The Sword and Laser discussion

I'm getting ready to start on his last book (Micro).
Would he quality as Scifi, fantasy, neither/both?
Jurssic park would certainly quafy as "something"
As would"Westworld".
His book the Great Train Robbery- I think not.
Some of his other books I'm not sure of.
Which his books qualify in our discussions?

I think most of Crichton's books would be science fiction; although "Eaters of the Dead" would probably be fantasy.

Definitely sci-fi. Andromeda Strain, etc. His medical background makes him an ideal sci-fi writer. Read his autobiography "Travels" - its a charmer. Especially the part about his relationship with a cactus in Tucson. What a writer!

Definitely not fantasy. Most of his work is a step or two around the corner of time. One could even argue a bit about The Great Train Robbery - some of it deals with technical and medical information. Techno-thriller is part of sci-fi IMO.

It really depends on the story. I mean there are stories that would be almost strictly sci-fi (Andromeda Strain, State of Fear, Prey, Next, Jurassic Park, etc.) As Tina said, Eaters of the Dead could qualify as fantasy. And then there's the stuff that's pretty much anything but sci-fi or fantasy.

As for what Anne said, in terms of techno-thrillers being a part of sci-fi, would you consider Tom Clancy to be sci-fi as a lot of his writing does have the military tech-thriller aspect? If techno-thrillers can be counted as sci-fi, would books like The Hunt for Red October or Cardinal in the Kremlin, just for examples, be sci-fi? After all, they are just as much techno-thrillers as they are political-thrillers.

Sure, he's science fiction. Although as far as agenda goes, there's a tendency for Crichton to be anti-science, but it's still SF.

Yes, I think he's sf in a way, especially with his bio tech and theories about cloning. I actually dedicated The Wolfen Strain to him since I used some similar techniques and ideas to bring back an ice age dire wolf. But that book I categorize as a thriller. I loved the Jurassic Park books and I would call them SF thrillers. So I do believe he qualifies, out on the outer edge of the genre.

He didn't pigeonhole himself as only a SciFi writer, but he wrote a lot of SciFi. Off the top of my head, Jurassic Park, Lost World, Andromeda Strain, Terminal Man, Timeline, Sphere and Prey were all SciFi books, sometimes with admirable levels of technical science in them.

But Rising Sun is a thriller, and Eaters of the Dead is Fantasy. He wrote what he wanted to. Asimov is considered a SciFi writer but wrote a plethora of non-fiction.

His style and following seems to tend more towards Thriller/Suspense, but most of his stuff has pretty strong elements of the speculative.

I'd tend to agree with Justin and Jonathan. Chrichton's book are sort of thrillers with a really neat scifi concept as the base for the plot.
Also, like others have said, his non-fiction is definitely not to be ignored.

Jurassic Park I'll give you as sci-fi. Lost World never seemed like it was really his book, they just put his name on it for a movie tie in. Andromeda strain isn't really that different from Outbreak or Contagion, just the virus wasn't terrestrial. Timelime and Sphere definitely sci-fi. Congo seems pretty grounded enough that I wouldn't call it sci-fi. Prey definitly sci-fi since it makes some pretty outrageous assumptions about nano clouds. Next deals with some with extreme versions of common day ethical issues but I wouldn't call it sci-fi. State of Fear certainly fictional but not really sci-fi. Rising Sun is a crime drama. Disclosure is a corporate crime drama. Eaters of the Dead is fictionalized history. Nothing fantasy related in that book beyond the assumptions the characters make in regards to the things going on, though its made obvious to the reader that the realities are less mystical then how they are perceived. Terminal Man I haven't read. West World classic scifi. Oh k I'm stopping now.

I just got the audio book of Micro from the library.
Which prompted my question.
It sound like some of his books were, some not.
With the rule writing in chalk and changed daily.

Eaters of the Dead is historical fiction, not fantasy. The story is extremely improbable, but not fantastic.

I don't feel techno-thrillers are necessarily science fiction. The only requirement of techno-thriller is to have extremely detailed (ie, technical) descriptions of technology or processes--if a book exclusively deals with real-world items (e.g. The Glass Inferno), there's no basis for calling it sci-fi. I'm not sure I'd use the sci-fi label for any techno-thriller dealing with cutting edge technology that might be within a few years' grasp, e.g. Firefox. Or, in the case of something like Firefox and The Hunt for Red October, if the book uses the shiny new technology only as a MacGuffin, and not an exploration of the ramifications of that technology, I'm loathe to just label it sci-fi. Then we'll be labelling James Bond sci-fi.

That said, I'd call some of Crichton's books sci-fi. Daniel's list looks good to me. I wouldn't call Tom Clancy's books sci-fi, although the later ones are alternate history (alternate present?) so they're definitely speculative fiction. The Net Force books are sci-fi, although I doubt Clancy did much more than put his name on them.

I'll always have a soft spot for Crichton, because he introduced me to SF in general. Jurassic Park, Sphere and Timeline are definitely sci-fi with stories rooted in scientific concepts (genetic engineering, alien contact and time-travel). The older one gets though, and the more one reads, you realize how simplistic his plots were (especially the endings) and how one-dimensional his characters were (especially the women). But I still defend him, since he was, well, my first.

Back when I read all those books (late 80s/90s), he was placed squarely in the fiction/literature section. Even though I know most of those books are science fiction, I *still* do a double take and chuckle when I see his name in the science fiction section of the used bookstore I go to.

Daniel wrote: "...Eaters of the Dead is fictionalized history. Nothing fantasy related in that book beyond the assumptions the characters make in regards to the things going on, though its made obvious to the reader that the realities are less mystical then how they are perceived."

I guess I have to disagree--I think the addition of the monsters from Beowolf make it fantasy.