You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by amorphousbl0b
Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
They say to never meet your heroes, and that usually extends to reading the classic sci-fi novels that your favorite movies are based on. But I think Jurassic Park is one of the few that's safe.
This book is quite good, an excellent popular techno-thriller. The prose is rarely standout, but it is eminently understandable and extremely easy to follow, marching along at a steady clip, so it just felt very nice to read. The dialogue, with the exception of one character's nigh-incomprehensible yapping, smoothly rolls off the page. Every character's personality is well-established, though none undergo any real arc.
My biggest positive surprise was Donald Gennaro. In the movie he's the slimy lawyer who went the way of Elvis Presley as soon as Rexy showed up (a role originally belonging to the PR director Ed Regis, who is stubbornly referred to as Ed Regis at all times), but in the book he's probably the most complex character, being complicit in Jurassic Park's creation despite fearing its risks but ultimately showing great personal bravery during its collapse. He's the one character I can say suffered in translation to screen.
However, that's not to say nothing annoyed me. Particularly Ian Malcolm's long-winded monologues - and I've read enough to know an author never gives a character that much unchallenged page time unless they want you to agree with them. The "medieval peasants only worked twenty hours a week" thing comes up, which is one of my most despised historical misconceptions; peasants maybe worked so little for their lords, but they spent the rest of that time doing household chores and making all their food and clothes from scratch, as well as trying not to die from all the diseases that modern science has made us forget were constantly killing people until about 200 years ago. There is a good message of caution in this novel. It was delivered very well in the first half, but then weighed down by yammering well beyond its welcome. Movie Malcolm is much more likable.
The movie's also better on the gender front. Dr. Sattler gets a lot less to do in the book, here she's mostly around to look hot and make one pertinent observation about the park's poor safety standards. And the sexist assumptions and remarks that other characters make about her are met with mild finger-wagging. Movie Lex is easily the biggest upgrade out of all the characters; book Lex is useless.
Is it better than the movie? I don't know about that. The movie is one of the best of all time, and I would not say the book shares that honor as a novel. But it is quite good. If you're a JP fan or just a sci-fi fan, I'd recommend it.
This book is quite good, an excellent popular techno-thriller. The prose is rarely standout, but it is eminently understandable and extremely easy to follow, marching along at a steady clip, so it just felt very nice to read. The dialogue, with the exception of one character's nigh-incomprehensible yapping, smoothly rolls off the page. Every character's personality is well-established, though none undergo any real arc.
My biggest positive surprise was Donald Gennaro. In the movie he's the slimy lawyer who went the way of Elvis Presley as soon as Rexy showed up (a role originally belonging to the PR director Ed Regis, who is stubbornly referred to as Ed Regis at all times), but in the book he's probably the most complex character, being complicit in Jurassic Park's creation despite fearing its risks but ultimately showing great personal bravery during its collapse. He's the one character I can say suffered in translation to screen.
However, that's not to say nothing annoyed me. Particularly Ian Malcolm's long-winded monologues - and I've read enough to know an author never gives a character that much unchallenged page time unless they want you to agree with them. The "medieval peasants only worked twenty hours a week" thing comes up, which is one of my most despised historical misconceptions; peasants maybe worked so little for their lords, but they spent the rest of that time doing household chores and making all their food and clothes from scratch, as well as trying not to die from all the diseases that modern science has made us forget were constantly killing people until about 200 years ago. There is a good message of caution in this novel. It was delivered very well in the first half, but then weighed down by yammering well beyond its welcome. Movie Malcolm is much more likable.
The movie's also better on the gender front. Dr. Sattler gets a lot less to do in the book, here she's mostly around to look hot and make one pertinent observation about the park's poor safety standards. And the sexist assumptions and remarks that other characters make about her are met with mild finger-wagging. Movie Lex is easily the biggest upgrade out of all the characters; book Lex is useless.
Is it better than the movie? I don't know about that. The movie is one of the best of all time, and I would not say the book shares that honor as a novel. But it is quite good. If you're a JP fan or just a sci-fi fan, I'd recommend it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal death, Gore, Violence
Minor: Sexism