I think just about everyone's seen the movie but still adding a spoiler tag.
I don't get the hundreds of thousands of collective upvotes that this book has received on the sub, due to which I picked it up.
It was a page-turner for sure, though it feels about fifty pages too long owing to unnecessary exposition and monologue.
The most jarring element of the book for me was Ian Malcolm, the authorial mouthpiece!His repeated monologues about chaos theory, the end of the scientific era, all excessive and heavy-handed to me especially given that it didn't really fit the book at all
The long expository speeches repeatedly pulled me out of the story, sometimes right in between ACTION SEQUENCES!! Like WITH RAPTORS ON THE ROOF or when he's literally dying. I felt like tossing the book at a wall whenever he opened his mouth.
Coming to the anti-sciencw – This was ironic because the scientist Wu in the story is largely cautious and argues for a safer park, while the true cause of disaster is corporate greed and cost-cutting by Hammond the CEO. In that sense, the book undermines its own anti-science rhetoric through its actual plot. It pretends to indict scientific hubris while actually indicting capitalism and managerial arrogance instead, like not paying nedry, the weather proof dock, not having software associates flown it, the other company wreaking havoc via Nedry.
I also disliked the book’s structure. The chapters are extremely short, and just as something interesting begins to develop, the point of view abruptly shifts to another character. After roughly 350 pages, this became more irritating than suspenseful. It does work occasionally, especially toward the end when multiple threads converge, but overall it felt overused.
All of this was rightly largely excluded from the movie, making it way better than the book (for me).
Things I liked:
I enjoyed the setup and was really excited for what I knew was coming. Crichton introduces the corporate structure of bioengineering and establishes the main characters really well
One element I strongly appreciated was how Hammond died. It was deeply satisfying and far more fitting than the film’s version, and I wish it had been retained. The way the compys just tore him apart slowly was a delight to read. Wish Malcolm was there too 🤪
The bombing of the island was tragic. the dinosaurs meeting an end eerily similar to their extinction millions of years ago, though some escape, a neat nod to 'life finds a way'
What do you guys think?
by inthiseeconomy
8 Comments
If you think the book is anti-science, that’s a huge misunderstanding on your part, for all the reasons you mentioned
>It was a page-turner for sure
You aren’t missing anything. This is enough for most readers.
Crichton wrote airport thrillers. Highly imaginative, well researched and sometimes extremely well done airport thrillers, but airport thrillers nonetheless. A small number of his books blur the line into being solid science fiction, and I would count Jurassic Park amongst that number, but even then the airport thriller tropes are still evident. So short snappy chapters that constantly leave you on a cliff hanger to keep you turning the page? Airport. The paper thin characters? Airport. The lazily integrated didactic essays hammering home Crichton’s point so that nobody could possibly fail to grasp it? Pure departure lounge.
the book is also 35ish years old. the science/politics/ writing styles have changed
Listen if you don’t like multiple pages of pseudo-C code then this book isn’t for you. /s
I think the book appeals to the author’s fan base so while many may find issues like you pointed out, those that enjoy the author’s work may not see them as issues. Obviously the movie expanded the awareness of the book and may have brought new readers that share your view. To be upfront, i saw the film but have no interest in the novel based talkimg to others that read and enjoyrd it because what appealled to them would irritate me. Overall, I dont think you’re “missing” anything. It’s just not your jam.
>It was a page-turner for sure
It’s a Crichton novel, so yeah. He wrote books that were equal parts action and a certain degree of intellectual rigor that was explained and re-explained so people who bought the book at Hudson News could follow it on the airplane.
To be clear, this is not a snub! I love a Crichton novel. But it is the literary equivalent of a Michael Bey film, which, again, not a snub! The both do/did really strong work in their respective lanes. Occasionally lazy, yes, occasionally cliched to an inch of their existences and will never be confused with Great Literature… but by God was it compelling.
I remember being *obsessed* with the book when it first came out when I was in high school. I think it was the first book that I *had* to get in hardcover on release day?
This is one of the rare cases where the movie is better than the book. The movie is not without its flaws, but it largely corrects the even larger flaws of the book.
It’s also not anti-science, but anti-hubris. The science is not the bad guy, the way the science is used is the bad guy. It’s a commentary on how pure science can be manipulated by other factors – personal career success, funding for projects, pure capitalistic greed. It’s not warning against the science, it’s a cautionary tale of what happens when science is done for the “wrong” reasons.