Next

Crichton is my favorite author and my understanding is this was his last book before he died... Crichton has a high floor on his books; meaning they are always, at the very least, interesting...But compared to his other amazing works, this does not fall in the top 10.Still enjoyed it, but Crichton has an enormously high standard to live up to...

It is no secret that Michael Crichton is not a particular fan when science and government entities join forces at the hip to bring forth a view of how the world should be, and continue with their agendas with no decent restraint. There was an essay that Crichton wrote about Global Warning, and how the truth gets lost when politics gets in the way. Crichton effectively uses eugenics as an example of how an idea of good intension's turns into a massive disaster. If I recall, Crichton had stated the history behind eugenics, which was a concept of selective breeding. The goal was to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering. Sounds good, right? However, the eugenics idea had made its way into Nazi Germany, ultimately killing off 12 million people, mostly Jewish. Crichton's point was this: Be very apprehensive when scientists and politicians are in collusion about Global Warming.When I heard Crichton wrote another book called, "Next", I thought to myself that Crichton was going to write about the eugenics concept. Perhaps he wrote about some sort of change in human evolution. In my opinion, Crichton only "lightly" touched on the subject, a change in human evolution. Without giving too much away, I would state that the book was overwhelmingly about how big-business will stop at nothing for profit. Other reviewers stated that there were too many characters to keep track of, and I agree with them. The book "Next" is a bit of a departure from other books in the fact there were subplots and multiple characters. It was a bit of a distraction when I would start reading again after a couple of days, and would have to remember, "Ok, who was this guy again?" "What was the relationship between these two characters?" There were a couple of characters that really didn't add value to the book, I think Crichton could have tightened up the book by not including multiple characters.I think what rubs people the wrong way is that Crichton makes no apology for his opinions on Global Warming, bioethics, and Genetic patents. No doubt about it, if you had read "Prey", "State of Fear", and "Next", he is obviously making a statement. If you had read the book, but not the author's notes at the end, you should read his comments.A real life case on patenting genes...The Chakrabarty case was one of the great judicial moments in world history. And the public was unaware it was actually happening as a process was being engaged. General Electric and Professor Chakrabarty went to the patent office with a little microbe that eats up oil spills. They said they had modified this microbe in the laboratory, and therefore it was an invention. The patent office and the U.S. Government took a look at this "invention"; and they said, no way. The patent statures don't cover living things. This is not an invention. Turned down. Then GE and Doctor Chakrabarty appealed to the U.S. Customs Court of Appeal. And, to everyone's surprise by a three-to-two decision, they overrode the patent office. They said, this microbe looks more like a detergent or a reagent, then a horse or a honey bee. This is funny because, they didn't understand basic biology; it looked like a chemical to them. Had it had an antenna, or eyes, or wings, or legs, it would never have crossed their table and been patented. Then the patent office appealed. And what the public should realize now is the patent office was very clear back then: you cannot patent life. It will not be long before corporations will own the blueprints of life. Currently, the patent office states that you can patent anything in the world that's alive, except a full birth human being. --Source, Jeremy Rifkin, President, Foundation on Economic Trends.

Book came fast and packaged relatively well. However I had payed for a NEW hardcover copy and instead received a used copy. Book was dusty, scuffed and definitely read previously. Goodwill quality for triple the price.

What do you say about a scatological story more suited to eschatology than to fiction in which every single human being makes exactly the wrong decision when confronted with choices? But worse, what do you say about a story in which the outcomes of those decisions are people not acting the way experience says they should act? That there are way too many characters in this book to care about is reflected in how shallow each is developed. In one of the three main arcs of no less than ten story arcs is a scientist who unknowingly helped create a talking monkey. Upon learning this he goes to the top secret facility where shazam, his swipey card still works a year after he left the facility. Upon learning that his "offspring" is going to be "terminated" he monkeynaps said simian and takes off for, wait for it, his family's home in La Jolla, where it's pointed out that liberal acceptance would only go so far in accepting a talking monkey into the community. Really? That the reader is asked to believe no one called his cell phone to ask him to return the creature that belongs to the Federal Government or that a SWAT team would not show up at his house to take the animal back, but that the newest member of the family can freely take up a desk at the local elementary school where no one questions why he's throwing poo at his playground bullies is just absurd.The whole Gerard thing, the talking bird, is reduced to similarly ridiculous plot construction even though this is the only truly likeable character in this idiot's tome. At least he's the only character for which an adequately developed sense of self is conveyed even if the play of bird poop is twice important to the plotAnd that is just one plot arc of many that play out without any sense of logical context. And the protagonist of the book, or so it would seem, just seems to disappear with those loose strings sort of being tied up in a court decision, but if the author doesn't care to write a proper ending for what is really his main character why should any of us care?Like State of Fear, MC does a good job of mixing fact with fiction and defends this by his foreword in which he states the book is true except for the parts that aren't. But unlike State of Fear, the story telling here is boring, predictable and littered with cliches. The ideas in this work would have been nicely suited to the reader if it had been written as an essay about the very real problem of gene patenting. It might even have made a difference and benefitted humanity. But this book as fiction is just a waste of time and talent. And humanity benefits from neither.

Crichton's early novels are enthusiastic and exciting - they still read well today. But his later fiction is very cynical. This is perhaps his most cynical - I found his moral crusade a bit aggressive and alarming.The plot hinges around biotech innovation and its cynically connection to financial backing - both collude to rip off the average joe. They are not just ripping of our money, but our very essence. None of this cartel even pretend they are in it for the good (or such thoughts are pretty quickly erased to make way for full-on collusion). They end up going to absurdly immoral lengths to protect their profits. The plot is deliberately structured to show how utterly degraded professionals and experts really are. The legal bit about genes being copyrighted and so future generations are 'owned' by the biotech company is given a fairly literal run out here.I understand this is based upon conservative American fear about bio-engineering - Michael Sandel's Case Against Perfection is an eloquent statement of the non-cynical reasons for being suspicious. I understand there is fear about investment managers seeking profit-over-people, and the like, but this book drips with cynicism about anyone who is not just-plain-folks. Much of Robin Cook's writing about similar themes has clear distinctions between goodies and bodies, but they never seem to be plotted in anger like this.

Having recently read Timeline, by the same author, I was eager to read another Crichton book. Timeline was the first non-Jurassic Park book of Michael Crichton's that I had read. Timeline was great, but this book, Next, I just could not get to grips with. I got a little lost with the style in which the storyline is told, and I ended up quite confused as to who was who, what was what etc. In the end I gave up, which is unusual for me as I normally see books through to the end. I may give it another go in the future.

Bought this because the sample pages were very promising. Unfortunately, the remainder of the book is a disjointed mishmash.Perhaps the threads are brilliantly drawn together at the end, but I'll never know because I gave up around 80% through.

Once again, Michael Crichton has open my mind to a part of Academia that I knew nothing about. This book is an exciting story that shows how Gene Patenting is a terrible idea; how does one 'own' a gene? It's like owning a 'nose' and licensing that out to Kleenex. If one 'owns' a gene, do they have right to access (extract it from someone) should they run out, as it is now their legal property?But as usual with Crichton, it's put in as a fascinating story that a layman like me can understand.

As usual a very enjoyable read. Fast paced and like Jurassic Park, if the science was true, it paints a very alarming picture of the future, move over 1984. But seriously if the patents and litigation described here came to pass it would be a very, very sad world. Fortunately it ends well.