. He has Drake screaming that by wording his findings a certain way, he would be completely twisting the truth. Yet the first words written by Chriton in the novel are “This is a work of fiction,” seemingly admitting that it is not about facts, but he follows it with the words “references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in the footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.” So here we are, preparing ourselves to read a novel that, as Chriton insists, is based on real data, when the much more important statement is the one saying we are reading a piece of fiction. Fiction is, of course, all about wording. The only thing that distinguishes an author from some dumbass writing a fantasy novel in his basement that only his mother will ever pretend to read is the way he puts together words. Chriton, arguably, is a genius at this.
We know when we approach it that it's a piece of fiction, but because of the way Chriton phrases things, we find ourselves taking him and his opinion on global warming seriously. He continually emphasizes that there is no single, right perspective on the future of global warming, that it is all merely a guess, and that he would never presume to be an authority on the issue. But the manner with which he treats the scientists that would be considered authorities makes us believe they are hardly trustworthy, saying on page 715 that reading environmental texts is “itself a hazardous undertaking.” Yet he is not a scientist, and he is not trying to convince anyone that his is the only opinion. He asserts over and over, both blatantly and through humor, that he is only one point of view, one guess. He writes on 721 that “Everybody has an agenda. Except me,” which we of course read automatically as sarcasm. We trust Chriton because he cleverly words his fairly single-minded point of view. He acknowledges the manipulation of wording, and so we feel as though he is not trying to manipulate us. But, of course, he is. That's the beauty of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I did not realize that Crichton put himself in this bailout situation. You are totally right: writing scientific ideas into works of fiction is almost foolproof. The fact that he can deter his critics by siting that the novel is a work of fiction is genius. I do, however think that his agenda is to get his own point across, which is arguably what all authors intentions are. Like you said, though, Crichton plays this card to his advantage, and he creates a thrilling story while doing it.
ReplyDeleteWith this comes a risk though. For example, while reading this class in my Biology class (the one talked about in my originally blog post where we talk extensively about the definition of proper science) my biology teacher commented on the book. Initially she was commenting in the shear size of the novel, but upon further review she let out an exasperated, "Oh, Crichton..... he's crazy!. He is completely disregarding the nature of science and facts." So, as he may be using the fiction novel for his advantage in the uneducated public, the educated public may be harder to persuade.
I really enjoyed reading what you had to say. I share the same sentiment when it comes to reading Crichton. What are the stakes in grounding a fictional novel in--to a certain degree--scientific "fact"? Hard to say. On one hand he is able to construct a compelling novel, but a novel none the less; and on the other, Crichton seems to be able to get his readers to think seriously about global warming, and the science behind it. If nothing else, Crichton is able to bring the larger more meaningful question to the forefront--who's buying lunch? When we assume everyone has an agenda, we see the world differently. We don't accept claims to truth at face value; we begin to feel the urge to dig deeper. This novel, at least for me, has forced me to think about the ways in which politics and science are deeply connected and potentially dangerous. Thanks for your post. It was a lot fun to read.
ReplyDeleteStories are SO compelling and powerful. I found C's arguments just irresistable--even when I 'knew better.' HAs he broken the fiction 'contract'?
ReplyDelete