Jurassic Park the book....not so good.

[HardDrive]

I have never read anything by Michael Crichton Not much of an 'airport paperback' reader, but I have read come Tom Clancy on vacation, and enjoyed it.

Crichton deserves credit for his research, and his vision. And given when it was written, it really was topical for the time (the ancient history of 18 year ago). But how do I put this gently?......he's a crappy writer. Perhaps this book in aberration, and I need to read more of his work, but I'm sure not motivated. He's just not good at the craft of writing.

Specific complaints:

-Lifeless characters that lack depth and simply don't feel real. The reactions of the characters to the the situations are laughable. Its ok a first, hey, its a wild eyed adventure book, but then it just gets tiresome.
-Repetitive, boring scene descriptions. The guy just doesn't have any flair for giving a landscape feeling. He must have used the words 'mist' and 'fog' 5000 times in the book. We get it man, its a freaking rain forest.
-Contrived story lines. The end of the book features a strange 15 page blob where doctor Grant leads them to find the raptor 'nest'. What the hell was that about? The characters are constantly casting about on their next mini-adventure, some quasi heroic mumbo jumbo that rings especially hollow with the kids in the story.
-Did he write the screenplay first? Seriously, it almost feels like he wrote the visuals, then filled in the details with some 'filler' to make it into a book.

I dunno, I was actually kind of stoked to read this book, but I find myself a bit bummed. The movie really did top the book. It took the power of his original idea, and distilled it into something great.

Of course, Mr. Crichton is now a freaking bazillionaire, so the guy must be doing something right!

[slodave]

It's Crichton and he died November 4.

[onewhippedpuppy]

I thought the book was much better than the movie. Maybe I'm just shallow.

[cmccuist]

Sometimes it's more about the subject matter than the writing. I've read all of Crichton's books and enjoyed them all (except for Prey, which I couldn't believe, even as science fiction).

His books are novels, but are well researched.

I also like John Feinstien's books, even though his writing is horrible. I have to double back and reread sentences because they're so awkward. But his material is so compelling and the topics so interesting, that you just fight through it.

[s_wilwerding]

I've read all of Crichton's books - Andromeda Strain is quite good, try to find a book called A Case of Need - he wrote it under a pen name, but you should be able to find it.

I like most of his modern stuff too - Jurassic Park, Disclosure, Rising Sun.

[berettafan]

After reading the book the movie was a letdown for me.

[legion]

I've gone back and re-read some Steven King and JRR Tolkien that I enjoyed as a kid...

Maybe it's the fact that in my professional life I often have to quickly read through long documents and determine if there is anything in there that I care about, but both of them turned me off when they took long excursions from the plot for no purpose. It wasn't about establishing characters or locations, it was just word masturbation.

I recently re-read Dune by Frank Herbert and found it to be an excellent book. I also re-read the sequel and lost interest in the series...

[t951]

I think Chrichton's earlier writings were excellent. It was toward the end of his career that he was writing screenplays. TimeLine was horrible. His last one with the monkey boy was eh.

He always researches his topics well, and there is always an underlying point, but in the end it was simply...hey, this can be made into a movie.

For the record, I thought Jurassic Park was good, the movie....while being entertaining and containing amazing special effects, wasn't nearly as good. I also don't think it conveyed his message. Most people who see the movie think it's about dinosaurs. It was really about the dangers of genetic engineering and doing things just because.

[Rot 911]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I thought the book was much better than the movie. Maybe I'm just shallow.

Same here. I thought the book was much darker than the movie.

[berettafan]

Sam Neill and Laura Dern single handedly ruined that movie (and the directing didn't help).

[berettafan]

Legion i wonder if that isn't the plight of all good writers. I too thought King went off the deep end later on and Clancy....well that was just flat out upsetting. Great stories with careful research were replaced with lunatic ramblings (King) and encyclopedias (Clancy) that offered none of the fun that used to exist in their writings.

[Pazuzu]

Crichton always put the science first, over the storytelling. He tried desperately (well, until the end, when he was writing fluff) to keep the science rigorous and intact, despite the flow of the story. This often made for bad writing that was only enjoyed by real egg heads like me, who insist that if you're going to bring any science into a story, you better keep it intact, honest, and realistic. I loved Larry Niven for that reason, his science was getting pretty out there, but always has a strong framework of truth and theory supporting it.

[cmccuist]

Mike, what did you think about the book Prey? Did you read that one? It was about nano-technology. These little microscopic machines assemble themselves into this guy's wife. Needless to say, hilarity did not ensue.

That science was not plausible. That book I did not enjoy.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by cmccuist

Mike, what did you think about the book Prey? Did you read that one? It was about nano-technology. These little microscopic machines assemble themselves into this guy's wife. Needless to say, hilarity did not ensue.

That science was not plausible. That book I did not enjoy.

I barely finished it, and swallowed my own vomit several times. You nailed it, there was ZERO science in there, he walked away from his own requirements. I did not bother with anything after that, and I personally am the cause of E.R. ending, because I hated him so much after that book

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Books are always better than movies, since you can gain insights into the characters' thoughts. Screen does not capture that.

[BRPORSCHE]

Anybody else like Airframe that was my favorite book he did. Jurassic park was ok, but you have to tear your mind away from the the movie.

[Seahawk]

Since I used to travel quite a bit I have read all of his books...I'll go look for A Case of Need.

His books did become almost formulaic as he progressed but were/are still good bubblegum for the eyes.

Edit: I really liked Airframe. I have done accident investigations while I was in the military and it really hit home.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Prey was weak, and just full of holes.

I really liked Eaters of the Dead, which became the movie the 13th Warrior; which I liked. Though I (6'5", red hair & freckles) could play a more convincing arab than Antonio Banderas.

JP

[JeremyD]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I thought the book was much better than the movie. Maybe I'm just shallow.

+1 - I thought the movie ruined it. I also liked Rising son and coma and Disclosure. Prey was sort of far fetched.

[Moses]

Remember Peter Benchley's Jaws? Good story, dreadful book. Just awful. The movie was brilliant, primarily due to the monumental performance of Robert Shaw. If you liked the movie, don't pick up the book.