Defending the Fort: Michael Crichton, Pulp Fiction, and Green Conspiracy

  • Patrick Belanger
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication book series (PSMEC)


This chapter addresses the intersection of voice, narrative, and argument. All seek an audience, and all aim to constitute evaluative grounds. My case study is science-fiction author Michael Crichton’s broad critique of the North American environmental movement as exemplified in two texts: a 2003 speech titled “Environmentalism as religion,” and the 2004 thriller novel State of Fear. Each work strategically orchestrates the spheres of personal, technical, and public argumentation (Goodnight, 1982) and thus invites critique of the politically dexterous voice of a prominent writer.


Climate Science Environmental Movement Public Intellectual Exxon Mobil Narrative Style 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. About Michael Crichton (2012). Michael Crichton: The official site. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from Scholar
  2. Barcott, B. (2005, January 30). “State of Fear”: Not so hot. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from res=9903E2DA1038F933A05752C0A9639C8B63.
  3. Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Rhetorical criticism and the rhetoric of science. Western Journal of Communication, 65 (3), 314–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Couldry, N. (2010). Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Crichton, M. (2003, September 15). Environmentalism as religion. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from Scholar
  6. Crichton, M. (2004). State of Fear. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  7. Dow, B. J. (1997). Politicizing voice. Western Journal of Communication, 61(2), 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncan, D. E. (2007, February 21). 216 Million Americans are scientifically illiterate (Part I). MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from
  9. Fabj, V. (1993). Motherhood as political voice: The rhetoric of the mothers of Plaza de Mayo. Communication Studies, 44(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, W. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of moral public argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, W. (1987). Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  12. Forest, S., & Feder, M. A. (2011). Climate Change Education: Goals, Audiences, and Strategies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goodnight, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.Google Scholar
  14. Goodnight, G. T. (1995). The firm, the park, and the university: Fear and trembling on the postmodern trail. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodnight, G. T. (2005). Science and technology controversy: A rationale for inquiry. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42(1), 26–29.Google Scholar
  16. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York, NY: Plenum Trade.Google Scholar
  17. Guggenheim, D. (Director) (2006). An Inconvenient Truth. Film, Lawrence Bender Productions.Google Scholar
  18. Hariman, R. (1995). Political Style: The Artistry of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC History (2012). IPCCFacts. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from Scholar
  20. Janofsky, M. K. (2005, September 29). Michael Crichton, novelist, becomes senate witness. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from
  21. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011). Climate change in the American Mind: Public support for climate & energy policies in May 2011. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from May2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. Livesey, S. M. (2001). Global warming wars: Rhetorical and discourse analytic approaches to Exxon Mobil’s corporate public discourse. The Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lyne, J. (2005). Science controversy, common sense, and the third culture. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 38–42.Google Scholar
  25. MacDonald, M. (2003). Exploring Media Discourse. London, UK: Hodder.Google Scholar
  26. McCarthy, J. (1998). Environmentalism, wise use and the nature of accumulation in the rural West. In B. Braun & N. Castree (Eds.), Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium (pp. 125–148). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Memmott, C. (2004, December 14). Crichton fans will embrace “Fear.” USA Today. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from–12–13-crichton_x.htm
  28. Miller, A. (2006). Bad fiction, worse science. Issues in Science and Technology, 22(2), 93–95.Google Scholar
  29. O’Keefe, W. (2006a). Climate zealotry produces bad policy. George C. Marshall Institute. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from
  30. O’Keefe, W. (2006b). Group think masquerading as consensus. George C. Marshall Institute. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from
  31. Paine, T. (1776). Common sense. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from Scholar
  32. Paliewicz, N. (2012). Global warming and the interaction between the public and technical spheres of argument: When standards for expertise really matter. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(4), 231–242.Google Scholar
  33. Pendley, W. (1995). War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Powell, D., & Leiss, W. (1997). Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication. Montreal, QC: McGill/Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rawlings, N. (2010). Top 10 failed celebrity political campaigns. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from,28804,2009170_2009172_2009179,00.html
  36. Solomon, S. Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyl, K. B., Tignor, M., & Miller, H. L. (Eds.) (2007). Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sunstein, C. R. (2007). 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. The Royal Society (2012). Climate change. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from Scholar
  39. (2012). Top 10 airplane books. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from,29569,1923223,00.htm1Google Scholar
  40. Union of Concerned Scientists (2008, June 19). Crichton’s thriller State of Fear: Separating fact from fiction. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from
  41. U.S. Department of State (2009). Office of the special envoy for climate change. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from Scholar
  42. Voice (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from
  43. Wagner, T. (2008). Reframing ecotage as ecoterrorism: News and the discourse of fear. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 2(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wallack, L., Dorfman, L., Jernigan, D., & Thernba, M. (1993). Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Walton, A. (2004, December 26). Crichton techno-thriller explores danger of mixing politics, science. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from Scholar
  46. Watts, E. K. (2001). “Voice” and “voicelessness” in rhetorical studies. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 87(2), 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wertheimer, M. M. (1997). Listening to their Voices: The Rhetorical Activities of Historical Women. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  48. Whidden, R. A. (2012). Maternal expertise, vaccination recommendations, and the complexity of argument spheres. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(4), 243–257.Google Scholar
  49. World Bank (2012). Climate change. Retrieved 1 August 2013 from Scholar

Copyright information

© Patrick Belanger 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Belanger

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations