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.I'd say that this is indeed the case. Crowley has won, and Crichton is a loser.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Michael Crichton: Scumbag
In March, The New Republic's Michael Crowley wrote a lengthy withering piece about Michael Crichton. Crichton has apparently gotten his revenge in his latest (and by all of the reviews I have seen, terrible) book. Crichton has gratuitously inserted a character who has no purpose, and who simply appears and disappears with no consequences to the plot, named Mick Crowley. Mick Crowley is a Washington-DC based polticial journalist who happens to share Michael Crowley's alma mater. Charmingly, Crichton has made the otherwise puposeless character a child rapist (of a 2-year old non less) with a small penis. Crowley responds here in a piece with the title "Cock and Bull," but if you look at the top of the browser, TNR has a more appropriate title: "Michael Crichton, jurassic prick." Here is a dose from Crowley's concluding paragraph:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment