[veidr]

I don't think it is dirty and underhanded, and I would even go so far as to say it's awesome.

It isn't like Chrichton defiled some serious work of journalism or science by slipping in this personal vendetta; as Crowley aptly points out, Chrichton's works are mass-market novels about 'killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys'.

So what's the harm? Books like that need despicable minor characters to set the tone, and I think this is perfectly fine way to say, "Fuck you, Michael Crowley!" It's his novel, after all.

Also, after reading Crowley's article[1] that so incensed Crichton, I think he probably does have a small penis^W^W^W^W^W^W^W it is not very good. (Neither are Crichton's books, although I probably read most of them in the pre-kindle days when you had to buy a paperback at the airport before a long flight.)

[1]: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/michael-crichtons-scaries...

[nitrogen]

The name is the same, though. I think that's what makes it completely ridiculous.

[veidr]

I agree -- ridiculously over-the top. Zero subtlety. That's why I found it kind of awesome.

[FiatLuxDave]

No, let me give you a true example of ridiculously over-the-top, zero subtlety.

I once read an obscure sci-fi novel where the bad guy was an evil physicist named Edward Teller, who wanted to destroy the world with his invention, the hydrogen bomb. No relation to the real-world Edward Teller, of course. All characters in the novel were fictitious and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, was purely coincidental. It said so right in the front of the book...