Book Review - Jurassic Park

0
COM
Labels: , , , , , · Posted by Anonymous at
Cover art courtesy of Barnes and Noble

Title: Jurassic Park
Author: Michael Crichton
Publisher: Ballantine Books
Publication Date: November 1990
Version I Read: Mass Market Paperback

Rating: 4.5/5

Ah, Jurassic Park. Perhaps one of the only times in history that the movie has been better than the book.

That’s not to say the book is bad. It’s actually very good. It just has the misfortune of being overshadowed by one of the most successful (and in my opinion best) movie adaptations of all time. (Apologies. This review cannot help but make comparisons, and this is opinion, meaning there is quite a good argument to be had as to why the book is better.)

Nearly everyone knows the story of Jurassic Park. Rich eccentric builds a park with dinosaurs on an island off the coast of Costa Rica. And later there’s running and screaming.

Now, science will tell you this can’t work. DNA degrades over time, rendering it impossible to clone. Not to mention getting enough DNA from a blood sample in a mosquito to clone from is also highly unlikely. Not to mention the fact that T-Rex would have had feathers, dilophosaurus probably couldn’t spit venom, and velociraptor was the size of a chicken. But none of that matters, because both the book and the movie are just that freaking awesome.

I’ve been a fan of Jurassic Park since basically as long as I can remember. I had to convince my mother to let me see it when I was, like, five, and as I’m typing this, we’re actually going to go see it at a midnight showing at a local art theater, so I’m super excited.

So back to the book that started it all. I read the book many years ago when I was younger, but I opted to reread it last month in order to better comprehend it as my adult self. Obviously there are a lot of differences; some of which work better or answer questions those familiar with the movie might have. You obviously have a lot more time for detail in the book, which certainly adds to the credibility of this park. For example, the book elaborates on the reason the dinosaurs’ vision is based on movement (because of the added frog DNA), why the triceratops/stegosaurus was sick, and Dodgson’s motivations in contracting Dennis Nedry to steal the embryos.

There’s also the characters in general, as most have significant differences from their movie counterparts. (Wu and Harding get to do things! Gennaro is kind of badass! Hammond is an asshole! Grant has a beard!) Hammond being rather unsympathetic is particularly jarring to those familiar with the film, and I do wish he’d had something else to him, because as-is he’s kind of a flat character. It's also pretty horrific that two of the main deaths (Wu and Regis) were because they were trying to help someone else. Yeah, it was douchy of Regis to run off on the kids when the Rex attacked, but he came back out of guilt only to be Tyrannosaur dinner. And Wu died because he was trying to warn Ellie there were raptors nearby. Yikes.

A lot of it, I think, comes down to personal preference as to whether you like movie!character or book!character better. I think nearly everyone prefers movie!Hammond, and I certainly prefer book!Gennaro. Muldoon is pretty close between the two versions, but he gets to live in the book, which is nice. In contrast, book!Malcolm dies. It was an interesting choice for Spielberg to switch the ages of the kids - in the book, Lex is the younger sibling, and not nearly as useful. The elaboration on their parents’ divorce and the fact that Lex is obviously the favored child of their father, however, is well-done and quite sad for both Tim and Lex.

Although I do find Crichton’s choice to try and keep us guessing for the first parts of the book as to what’s going on rather well done, it is kind of odd when, even just from looking at and reading the book’s cover, it’s clear there are dinosaurs running around. Guitierrez’s presence was also odd, as you’re almost led to believe he will be the main character, before it then switches to Grant for the remainder of the book (until Guitierrez shows up again, somewhat randomly, at the end).

The book is technically classified as a thriller, and I think it succeeds in that area pretty well, particularly the scenes with the raptors near the end (and in the laboratory with Grant), the aviary scene, and the part when Grant and the kids are trying to avoid the T-Rex and get to the riverboat. I always admire writers who can make us feel afraid or anxious without the help of visual media, the way film can do, I feel, more easily. Goes to show how powerful the human imagination is.

The one thing I wasn't too keen on was the prose itself. While obviously written by a scientific mind for an intelligent audience, the prose are pretty "basic," which can take away some of the awe and imagery I'm sure Crichton's trying to conjure.

While I hold scientific progress in high regard and generally disagree with Crichton’s rather anti-science standpoint, I think the cautionary point about “just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should” is well-taken. (That, or they could just have people who know what they’re doing running Jurassic Park)

The verdict: Jurassic Park is a great book that, if you like dinosaurs or smart thrillers, you should read, no matter your familiarity with the film.

Neither Karen Lofgren nor Loyalty Press has any affiliation with the author or publisher. This review constitutes Fair Use.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)