Take a photo of a barcode or cover
thecaptainsquarters 's review for:
Congo
by Michael Crichton
adventurous
informative
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Ahoy there mateys! I am very slowly reading through Crichton's books in audiobook format. Congo the novel was never a favorite and the 1995 movie is awful. In rereading, it felt like the narrative was just a framework to showcase the author's research. The plot was broken up by many long tangents about the history of electronics, primate behavior, and snippets of "local" Congolese politics.
To be fair, I didn't mind the research, I just felt that the plot was smothered by it. Okay, I was a bit bothered by the primate research because apes make me sad when they are in zoos or studies. But I remember reading about Koko and her kitten in a children's book when I was younger. Koko was the basis for Amy in the novel. I didn't like the Amy sections of the novel very much or the ape/human/chimp or whatever hybrids in the book.
Apparently, the author "pitched the [film] idea to 20th Century Fox who bought the film rights before the story had even been written. This rapid development resulted in Crichton suffering writer's block, which he treated by spending time in an isolation tank." [source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(novel)" Well that makes sense about why the plot was so goofy. The reason for the apes killing humans, the entire diamond subplot, and all of the drama of the ending (including a volcanic eruption and hot air balloon ride) did seem weirdly tacked together. And over the top.
When finished, I did do some reading about the history of the Congo region and claims of tribal cannibalism as presented in the novel. I didn't find any real information on the supposed "Angawa" or "Kigani" tribes. In general, I don't think I would recommend this novel to anyone other than Crichton completionists at this point. Arrr!
To be fair, I didn't mind the research, I just felt that the plot was smothered by it. Okay, I was a bit bothered by the primate research because apes make me sad when they are in zoos or studies. But I remember reading about Koko and her kitten in a children's book when I was younger. Koko was the basis for Amy in the novel. I didn't like the Amy sections of the novel very much or the ape/human/chimp or whatever hybrids in the book.
Apparently, the author "pitched the [film] idea to 20th Century Fox who bought the film rights before the story had even been written. This rapid development resulted in Crichton suffering writer's block, which he treated by spending time in an isolation tank." [source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(novel)" Well that makes sense about why the plot was so goofy. The reason for the apes killing humans, the entire diamond subplot, and all of the drama of the ending (including a volcanic eruption and hot air balloon ride) did seem weirdly tacked together. And over the top.
When finished, I did do some reading about the history of the Congo region and claims of tribal cannibalism as presented in the novel. I didn't find any real information on the supposed "Angawa" or "Kigani" tribes. In general, I don't think I would recommend this novel to anyone other than Crichton completionists at this point. Arrr!