I was 12 years old the summer that Jurassic Park hit theaters. Considering the ubiquity of CGI these days, it's easy to forget how revolutionary that movie was at the time. Using computers to animate photorealistic animals and insert them into a scene with real actors was unprecedented. Spielberg & Co. had to invent new technology as they went along to make the movie possible.
So I saw the movie, read the book, and then got obsessed with Michael Crichton for the rest of my adolescence. I read his books over and over. I wrote him a fan letter and the dude replied! I got a signed Jurassic Park postcard saying "Best wishes, Michael Crichton." That was nice.
I read Travels for the first time when I was 14 or 15. The book truly expanded my world. It was my introduction to places like Bhutan and Jakarta that I had never heard of before, and to new-age physic phenomena like auras and spoon-bending which I would later come to regard with rigid skepticism.
I'm currently reading The Brothers Karamazov. It's not quite the dense slog I expected it to be, I'm enjoying it, and yet I wanted something easy to read, concurrently. So I picked up my old, creased, paperback copy of Travels and gave it a go.
Why Travels? I think it's because I wanted to see how much I've changed since I was a teenager. Now I know where Afghanistan is. I know where Mount Kilimanjaro is. I know who James Randi is. How would this affect my perception of the book that my former self loved?
"It is not easy to cut through a human head with a hacksaw." I remembered the opening line, verbatim, 20 years after reading it. I remembered a lot. I was surprised by how many incidents from this book have stayed with me. Being pushed up Kilimanjaro. Hushing the British tourists while waiting in an elephant blind. Getting on an airplane with a sense of anxiety because you don't have any books to read or music to listen to. Taping the desk drawers of your London hotel room. Talking to a cactus. These are things that I have thought about many times over the last 20 years, apparently.
So what additional perspective do I have on the book 20 years later?
I still liked it. But with asterisks.
By the standards of the modern era, Crichton comes across as slightly sexist and arguably xenophobic. However, he also seems to be genuinely grappling with his sexism and biases in a way that was rare and forward-thinking for the time. He examined his thoughts and motives, and made a good-faith effort to change in a way that I found redeeming.
By the standards of any era, he comes across as insecure. Even though he has a chapter where his psychologist tells him he's insecure, I didn't really notice this at the time. Perhaps because I read it as an insecure 15-year-old, I couldn't see the forest through the trees. He lays his insecurities and phobias and limitations on the table, which is brave, but it also makes it difficult to like him at times.
As I suspected, it was more rewarding to read the book with an improved sense of geography. Knowing what I know now, a better title would have been "Vacations" rather than "Travels." Crichton was not an explorer or a trail-blazer in any sense. He paid money to go on guided, secure trips to exotic locales. It was adventure-tourism. And despite the fact that he was being coddled, he nevertheless approached each trip with hand-wringing anxiety. But that's what I found admirable: here's a guy whose temperament was best suited to sitting at a typewriter and daydreaming. He had difficulty relating to other people in a genuine way, bore psychic scars from his troubled childhood, and lived with a lot of fear and insecurity. Despite all that, he forced himself to travel outside of his comfort zone, to see the world, to challenge himself, to grow. Someone with less courage would have simply stayed home.
I found myself disagreeing with him more than I did as a teenager. "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us." Nope. Sorry, no way. This is at best 10% true. Yes, there are psychosomatic symptoms, and we know that a person's outlook can affect their immune system. Depressed people get more colds, for instance. And yes, some illnesses like type 2 diabetes or lung cancer can be the result of bad decisions. But is it your fault if you're born with a cleft palate? Or dyslexia? If you are allergic to cats, is that the result of your thoughts? Many illnesses are determined or influenced by genes. Are genetic defects your fault? What about if someone breaks your arm and sends you to the emergency room?
It's all the more an astonishing claim for Crichton to make, considering that he died of cancer in 2008. I've had friends who've died of cancer. It's terrible and sad. In no way whatsoever would I entertain the notion that they caused their own death. It's not a matter of responsibility. It's winning the world's shittiest lottery. I'd be curious to know how much responsibility Crichton felt for his illness in his last days.
Now for my thoughts on the new-age stuff. When I first read the book as a teenager, I had never heard of spoon-bending, auras, chakras, or such. It seemed plausible. I tried to bend a spoon. It didn't work. I tried to see auras. It didn't work. I talked to a tree. Never heard back. Still, I kept an open mind. I remember giving my high school psychology teacher my copy of the book and asking him to read a few chapters. He returned the book to me the next day in class and said, "I don't buy it." We talked about it for a while. He basically said "Believe what you want to believe, but be careful going down that path. Don't believe this stuff on one guy's word alone." That was really good advice. Thanks Mr. Schmidt!
So, I don't think Crichton is lying or making things up. There are some things he writes that seem genuinely inexplicable. HOWEVER, I believe that if this stuff were true, then it would have been confirmed in a laboratory setting by now. Crichton anticipates this objection in his post-script. He writes that there are a number of phenomena that depend on altered states of consciousness, which are difficult to replicate in a laboratory setting, such as sexual intercourse or creativity. Um, I'm not sure if the set of a porno counts as a laboratory setting, but humans are fully capable of having sex while surrounded by bright lights, cameras, and an audience. And creativity is a pretty broad term. I agree it would be harder to write or compose with a bunch of lab-coated nerds breathing down your neck, but not impossible. Whatever.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle convinced himself that fairies were real. Crichton convinced himself that auras were real. I'll just agree with what he wrote in his post-script: if it's true, it will eventually be born out by science.