Ah, Jurassic Park, a keystone moment in movie history where dinosaurs were brought to the silver screen in such an indelible way. I don't think it would be inaccurate to say the movie franchise (especially with the most recent entry of Jurassic World) has significantly overshadowed the book. Heck, I only just got to reading it now, 23 years after the movie was released. Having recently seen the movie, I was struck by the differences between the novel and the movie. Some changes were welcomed, others lost some of the book's depth in the translation.First off most of the characters are portrayed a bit differently in the movie from the book. In the book John Hammond is not the lovable grandfatherly figure Richard Attenborough portrayed in the movie. Book Hammond was rather narcissistic and self-absorbed. Where as the Movie Hammond experienced some humility by the end, it seemed like Book Hammond had a restraining order out against that emotion. Nothing could possibly go wrong with his brilliant idea, the government was an unnecessary impediment on human progress, and when things do go wrong they are the fault of his (highly trained specialist) underlings and their lack of vision. He is a nice enough man if you are agreeable with him, but if you cross him he will treat you rather poorly. All in all a less sympathetic (though a bit more believeable) of a character.Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler are not romantically involved in the book and there is in fact a large age difference between them. This pleased me because it allowed the characters to shine without having to devote time to a romantic plot-line or undercurrent. They are both very capable and knowledgeable in the book and easy to root for. While separated for most of the book they are very calm and collected under pressure and maintain an effective mentor-student relationship. They were great in the movie, but I think I liked them more in the book.Jeff Goldblum is Ian Malcolm, nuff said.John Arnold (Samuel L. Jackson from the movie and Park Operator), Henry Wu (chief scientist), and Robert Muldoon (big game hunter and park warden) are explored in much more depth than in the movie and provide some fascinating insights into the events as they unfold. Arnold comes from en engineering and theme park operations background. As such he views the park through his own experiences, knowing that things will go wrong and how to best deal with them. He isn't caught up in the grand vision of Hammond and treats the park problems as things that will occur as a matter of course and that can be fixed.Wu, the brilliant scientist behind the miracle of resurrected dinosaurs, views things through a highly scientific lens. He is much more interested in the process and methodology that went into creating them than the end product. He isn't married to the notion of bring back dinos as they were, but instead pushes to explore how they could be using the techniques he has developed. He clashes with Hammond on this topic, wanting to expand science while Hammond is more than content with just cranking out existing dinos and not meddling with their appearance.Muldoon is a former big game hunter turned conservationist. He has hunted plenty of dangerous game and has no rosy eyed vision on what dinos are: they are big, smart, dangerous creatures that should be treated with respect of rocket launchers, depending on what the situation calls for. He knows what needs to be done when things (inevitably) go wrong and provides a very pragmatic view of the park and its inhabitants.All in all, the secondary characters provide a wide and nuanced view of the experiment Hammond is trying to pull off. This really gave the book a very nice bit of depth beyond "Amusement Park Tries to Kill its Guests." Where as the movie was very much about surviving dino related deaths, the book took time to explore different views on the park and serve as a cautionary tale about pushing the boundaries of science too quickly. Malcolm seems to be the avatar of this view, noting "Story of our species, everyone knows its coming, but not so soon." Crichton also adds in some moments of levity so it isn't all scientific doom and gloom/raptor attacks:"I don't see him [juvenile T-Rex] at the moment.""Maybe he's down hunting the apostasaurs.""He would if he could, believe me. Sometimes he stands by the lagoon and stares at the animals, and wiggles those little forearms in frustration."But this was by no means a flawless book. I thought Crichton got a little too hung up on technical details and spelled some things out a but to specifically when a general comment would have sufficed. This was especially true as we are shown the computer interface that must be used to save the day at the end. Speaking of the end, I felt the book end was rather sloppy. Instead of ending like the movie with the survivors flying away, Crichton decided that Grant et. al. needed to do a a head count of all the raptors to insure that none escaped to the mainland. While possible important, it really threw the flow off of the narrative. All in all, though, this book was quite riveting. Up until the end it had a great pace, fascinating characters, and a great plot. If you liked the movie, you'll love the book.
I figured that it was time to read the original Jurassic Park, as I recently went to see the fourth movie, Jurassic World. Basically, JW follows the same pattern as previous movies—people create dinosaurs, dinosaurs get loose, much running & screaming ensues. Still it was worth every penny just for the scene in which the Mosasaur leaps out of a pool in a SeaWorld like setting.In many ways, this novel, which started the whole franchise, is better than the corresponding Jurassic Park movie—the science is more obvious and better and the plot is a bit more complex. However, for characterization, the movie probably gives the viewer more sympathy for those doing the running & screaming. The novel does include an awful lot of computer programming diagrams & jargon—probably trendy at the time of its publication, but a bit dated now. Crichton seems to have much the same message in mind as Mary Shelley did when she wrote Frankenstein—science often seems to out-strip humanity’s moral development and just because we are able to do something doesn’t mean we should do it. Where Shelley left it for the reader to develop this thesis on their own, Crichton gets down right preachy, hitting the reader over the head with this message repeatedly (as articulated by the mathematician). And this whole idea that nature can’t be contained and that it’s hubristic of people to try—this seems to me to be a very “city folk” way of looking at the world. Ask anyone who grew up on a farm, complete with livestock, and we will tell you that there is no such thing as a fool-proof fence! Try to out-smart a pig—it’s not as easy a task as you might think. I’ve ended up using reverse psychology (open two gates, chase them towards the gate you don’t want the pigs to go out). Ever try getting a large beast like a cow or a horse to do something they don’t want to do? Good luck! You will need many people in order to accomplish the task. The horse may do what you want if you have a very good working relationship with it (I think about each year here in Calgary at Stampede time when some brave soul takes a horse up the Calgary Tower and attempts to get it to stand on the glass floored part of the observation deck—I wouldn’t do it and neither will any sensible horse!) Farmers and ranchers know their limits—they have no illusions of control when it comes to animals. I also know a substantial number of zoo keepers and they have a keen respect for their charges and know that zoo animals have plenty of time to contemplate the weak spots in their enclosures and that they are willing to test those weak spots when all the zoo staff have gone home for the evening. If it’s hard to convince a cow to do something, it can be downright dangerous to ask an elephant to do something it has an aversion to. While zoo keepers know these things, it often seems that zoo administration is clueless about animal behaviour & intelligence. When things go wrong (e.g. when an animal escapes), it is often because administration and/or architects discount the warnings of animal care staff. When Calgary Zoo opened a new building, the Colobus monkeys climbed right out of their supposedly-secure new enclosure and were found in the rafters the next morning. Modifications, previously suggested by zoo keepers and disregarded, were put into place. And seriously, how many city folk can’t even get their dogs to be obedient? So, a very good novel with good suspense and a fun premise (who wouldn’t want to go to a safe version of Jurassic Park?), but I am knocking off a star because I was smart enough to see the message without being beaten about the head & ears with it!
What do You think about Jurassic Park (1993)?
So, straight to it. Jurassic Park, the book, is inimitable, apart from a few clumsy attempts. One thing that differentiated it from its wannabes is that, unlike books about sharks, snakes or let's say, zombies, dinosaurs come in very varied shapes. This means that the way the casualties meet their end is just as variable. Michael Crichton props up his last act with inspired flair and experienced cunning. He knows that the action in this book will go only so far, just like last acts in an all out comedy movie WILL be lame, unless something rash and daring is undertook. The soliloquy (for us) of Ian Malcolm are just like the morphine that the doctor prescribed for him. Malcolm's rants about science are dishonest but it's all in good jest. The verisimilitude of Isla Nublar is out of this world. The landscape, the computers, the dinosaurs, the genetic restraints that shackles the dinosaurs, and lastly, the human protagonists in the book, are so well imagined, arranged spatially, manipulated to create tension and pacing, that I recognize the hand of a master entertainer at work. Spielberg, eat your heart out. The ultimate slap in the face of conventional science fiction is the fact, that Jurassic Park takes place in our timeline. How gutsier can you get? The book is now half forgotten, but that will change when the next wave of genetic manipulation arrives. Jurassic Park can have quite a few interpretations that pertain to civics, science, philosophy, and of course maths' sexy cousin, Chaos Theory! The only thing that matters though, is that the book makes good on its promise and gives us more than what it says on the tin; pure fun.
—Luffy Monkey D.
I just realized that I hadn't rated or reviewed this book. I read it several years ago.To be honest, I couldn't finish this book. The writing had an inescapable pattern to it: Introduce character, character gets killed or in some horrible way or eaten by a dinosaur. I hate collateral damage in books, movies, or tv. Big turn-off. Plus, I don't like the creation of sacrificial lambs to be killed, paper-thin to the point of having no personality practically. The science part was a little too detailed (yes, even for a biological scientist). I think that if I want to read a textbook, I can easily do so. But, for fiction, I like the plot to have nicely-integrated factual information, and the focus to be on the characters and the unfolding storyline.Between those two issues with this book, I gave up on it. It is a horrible, horrible thing for a bookworm to say, but I liked the movie better. :(
— Danielle The Book Huntress (Self-Proclaimed Book Ninja)
As a child, my parents (mostly my mother) encouraged me to read 'real books' about historical stuff (which bored the hell out of me) and to tackle topics that were relevant or based in fact (boy did that not hold). When I petitioned to read this book, mom and dad shot it down (and at that age they held the purse strings) and tried to get me to read some book about Medieval Italy (boooooring).Two years leter, they caved and let me get this book. It was wonderful.Crichton is hit or miss from what I'm told, but this is really, really good. It blends science with the fanciful notion of bringing back long dead species from the realm of fossils and artifacts to living, breathing - and frequently violent - fruition.It is a tale of man's reach exceeding his grasp, in which dinosaurs - both of the docile and predatory breeds - have returned to a small Costa Rican island. The idea is to create a nature preserve and theme park out of the scientific advances that make the place possible, but as the inhabitants brought to the island are soon to discover, there is trouble in paradise. A violent storm and an act of corporate espionage remove all safeguards from the island, releasing vicious tyrant lizards upon the trapped populace.The movie is good as well, though Hollywood spared some characters whereas the book made sure the lethality of the dinosaur race was never too far away to get comfortable. You can, however, stop here. There was one more book written as a sequel to the movie version in which a key character is still alive, and from there you really can just put it down. From what I'm told, the Jurassic Park sequel The Lost World may as well have been named The Search For More Money.
—Monk
