[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 62 KB, 257x387, 1614528852896.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17664586 No.17664586 [Reply] [Original]

>Michael Crowley of The New Republic alleged that, in retaliation for his having written a negative review of Crichton's previous novel State of Fear, Crichton named a character with a small penis who rapes a baby after him. From page 227: "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." Both the real and the fictional Crowley are Washington-based political columnists who had graduated from Yale.

What the FUCK was his problem?

>> No.17664647
File: 2.85 MB, 298x224, 1599097022826.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17664647

>>17664586

>> No.17664664

>>17664586
absolutely based

>> No.17664983

>>17664586
>What the FUCK was his problem?
Anyone who would add such a plot to their work obviously has mental issues; so it's not surprising that he turns out so vindictive.

>> No.17664998

Writers always have massive egos, of course they don't like bad reviews.

>> No.17665026

>>17664586
lmfao, what a king

>> No.17665043

based, being a (((critic))) is the most jewish profession after being a rabbi

>> No.17665064

The guy probably wrote a needlessly prissy review and Crichton just shit on him as was due. I think artists are mostly fine with a middling review so long as the critic doesn't get on a high horse and act like their opinion is the word of god. Critics deserve all the shit they get.

>> No.17665068

>>17664586
Crichton's last few books were a bit more eccentric than his earlier books. I'm not sure why; perhaps just because, at that point, any book with his name on the cover would be guaranteed to sell, regardless of the contents.

>> No.17665275

>>17665064
Someone should find the review.

>> No.17665352

https://newrepublic.com/article/65354/michael-crichtons-scariest-creation

Couldn't finish it. He shits on Crichton for pretending to know a lot about the various subjects of his books, being anti-scientists, liking Bush, and doing the same plot over and over again.

>> No.17665449

>>17665352
I just read this. If I was Crichton I'd have written the text from the OP too.

>> No.17665458

>>17664586
who cares
Crichton is a literal who

>> No.17665544

>>17665352
pretty valid arguments, i can see why he got upset.

the line about vonnegut is wrong though, he didn't argue to take him seriously, he argued that he was serious and also nihilistic

>> No.17665676

>>17665458
t zoomer
I may not like what he wrote, but he contributed a massive amount of pop culture in the 90s. Jurassic Park, Sphere, Congo and then the guy went on to make an extremely successful medical drama with ER. Crichton is only a literal who to zoomers or third worlders.