Dope book but damn were there lots of characters to keep track of, wish some died sooner so i wouldn't need to take notes ( )

Reading this book as an early teen right after the success of the movie of the same name I was fascinated by the wonders of the science described in the book and of course by the thought of reviving such fantastic giant ancient creatures. The dangers of such experiment and horrors of unleashing such power were also not taken for granted by my teen mind. I confess, however, that more moral and ethical questions about the message transmitted by the author were to populate my mind only a bit later as more dense and complex topics would show up in my adult mind: What would humanity do if such power of (re)creation was sudden really in its hands? To use it or not to use it? The answer is getting clear by the day... ( )

Read this when I was 13 or so and was not thrilled for this to be the 1st book I ever reread. However, it really is a gem.
My favourite character is Malcolm, the mathematician and consultant in Jurassic Park. I don't remember too many other scientist personalities that so perfectly complement the story. His explanations of Chaos Theory and its role in everyday life is philosophical, comprehensible, and relevant to the story. In general, Crichton does an excellent job basing all the innovations the book introduces on fact.
In the end, the book is really just a suspenseful thriller. However, it is one of the best in the genre. Definitely recommend. ( )

Michael Crichton's disaster thriller, "Jurassic Park,"written in 1990, before the widespread use of the internet is in my opinion, a postmodern recycling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein myth. Both stories are about the destructive power of human error and the insanity of playing God (exemplified by the characters of John Hammond and Henry Wu). And both stories are regarded as classics. Jurassic Park in particular is regarded as a modern classic for its brilliant display of somewhat precise (if not, altered or purely created) scientific data alongside the fantastic. I do not disagree with this popular consensus. What Crichton does well is make the fantastical believable by using scientific research. And he is pretty darn good at writing tense and frightening scenes as those of you who have read the book or seen the famous film adaptation (which Crichton wrote the screenplay for) know.

However, I can understand why he also regarded as a guilty pleasure for many. For one thing, his prose isn’t very elegant and his characters often seem to exist to perpetuate the ideas and philosophy of the story. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as Ian Malcolm for instance, in the film, exists more or less as the same character: the philosophical mathematician. His purpose is to state and prove that the park is prone to human error and as we all know, his predictions turn dire. But, there isn’t much here in the way of character development. Additionally, Crichton is very fond of exposition and while, science is fascinating, the first part of the book is often stuffed with descriptions and explanations. Once again, this is just a particular quirk of Crichton's writing. For many, this style of writing is very annoying while others love it. Another particular quirk of Crichton’s writing is that his descriptions of side characters and women often come off as sexist and borderline racist. Maybe this wasn’t the case back in 1990 but its 2018, and I found myself bothered by some of his quick descriptive passages that seemed off kilter and very unnecessary.

The good news is that once you make it to the second half of the book and all hell breaks loose, Jurassic Park becomes a thrilling ride.

You’re probably wondering is the book similar to the film? The book is quite a different beast than the film it spawned. Like all adaptations, lots of details and twists got lost, like the dinosaur migration to the mainland (which was my favorite part of the early part of the book) and the chapter in the aviary (which I believe made its way into the terrible film, Jurassic Park III). But, I can’t help but think that the changes that were made in the movie script produced a better story (for the most part-John Hammond should have been eaten alive for his hubris as he is in the book). In the film, we care more about the characters, particularly Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler (who in the book are not romantically involved as it would have been very unprofessional). Dr. Grant’s character arc in the film, from disliking kids to saving and embracing them, is wonderful. In the book, Dr. Grant is merely paired with the children as a survival tactic. Also, Tim and Lex are very annoying and in many ways caricatures of children. I simply care more about the characters in the film than I do the book because they don’t just feel like they are archetypes….they feel fleshed out (no pun intended). And perhaps this is on purpose? Dr.Grant really isn’t a hero in the book the way he is portrayed in the film. There are no heroes in the book really, just folks terrifyingly trying to survive. (To be fair, although Grant is the protector of the children in the film, and the character we most identify with, the true hero is the T-Rex that eats the raptors at the end of the film, allowing the the films stars to escape from a near death situation). What is clear in both the movie and the book is that nature will always find a way and humans are powerless and fools to think they can control it (or in this case recreate it).

Critique aside, let’s not kid ourselves, we don’t read a Crichton book for brilliant characterization. We read a Crichton book mainly for its the pulpy “real science” sci-fi it provides and the heart pounding thrills.

Verdict: A classic it may be, Jurassic Park works better as film as the book reads mainly as the screenplay-adaptation-friendly prototype (even though it was published before the film was made). With this being said, I enjoyed its pulpy nature, its philosophical concepts (as borrowed as they might be) and the thrills of dinosaurs hunting human prey. It's a fine piece of pop sci-fi (if you can get past Crichton’s flawed storytelling) and might I dare suggest that it is even a good summer beach read? Just beware of the dinosaurs lurking near your resort.

( )

I am so glad I decided to read this! It has been sitting on my shelf for probably 15 years. I’ve read other Crichton novellas-The Sphere, Congo, The Eaters of the Dead, which I all enjoyed. We watched all the Jurassic Park movies with our kids, so I wanted to read the book. And of course, I enjoy the book more than the movie! It diverges most near the end. I really enjoy the cutting-edge technology of 1990, and it really captures the awe that those of us who enjoy history and dinosaurs would probably experience in seeing them come alive. It has scary moments, and a lot of action and suspense. A well-rounded science-fiction novel that would appeal to readers who might not really like science-fiction. ( )