I really liked The Andromeda Strain, enough so that I've reread it several times. I've enjoyed a lot of his other books. The "said" thing doesn't bother me at all.

I had a lot of people push "Prey" at me. It actually ended up being rather weak. Obviously didn't do his homework on how fruitless most genetic algorithms are....

In any case, can't say I've read much else of his stuff.

Almost every time a character speaks, Crichton puts the word "said" after the dialogue.

There are things I dislike about Crichton, but that's not one of them. I like said. It recedes into the background. With words such as "remarked," I get distracted and starting thinking, "Was that really a remark, exactly?" The context should tell you, rather than the said synonym.

Yeah, but people should at least reply....

Said's not background for me. It's present by its absence of detail. If that exchange had had half as many saids, even if they weren't replaced by anything, my internal pattern-counter wouldn't tick over, and it wouldn't be so staccato to me. And just distractingly staccato, not rhythmically, or mood-enhancingly.

A couple of those lines were questions, and therefore should have had "asked" after them instead of "said." And would it really hurt the man to throw in a "replied" every now and then?

See, the conversation was about science-fiction writers, and then someone brought up Crichton, which is just ... wrong.

I hereby perform indignities upon Prey, which was composed entirely of fey-yu.

Hey, now. He writes fictional science all the time.

Hey, now. He writes fictional science all the time.

Bwah!

However, there is a segment of society that thinks that "medically trained" has something to do with "scientifically correct", so books premised on my-marijuana-huffing-assistant-looked-it-up-on-the-innerweb research is just bad.

Bad Crichton. No biscuit!

Crichton is a poor excuse for a writer, much less an SF writer. I enjoyed Jurassic Park, mostly because it felt like a screenplay. But I also read Sphere and Congo, and they were absolute crap. No scientific plausibility to speak of.

And Andromeda Strain had almost no story, IIRC.

Hard SF writers don't necessarily sacrifice character, but the story is often driven by some scientific issue. Niven is a good example: the Ringworld stories, "Neutron Star", etc. Hal Clement is probably my favorite hard sf writer: Mission of Gravity involved a rescue mission on a planet where the gravity was about 4gs, and the residents all looked like caterpillars. It was way cool.

Vernor Vinge is a hard SF writer, and Jack McKinney. Sarah Zettel. I tend to think of CJ Cherryh as a hard SF writer in that her science is usually social science, and that's what drives the story more than pure character. If that makes any sense.