But most of Crichton’s work doesn’t get there, and I agree with Martin Amis’ comment: I answered, “probably,” but noted that a book needs to reach some baseline level of linguistic and literary skill before I could enjoy it. I know this isn’t great literature, but because I know that, and don’t expect it to be, I can enjoy it for what it is. Reading Crichton came in part for reasons mentioned in “ On books, taste, and distaste,” where Jason Fisher asked:ĭo you do any reading purely for non-intellectual pleasure, I wonder? I, for instance, read Palahniuk novels, Crichton novels too, and pulpy fantasy and science fiction, and so on. Curiosity and recommendations inspired me to read Michael Crichton, if one can really call that activity reading, because he isn’t a very good author as far as I can tell, his one claim to literary style or merit is Eaters of the Dead, a decent novel with a structure that compensates for Crichton’s weaknesses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |