Take a photo of a barcode or cover
readingrobin 's review for:
Jurassic Park
by Michael Crichton
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Well, folks, I think I can say that Jurassic Park is one of the few stories that overall works better as a film than a book. All the problems I had while reading it were either completely nullified or not an issue within the movie, though I may have a bit of a bias seeing as I saw it for the first time a few months ago and was my introduction to this world. I was already aware of the basic setup, story beats, concepts, etc. so there weren't any surprises other than maybe a few character differences and who lives/who dies. I feel a bit guilty about hinging my whole enjoyment of the book on comparing it to the film, but it's difficult when the adaptation does the story so much better than the source material.
To be fair, there were some things exclusive to the book I liked. Seeing Hammond as a more ego-obsessed capitalist and pretty much the villain of the book was interesting, as well as the concept of the dinosaurs being migratory. Literally everything else? Not so much.
The writing style is dull and not captivating at all. There was a lot of technobabble and infodumps, coming from characters that mainly feel like their only purpose was to give lectures and philosophize. (Ian Malcolm got a great upgrade in the film through Jeff Goldblum let me tell you that.) I understand that these concepts need to be explained so that the story, you know, makes sense, but the film did it in a way that was more comprehensible and condensed for a mainstream audience and really just flowed better with the narrative.
Then there's the Sattler and Lex issue. Crichton couldn't write a decent or well-rounded female character to save his chops. Sattler, though she's given so many opportunities to be competent and knowledgeable, is naturally relegated to the dame in the shorts to be ogled at, even by the dang eleven year old. Then there's a moment where she spots poisonous plants that are deadly should anyone touch or eat them and she just....doesn't tell anyone? And God, then there's Lex, the character whose core personality trait is to be the annoying little sister that constantly complains and actively makes things harder for other characters. Her only purpose in this story is to be as irritating as possible and there is nothing in the story that gives her a reason to be here.
When it comes to how threatening the dinosaurs come off on the page versus the screen, there's definitely more carnage here. Bloodier deaths, disemboweling, the works. Yet they rarely have a lasting presence when they aren't in the middle of attacking someone. There's only so many times I can feel tension when "oh no the T-Rex caught up with us again!" In that regard, it's a lot more thrilling to see the dinos in action, to feel their weight as you see that famous cup of water start to jostle or witness their more gentler sides.
Really, if you have already seen the movie, there's not much more this book is going to give you. If you're curious, I would suggest just checking out one of those differences between the book vs. film lists to see what you're missing out on and you'll get the same experience in a much faster way.
To be fair, there were some things exclusive to the book I liked. Seeing Hammond as a more ego-obsessed capitalist and pretty much the villain of the book was interesting, as well as the concept of the dinosaurs being migratory. Literally everything else? Not so much.
The writing style is dull and not captivating at all. There was a lot of technobabble and infodumps, coming from characters that mainly feel like their only purpose was to give lectures and philosophize. (Ian Malcolm got a great upgrade in the film through Jeff Goldblum let me tell you that.) I understand that these concepts need to be explained so that the story, you know, makes sense, but the film did it in a way that was more comprehensible and condensed for a mainstream audience and really just flowed better with the narrative.
Then there's the Sattler and Lex issue. Crichton couldn't write a decent or well-rounded female character to save his chops. Sattler, though she's given so many opportunities to be competent and knowledgeable, is naturally relegated to the dame in the shorts to be ogled at, even by the dang eleven year old. Then there's a moment where she spots poisonous plants that are deadly should anyone touch or eat them and she just....doesn't tell anyone? And God, then there's Lex, the character whose core personality trait is to be the annoying little sister that constantly complains and actively makes things harder for other characters. Her only purpose in this story is to be as irritating as possible and there is nothing in the story that gives her a reason to be here.
When it comes to how threatening the dinosaurs come off on the page versus the screen, there's definitely more carnage here. Bloodier deaths, disemboweling, the works. Yet they rarely have a lasting presence when they aren't in the middle of attacking someone. There's only so many times I can feel tension when "oh no the T-Rex caught up with us again!" In that regard, it's a lot more thrilling to see the dinos in action, to feel their weight as you see that famous cup of water start to jostle or witness their more gentler sides.
Really, if you have already seen the movie, there's not much more this book is going to give you. If you're curious, I would suggest just checking out one of those differences between the book vs. film lists to see what you're missing out on and you'll get the same experience in a much faster way.