Reviews

The Lost World: The Junior Novelization by Gail Herman

mbas's review

1.0

With the single exception of Hannibal by Thomas Harris , this is the worst sequel I have ever read . A slow moving plot that ignores many of the events in the first book , coupled with irritating , unsympathetic characters , makes for a miserable reading experience . Very disappointing when compared to the brilliance of his earlier works .

amandamarieger's review

4.0

This book was so much fun - nonstop action in the way Crichton is known for. After hearing about how bad the second movie was, I had low expectations for this book, but boy oh boy was I pleasantly surprised. I need to read more Crichton. It’s the perfect mix of fiction and hard science and I always enjoy it.

My only complaint is that I would say about 25% of the words weren’t necessary. It dragged in some parts. But I’ve come to appreciate a good Ian Malcolm soliloquy. 😂

rogue_runner's review

3.0

I adored Jurassic Park, so I picked this one up fairly quickly after I'd finished JP. Infamous as the book Crichton didn't want to write, I feel that it lacks some of the sparkle of JP. The start of TLW was much slower and I found more difficult to get involved in, convoluted before it got to the whole DINOSAURS thing. Happily, the injustice of Ian Malcolm's 'death' was quickly resolved in this one, something I couldn't bear about JP (IAN MALCOLM!!), but the rest of the crew for this one didn't strike me as particularly interesting. Sarah was a boss, but otherwise there was a definite lacklustre about the rest of the characters, easily fading inothe background.

kerichilds's review

adventurous tense medium-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Plot
• Strong character development? Yes
• Loveable characters? Yes
• Diverse cast of characters? Yes
• Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.5

m0usey's review

adventurous reflective tense medium-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? A mix
• Strong character development? Yes
• Loveable characters? It's complicated
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.75

I honestly liked this novel better than the first Jurassic Park. I found the characters to be a bit more engaging and the plot to be a bit more interesting and tense. Overall and good read!

---

Content Warnings

Graphic: Medical content, Racism, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Blood, Cursing, Death, Fire/Fire injury, Gore, Gun violence, and Grief

crystalm17's review

3.0

Not even remotely as good as the first.

_dkerr's review

adventurous

3.0

A lackluster follow up to one of my favorite books of all time.

whitneyborup's review

3.0

Maybe it wasn't as magical as the three or four times I read it as a kid, but I can definitely see why I loved this novel so much. Lots of gruesome death, lots of dino details, and lots of "scientific theory." But, not as detailed as I remember. The scene I remembered most before this reread was Sarah Harding's research on hyenas and lions. Turns out that's only two pages or so.

hckilgour's review

adventurous medium-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Plot
• Strong character development? It's complicated
• Loveable characters? It's complicated
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? No

2.5

Honestly not as good as Jurassic Park. It takes about two thirds of the book to get to the dinosaurs doing the bitey thing which made most of the book pretty boring. And even once it all went downhill, I just wasn’t super invested.

As per usual, Ian Malcolm was completely useless and the kick ass female scientist did most of the heavy lifting.

acchan991's review

2.0

2.5*
This wasn't really that bad, just pretty boring. It had a lot of good ideas, but sometimes the characters just stoped to give a lecture to the reader in the middle of the action or explain every little useless detail, this book could have 150 pages less...