Global Warming Denier Michael Crichton Fictionalizes Critic as Child Rapist

[Poll_Blind]

A note to the moderators: This story sounds so much like satire that I wanted to put a disclaimer that it is, in fact, written in all seriousness. Three hours ago the Washington Post picked up this story (only 8 hours old, currently) but the name of the title of the piece When It Comes To Defamation, Size Matters does not convey what the story is about as well as this one. Again, the oldest of these stories is still within the 12-hour limit.

From TMP Muckraker:

The battle between anti-global warming activists and their critics is frequently uncivil. Name calling, put downs, you name it, they fling them.

But this marks a new threshold, I think.

This March, Michael Crowley wrote a cover story in The New Republic hitting blockbuster novelist Michael Crichton's very public denials that global warming was a proved phenomenon.

That was the last he'd heard from Crichton until he picked his latest novel, Next. Here's what he found:

Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers. Crowley was a wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune. ...

It turned out Crowley's taste in love objects was well known in Washington, but --as was his custom--tried the case vigorously in the press months before the trial, repeatedly characterizing Alex and the child's mother as "fantasizing feminist fundamentalists" who had made up the whole thing from "their sick, twisted imaginations." This, despite a well-documented hospital examination of the child. (Crowley's penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler's rectum.)

--snip--

  What an asshole Crichton is!

PB

[WindRavenX]

1. and a hack

NT.

[longship]

2. Michael Crichton is 6' 9". So maybe size *does* matter.

:kick:

[Supply Side Jesus]

3. wow...I'll never read him again

of course haven't since Timeline.

[graywarrior]

4. I met him. Years ago when I worked at Mass General Hosp.

Not that it means anything here. Just sayin.

[Kutjara]

5. I stopped reading him after that racist "Rising Sun' book.

It was one long whine about how the Japanese were all set to take over America, and how double-dealing and corrupt they all are.

Quite why Sean Connery agreed to be in the movie version, I'll never know.

Anyway, Chrichton has basically been a jingoistic, noodleheaded dunce since the Andromeda Strain.

[Orrex]

8. I can't stand Crichton, but...

My take on the film version of Rising Sun was that, although the Japanese were portrayed as corrupt double-dealers, they were simply beating Americans at our own game. And most of the Americans were likelise portrayed s boorish, corrupt rubes with no sense of other cultures beyond Geisha caricatures and fortune cookies.

Still not a great movie, but I always felt that the "racist" critiques were a little overplayed.

Now, if you want to make any criticisms at all about Crichton's hack writing and utterly dreadful character development, then I'm on board 100%!

[Kutjara]

12. I agree with you about the movie.

The book, on the other hand, fairly reeked of xenophobia. Long paragraphs were devoted to the ways in which the Japanese were poised to take over our financial systems, buy all our land and steal our technology (which they'd then improve and sell back to us).

The movie toned it down in response to criticism of the book.

[Orrex]

15. I should have disclaimed that I haven't read the book

I was sure that I recalled hearing the film being criticized as racist, but now that I think about it, I may be recalling criticisms of the book that were revisited with the film's release.

[krispos42]

31. I thought the book was an excellent example of economic warfare

Us Americans keep putting the dollar ahead of our country. We keep saying "It doesn't matter, it's a global marketplace" while we sell our companies, technology, and now our infrastructure to the very people we begged to borrow trillions of dollars from. And now we look around and all of a sudden everything in our stores, except food, is made in China or other emerging Asian powers.

I like to think that M.C. was trying to sound the warning on the way things were going. In the book, Busweiser was now a rare drink, replaced by a Japanese beer as the staple beverage of bargoers. That sounds ridiculous, but look around:

Where was your car made, and where is the company that made it based? How about your MP3 player? Your Discman? Your game console? Your DVD player? Your microwave? Your boombox? Your cellphone? Your PC? Your laptop? Your circular saw? Your cordless power drill? Your refrigerator? The clothes you are wearing right now?

What about the toys your child plays with? The nuk they suck on? The bottles they feed from?

How about the machine tools that make what limited industry we have left work? The mills and lathes and welders and robots and shears and brake presses and electric-discharge machining centers and plasma cutters?

How about the heavy machinery we use to build our buildings and make our highways? The bulldozers and shovels and front-end loaders and forklifts and the like?

Japan and other Asian countries have strict limits on imports, as well as protective trade barriers and a "buy domestic" mentality. We lost all of those thanks to the relentless globalization and corporatization of our economy, and look where we are now.

Thom Hartmann talks about this a lot, and as a son of a union man, I agree with him.

It seems that the only US-made manufactured goods you can buy nowadays as a regular consumer is a car or a gun, and the cars have imported electronics in them! I look around my house, and only my shotgun, pistol, and car (1989 Olds) are mostly made in the US. My laptop is a Hewlett-Packard made in China. My PC is a Dell, assembled in the US of foreign and domestic components. My cell phone is a Samsung and made in South Korea. My TV is a Sanyo, made in China. My game console is a Sony PS2, made in China. And on and on and on.

Well, at least we still print books here in the US.

[Blue_Tires]

39. great insights

[krispos42]

41. Well, it's not like what he's writing about is propaganda

Its not like, for example, some 1930's Nazi-sponsored propaganda about how Jews were kidnapping and eating good National Socialist children. We all know that a huge amount of US Treasury bonds are held by foreign government and foreign banks and foreign investors, and that large chunks of American companies are owned by foreign interests. Thom Hartmann reels off the numbers every couple of weeks.

And when an American-based, foreign-owned research company invents some new material or procedure or program or technique or theory, that knowledge benefits the foreign-owned company. It only benefits America when America pays a premium for it, market price, if that foreign company and the foreign government that regulates it DECIDES to let us have it. How long were PS2s on the market in Japan before Sony got around to selling them in America? A year, if I recall correctly.

THIS here is propaganda of the vilest kind: racial and ethnic hatred designed to be indoctrinated into school-age children.

Trau keinem Fuchs auf grüner Heid und keinem Jud bei seinem Eid (Don't Trust A Fox in A Green Meadow Or the Word of A Jew)

Upon casual examination of the book, one's attention is immediately drawn to the bright red cover and the malicious expressions of the two images accompanying the title.<9> The one is a fox eager to trap his prey; the other is a Jew eager to swear a false oath under the star of David. Bauer effectively uses the image of the clever and deceptive fox, a figure that is based in antiquity and commonplace in European folklore. Greek legend considered the fox to be a creature of the Devil or even the Devil, himself. While linking the Jew to this universal image of deceit, Bauer simultaneously draws upon another universal theme, loyalty to one's oath as it appears in the German fairy tale Eid aufs Eisen. Eid aufs Eisen might be translated as "absolute truth." Eid means "oath" and aufs Eisen literally means "on iron."

Figuratively, this is the strongest oath possible and refers to the practice of trial by combat customary during the Middle Ages. In the German fairy tale, the fox outsmarts another animal by swearing a false oath. An oath sworn by a Jew is identified with deceit. In the title and its accompanying illustration, Bauer references an old prejudice against Jews. During the Middle Ages, Jews were required to swear an oath using a special ceremony during a court proceeding.<10> It was not until the nineteenth century with the emancipation of Jews that such rituals, which marked the Jewish oath as something mysterious and uncanny, vanished. Bauer drums the identification of the Jew with the evil traits of the fox into the minds of her young readers by frequent warnings such as: "Like a fox, he slips about / So you must look out!"

According to anti-semitic folklore, the Devil is the creator of the Jewish people. In an attempt to equal God's creation of humans, the Devil succeeds only in producing unfortunate creatures, among them, the monkey and the Jew. As children of the Devil, therefore, Jews deserve to be ostracized and treated poorly. Their perceived physical and moral defects are regarded as racial characteristics. The positive self-image of the German also has its basis in racial ideology. Germans are, according to Nazi racial ideology, a pure race, and, in contrast to the Jews, a healthy race. Bauer alludes several times to what must be done to keep Germany a wholesome country and thanks the notorious antisemite, Julius Streicher, the editor of Der Stürmer, an anti-semitic publisher, for his efforts to keep Germany healthy and free from Jews. Finally, she reduces the Jewish presence in Germany to a plague that must be exterminated. The association between Jews and a fatal disease as well as the justification for the destruction of Jews was being indoctrinated into young children via colorful picture books in 1936 six years before the Wannsee Conference.


Drawing on several centuries of anti-semitism, Bauer intensifies her anti-semitic assault by making the virtuous German the object of the Jewish hate. The German is portrayed as hard-working, honest, handsome and courageous. In his character and physical appearance, the Jew is depicted as the antithesis of these qualities. This so-called Jewish hate of the German actually has its basis in the hatred of Jews by Christians who considered the Jews to be Christ-killers. As early as the eighteenth century, the Talmud was depicted as a book that encouraged and justified the commission of crimes against Christians. An example of this concept of the Jew as a Christian-hater occurs in Uncovered Jewry, Or A Thorough And Truthful Report About The Horrible Ways The Hidden Jews Desecrate The Holy Trinity.

This book appeared in Koenigsberg, Germany in 1711, and its description of the Talmud as a guide for committing crimes against was widely accepted by Christians. Let us now consider the illustrations. The Jew is pictured in the manner of a typical Nazi caricature with a huge nose, thick lips, bleary eyes and fat fingers. The stereotypical representation of the Jew: grotesque face, sneering expression, hook nose is identical to the image of the Devil in Christian folklore. The words conveying associations the young readers are expected to remember are printed in red: Devil, thick lips, ganster, Jew; handsome, courageous, proud, German. The illustration showing the Jew and the German, side by side, represents the situation under Nazism and draws the observer's attention to the Nazi perception of racial differences between the Aryan and the Jew.

The German is depicted as the tall, blond, slender and powerful Aryan ideal With regular features and a high forehead. His shovel indicates that he is a worker. In contrast to the Aryan ideal, the Jew is shown as short, dark-haired, misshapen, bulky, with a sloping forehead and a crooked nose and embodies the Jewish racial characteristics set forth by the Nazis. At the same time, she uses this image to convey the stereotype of the money-hungry Jew, well-clothed and carrying an attach case in his hand and a financial newspaper in his pocket. The figure of the Aryan appears proud and looks down upon the Jew, who gives him a shifty look and makes a somewhat concealed fist with his hand as though challenging him with respect to money.

The last illustration points to the intended Nazi solution of the Jewish problem: the expulsion of all Jews from Germany. The sign, followed by a long line of Jewish figures from previous illustrations, reads "one-way street, hurry, hurry" and as a justification for this measure taken against the Jewish population, the second line reads "The Jews are our misfortune." The word "hurry" and the sentence "The Jews are our misfortune." appear in red, thereby stressing the grave danger that Jews pose to the well being of German society and the urgency with which they must be removed from Germany.

Almost all the illustrations of Jewish figures have the following characteristics: The body is usually stocky, sometimes thin; the posture is crooked or bent; the feet are flat; the hair is dark; there is a lot of coarse body hair. The face usually has dark, bulging eyes; a crooked or bent nose; hanging eyelids; a hanging underlip; a heavy beard. In the tradition of the German theologian Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741-1801), Nazi racial ideology used the negative physical characteristics attributed to Jews as an indication of their inferior nature and evil character.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/m/mills-mary/mills-00.html

[Ken Burch]

6. Crowley CAN sue for this, can't he?

If not, can we just throw Crichton to the Velociraptors?

[Poll_Blind]

7. He can certainly try, but I think he'll just stick to getting it in the papers.

In a work of fiction it might be very hard to nail someone for defamation except maybe for the similarities Crowley mentions (school, etc.). Trying it in the informal court of public opinion is likely the best route for this one.

PB

[Ian_rd]

11. Remember Falwell vs. Flint?

Flint's Penthouse magazine ran a satire about how Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his own mother. The Supremes ruled that Flint's speech was protected. If Falwell couldn't win a case against Flint for a satire that was about Falwell himself and not, for instance, a "Joel Falwell" or something, I can't understand how Crowley could possibly have a case against Crichton. And in my opinion, he shouldn't have a case against Crichton. This speech should be protected. He's an asswipe for writing it (barring the unlikely possibility that the name similarity is some amazing coincidence), but he should still be able to write it.

And yea, I too think he would serve best as a meal for his own monsters.

[Orrex]

17. The Flynt case was different

If Falwell had lost his virginity to his mother (even if he'd done it while a minor), he wouldn't have been committing a crime. The character in Crichton's book (an obvious stand in for Michael Crowley) is stated to have committed a brutal and horrendous crime. That's the vital difference between Cricton's "satire" and Flynt's.

But if Crichton's idiotic, talentless writing is judged to be satire rather than libel, then of course it must be protected as free speech.

[Ian_rd]

18. Crime or no crime, I don't think the subject of the writing matters at all.

It's impossible to come to the conclusion that Crichton is claiming that Michael Crowley, Senior Editor of the New Republic, is a child rapist. If he were, then this would indeed be libel. But Crichton is a fiction writer. If he wants to throw a childish tantrum by making one of his fictional characters have a similar name and rape babies, then he should be allowed to do it.

[Orrex]

19. Well, it depends on whether or not Crowley suffers injury

Financial or otherwise, and that's frankly up to the courts (if he should choose to pursue it, which I admit appears doubtful).

If Crichton had any integrity (pause for laughter) or literary merit (pause again) he'd have had the spine to name the character Michael Crowley while still maintaining that it's just fiction. But, of course, Crichton's idea of integrity is to resolve how many digits precede the decimal on his check.

[Ian_rd]

21. I don't think it matters if he suffers injury either.

The suit against Flint by Falwell was for the legal "injury" of emotional distress.

This is an exerpt from Wikipedia on Falwell:

In November 1983, Larry Flynt's pornographic magazine Hustler carried a parody of a Campari ad, featuring a fake interview with Falwell in which he admits that his "first time" was incest with his mother in an outhouse while drunk. Falwell sued for $45 million dollars in compensation alleging invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.<18> A jury rejected the invasion of privacy and libel claims, holding that the parody could not have reasonably been taken to describe true events, but ruled in favor of Falwell on the emotional distress claim. This was upheld on appeal. Flynt then appealed to the Supreme Court and won a unanimous decision on February 24, 1988 (Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell, 485 U.S. 46); the ruling held that public figures cannot evade First Amendment protections by attempting to recover damages based on emotional distress suffered from parodies.

The ruling did not say that Falwell didn't suffer injury. And I'm sure he did with all the ridicule the satire likely brought. But the ruling basically says that injury or not, tough shit, Hustler is allowed to write satire about anyone it wants, even if it results in emotional distress.

If Falwell cannot win damages (rightly so I would say) against a satirical advertisement claiming that he did the nasty with his mom, then Crowley has absolutely no case against a fictional story about a guy with a similar name (and perhaps background) who is a rapist.

[Orrex]

22. Thanks for the excerpt--that's quite interesting to me

But how do the courts distinguish between satire and libel, then, in cases in which the accused libeler hasn't made a clear statement of intent?

[Ian_rd]

23. We're now into territory that's shaky for me. I'm no lawyer, but

one of the pre-Supreme Court rulings in Falwell vs. Flint threw out the "libel" portion of Falwell's suit because the satire could not "reasonably" be beleived to be true.

I know enough about law, however, to know that the word "reasonable" is frequently a significant variable that all too often is vital to a suit. For instance, if a court decided that "reasonable" people could read Crichton's work and come to the conclusion that the real life Michael Crowley is a baby rapist, then Crowley would have a case.

[Taverner]

26. Falwell and Crowley are both "public" people

Hence, it can be deemed satire.

[AngryAmish]

28. Criminal behavior, infamous conduct, loathsome disease

All these can be basis of libel per se. I think Falwell's sex with mother could certainly be considered infamous conduct.

[iamjoy]

16. Well,,,He CAN

I mean, free speech doesn't cover defamation, and if there are enough similarities between the character in the book and the real person, it may stick.

HOWEVER, this is where the "small penis" bit (oops) comes in...who would file suit since doing so would be "admitting" to having a small penis.

[aggiesal]

34. I'm no expert, but ...

At the end of movies, there is a disclaimer that characters
in the movies do not represent anyone in particular, and that if it
does it is purely coincedence.

Wouldn't something like this apply to literature as well?
I don't believe this is coincidental.

[struggle4progress]

9. Sue the mofo.

[bemildred]

10. "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel."

-- Bill Clinton

[Psephos]

13. That's Mark Twain's original phrase, not Clinton's n/t

[bemildred]

14. Yeah, I agree.

I was trying to find in on the web, and I found it attributed to Clinton, so I went with it. But now that you point it out I know you are right, and I thank you for correcting my error.

[Bridget Burke]

20. The good quotations do get around, don't they?

If with the literate I am
Impelled to try an epigram,
I never seek to take the credit;
We all assume that Oscar said it.

--Dorothy Parker

[CreekDog]

24. Isn't Crichton's graphic description disturbing?

It's bad enough to call someone a baby rapist for apparent revenge. What's worse to me are the graphic depictions of the act that Crichton invented for the purpose of that revenge.

Is Crichton more than just a jerk, but sick too?

Jeez.

[bemildred]

27. Good epigrams seem to mutate and spread like viruses ... nt

[Amused Musings]

29. I assume that "oscar" is the of the

Wilde variety.

Yeah, its annoying and frustrating to be depicted as a less-than-well-endowed infant rapist by one of your enemy's novels but it is essentially fiction and I see no libel suit winning (even in england where libel is much easier to prove). I do not think anyone is going to seriously read this novel and come away thinking the editor of the New Republic is a pederast.

[Bridget Burke]

30. I don't think anyone is going to "seriously" read this novel, at all.

Crichton is a literary hack & pushes fake science.

[Swede]

25. Could he sue for misappropriation of name?

The tort of misappropriation of name is one of four recognized torts falling under the general heading of invasion of privacy.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/supreme/072003/&invol=60729_103

[truthisfreedom]

32. Hmm. I wonder what Crichton has lurking in his past...

Something so vile that it would put him behind bars for the rest of his life, perhaps?

[Junkdrawer]

33. Michael Crowley's response:

....

I confess to having mixed feelings about my sliver of literary immortality. It's impossible not to be grossed out on some level--particularly by the creepy image of the smoldering Crichton, alone in his darkened study, imagining in pornographic detail the rape of a small child. It's uplifting, however, to learn that Next's sales have proved disappointing by Crichton's standards, continuing what an industry newsletter dubs Crichton's "recent pattern of erosion." And I'm looking forward to the choice Crichton will have to make, when asked about the basis for Mick Crowley, between a comically dishonest denial and a confession of his shocking depravity.

Crichton launched his noxious attack from behind the shield of the small penis rule because, I'm sure, he's embarrassed by what he has done. In researching my article, I found a man who has long yearned for intellectual stature beyond the realm of killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys. And Crichton must know that turning a critic into a poorly endowed child rapist won't exactly aid his cause. Ultimately, then, I find myself strangely flattered. To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule. Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won.


http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061225&s=diarist122506

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Crichton's become a laughing stock

and not just because of his horrible writing.

No need to sue the prick.

[Peace Patriot]

36. Too much money. Too much fame. License for self-indulgence. It's all

about the Corporate Rulers, their crude methods of brainwashing us to their profit, and their control of all news, all opinion, all TV and radio programming, and all newspapers, books and movies*, in monstrous monopolies of wealth that often pull in oil, automobiles, sweatshops, weapons and other war materials, pesticides, genetically modified corn--anything they can make a profit off of--and sell one product (say, war) by use of another (say, movies). Global warming is a good case in point. Get a fifth-rate writer, with a big corporate-PR created overblown reputation, to associate the environmental movement to curtail greenhouses gases with child molestation--a particularly nasty accusation--in a novel/movie, to taint that movement, to cast doubt upon it (part of a general effort, of course, led by Exxon-Mobile), so that, in their other corporate profiteering, say, in oil subsidiaries, or plastics business, or coal-fired power plants, they can continue to destroy planet earth with impunity for private gain.

Corporate Rule makes the goop rise to the top. In Presidents. In Novelists. Political integrity, intellectual integrity--things of the past, in a country in which profit is the only goal.

So, too many writers and artists are just toothpaste. If they've ever had any true inspiration, it's long gone. They sell words and images just as if they were sugared chemicals for you to brush your teeth with. They are properties--patents--of the global corporate predators. And they don't just do "product placement" of things you can buy, they do "product placement" of ideas--ideas with which to skew political debate way over to the rightwing corporate side.

Whenever big money and corporate control produce "art," the heart and soul gets sucked out of it, if there was any heart and soul to start with--in the artist or the work. And soon the artist knows what "corporate art" is all about, and either dies a small death and disappears, or decides to play the game, some more cleverly than others. Michael Crichton had a bit of cleverness in the beginning. Now even that is sucked out, and each work is more whorish than the last.

So what I would suggest--for anyone who is interested--is look into the corporation that publishes Crichton's books/movies. I don't know who it is (or who they are). But I would bet money on it being a mega-corp with octopus tentacles in global warming industries, pharmaceuticals, GMOs and other Crichton topics.

It's interesting that, although "Jurassic Park" has an overt message of "don't mess with nature," its covert message is that messing with nature is a noble and exciting enterprise, and that, except for a few "bad eggs" (ahem, ill intentioned people), Jurassic Park would be a lot of fun. It also promotes the idea--so typical of corporate propaganda--that Nature is evil, threatening and out to get us. Monsters lurk there--when, in truth, corporations are the monsters, who are destroying our country and our planet, in mundane everyday ways such as forcing us to use oil for energy and preventing the conversion to alternative energy sources, and in spectacular ways, such as appropriating the US military for a corporate resource war.

----------------------------------------

*(Apologies to independent publishers and filmmakers who are fighting the good fight for artistic integrity. SOME books and movies are not corporate propaganda--but there are far too few of them.)

[CreekDog]

37. Crowley is a more artful writer than Crichton at a fraction of the price!

Compare Michael Crowley's artful description of Crichton's global warming PR/denial campaign to Crichton's ham-handed response in his latest novel:

Crowley wrote:
“And now, like a mighty t-rex that has escaped from Jurassic Park, Crichton stomps across the public policy landscape, finally claiming the influence that he has always sought. In this sense, he himself is like an experiment gone wrong — a creation of the publishing industry and Hollywood who has unexpectedly mutated into a menacing figure haunting think tanks, policy forums, hearing rooms and even the Oval Office.”

Anyone who isn't transported back to that first Jurassic Park movie is simply not paying attention.

And compare that fun description to Crichton's mean, grotesque and artless depiction of an incidental character in his novel.

Crowley is the better writer and Crichton, in his own defense, proves that he simply is not as good a writer as the critic he baldly went after.

The more I read Crowley, who, among beltway journalist/pundits I never gave any special attention to (as a TNR subscriber I read him that's all). I realize now that Crichton took on the wrong guy. Crowley's critiques of Crichton simply display more creative use of language to make their point, even to the point of mocking Crichton's best known work as a method of criticing his behavior. Crowley might get a pay raise and promotion from this. Crichton, not so much.

It's poetry.

[cali]

38. He's far worse than an asshole.

That is such a contemptible awful thing to do, I don't know what to call him. I really, really dislike that bastard- even though I have pleasant memories of him from my childhood. What an evil thing to do.

[Ken Burch]

40. "memories from your childhood" Hey, there ya go

You can publish a memoir about all the "pleasant" ways Crichton used to touch you as a child. Just put a disclaimer on it and you're golden. Fair play.