I was pretty interested when I purchased this novel from the bookstore. The whole artistry of the cover and the reviews caught my attention. One of the most intriguing reviews that I observed on the back of the book was "In Paris, a young physicist performs an oceangraphic experiment--then dies mysteriously after a ronatic tryst with a beautiful stranger." I thought this was mysteriously intriguing because it seemingly related death and beauty, which both are notably important within our culture. I also thought it was interesting Crichton proceeded to incorporate graphs on pg 107 within the book for us visual learners. It added a little more credibility, I think.

On page 106: "It's taken from the NASA--Goddard data set by the UN and other organizations. Do you consider the UN a trustworthy source?"

"Yes."

"So we can regard this graph as accurate. Unbiased? No monkey business?"

"Yes."

Here, it seems that Evan is just accepting this graph due to discourse. NASA is held in high esteem and people seem to accept everything as fact. We don't have to question their findings beyond a reasonable doubt because NASA is all-knowing. Nobody can argue with statistics. I think Crichton is attempting to make this point during this conversation. We accept science as fact which in turn affects our societal expectations and perceptions. I think that a lot of these paradigms permeate the surface of each page of text.

The tone of the novel seems desperate, as though we must make a change. He is attempting to instill fear as a method of progression. It seems that it would take a huge catastrophe or at least a serious threat in order for society to make a progressive change. We carelessly carry out everyday tasks according to status quo or social class. We strive to reach superiority at any cost without acknowledging the consequences that may follow. Maybe he's attempting a discrete intervention, attempting to reach people and inspire change.