Introduced by: Alex StandishState of Fear, Michael Crichton

BUY NOW AT

In State of Fear Crichton has tried to incorporate two projects into one. There is both a fast-moving, action-packed work of fiction and polemic on the science of global warming. Unfortunately, the author makes a bad job of both, exposing his limited scientific background. I am all for fiction that simultaneously explores a social or scientific problem, but it takes a skilled writer to execute such a task. This was evidently beyond Crichton’s capabilities. He is a populist fiction writer whose novels usually provide a light escape from reality. His novel Airframe kept my attention for a day or two on vacation. In State of Fear the drawn-out scientific explanations only detracts from the novel.State of Fear tells the story of radical environmentalist planning a series of induced ‘natural disasters’: floods, a tsunami, and breaking off part of the Antarctic ice sheet. The purpose of these ‘disasters’ is to spur governments into action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Here, the plot has some interesting science fiction: cavitators that induce landslides, lightning-bolt projectors, and an octopus that paralyses people with its venom. An unlikely group of characters become the defenders of the planet: Peter Evans (a naive lawyer), George Morton (philanthropic millionaire), Dr. Kenner (former professor of engineering at MIT and now member of a secret government anti-terrorist unit), and Sanjong Thapa (his assistant).While the novel started at a fast pace, globe trotting from one story to another, as the plot unfolded the different threads made for an unconvincing storyline and a predictable ending. The book reminded me of the Enid Blyton’s Famous Five children’s novels in which five children get into trouble of different sorts but ultimately save the day. In State of Fear it was never clear why saving the world could only be achieved by this particular crew. The weakness of the plot line gave the novel this childish character. One minute two of the ‘Famous Five’ had fallen down a crevasse on the Antarctic ice sheet, seemingly doomed, the next; they had crawled back out and off to meet their next date with death!Coming to the polemic on global warming, Crichton rightfully challenges many of the assumption’s about global warming that today are treated as facts. For instance, he points out that global warming historically has occurred independently of industrial production, that global sea level rise has been small, there is no increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather phenomena, that temperature change varies regionally (some places are getting warmer others are getting colder), and the Antarctica, with 90 percent of the world’s ice, is getting colder. He does this through both long-winded dialogue between characters in the text (mostly Kenner putting the likes of Peter Evans straight on their scientific knowledge) and the inclusion of numerous graphs, data sets, and highly annoying footnotes. Not surprisingly, these simplified environmental science lessons do sit well with an unfolding storyline. As others have pointed out, if Crichton had wanted to join in the debate on global warming he would have been better off writing an article or two about the issue and should also have learnt more about the science. The novel lacks the scientific authority to provide a coherent account of the subject. He even concludes the ‘novel’

with a series of policy recommendations such as before embarking on a course of reducing greenhouse gas emissions we need to better be able to predict climate change.The consensus of the Salon was that while there is great need for a serious discussion about the science behind global warming and Crichton is right to question why this is being treated as a moral rather than an technical issue for society, State of Fear is not a good advert for this discussion. It is both a bad novel and a superficial attempt to address the science at stake. Crichton merely exposes his lack of expertise on this matter. My advice to Crichton: either do some serious work on global warming or stick to the populist fiction!Review by Alex Standish