What do you think?
Rate this book
Jurassic Park #1
Jurassic Park
En esta espectacular novela, los dinosaurios vuelven a conquistar la Tierra. En una isla remota, un grupo de hombres y mujeres emprende una carrera contra el tiempo para evitar un desastre mundial provocado por la desmedida ambición de comercializar la ingeniería genética. Pero todos los esfuerzos resultarán vanos cuando el inescrupuloso proyecto quede fuera de control y el mundo a merced de unas bestias monstruosas...
Parque jurásico, la novela más célebre de Michael Crichton y una de las más leídas en los últimos años, fue adaptada al cine por Steven Spielberg en una película que se convirtió en el gran acontecimiento cinematográfico de 1993 y en el origen del fenómeno de masas llamado «dinomanía».
Parque jurásico, la novela más célebre de Michael Crichton y una de las más leídas en los últimos años, fue adaptada al cine por Steven Spielberg en una película que se convirtió en el gran acontecimiento cinematográfico de 1993 y en el origen del fenómeno de masas llamado «dinomanía».
467 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published November 7, 1990
About the author
Michael Crichton
178 books18.6k followersMichael Crichton (1942-2008) was one of the most successful novelists of his generation, admired for his meticulous scientific research and fast-paced narrative. He graduated summa cum laude and earned his MD from Harvard Medical School in 1969. His first novel,
Odds On
(1966), was written under the pseudonym John Lange and was followed by seven more Lange novels. He also wrote as Michael Douglas and Jeffery Hudson. His novel
A Case of Need
won the Edgar Award in 1969. Popular throughout the world, he has sold more than 200 million books. His novels have been translated into thirty-eight languages, and thirteen have been made into films.
Michael Crichton died of lymphoma in 2008. He was 66 years old.
Michael Crichton died of lymphoma in 2008. He was 66 years old.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 21,953 reviews
August 5, 2022
Lesson from this book: Kids are annoying and will get you killed.
Ok I’m slightly exaggerating but have you noticed how frustrating children characters are during a crisis?
I’m sure they would be during the apocalypse or when being tracked by dinosaurs but I wanted to throw my phone at the wall a few times while reading this book.
With that said, I now have a new completely reasonable phobia, being eaten alive by a dinosaur.
Crichton did an amazing job at keeping me on my toes and completely stressed! I was afraid it wouldn't live up to the movie since I remember being traumatized by it as a kid but it totally did!
I really loved all the science bits which weren't in the movie.
Worth the read!
More books that made me not want to have kids: https://youtu.be/H_ES-eqbKQs
Ok I’m slightly exaggerating but have you noticed how frustrating children characters are during a crisis?
I’m sure they would be during the apocalypse or when being tracked by dinosaurs but I wanted to throw my phone at the wall a few times while reading this book.
With that said, I now have a new completely reasonable phobia, being eaten alive by a dinosaur.
Crichton did an amazing job at keeping me on my toes and completely stressed! I was afraid it wouldn't live up to the movie since I remember being traumatized by it as a kid but it totally did!
I really loved all the science bits which weren't in the movie.
Worth the read!
More books that made me not want to have kids: https://youtu.be/H_ES-eqbKQs
December 10, 2020
The Written Review
New week, New BookTube Video - all about the best (and worst) literary apocalypses to live through!
Jurassic Park has all the major problems of a theme park, a zoo...and genetically altered prehistoric animals.
“Life breaks free. Life expands to new territories. Painfully, perhaps even dangerously. But life finds a way.”
That's right - the dinosaurs are back from the dead and nothing - I repeat nothing - could go wrong...right?
Ha.
As my favorite character, Ian Malcom would say,
All major changes are like death. You can't see to the other side until you are there.Though, considering some of the problems they had with the park, I strongly believe that several of issues could've been predicted...that is, if Mr. Hammond and his scientists would've taken the time to thoroughly consider implications and consequences of bringing back extinct species.
Dr. Allen Grant, Ellie, Ian Malcom and a host of other professionals (along with Mr. Hammond's grandchildren) are invited to the island to give their expert opinion on this un-extinction.
Of course, this visit comes at an excellent time - there is a huge storm rolling in, the raptors are getting restless and there's some evidence that the smaller dinos have made it off the island. Perrrfect
But don't mention any of this to Mr. Hammond or his staff - they won't listen to any negativity.. As Ian Malcom said,
“They don't have intelligence. They have what I call 'thintelligence.' They see the immediate situation. They think narrowly and they call it 'being focused.' They don't see the surround. They don't see the consequences.”Predictably, the storm rolls in, things go very, very wrong...and soon even Mr. Hammond might have to admit that there may be an issue or two in his precious park.
“You know, at times like this one feels, well, perhaps extinct animals should be left extinct.”If I had to pick a single, defining movie from my childhood...this would be it. So, of course, I had to pick up the book to see how it compared. It definitely delivered.
In this novel, Mr. Hammond wasn't quite the bumbling, grandfatherly figure he is in the movie. And of his grandchildren, Lex is certainly younger than her movie-version (and young-Lex was more than a little annoying).
This is one of those rare cases where the movie is not being a true-to-book adaption, but they are both equally entertaining and delightful. Highly recommended!
And just like when I was a kid, I am comforted that if this dinosaur apocalypse ever happens, things would play out like this:
“God created dinosaurs. God destroyed dinosaurs. God created Man. Man destroyed God. Man created dinosaurs."The Finer Books Club 2018 Reading Challenge - A book with a written inscription
"Dinosaurs eat man...Woman inherits the earth.”
Audiobook Comments
The reader (Scott Brick) was alright. It's just...this book is about DINOSAURS - surely this reader could've mustered some enthusiasm??
YouTube | Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | Snapchat @miranda_reads
June 8, 2015
This is one of my favorite books of all time!!!
I was way excited back then, 20 years ago, about the movie (minus the controversial scene portraiting San José, Costa Rica with a beach in the middle of it). Trust me. I am from Costa Rica and I live precisely in San José and we don't have a dang beach around.
I am sure that Spielberg wouldn't do that kind of mistake if he'd need to portrait Paris, France, but a dang capital city in a third world country? Who cares?
Well, I care, I am from that precise third world country. When you would have your capital cities portraited in a wrong stereotypical way, you will understand me. (And don't get me wrong. I love the movie and I am fan of Spielberg's work, just pointing out my feeling about that scene that even in the book happens in another different place).
I love the book, since the author, Michael Crichton, lived a lot of time in my country, Costa Rica, and he fell in love so much with our culture and geography that he wanted to use it as background for one of his novels.
The novel became his most famous book. In the book, you can realize how well Crichton indeed knew about our places using specific real places like the Cabo Blanco Biologic Reserve and the Puntarenas' Hospital Monseñor Sanabria. You don't came out with places like that with your quick internet search. You need to live here to know things like that.
Of course, Nublar Island is a made up place but hey, no problem there, it's like Gotham City or Metropolis, always there are space for another fictional island in literature.
I was lucky to get my paperback copy of Jurassic Park just when the movie was on its hype 20 years ago, since thanks to that it has the logo of the film (see? I don't hate the movie, just questioned that dang scene).
I love my edition of the book since never they published ever again the book with that cover, so it's one my priceless posessions in my library.
An insanely popular sci-fi novel with dinosaurs set on my country? Oh, yes! I had to love that book!
I was way excited back then, 20 years ago, about the movie (minus the controversial scene portraiting San José, Costa Rica with a beach in the middle of it). Trust me. I am from Costa Rica and I live precisely in San José and we don't have a dang beach around.
I am sure that Spielberg wouldn't do that kind of mistake if he'd need to portrait Paris, France, but a dang capital city in a third world country? Who cares?
Well, I care, I am from that precise third world country. When you would have your capital cities portraited in a wrong stereotypical way, you will understand me. (And don't get me wrong. I love the movie and I am fan of Spielberg's work, just pointing out my feeling about that scene that even in the book happens in another different place).
I love the book, since the author, Michael Crichton, lived a lot of time in my country, Costa Rica, and he fell in love so much with our culture and geography that he wanted to use it as background for one of his novels.
The novel became his most famous book. In the book, you can realize how well Crichton indeed knew about our places using specific real places like the Cabo Blanco Biologic Reserve and the Puntarenas' Hospital Monseñor Sanabria. You don't came out with places like that with your quick internet search. You need to live here to know things like that.
Of course, Nublar Island is a made up place but hey, no problem there, it's like Gotham City or Metropolis, always there are space for another fictional island in literature.
I was lucky to get my paperback copy of Jurassic Park just when the movie was on its hype 20 years ago, since thanks to that it has the logo of the film (see? I don't hate the movie, just questioned that dang scene).
I love my edition of the book since never they published ever again the book with that cover, so it's one my priceless posessions in my library.
An insanely popular sci-fi novel with dinosaurs set on my country? Oh, yes! I had to love that book!
July 6, 2023
Unleash the dinosaur mania
Techno thrill me harder
This is one of Crichton's best novels, which varied widely in quality, and could be called part of the foundation of the Sci-Fi thriller, aka techno thriller, genre with mainstream media adaptions and many great, new authors following in his footsteps.
Seems fictional, but…
Until the first hybrids, most novels of this genre were pure fiction with fantasy or Sci-Fi elements and analysis and criticism of society, until the interdisciplinary approaches came and lead to today's milestones like the works of Suarez, Sakey, and others who create technothrillers that could come true. Or already are, who really knows that?
Luckily the usual Chrichton flaws are avoided in this one
In other of his works, Chrichton has the problem of and with telling too slowly, info-dumping, character development, suspense, and especially letting people talk and talk until a pretty constructed and unsatisfying end gives one a short wtf, was that really all, are there no more explanations, moment. But he was a real life physician too, so I would say that rocks the house so much that his stylistic flaws can be forgiven.
Luck with the movie version too
Spielberg's adaption took much of the atmosphere of the book and it´s one of the rare cases where both the book and the movie are fine pieces of art. And hey, dinosaurs and genetic engineering, that must be great!
Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
Techno thrill me harder
This is one of Crichton's best novels, which varied widely in quality, and could be called part of the foundation of the Sci-Fi thriller, aka techno thriller, genre with mainstream media adaptions and many great, new authors following in his footsteps.
Seems fictional, but…
Until the first hybrids, most novels of this genre were pure fiction with fantasy or Sci-Fi elements and analysis and criticism of society, until the interdisciplinary approaches came and lead to today's milestones like the works of Suarez, Sakey, and others who create technothrillers that could come true. Or already are, who really knows that?
Luckily the usual Chrichton flaws are avoided in this one
In other of his works, Chrichton has the problem of and with telling too slowly, info-dumping, character development, suspense, and especially letting people talk and talk until a pretty constructed and unsatisfying end gives one a short wtf, was that really all, are there no more explanations, moment. But he was a real life physician too, so I would say that rocks the house so much that his stylistic flaws can be forgiven.
Luck with the movie version too
Spielberg's adaption took much of the atmosphere of the book and it´s one of the rare cases where both the book and the movie are fine pieces of art. And hey, dinosaurs and genetic engineering, that must be great!
Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
June 4, 2024
Movie wins out over book.
"But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step. You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast. And because you can stand on the shoulders of giants, you can accomplish something quickly. You don’t even know exactly what you have done, but already you have reported it, patented it, and sold it."
Malcolm: Movie wins for Ian, Jeff Goldblum perfection. Though book-Malcolm has a number of such interesting lines and is full of 1989 version* of chaos theory, eventually he grows tiresome . Interestingly--c'mon, is this seriously a spoiler?--book Malcolm is laid low by an infected wound. You can probably guess what happens.
Ending: Movie wins.
Sexism: Edge to the movie for being slightly less annoying, although the movie paired off the paleontologists who had a non-sexual, mentor-mentee relationship in the book. The female child, Lex, is ridiculous in the book, annoying and helpless, although she is allowed to defy the stereotype by being dependent on a baseball glove and ball. In the movie, she takes Tim's computer role.
Children: Movie version wins. Tim's quite the hero in the book, a role given to Lex in the movie. Lex in the book is pretty much everything one might hate about children.
And, finally, Dinosaurs: obviously, much better in the movie.
Storytelling: Crichton's prose tends to be workman-like, and although he does manage to occasionally convey the immensity of the dinos, he rarely hit the from-another-epoch notes for me.
"Obviously the fitness of the animals to the environment was one area. This stegosaur is a hundred million years old. It isn’t adapted to our world. The air is different, the solar radiation is different, the land is different, the insects are different, the sounds are different, the vegetation is different. Everything is different. The oxygen content is decreased."
Different, right? Note that the velociraptors were scary in both places.
Interestingly, I had very few preconceptions about the book, except that it would be different from the movie; adaptations are rarely faithful to source material. Except, interestingly, it wasn't; the scriptwriters had barely touched it. Sure, backstories and detailed dialogues were left out, as well as opening extraneous scenes about some baby-biting dinos in Costa Rica. Mostly though, there was trimming, and parts of the movie--especially early on the island--seemed page for page for the book:
Nedry? All there, right down to the silver candy wrapper.
Chain-smoking Arnold? Yep, Samuel L. Jackson nailed that too.
Malcolm's croaking doomsday about 'life will find a way' and wearing all black? Yep, there too.
*As pointed out by others, note date limitation in knowledge for both.
Overall, interesting, but I was left with a curious desire to re-watch the movie.
Three triceratops.
"But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step. You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast. And because you can stand on the shoulders of giants, you can accomplish something quickly. You don’t even know exactly what you have done, but already you have reported it, patented it, and sold it."
Malcolm: Movie wins for Ian, Jeff Goldblum perfection. Though book-Malcolm has a number of such interesting lines and is full of 1989 version* of chaos theory, eventually he grows tiresome . Interestingly--c'mon, is this seriously a spoiler?--book Malcolm is laid low by an infected wound. You can probably guess what happens.
Ending: Movie wins.
Sexism: Edge to the movie for being slightly less annoying, although the movie paired off the paleontologists who had a non-sexual, mentor-mentee relationship in the book. The female child, Lex, is ridiculous in the book, annoying and helpless, although she is allowed to defy the stereotype by being dependent on a baseball glove and ball. In the movie, she takes Tim's computer role.
Children: Movie version wins. Tim's quite the hero in the book, a role given to Lex in the movie. Lex in the book is pretty much everything one might hate about children.
And, finally, Dinosaurs: obviously, much better in the movie.
Storytelling: Crichton's prose tends to be workman-like, and although he does manage to occasionally convey the immensity of the dinos, he rarely hit the from-another-epoch notes for me.
"Obviously the fitness of the animals to the environment was one area. This stegosaur is a hundred million years old. It isn’t adapted to our world. The air is different, the solar radiation is different, the land is different, the insects are different, the sounds are different, the vegetation is different. Everything is different. The oxygen content is decreased."
Different, right? Note that the velociraptors were scary in both places.
Interestingly, I had very few preconceptions about the book, except that it would be different from the movie; adaptations are rarely faithful to source material. Except, interestingly, it wasn't; the scriptwriters had barely touched it. Sure, backstories and detailed dialogues were left out, as well as opening extraneous scenes about some baby-biting dinos in Costa Rica. Mostly though, there was trimming, and parts of the movie--especially early on the island--seemed page for page for the book:
Nedry? All there, right down to the silver candy wrapper.
Chain-smoking Arnold? Yep, Samuel L. Jackson nailed that too.
Malcolm's croaking doomsday about 'life will find a way' and wearing all black? Yep, there too.
*As pointed out by others, note date limitation in knowledge for both.
Overall, interesting, but I was left with a curious desire to re-watch the movie.
Three triceratops.
June 20, 2015
Rereading for obvious reasons. :D :D :D :D
June 2, 2024
I can't decide between embracing my nerdy side or indulging in my love for pop culture. Jurassic Park is incredibly entertaining and impactful, although the scientific inaccuracies bothered me.
Dinosaurs hold a special place in my heart, just as they do for the majority of people around the globe. Steven Spielberg's film sparked the interest of many and motivated kids to pursue paleontology. While Jurassic Park isn't my top Spielberg pick (that honor goes to Jaws), I still enjoy it.
WARNING: SPOILERS
Even though some of the Jurassic Park movies suck, I still find myself enjoying them. I love the original, second installment, and fourth movie the most. Rexy, the female T-Rex featured in movies 1, 4, 5, and 6, is my favorite character in the franchise, closely followed by the velociraptor Blue. The fact that my preferred characters happen to be carnivorous dinosaurs speaks volumes about human characterization.
I love Raptor Red (the author of RR was mentioned in Jurassic Park), it's my all-time favorite dinosaur book. I've been avoiding reading Jurassic Park for years, but I finally gave in and decided to give it a try.
Dangerous apex predators confined in captivity for tourists to gawk at, leading to fatal consequences as people begin to die? A park making hybrids that don't exist in the wild?
That could NEVER happen in real life.
I'll never miss a chance to mention Seaworld and orcas, even if the book has nothing to do with them. Marine animals are 50% of my personality. I'm sorry.
I'm being a hypocrite because I'd be the first in line to visit a real-life Jurassic Park (and the first to die).
The real T-Rex possessed far greater strength and abilities compared to its fictionalized version, while the real velociraptors were significantly smaller than their fictional counterparts. Dino nerds sometimes playfully draw parallels between velociraptors and turkeys. However, it's important to remember that turkeys and geese should not be underestimated, especially if you've had a run-in with a goose in your childhood years. It's not a good time.
I was curious to see how the T-Rex in the book differs from the one in the movie. I have a soft spot for the Tyrant Lizard Queen (or Rexy, as she's affectionately called by fans). I stan a powerful female character, even if she has visual and olfactory impairments.
Grant whispered, “He's here.”
“She,” Malcolm said.
The most famous predator in the history of the world: the mighty tyrant lizard, known as Tyrannosaurus rex.”
The dinosaur must be somewhere among the trees, but for a moment Grant could see nothing at all. Then he realized he was looking too low: the animal's head stood twenty feet above the ground, half concealed among the upper branches of the palm trees.
Malcolm whispered, “Oh, my God.... She's as large as a bloody building....”
Grant stared at the enormous square head, five feet long, mottled reddish brown, with huge jaws and fangs. The tyrannosaur's jaws worked once, opening and closing. But the huge animal did not emerge from hiding.
Malcolm whispered: “How long will it wait?”
“Maybe three or four minutes. Maybe-”
The tyrannosaur sprang silently forward, fully revealing her enormous body. In four bounding steps she covered the distance to the goat, bent down, and bit it through the neck. The bleating stopped.
There was silence.
Poised over her kill, the tyrannosaur became suddenly hesitant.
Her massive head turned on the muscular neck, looking in all directions. She stared fixedly at the Land Cruiser, high above on the hill.
Regis said, on the intercom. “Let's see if she's going to eat here in front of us, or if she's going to drag the prey away.”
The tyrannosaur bent down, and sniffed the carcass of the goat.
A bird chirped: her head snapped up, alert, watchful. She looked back and forth, scanning in small jerking shifts.
The huge animal bent over the goat again. One great hind limb held the carcass in place as the jaws began to tear the flesh.
“She's going to stay,” Regis whispered. “Excellent.” The tyrannosaur lifted her head again, ragged chunks of bleeding flesh in her jaws. She stared at the Land Cruiser. She began to chew. They heard the sickening crunch of bones.
And then, as if caution had finally gotten the better of her, the tyrannosaur lifted the remains of the goat in her jaws and carried it silently back among the trees.
“Ladies and gentlemen, Tyrannosaurus rex, ” the tape said. The Land Cruisers started up, and moved silently off, through the foliage. Malcolm sat back in his seat. “Fantastic,” he said.
Gennaro wiped his forehead. He looked pale.
I need to talk about the one thing that really bothered me: T-Rex's vision was based on movement. 🤔 That is completely incorrect. I don't want to be too critical of Michael Crichton because the book came out in 1990, and he received that information from a shitty paleontologist who wrongly claimed that T-Rex had poor eyesight. Scientists have discovered that T-Rex had incredible vision comparable to, or even better than, that of a hawk.
Science is always advancing, and we have discovered that T-Rex possessed not just amazing vision, but also exceptional hearing and sense of smell.
Important characters:
Dr. Alan Grant, paleontologist: cool, silently judging everyone, the only man in the book who deserves human rights.
Dr. Ellie Sattler, paleobotanist: deserves a Nobel prize for putting up with the men in the book, likes a cold beer on a warm day, and is very very very passionate about plants.
John Hammond, founder of InGen and creator of Jurassic Park: egomaniacal grandpa.
Dr. Ian Malcolm, mathematician: an annoying arrogant chauvinist fixated on chaos theory who never stops talking. He kept yapping about nothing throughout the whole book. Much, much more likable in the movie.
Donald Gennaro, lawyer: what does it imply about the characterization when the most tolerable male character, aside from Dr. Grant, happens to be a lawyer? Very different from the film version.
Dr. Henry Wu, the chief geneticist of InGen: brought dinosaurs back from extinction. Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise Henry Wu?
Tim and Lex Murphy: Hammond's grandchildren. Is it wrong to call an eight-year-old girl a psychopath? She's more terrible than her grandpappy. Instead of being traumatized, she was mildly annoyed when she found a human ear. She bullied her older brother, insulted the dinosaurs, and complained about being hungry the entire time. LEX PEOPLE ARE DYING.
First gen Velociraptors: an unhinged carnivorous girl band.
T-Rex: she might have small arms but she'll steal your heart (and the rest of your organs). It's quite amusing how Rexy sometimes gazes out of her enclosure at the other animals, her little arms twitching in frustration, just like my cat Edward when he stares at the birds from the window, his tiny whiskers twitching in frustration.
⚠️ STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ENDING. ⚠️
The book contains more graphic violence than the movie, and a higher number of characters meet their demise. Another distinction is that Grant likes kids, and he and Ellie are not romantically involved. Malcolm and Hammond are much more likable in the movie. I know I previously expressed my dislike for Hammond, but I feel compelled to reiterate it. It was quite satisfying to see him meet his end at the claws of dinosaurs. His greedy ass is not seeing the pearly gates.
I find the movie's ending much more appealing. In the book, the army arrives with helicopters and begins bombing the dinosaurs, which as an animal lover, I absolutely despised. I understand that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago and that this book is a work of fiction, but I just can't bear to read about the death of animals.
The last conversation gave me a glimmer of hope. It turns out that there's a possibility that some of the dinosaurs might have survived. I'll imagine they did. We know the T-Rex from the first Jurassic Park film is the same one in the sequel trilogy. Rexy might have perished in the book, but it's uncertain. I prefer the movie's ending, where she survives. If Rexy made it through in the movie universe, she can make it through in the book universe. Don't burst my bubble.
I enjoyed Jurassic Park, but I can only give it a three-star rating due to the dinosaur deaths, the sexism Ellie encountered, the overabundance of characters, and irrelevant details. I'm happy Hammond met his end in the book, he should have met the same fate in the movie too. From the start, I despised him when I discovered he hid the real cause of his workers' deaths. I couldn't stand him or his scientists.
P.S. Dr. Grant and Tim should be awarded a Nobel Prize for not throwing Lex to the T-Rex.
Grant was too tired to feel much of anything. He turned away, and looked back out the door. It was getting dark now, and in the fading light he could barely see the little rex, with bloody jaws, crouched over a hadrosaur by the edge of the lagoon and looking up at the helicopter and roaring as it passed by.
Somewhere behind them they heard explosions, and then ahead they saw another helicopter wheeling through the mist over the visitor center, and a moment later the building burst in a bright orange fireball, and Lex began to cry, and Ellie put her arm around her and tried to get her not to look.
Grant was staring down at the ground, and he had a last glimpse of the hypsilophodonts, leaping gracefully as gazelles, moments before another explosion flared bright beneath them. Their helicopter gained altitude, and then moved cast, out over the ocean. Grant sat back in his seat. He thought of the dinosaurs standing on the beach, and he wondered where they would migrate if they could, and he realized he would never know, and he felt sad and relieved in the same moment.
Dinosaurs hold a special place in my heart, just as they do for the majority of people around the globe. Steven Spielberg's film sparked the interest of many and motivated kids to pursue paleontology. While Jurassic Park isn't my top Spielberg pick (that honor goes to Jaws), I still enjoy it.
WARNING: SPOILERS
Even though some of the Jurassic Park movies suck, I still find myself enjoying them. I love the original, second installment, and fourth movie the most. Rexy, the female T-Rex featured in movies 1, 4, 5, and 6, is my favorite character in the franchise, closely followed by the velociraptor Blue. The fact that my preferred characters happen to be carnivorous dinosaurs speaks volumes about human characterization.
I love Raptor Red (the author of RR was mentioned in Jurassic Park), it's my all-time favorite dinosaur book. I've been avoiding reading Jurassic Park for years, but I finally gave in and decided to give it a try.
Dangerous apex predators confined in captivity for tourists to gawk at, leading to fatal consequences as people begin to die? A park making hybrids that don't exist in the wild?
That could NEVER happen in real life.
I'll never miss a chance to mention Seaworld and orcas, even if the book has nothing to do with them. Marine animals are 50% of my personality. I'm sorry.
I'm being a hypocrite because I'd be the first in line to visit a real-life Jurassic Park (and the first to die).
The real T-Rex possessed far greater strength and abilities compared to its fictionalized version, while the real velociraptors were significantly smaller than their fictional counterparts. Dino nerds sometimes playfully draw parallels between velociraptors and turkeys. However, it's important to remember that turkeys and geese should not be underestimated, especially if you've had a run-in with a goose in your childhood years. It's not a good time.
I was curious to see how the T-Rex in the book differs from the one in the movie. I have a soft spot for the Tyrant Lizard Queen (or Rexy, as she's affectionately called by fans). I stan a powerful female character, even if she has visual and olfactory impairments.
Grant whispered, “He's here.”
“She,” Malcolm said.
The most famous predator in the history of the world: the mighty tyrant lizard, known as Tyrannosaurus rex.”
The dinosaur must be somewhere among the trees, but for a moment Grant could see nothing at all. Then he realized he was looking too low: the animal's head stood twenty feet above the ground, half concealed among the upper branches of the palm trees.
Malcolm whispered, “Oh, my God.... She's as large as a bloody building....”
Grant stared at the enormous square head, five feet long, mottled reddish brown, with huge jaws and fangs. The tyrannosaur's jaws worked once, opening and closing. But the huge animal did not emerge from hiding.
Malcolm whispered: “How long will it wait?”
“Maybe three or four minutes. Maybe-”
The tyrannosaur sprang silently forward, fully revealing her enormous body. In four bounding steps she covered the distance to the goat, bent down, and bit it through the neck. The bleating stopped.
There was silence.
Poised over her kill, the tyrannosaur became suddenly hesitant.
Her massive head turned on the muscular neck, looking in all directions. She stared fixedly at the Land Cruiser, high above on the hill.
Regis said, on the intercom. “Let's see if she's going to eat here in front of us, or if she's going to drag the prey away.”
The tyrannosaur bent down, and sniffed the carcass of the goat.
A bird chirped: her head snapped up, alert, watchful. She looked back and forth, scanning in small jerking shifts.
The huge animal bent over the goat again. One great hind limb held the carcass in place as the jaws began to tear the flesh.
“She's going to stay,” Regis whispered. “Excellent.” The tyrannosaur lifted her head again, ragged chunks of bleeding flesh in her jaws. She stared at the Land Cruiser. She began to chew. They heard the sickening crunch of bones.
And then, as if caution had finally gotten the better of her, the tyrannosaur lifted the remains of the goat in her jaws and carried it silently back among the trees.
“Ladies and gentlemen, Tyrannosaurus rex, ” the tape said. The Land Cruisers started up, and moved silently off, through the foliage. Malcolm sat back in his seat. “Fantastic,” he said.
Gennaro wiped his forehead. He looked pale.
I need to talk about the one thing that really bothered me: T-Rex's vision was based on movement. 🤔 That is completely incorrect. I don't want to be too critical of Michael Crichton because the book came out in 1990, and he received that information from a shitty paleontologist who wrongly claimed that T-Rex had poor eyesight. Scientists have discovered that T-Rex had incredible vision comparable to, or even better than, that of a hawk.
Science is always advancing, and we have discovered that T-Rex possessed not just amazing vision, but also exceptional hearing and sense of smell.
Important characters:
Dr. Alan Grant, paleontologist: cool, silently judging everyone, the only man in the book who deserves human rights.
Dr. Ellie Sattler, paleobotanist: deserves a Nobel prize for putting up with the men in the book, likes a cold beer on a warm day, and is very very very passionate about plants.
John Hammond, founder of InGen and creator of Jurassic Park: egomaniacal grandpa.
Dr. Ian Malcolm, mathematician: an annoying arrogant chauvinist fixated on chaos theory who never stops talking. He kept yapping about nothing throughout the whole book. Much, much more likable in the movie.
Donald Gennaro, lawyer: what does it imply about the characterization when the most tolerable male character, aside from Dr. Grant, happens to be a lawyer? Very different from the film version.
Dr. Henry Wu, the chief geneticist of InGen: brought dinosaurs back from extinction. Did you ever hear the tragedy of
Tim and Lex Murphy: Hammond's grandchildren. Is it wrong to call an eight-year-old girl a psychopath? She's more terrible than her grandpappy. Instead of being traumatized, she was mildly annoyed when she found a human ear. She bullied her older brother, insulted the dinosaurs, and complained about being hungry the entire time. LEX PEOPLE ARE DYING.
First gen Velociraptors: an unhinged carnivorous girl band.
T-Rex: she might have small arms but she'll steal your heart (and the rest of your organs). It's quite amusing how Rexy sometimes gazes out of her enclosure at the other animals, her little arms twitching in frustration, just like my cat Edward when he stares at the birds from the window, his tiny whiskers twitching in frustration.
⚠️ STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ENDING. ⚠️
The book contains more graphic violence than the movie, and a higher number of characters meet their demise. Another distinction is that Grant likes kids, and he and Ellie are not romantically involved. Malcolm and Hammond are much more likable in the movie. I know I previously expressed my dislike for Hammond, but I feel compelled to reiterate it. It was quite satisfying to see him meet his end at the claws of dinosaurs. His greedy ass is not seeing the pearly gates.
I find the movie's ending much more appealing. In the book, the army arrives with helicopters and begins bombing the dinosaurs, which as an animal lover, I absolutely despised. I understand that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago and that this book is a work of fiction, but I just can't bear to read about the death of animals.
The last conversation gave me a glimmer of hope. It turns out that there's a possibility that some of the dinosaurs might have survived. I'll imagine they did. We know the T-Rex from the first Jurassic Park film is the same one in the sequel trilogy. Rexy might have perished in the book, but it's uncertain. I prefer the movie's ending, where she survives. If Rexy made it through in the movie universe, she can make it through in the book universe. Don't burst my bubble.
I enjoyed Jurassic Park, but I can only give it a three-star rating due to the dinosaur deaths, the sexism Ellie encountered, the overabundance of characters, and irrelevant details. I'm happy Hammond met his end in the book, he should have met the same fate in the movie too. From the start, I despised him when I discovered he hid the real cause of his workers' deaths. I couldn't stand him or his scientists.
P.S. Dr. Grant and Tim should be awarded a Nobel Prize for not throwing Lex to the T-Rex.
Grant was too tired to feel much of anything. He turned away, and looked back out the door. It was getting dark now, and in the fading light he could barely see the little rex, with bloody jaws, crouched over a hadrosaur by the edge of the lagoon and looking up at the helicopter and roaring as it passed by.
Somewhere behind them they heard explosions, and then ahead they saw another helicopter wheeling through the mist over the visitor center, and a moment later the building burst in a bright orange fireball, and Lex began to cry, and Ellie put her arm around her and tried to get her not to look.
Grant was staring down at the ground, and he had a last glimpse of the hypsilophodonts, leaping gracefully as gazelles, moments before another explosion flared bright beneath them. Their helicopter gained altitude, and then moved cast, out over the ocean. Grant sat back in his seat. He thought of the dinosaurs standing on the beach, and he wondered where they would migrate if they could, and he realized he would never know, and he felt sad and relieved in the same moment.
September 28, 2021
So, straight to it. Jurassic Park, the book, is inimitable, apart from a few clumsy attempts. One thing that differentiated it from its wannabes is that, unlike books about sharks, snakes or let's say, zombies, dinosaurs come in very varied shapes. This means that the way the casualties meet their end is just as variable.
Michael Crichton props up his last act with inspired flair and experienced cunning. He knows that the action in this book will go only so far, just like last acts in an all out comedy movie WILL be lame, unless something rash and daring is undertook. The soliloquy (for us) of Ian Malcolm are just like the morphine that the doctor prescribed for him. Malcolm's rants about science are dishonest but it's all in good jest.
The verisimilitude of Isla Nublar is out of this world. The landscape, the computers, the dinosaurs, the genetic restraints that shackles the dinosaurs, and lastly, the human protagonists in the book, are so well imagined, arranged spatially, manipulated to create tension and pacing, that I recognize the hand of a master entertainer at work. Spielberg, eat your heart out.
The ultimate slap in the face of conventional science fiction is the fact, that Jurassic Park takes place in our timeline. How gutsier can you get? The book is now half forgotten, but that will change when the next wave of genetic manipulation arrives. Jurassic Park can have quite a few interpretations that pertain to civics, science, philosophy, and of course maths' sexy cousin, Chaos Theory! The only thing that matters though, is that the book makes good on its promise and gives us more than what it says on the tin; pure fun.
September 7, 2022
“The hooting was louder as [he] scrambled to his feet and staggered back against the side panel of the car, as a wave of nausea and dizziness swept over him. The dinosaur was close now, he could feel it coming close, he was dimly aware of its snorting breath.
But he couldn’t see.
He couldn’t see anything, and his terror was extreme.
He stretched out his hands, waving them wildly in the air to ward off the attack he knew was coming.
And then there was a new, searing pain, like a fiery knife in his belly, and [he] stumbled, reaching blindly down to touch the ragged edge of his shirt, and then a thick, slippery mass that was surprisingly warm, and with horror he suddenly knew he was holding his own intestines in his hands. The dinosaur had torn him open. His guts had fallen out…”
- Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park
There are certain books you read when you are young that you remember forever, because they are the first time you are introduced to certain truths – both beautiful and terrible – about the world in which we live. Robert Cormier’s young adult bus-hijacking novel After the First Death taught me a lesson about the relativity of “good” and “evil,” and also that people could pee on themselves when they were really frightened. Tom Clancy’s Without Remorse provided an unforgettable – to my twelve-year-old self, at least – account of the workings of a nuclear bomb. In Night Over Water, Ken Follett gave me all the information about the mechanics of sex that I ever needed to know. Seriously. Ever.
And Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park? That’s where I learned about disembowelment.
***
Now residing in the shadow of its classic film version – and an ever-expanding list of intellectual properties, which include four sequels, a television show, and video games – it was fun to return to this novel I first read as a kid, to see how squarely it fits into the techno-thriller category that I inhaled growing up in the nineties. Like many other titles of that era, it demonstrated passion for emerging technologies while also sounding a warning about them.
At first glance, Jurassic Park is the textbook definition of high concept, a story that can easily be summarized in a couple of sentences: Dinosaurs are brought by to life to populate a theme park. They run amok.
Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that.
When Jurassic Park begins, we are in Costa Rica, which has been experiencing a strange rash of animal attacks. Paleontologist Alan Grant and paleobotanist Ellie Sattler are called in to investigate the seemingly far-fetched notion that the attacks are being carried out by a species of dinosaur. Before they can get to work, billionaire John Hammond brings them to Isla Nubar, where he has created a “biological preserve” in which the main attraction are cloned dinosaurs.
Hired by Hammond as consultants, Grant and Sattler are joined by mathematician/chaotician Ian Malcom, who has a lot of interesting ideas about complex systems, and what that means for the park’s long-term viability. Joining this ad hoc tour group is Tim and Lex, Hammond’s grandchildren. What no one knows is that a disgruntled employee is about to conduct a bit of corporate espionage that will put everyone in grave danger.
***
Jurassic Park is not a character study. Crichton – at least in my experience – has always been better at cool ideas and nifty plot execution than creating fully-rounded individuals to act upon his stage.
Everyone here is presented pretty boldly, without much depth or shading. Alan is the hero, Dennis Nedry – the aforementioned disgruntled employee – is the villain. The kids – mainly Lex – are annoying. Strike that. Lex is so annoying I can’t even.
That said, the people in Jurassic Park are memorable, even without Steven Spielberg’s well-cast film version cluttering my head. I had forgotten a lot about this book when I picked it up after twenty years, but I still hadn’t forgotten Muldoon, the big game hunter, or the blithe, cluelessly-striving Hammond emitting the unmistakable odor of Dr. Frankenstein.
The star of this show is Ian Malcom, who is so important to Crichton that Crichton quotes him at the beginning of each chapter (called “iterations”). It is Malcom who – after a couple plot twists – is put in the position of presenting Crichton’s bigger ideas, a Greek chorus of one.
And yes, even though this novel has a graphic disembowelment – among other disturbing deaths – it actually has a lot to say.
***
Jurassic Park is filled with Crichton’s pretensions. Unlike most fiction, its pages contain charts, graphs, and simulated computer screens. Furthermore, as I noted above, Crichton is so taken with Malcom that he has him deliver pre-chapter epigraphs. Beyond that, Malcom’s monologues go on for pages, delivering Crichton’s message in a way that borders on the pedantic:
One of the big thematic differences between Jurassic Park the book and Jurassic Park the (original) movie is the way this issue is handled. Spielberg definitely weaves it into his version, but mostly via Goldblum’s marvelous line-readings. But his heart isn’t in it. Ultimately, Crichton’s source-material pessimism about science is overwhelmed by Spielberg’s utterly Spielbergian awe at the results (heavily underscored by John Williams’s stirring theme).
Thirty years old now, Jurassic Park still feels fresh. Crichton’s anxieties about genetic tweaking obviously prefigures a lot of medical-ethical concerns – genetic confidentiality; genetic discrimination; genetics-based decision-making – that we are going to have to face within the next few years. Despite valid concerns, science is going to plunge forward, while everyone struggles to catch up.
Of course, the distrust in science voiced by Malcom can have serious side effects, and it’s interesting to review Jurassic Park in light of an ongoing worldwide pandemic, the end of which has been delayed by large-scale refusals to vaccinate. It says something about Crichton’s dino-rampage epic that you could choose it for your book club today and have an interesting conversation.
***
Jurassic Park is a bit like Jaws in that it has been pretty thoroughly overwhelmed by its cinematic spawn. Unlike Jaws, however, Crichton’s book is actually pretty good. You can enjoy it on a visceral level, an intellectual level, or both. Like Malcom, you can ponder our plight, living in the midst of an unstable system headed for collapse, or you can turn off your brain and observe a man getting chewed alive by Procompsognathus.
But he couldn’t see.
He couldn’t see anything, and his terror was extreme.
He stretched out his hands, waving them wildly in the air to ward off the attack he knew was coming.
And then there was a new, searing pain, like a fiery knife in his belly, and [he] stumbled, reaching blindly down to touch the ragged edge of his shirt, and then a thick, slippery mass that was surprisingly warm, and with horror he suddenly knew he was holding his own intestines in his hands. The dinosaur had torn him open. His guts had fallen out…”
- Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park
There are certain books you read when you are young that you remember forever, because they are the first time you are introduced to certain truths – both beautiful and terrible – about the world in which we live. Robert Cormier’s young adult bus-hijacking novel After the First Death taught me a lesson about the relativity of “good” and “evil,” and also that people could pee on themselves when they were really frightened. Tom Clancy’s Without Remorse provided an unforgettable – to my twelve-year-old self, at least – account of the workings of a nuclear bomb. In Night Over Water, Ken Follett gave me all the information about the mechanics of sex that I ever needed to know. Seriously. Ever.
And Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park? That’s where I learned about disembowelment.
***
Now residing in the shadow of its classic film version – and an ever-expanding list of intellectual properties, which include four sequels, a television show, and video games – it was fun to return to this novel I first read as a kid, to see how squarely it fits into the techno-thriller category that I inhaled growing up in the nineties. Like many other titles of that era, it demonstrated passion for emerging technologies while also sounding a warning about them.
At first glance, Jurassic Park is the textbook definition of high concept, a story that can easily be summarized in a couple of sentences: Dinosaurs are brought by to life to populate a theme park. They run amok.
Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that.
When Jurassic Park begins, we are in Costa Rica, which has been experiencing a strange rash of animal attacks. Paleontologist Alan Grant and paleobotanist Ellie Sattler are called in to investigate the seemingly far-fetched notion that the attacks are being carried out by a species of dinosaur. Before they can get to work, billionaire John Hammond brings them to Isla Nubar, where he has created a “biological preserve” in which the main attraction are cloned dinosaurs.
Hired by Hammond as consultants, Grant and Sattler are joined by mathematician/chaotician Ian Malcom, who has a lot of interesting ideas about complex systems, and what that means for the park’s long-term viability. Joining this ad hoc tour group is Tim and Lex, Hammond’s grandchildren. What no one knows is that a disgruntled employee is about to conduct a bit of corporate espionage that will put everyone in grave danger.
***
Jurassic Park is not a character study. Crichton – at least in my experience – has always been better at cool ideas and nifty plot execution than creating fully-rounded individuals to act upon his stage.
Everyone here is presented pretty boldly, without much depth or shading. Alan is the hero, Dennis Nedry – the aforementioned disgruntled employee – is the villain. The kids – mainly Lex – are annoying. Strike that. Lex is so annoying I can’t even.
That said, the people in Jurassic Park are memorable, even without Steven Spielberg’s well-cast film version cluttering my head. I had forgotten a lot about this book when I picked it up after twenty years, but I still hadn’t forgotten Muldoon, the big game hunter, or the blithe, cluelessly-striving Hammond emitting the unmistakable odor of Dr. Frankenstein.
The star of this show is Ian Malcom, who is so important to Crichton that Crichton quotes him at the beginning of each chapter (called “iterations”). It is Malcom who – after a couple plot twists – is put in the position of presenting Crichton’s bigger ideas, a Greek chorus of one.
And yes, even though this novel has a graphic disembowelment – among other disturbing deaths – it actually has a lot to say.
***
Jurassic Park is filled with Crichton’s pretensions. Unlike most fiction, its pages contain charts, graphs, and simulated computer screens. Furthermore, as I noted above, Crichton is so taken with Malcom that he has him deliver pre-chapter epigraphs. Beyond that, Malcom’s monologues go on for pages, delivering Crichton’s message in a way that borders on the pedantic:
We are witnessing the end of the scientific era. Science, like other outmoded systems, is destroying itself. As it gains power, it proves itself incapable of handling the power. Because things are going very fast now. Fifty years ago, everyone was gaga over the atomic bomb. That was power. No one could imagine anything more. Yet, a bare decade after the bomb, we began to have genetic power. And genetic power is far more potent than atomic power. And it will be in everyone’s hands. It will be in kits for backyard gardeners. Experiments for schoolchildren. Cheap labs for terrorists and dictators. And that will force everyone to ask the same question – What should I do with my power? – which is the very question science says it cannot answer.
One of the big thematic differences between Jurassic Park the book and Jurassic Park the (original) movie is the way this issue is handled. Spielberg definitely weaves it into his version, but mostly via Goldblum’s marvelous line-readings. But his heart isn’t in it. Ultimately, Crichton’s source-material pessimism about science is overwhelmed by Spielberg’s utterly Spielbergian awe at the results (heavily underscored by John Williams’s stirring theme).
Thirty years old now, Jurassic Park still feels fresh. Crichton’s anxieties about genetic tweaking obviously prefigures a lot of medical-ethical concerns – genetic confidentiality; genetic discrimination; genetics-based decision-making – that we are going to have to face within the next few years. Despite valid concerns, science is going to plunge forward, while everyone struggles to catch up.
Of course, the distrust in science voiced by Malcom can have serious side effects, and it’s interesting to review Jurassic Park in light of an ongoing worldwide pandemic, the end of which has been delayed by large-scale refusals to vaccinate. It says something about Crichton’s dino-rampage epic that you could choose it for your book club today and have an interesting conversation.
***
Jurassic Park is a bit like Jaws in that it has been pretty thoroughly overwhelmed by its cinematic spawn. Unlike Jaws, however, Crichton’s book is actually pretty good. You can enjoy it on a visceral level, an intellectual level, or both. Like Malcom, you can ponder our plight, living in the midst of an unstable system headed for collapse, or you can turn off your brain and observe a man getting chewed alive by Procompsognathus.
October 13, 2021
Jurassic Park: a novel (Jurassic Park #1), Michael Crichton
Jurassic Park is a 1990 science fiction novel written by Michael Crichton, divided into seven sections (iterations). A cautionary tale about genetic engineering, it presents the collapse of an amusement park showcasing genetically recreated dinosaurs to illustrate the mathematical concept of chaos theory and its real world implications. A sequel titled The Lost World, also written by Crichton, was published in 1995.
In 1989, a series of strange animal attacks occur in Costa Rica and on the nearby fictional island of Isla Nublar, the story's main setting, one of which is a worker severely injured on a construction project on Isla Nublar, whose employers refuse to disclose any information about.
One of the species is eventually identified as a Procompsognathus (a dinosaur that lived approximately 210 million years ago).
Paleontologist (scientific study of life that existed prior) Alan Grant and his paleobotanist graduate student, Ellie Sattler, are contacted to confirm the identification, but are abruptly whisked away by billionaire John Hammond — founder and chief executive officer of International Genetic Technologies, or InGen — for a weekend visit to a "biological preserve" he has established on Isla Nublar. ...
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه آوریل سال 1996میلادی
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: ناصر بلیغ؛ تهران، نقطه، 1372، در 520ص، مصور، جدول؛ موضوع: افسانه های علمی از نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 20م
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: محمدرضا طباطبائی؛ تهران، عارف، 1372، در518ص، چاپ دیگر تهران، یاد عارف، سال1381، در518ص؛ شابک 9647667000؛
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: سعید مهاجر؛ مجید مهاجر؛ بی جا، سعید مهاجر، 1372، در407ص، مصور، جدول، نمودار؛ چاپ دوم 1373؛
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: شهناز انوشیروانی؛ تهران، محیط، 1373، در541ص، چاپ دوم 1376؛ شابک9646264044؛
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: ناصر بلیغ؛ تهران، نقطه، 1375، در520ص، شابک9645548470؛
دیگران نیز این کتاب را ترجمه کرده اند؛ جناب علی ایثاریکسمایی؛ و خانم نسیم آریان؛ از آنجمله هستند
پارک ژوراسیک، رمانی نوشته ی «مایکل کرایکتون»؛ پزشک، و نویسنده ی «آمریکایی»، به سال 1990میلادی است؛ در سال1993میلادی، «استیون اسپیلبرگ»، فیلمی بر اساس همین کتاب ساختند؛ داستان در رابطه با یک جزیره است، که دانشمندی از خون یک پشه، که دی.ان.ای دایناسوری در آن است تعدادی دایناسور را، در جزیره، به وجود آورده، او تصمیم به راه اندازی پارکی، برای دیدن دایناسورها میکند؛ پس از ورود یک تیم از دانشمندان رشته های گوناگون، کنترل از دست کامپیوترها خارج شده، و دایناسورها ....؛ و ادامه داستان؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 29/09/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 20/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Jurassic Park is a 1990 science fiction novel written by Michael Crichton, divided into seven sections (iterations). A cautionary tale about genetic engineering, it presents the collapse of an amusement park showcasing genetically recreated dinosaurs to illustrate the mathematical concept of chaos theory and its real world implications. A sequel titled The Lost World, also written by Crichton, was published in 1995.
In 1989, a series of strange animal attacks occur in Costa Rica and on the nearby fictional island of Isla Nublar, the story's main setting, one of which is a worker severely injured on a construction project on Isla Nublar, whose employers refuse to disclose any information about.
One of the species is eventually identified as a Procompsognathus (a dinosaur that lived approximately 210 million years ago).
Paleontologist (scientific study of life that existed prior) Alan Grant and his paleobotanist graduate student, Ellie Sattler, are contacted to confirm the identification, but are abruptly whisked away by billionaire John Hammond — founder and chief executive officer of International Genetic Technologies, or InGen — for a weekend visit to a "biological preserve" he has established on Isla Nublar. ...
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه آوریل سال 1996میلادی
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: ناصر بلیغ؛ تهران، نقطه، 1372، در 520ص، مصور، جدول؛ موضوع: افسانه های علمی از نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 20م
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: محمدرضا طباطبائی؛ تهران، عارف، 1372، در518ص، چاپ دیگر تهران، یاد عارف، سال1381، در518ص؛ شابک 9647667000؛
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: سعید مهاجر؛ مجید مهاجر؛ بی جا، سعید مهاجر، 1372، در407ص، مصور، جدول، نمودار؛ چاپ دوم 1373؛
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: شهناز انوشیروانی؛ تهران، محیط، 1373، در541ص، چاپ دوم 1376؛ شابک9646264044؛
عنوان: پارک ژوراسیک؛ نویسنده: مایکل کرایتون؛ مترجم: ناصر بلیغ؛ تهران، نقطه، 1375، در520ص، شابک9645548470؛
دیگران نیز این کتاب را ترجمه کرده اند؛ جناب علی ایثاریکسمایی؛ و خانم نسیم آریان؛ از آنجمله هستند
پارک ژوراسیک، رمانی نوشته ی «مایکل کرایکتون»؛ پزشک، و نویسنده ی «آمریکایی»، به سال 1990میلادی است؛ در سال1993میلادی، «استیون اسپیلبرگ»، فیلمی بر اساس همین کتاب ساختند؛ داستان در رابطه با یک جزیره است، که دانشمندی از خون یک پشه، که دی.ان.ای دایناسوری در آن است تعدادی دایناسور را، در جزیره، به وجود آورده، او تصمیم به راه اندازی پارکی، برای دیدن دایناسورها میکند؛ پس از ورود یک تیم از دانشمندان رشته های گوناگون، کنترل از دست کامپیوترها خارج شده، و دایناسورها ....؛ و ادامه داستان؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 29/09/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 20/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
May 25, 2024
Hey, did y'all know they made a movie out of this one?
April 4, 2013
At the risk of offending what looks to be all my male goodreads friends who loved this (none of my female friends have read it, which is remarkable but probably not random), I couldn't finish it. It wasn't the multiple viewpoints or so-so prose, it was the science. I worked for awhile as an assistant paleontologist--field, prep, and curating--and I promise you, pretty much everything in the first 50 pages on this topic is wrong. I wasn't loving the book anyway, and kept finding random factual errors (passports not needed for international travel? You can't possibly fake a fax of a x-ray?) But the scenes on the fossil "dig" did me in.
1) you don't clean fossils in the field. You get them out of the field and into the lab, where you have air scribes, microscopes, safe places to rest them, and far more tools than you can schlep on your back out to the field.
2) "bits of bone flaked away as he dug." Then he's an incompetent idiot. You do everything to keep "bits" from flaking away. A bit IS the fossil. If this happens in the lab, you stop, stabilize, get a better prep person if you have a real star at it in your group, or you just quit. Plenty of fossils remain only partially exposed in museums trays because they are too friable to clean further. They're still useful. Just because it isn't on public display to wow the kiddies doesn't mean it isn't there. This Alan guy, he just keeps ruining the fossil. When real paleontologists flake a tiny little something away, they beat their breasts and curse and sometimes even cry.
3) They have the only egg site in the world for this species, and they're using jackhammers on it. Seriously? Jackhammers? We didn't own one. We wouldn't have taken one if it were a gift. You preserve the data at all costs, including leaving it the heck alone, if need be. Jackhammers may be rarely used with huge, whole specimens, if your team can drag a generator that far, but not in this case--never ever would that happen.
4) The broken bones get tossed aside and whirred up into fragments... No. Broken bones are also useful. Very useful. Broken bones get collected, cleaned, and curated. Museum collections are mostly of fossils that are partial. The only fossils I ever saw thrown away were some that got lost from their documentation and were therefore useless.
5) ...from which DNA is extracted. Not even in a million-year-old fossil, much less a 190-million-year-old one. When you crunch up fossils into sandy bits, all you get is sand.
6) rubber cement. Very big for stabilizing in 1903. Not so much when this book was written. A plastic resin dissolved in acetone is used, like polyvinyl butryal.
... and so on.
You simply cannot make that many factual errors and I continue reading. My suspension of disbelief is gone long before the monsters come on stage.
This is the third of his books I've tried, the second I've given up on before the end, and all three were just riddled with errors. And he was already famous--he could have interviewed anyone before writing. Why get it wrong when he could have, with a few hours of work, gotten it right? Maddening.
1) you don't clean fossils in the field. You get them out of the field and into the lab, where you have air scribes, microscopes, safe places to rest them, and far more tools than you can schlep on your back out to the field.
2) "bits of bone flaked away as he dug." Then he's an incompetent idiot. You do everything to keep "bits" from flaking away. A bit IS the fossil. If this happens in the lab, you stop, stabilize, get a better prep person if you have a real star at it in your group, or you just quit. Plenty of fossils remain only partially exposed in museums trays because they are too friable to clean further. They're still useful. Just because it isn't on public display to wow the kiddies doesn't mean it isn't there. This Alan guy, he just keeps ruining the fossil. When real paleontologists flake a tiny little something away, they beat their breasts and curse and sometimes even cry.
3) They have the only egg site in the world for this species, and they're using jackhammers on it. Seriously? Jackhammers? We didn't own one. We wouldn't have taken one if it were a gift. You preserve the data at all costs, including leaving it the heck alone, if need be. Jackhammers may be rarely used with huge, whole specimens, if your team can drag a generator that far, but not in this case--never ever would that happen.
4) The broken bones get tossed aside and whirred up into fragments... No. Broken bones are also useful. Very useful. Broken bones get collected, cleaned, and curated. Museum collections are mostly of fossils that are partial. The only fossils I ever saw thrown away were some that got lost from their documentation and were therefore useless.
5) ...from which DNA is extracted. Not even in a million-year-old fossil, much less a 190-million-year-old one. When you crunch up fossils into sandy bits, all you get is sand.
6) rubber cement. Very big for stabilizing in 1903. Not so much when this book was written. A plastic resin dissolved in acetone is used, like polyvinyl butryal.
... and so on.
You simply cannot make that many factual errors and I continue reading. My suspension of disbelief is gone long before the monsters come on stage.
This is the third of his books I've tried, the second I've given up on before the end, and all three were just riddled with errors. And he was already famous--he could have interviewed anyone before writing. Why get it wrong when he could have, with a few hours of work, gotten it right? Maddening.
December 22, 2023
“Let’s be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven’t got the power to destroy the planet—or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves.”🥚🦖🦕
Fabulous book! Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton is the OG of scifi-horror-adventure-thriller. 🔬🧬 I haven't seen the movie in a while and don't remember enough to compare. But I think both are equally great. If I remember correctly though, I don't think the girl in the movie is as annoying as the one in the book.
I listened to the 2015 audiobook edition read by Scott Brick and it was excellent without the dramatic flair he's been accustomed to now. The Jurassic Park theme music adds a pleasant yet familiar atmosphere to the beginning and end of each disc.
My favorite scenes from the movie.
imdb
Oops! Wrong link. 😉
Jurassic Pedia
IYKYK
May 15, 2018
❝ Discovery, they believe, is inevitable. So they just try to do it first. That's the game in science.❞
-------------- Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
❝ All the Dinosaurs feared the T-Rex❞
------ Wade Wilson, Deadpool (2016)
🎵Velociraptor, he’s gonna find ya
He’s gonna kill ya, he’s gonna eat ya 🎵
----- Velociraptor, Kasabian
Welcome..... to Jurassic Park's review
I remember back when I was a kid, my dad rented a VHS (yes, the legendary VHS was real, young ones) cassette of an English movie. I think I was seven years old and my favorite pastimes were collecting gravel, screaming and making my sister's life hell. Watching movie was not one of them.
And that movie changed it all. And no, It wasn't Citizen Kane. It was the legendary Jurassic Park!
But it took me almost fifteen years to pick up the original novel. (I am still not sure why it took me so long) And surprisingly, it was not what I expected.
Story
When advanced genetic engineering breaks the very basic laws of nature by creating an extinct life form, billionaire John Hammond decides to turn that discovery into the best damn attraction the world has ever witnessed: A Dinosaur park!
But the investors of this ambitious project gets spooked because of some recent events and seeks a second opinion. They invite Paleontologist, Alan Grant, paleobotanist graduate student, Ellie Sattler, famous mathematician and chaos theorist, Ian Malcolm, and a lawyer representing the investors, Donald Gennaro for a guided tour of the park.
The unique voice in this story belongs to Ian Malcolm who spends most of the time warning others about the park.
So everyone went ahead with the tour and...
Well, let's just say things didn't go as planned.
Hey, I've watched the movie gazillion times! I don't have to read this book.
Stop right there. The book is so very different from the movie. The movie is a visual spectacular that tells an adventurous science fiction story. While watching the movie, you will be shouting " yay, Dinosaurs".
The novel (almost) paints the same story, but its focus is on something else entirely: The science. The very idea of creating life out of nothing, the dangers of unchecked development and the proof that you can not control the uncontrollable. Also, there is a healthy dose of chaos theory, Dragon curves, Dinosaur's evolution and survival! Throughout the story, you'll be like
Overall, Jurassic Park is one helluva a ride. It might not be as thrilling as the movie, but it is a hell more meaningful and informative!
July 4, 2023
Review of Kindle edition
Publication date: May 14, 2012
Publisher: Ballantine Books
Language: English
ASIN: B007UH4D3G
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 4349
466 pages
I would guess that the majority of the people in the world have heard of JURASSIC PARK. However, the group of JURASSIC PARK related books, movies and merchandising has become a world wide phenomenon based upon the success of the movies not this novel. The novel is good but not good enough or appealing to enough people to accomplish that without the superb, crowd pleasing movie.
One complaint I have about the book is that it contains lengthy sections of computer code which are absolutely unnecessary to explain or further the story. I suppose this appeals to those fascinated with computers but I find it hard to imagine that most readers do more than skim over both these sections and most of the numerous charts depicted in the book.
Another problem I have is Dr. Grant's disparaging attack on Donald Gennaro. Throughout the book, up to this point, Gennaro was one of the admirable characters. Steadfast and brave, overcoming fear to function as needed. Why suddenly change this characterization? Why did Grant insist on his harebrained scheme? If making certain that all of the dinosaurs were killed was that important, and I suspect that it was, there would be several ways to do it which would not require Grant, Ellie and Gennaro to proceed with Grant's scheme.
There are a few other things which don't make much sense such as the way the computer was programmed to count and keep track of the animals. But I suppose that this is part of Crichton's point, that it is not possible for people to really control extremely complex systems and technology. Something will always be overlooked, bad decisions will be made, the unexpected will always occur.
Worth reading, though not quite five stars but certainly more than four so, with no other options, I am marking it as five.
Publication date: May 14, 2012
Publisher: Ballantine Books
Language: English
ASIN: B007UH4D3G
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 4349
466 pages
I would guess that the majority of the people in the world have heard of JURASSIC PARK. However, the group of JURASSIC PARK related books, movies and merchandising has become a world wide phenomenon based upon the success of the movies not this novel. The novel is good but not good enough or appealing to enough people to accomplish that without the superb, crowd pleasing movie.
One complaint I have about the book is that it contains lengthy sections of computer code which are absolutely unnecessary to explain or further the story. I suppose this appeals to those fascinated with computers but I find it hard to imagine that most readers do more than skim over both these sections and most of the numerous charts depicted in the book.
Another problem I have is Dr. Grant's disparaging attack on Donald Gennaro. Throughout the book, up to this point, Gennaro was one of the admirable characters. Steadfast and brave, overcoming fear to function as needed. Why suddenly change this characterization? Why did Grant insist on his harebrained scheme? If making certain that all of the dinosaurs were killed was that important, and I suspect that it was, there would be several ways to do it which would not require Grant, Ellie and Gennaro to proceed with Grant's scheme.
There are a few other things which don't make much sense such as the way the computer was programmed to count and keep track of the animals. But I suppose that this is part of Crichton's point, that it is not possible for people to really control extremely complex systems and technology. Something will always be overlooked, bad decisions will be made, the unexpected will always occur.
Worth reading, though not quite five stars but certainly more than four so, with no other options, I am marking it as five.
June 9, 2024
I loved this book. The story is scary, action-packed, and kept me reading. Throughout the beginning and middle, there were a lot of similarities to the movie, but the entire last portion of the book was completely different, in a good way. Much like my opinion of Stephen King's IT and its 2017 film, I enjoyed both the book and movie here, despite having a great deal of differences between them. Despite having so many different dinosaurs and characters, I felt each had their own unique spotlight and it was all balanced very well. The best example was Dr Malcolm's constant input and taunting, using his chaos theory foundation, which was a lot of fun throughout. I also really enjoyed the in-depth information on the animal's behaviors and vivid descriptions of how they appeared, both of which really brought you into each scene. The only thing that I didn't like about this book is how long it took me to actually sit down and read it. I spent years really missing out on something great here!
September 24, 2019
ALL THE STARS!
Holy smokes y'all, I did not realize the amount of differences in the book vs the movie!
And yes, I love the book much more then the movie now.
I've seen the movie 10 million times but the book of Jurassic Park is more dark, gritty and so well done! Kudos Michael Crichton on writing a classic that will last forever.
I decided to do audio on Jurassic Park and Scott Brick was the narrator. I'm super picky on narrators for audio books and I felt he did a great job.
***SPOILER ALERT***
Here's the main differences from the book vs movie :
I could go on and on with all the differences. Such as the ending, the beginning and the kick ass but most of you have read this book.
And on that note, I'm so glad to finally read this. It was just fantastic!!
If you have not read Jurassic Park the book, go read it! Are you still here? Go!
Holy smokes y'all, I did not realize the amount of differences in the book vs the movie!
And yes, I love the book much more then the movie now.
I've seen the movie 10 million times but the book of Jurassic Park is more dark, gritty and so well done! Kudos Michael Crichton on writing a classic that will last forever.
I decided to do audio on Jurassic Park and Scott Brick was the narrator. I'm super picky on narrators for audio books and I felt he did a great job.
***SPOILER ALERT***
Here's the main differences from the book vs movie :
I could go on and on with all the differences. Such as the ending, the beginning and the kick ass but most of you have read this book.
And on that note, I'm so glad to finally read this. It was just fantastic!!
If you have not read Jurassic Park the book, go read it! Are you still here? Go!
October 6, 2021
C’mon! It’s Jurassic Park, man! It’s a classic – both book and movie!
Crichton is one of the kings of speculative sci-fi and how nature and science are to be respected (not trifled with!) Jurassic Park embodies all of these things and if it doesn’t both terrify you and make you think, you have likely missed the point.
One issue I have had with a lot of Crichton books is a great story with what feels to me like a poorly executed and unsatisfying ending. With Jurassic Park, that was not the case – I loved every minute of it! I seem to remember that the sequel book felt more like he was dialing it in (the whole thing, not just the end) . . . maybe because he felt like he had to do a follow-up . . . or maybe Hollywood demanded it . . . either way, I don’t think you need to read the second one unless you REALLY want to.
This was an audio reread after first reading the paperback about 30 years ago – so glad I did the reread!
If you loved the movie, read the book!
If you loved the book, see the movie!
They are not the exactly the same, but both great. You will not regret it!
Crichton is one of the kings of speculative sci-fi and how nature and science are to be respected (not trifled with!) Jurassic Park embodies all of these things and if it doesn’t both terrify you and make you think, you have likely missed the point.
One issue I have had with a lot of Crichton books is a great story with what feels to me like a poorly executed and unsatisfying ending. With Jurassic Park, that was not the case – I loved every minute of it! I seem to remember that the sequel book felt more like he was dialing it in (the whole thing, not just the end) . . . maybe because he felt like he had to do a follow-up . . . or maybe Hollywood demanded it . . . either way, I don’t think you need to read the second one unless you REALLY want to.
This was an audio reread after first reading the paperback about 30 years ago – so glad I did the reread!
If you loved the movie, read the book!
If you loved the book, see the movie!
They are not the exactly the same, but both great. You will not regret it!
February 5, 2011
I always seem to forget how good Jurassic Park is. I blast through it once every few years, throw it on my shelf and the distance slowly makes me derisive, and then something forces me to pick it up again when my brain needs a little peanut butter and jelly dipped in hot chocolate, and I am forced to admit that Jurassic Park is a damn fine novel.
Sure it's packed with Michael Crichton's usual band of screenplay-adaptation-friendly archetypes, sure it derives much of its plot and thought from Arthur Conan Doyle, HG Wells and Mary Shelley, sure it's pulpy and quick to read, but those things aren't necessarily bad, and Crichton does enough to elevate or alter these elements to make Jurassic Park a fine piece of popular Sci-Fi in its own right.
Yes, the characters are there to serve the plot. Each has an important skill or skill-set -- Muldoon is the "Great White Hunter," Malcolm is the chaos theoretician, Grant and Saddler are the paleontologists, Tim and Lex are the kids in peril, etc., etc. -- and who they are and the how their stories unfold are easily altered or even cut entirely in the shift from book to screen because they are less important than their skills, yet Crichton still manages to make them likable enough that we care about what happens to them. None of the characters are dynamic or round, but their static flatness makes them no less interesting than a character like Ian Fleming's James Bond. They may not be as memorable as Bond (although Ian Malcolm has some pretty impressive popularity for a supporting character), but they don't really have to be. We can forget them after the book is over, then enjoy them anew when we go back to the book later. They aren't Hamlet, but they work.
And yes Crichton borrows liberally, but he borrows from the stars. He uses Shelley's classic creation-gone-mad trope, and he blatantly thieves from Doyle's Lost World and Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau, but he does it with style. Granted it's a pulpy style, but that pulpiness is an asset. It takes those pieces he's combined and lets the reader catch mere glimpses of them outside the roller coaster car as he takes us into drops and curves and spins and loop-de-loops. The speed and pace nearly makes us forget from whom he's borrowing. And that is by design. Crichton's pulpiness is pacing, conscious pacing, and as literary action-oriented plotters go, Crichton is a master of speedy obfuscation.
Add to all that some memorable tirades about science and reason and the environment, some kick ass Velociraptors and T-rexes, an excellent scene with toxic eggs, and some rather insightful criticism of "great men," and Jurassic Park is a book that I predict will stand the test of time. We may not see its future today, but fifty to a hundred years from now it will be taught in schools and remembered, while other, more literary books will be forgotten.
later -- It just struck me that if I forget the quality of this book between readings, and I do, then my prophecy concerning Jurassic Park's staying power is probably flawed. I think I may be more Nostradumbass than Nostradamus.
Sure it's packed with Michael Crichton's usual band of screenplay-adaptation-friendly archetypes, sure it derives much of its plot and thought from Arthur Conan Doyle, HG Wells and Mary Shelley, sure it's pulpy and quick to read, but those things aren't necessarily bad, and Crichton does enough to elevate or alter these elements to make Jurassic Park a fine piece of popular Sci-Fi in its own right.
Yes, the characters are there to serve the plot. Each has an important skill or skill-set -- Muldoon is the "Great White Hunter," Malcolm is the chaos theoretician, Grant and Saddler are the paleontologists, Tim and Lex are the kids in peril, etc., etc. -- and who they are and the how their stories unfold are easily altered or even cut entirely in the shift from book to screen because they are less important than their skills, yet Crichton still manages to make them likable enough that we care about what happens to them. None of the characters are dynamic or round, but their static flatness makes them no less interesting than a character like Ian Fleming's James Bond. They may not be as memorable as Bond (although Ian Malcolm has some pretty impressive popularity for a supporting character), but they don't really have to be. We can forget them after the book is over, then enjoy them anew when we go back to the book later. They aren't Hamlet, but they work.
And yes Crichton borrows liberally, but he borrows from the stars. He uses Shelley's classic creation-gone-mad trope, and he blatantly thieves from Doyle's Lost World and Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau, but he does it with style. Granted it's a pulpy style, but that pulpiness is an asset. It takes those pieces he's combined and lets the reader catch mere glimpses of them outside the roller coaster car as he takes us into drops and curves and spins and loop-de-loops. The speed and pace nearly makes us forget from whom he's borrowing. And that is by design. Crichton's pulpiness is pacing, conscious pacing, and as literary action-oriented plotters go, Crichton is a master of speedy obfuscation.
Add to all that some memorable tirades about science and reason and the environment, some kick ass Velociraptors and T-rexes, an excellent scene with toxic eggs, and some rather insightful criticism of "great men," and Jurassic Park is a book that I predict will stand the test of time. We may not see its future today, but fifty to a hundred years from now it will be taught in schools and remembered, while other, more literary books will be forgotten.
later -- It just struck me that if I forget the quality of this book between readings, and I do, then my prophecy concerning Jurassic Park's staying power is probably flawed. I think I may be more Nostradumbass than Nostradamus.
October 20, 2014
Find all of my reviews at: http://52bookminimum.blogspot.com/
PLEASE NOTE THIS REVIEW IS ABOUT A BOOK THAT BECAME ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR MOVIES OF ALL TIME MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO, GROSSED OVER A BILLION DOLLARS AND CHANGED THE WAY WE LOOKED AT SPECIAL EFFECTS FOREVER. IF YOU CONSIDER ANYTHING IN MY REVIEW A “SPOILER,” THERE’S A GOOD CHANCE YOU WERE CREATED IN A LAB FROM SOME FOSSILIZED AMBER.
It all begins with a billionaire who has a big imagination and a lot of spare money lying around. By dropping a ton of dollars into the biotechnology field and really thinking outside the box when it comes to the wheres and hows of DNA sample collection – John Hammond has figured out how to bring dinosaurs back from extinction and now dreams of creating a theme park unlike any other. What he didn’t plan on was the fact that science is often unpredictable . . .
“The history of evolution is that life escapes all barriers. Life breaks free. Life expands to new territories. Painfully, perhaps even dangerously . . .”
Now on to my super literary review:
I honestly believed I had read this book back when the movie came out. It turns out my brain foiled me once again and I actually had not. Bottom line: senile brain = bad, reading Jurassic Park = good.
Man oh man I had no clue what I had been missing. Spare me your “oh but it’s sooooooo science-y and I got bored before the story really took off” or the “you do know there is no way this could ever really happen, right????” talk. I don’t care. Yes, it is super science-y and yes, dinosaurs still aren’t free-ranging on an island off the shores of Costa Rica, but it doesn't change the fact that this book is phenomenal.
I had given Spielberg so much credit (even knowing his film was based off of this book), but the credit is all owed to Michael Crichton. Not only are the characters/dialogue/etc. ripped right out of the book, but Crichton did it so much better. Sure, certain unforgettable scenes were created purely by Spielberg
but there are literally HUNDREDS of pages of action that were not included in the motion picture, additional plot twists, new dinosaurs and other surprises to prove to all that Crichton’s original was sheer genius. In fact, after reading Jurassic Park I questioned why some parts of the original were ever changed for the film at all. Of course I realize that not every page of a book can be included in a movie adaptation, but the changes in Lex, Tim, Ellie and Grant’s characters were unnecessary and the changes to Hammond are almost unforgiveable. Hammond was never meant to be portrayed as a well-intended old fool, but rather a mad scientist much like Dr. Moreau. I’ll refrain from saying more as to not spoil the reading experience for all, but trust me when I say if you liked the movie, you’re going to love the book.
I know, Jeff. I know. It’s hard for me too.
Copy provided by my local library who deserves a shout out since their “what you should be reading” pop-up screen finally picked a book I might actually like.
Here’s a bonus Dr. Malcolm gif for everyone who realizes he’s the sexiest mathematician to ever walk the Earth . . .
He can chaos my theory anytime.
And here’s a bonus Brundlefly gif for Jeff since he refuses to acknowledge the magic and wonder that is all things Goldblum . . .
PLEASE NOTE THIS REVIEW IS ABOUT A BOOK THAT BECAME ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR MOVIES OF ALL TIME MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO, GROSSED OVER A BILLION DOLLARS AND CHANGED THE WAY WE LOOKED AT SPECIAL EFFECTS FOREVER. IF YOU CONSIDER ANYTHING IN MY REVIEW A “SPOILER,” THERE’S A GOOD CHANCE YOU WERE CREATED IN A LAB FROM SOME FOSSILIZED AMBER.
It all begins with a billionaire who has a big imagination and a lot of spare money lying around. By dropping a ton of dollars into the biotechnology field and really thinking outside the box when it comes to the wheres and hows of DNA sample collection – John Hammond has figured out how to bring dinosaurs back from extinction and now dreams of creating a theme park unlike any other. What he didn’t plan on was the fact that science is often unpredictable . . .
“The history of evolution is that life escapes all barriers. Life breaks free. Life expands to new territories. Painfully, perhaps even dangerously . . .”
Now on to my super literary review:
I honestly believed I had read this book back when the movie came out. It turns out my brain foiled me once again and I actually had not. Bottom line: senile brain = bad, reading Jurassic Park = good.
Man oh man I had no clue what I had been missing. Spare me your “oh but it’s sooooooo science-y and I got bored before the story really took off” or the “you do know there is no way this could ever really happen, right????” talk. I don’t care. Yes, it is super science-y and yes, dinosaurs still aren’t free-ranging on an island off the shores of Costa Rica, but it doesn't change the fact that this book is phenomenal.
I had given Spielberg so much credit (even knowing his film was based off of this book), but the credit is all owed to Michael Crichton. Not only are the characters/dialogue/etc. ripped right out of the book, but Crichton did it so much better. Sure, certain unforgettable scenes were created purely by Spielberg
but there are literally HUNDREDS of pages of action that were not included in the motion picture, additional plot twists, new dinosaurs and other surprises to prove to all that Crichton’s original was sheer genius. In fact, after reading Jurassic Park I questioned why some parts of the original were ever changed for the film at all. Of course I realize that not every page of a book can be included in a movie adaptation, but the changes in Lex, Tim, Ellie and Grant’s characters were unnecessary and the changes to Hammond are almost unforgiveable. Hammond was never meant to be portrayed as a well-intended old fool, but rather a mad scientist much like Dr. Moreau. I’ll refrain from saying more as to not spoil the reading experience for all, but trust me when I say if you liked the movie, you’re going to love the book.
I know, Jeff. I know. It’s hard for me too.
Copy provided by my local library who deserves a shout out since their “what you should be reading” pop-up screen finally picked a book I might actually like.
Here’s a bonus Dr. Malcolm gif for everyone who realizes he’s the sexiest mathematician to ever walk the Earth . . .
He can chaos my theory anytime.
And here’s a bonus Brundlefly gif for Jeff since he refuses to acknowledge the magic and wonder that is all things Goldblum . . .
November 14, 2022
I've managed to go my entire life without reading or watching anything Jurassic and I have no idea why. This book was fantastically thrilling.
From page one there is a quiet horror that seeps out of the pages, the build-up is slow which only adds to the dread, the gloom is a real as the mist over the island.
Then all of a sudden everything happens at once and I spent 60% of the book in a state of anxiety. There is no let up, no recovery time, no time to sit back in your seat, its full on up until the last page.
This book is as relevant today as it was back in the 1990's. The messaging within this book is thought provoking, very well researched and put together by the author for a read that educates and well as entertains.
This is an incredibly bingeable book to read but the level of tension would only allow me to read a couple of chapters at a time.
Five stars.
Will absolutely read book two in this duology before the year is out.
From page one there is a quiet horror that seeps out of the pages, the build-up is slow which only adds to the dread, the gloom is a real as the mist over the island.
Then all of a sudden everything happens at once and I spent 60% of the book in a state of anxiety. There is no let up, no recovery time, no time to sit back in your seat, its full on up until the last page.
This book is as relevant today as it was back in the 1990's. The messaging within this book is thought provoking, very well researched and put together by the author for a read that educates and well as entertains.
This is an incredibly bingeable book to read but the level of tension would only allow me to read a couple of chapters at a time.
Five stars.
Will absolutely read book two in this duology before the year is out.
December 8, 2021
One of the rare times the movie is better
I love, love, love the amount of research put into the science. As a bio nerd, I love that it built off possibilities and expanded into something intense and thrilling.
But the characters were a little one-dimensional? Like they just existed to push the plot forward? And maybe it’s just because the movie handles tension SO well... this didn’t seem to? (You don’t have to stop and explain the science WHILE the Raptors are attacking, mkay?)
——————-
It’s possible I procrastinated reading this for my monthly bookclub and need to binge-read it before the wine-mom’s judge me
I love, love, love the amount of research put into the science. As a bio nerd, I love that it built off possibilities and expanded into something intense and thrilling.
But the characters were a little one-dimensional? Like they just existed to push the plot forward? And maybe it’s just because the movie handles tension SO well... this didn’t seem to? (You don’t have to stop and explain the science WHILE the Raptors are attacking, mkay?)
——————-
It’s possible I procrastinated reading this for my monthly bookclub and need to binge-read it before the wine-mom’s judge me
September 17, 2021
It's been many years since I've watched the movie and after reading this, I feel like I would be doing myself a disservice if didn't go watch it again. Someone pointed out that the book is adult horror in nature while the film was re-imagined for a larger audience. I will have to agree with that assessment because this book was downright terrifying at times. Sure, Crichton leaves some deaths to our imagination, but the ones he does describe are filthy and disgusting.
This is a classic that will continue to spawn more films and more spinoffs because it is that good. Personally, I could have done with a lot less coverage regarding the kids. They were whiney (what kid isn't?) and made a ton of mistakes to raise the stress levels. I could have also done with less scientific ramblings from Malcolm. Crichton sure loves to cram his opinion down the readers' throats until they choke on it. Not a perfect book, but damn near perfect.
This is a classic that will continue to spawn more films and more spinoffs because it is that good. Personally, I could have done with a lot less coverage regarding the kids. They were whiney (what kid isn't?) and made a ton of mistakes to raise the stress levels. I could have also done with less scientific ramblings from Malcolm. Crichton sure loves to cram his opinion down the readers' throats until they choke on it. Not a perfect book, but damn near perfect.
June 23, 2021
“Because the history of evolution is that life escapes all barriers. Life breaks free. Life expands to new territories. Painfully, perhaps even dangerously. But life finds a way.”
One of the easiest 5 star ratings I’ve ever handed out! Why did I not read Jurassic Park sooner?! The science, the dinosaurs, the tension, the grisly deaths, THE SCIENCE… worth mentioning twice… it all just worked for me. Highly entertaining and addictive from start to finish. Loved it!!
I’ve no doubt that some of the science is questionable (I actually saw reviews complaining about this on goodreads – God save us all), but let’s not forget that it is science FICTION. A lot of what Crichton discusses is rooted in real science and I was more than happy to go along with the less believable aspects. All of the science was music to my ears, but I’m also in awe of how Crichton manages to convey these aspects in layman’s terms, so that any reader can easily follow what he is talking about. So if all the science talk possibly puts you off, please don’t let it!
And the dinosaurs! I loved reading about all the different types and their specific little traits and characteristics. I’ve always been a pterodactyl kinda gal, but I’ve a newfound appreciation for the dilophosaurus – imagine being so badass that you can spit venom at people. The humans were pretty great too, I of course felt pulled towards the female scientist, Ellie, feeling her chagrin at any misogynistic comments that came her way. Ian Malcolm is obviously a stand-out too, who can’t picture Jeff Goldblum when reading?!
I loved so much of the commentary surrounding science and discovery and research and pushing the boundaries, it really gave me food for thought, even if it felt a little harsh at times. The pacing was perfect, the tension was palpable when it needed to be and some parts were just straight-up terrifying to think about.
Loved, loved, loved. I really don’t have anything negative to say, apart from the fact that Lex should have been left at home...
5 stars.
One of the easiest 5 star ratings I’ve ever handed out! Why did I not read Jurassic Park sooner?! The science, the dinosaurs, the tension, the grisly deaths, THE SCIENCE… worth mentioning twice… it all just worked for me. Highly entertaining and addictive from start to finish. Loved it!!
I’ve no doubt that some of the science is questionable (I actually saw reviews complaining about this on goodreads – God save us all), but let’s not forget that it is science FICTION. A lot of what Crichton discusses is rooted in real science and I was more than happy to go along with the less believable aspects. All of the science was music to my ears, but I’m also in awe of how Crichton manages to convey these aspects in layman’s terms, so that any reader can easily follow what he is talking about. So if all the science talk possibly puts you off, please don’t let it!
And the dinosaurs! I loved reading about all the different types and their specific little traits and characteristics. I’ve always been a pterodactyl kinda gal, but I’ve a newfound appreciation for the dilophosaurus – imagine being so badass that you can spit venom at people. The humans were pretty great too, I of course felt pulled towards the female scientist, Ellie, feeling her chagrin at any misogynistic comments that came her way. Ian Malcolm is obviously a stand-out too, who can’t picture Jeff Goldblum when reading?!
I loved so much of the commentary surrounding science and discovery and research and pushing the boundaries, it really gave me food for thought, even if it felt a little harsh at times. The pacing was perfect, the tension was palpable when it needed to be and some parts were just straight-up terrifying to think about.
Loved, loved, loved. I really don’t have anything negative to say, apart from the fact that Lex should have been left at home...
5 stars.
April 23, 2017
As is most frequently the case, the book was better than the film.
And it was a really cool movie. Directed by Stephen Spielberg.
The section of Universal theme park in Orlando is fun too.
Michael Crichton’s 1990 genetically powered biological thriller combines an action packed adventure story with a cautionary tale of corporate, capitalistic greed gone wrong and rolls it all into a humanistic story with excellent characterization and that could be read as a powerful allegory of the harsh realities of laissez faire economics.
And there are dinosaurs.
Fast moving and intensely paced, there is not much filler material in this lean 400-page narrative. Crichton demonstrates his accomplished talent for story telling and though this is my first of his novels (and so I have no basis for comparison), this will not be my last.
While Alan Grant is the thematic and contextual protagonist – the paleontologist dropped off on an island teaming with REAL LIVE DINOSAURS!! – Crichton uses the rock star cool, black dressed, philosophical chaos theory mathematician Ian Malcolm as its spiritual guide for what this book says once the adrenaline has run out.
Clearly, Crichton had a message to impart and showed impressive virtuosity in how to deliver.
And it was a really cool movie. Directed by Stephen Spielberg.
The section of Universal theme park in Orlando is fun too.
Michael Crichton’s 1990 genetically powered biological thriller combines an action packed adventure story with a cautionary tale of corporate, capitalistic greed gone wrong and rolls it all into a humanistic story with excellent characterization and that could be read as a powerful allegory of the harsh realities of laissez faire economics.
And there are dinosaurs.
Fast moving and intensely paced, there is not much filler material in this lean 400-page narrative. Crichton demonstrates his accomplished talent for story telling and though this is my first of his novels (and so I have no basis for comparison), this will not be my last.
While Alan Grant is the thematic and contextual protagonist – the paleontologist dropped off on an island teaming with REAL LIVE DINOSAURS!! – Crichton uses the rock star cool, black dressed, philosophical chaos theory mathematician Ian Malcolm as its spiritual guide for what this book says once the adrenaline has run out.
Clearly, Crichton had a message to impart and showed impressive virtuosity in how to deliver.
June 23, 2022
4.5/5
JA CHCĘ JESZCZE RAZ!!!!!!
JA CHCĘ JESZCZE RAZ!!!!!!
January 14, 2015
Science-at-the-brink-of-chaos fiction. Nonlinear dynamics had barely been invented, and yet here it was, gracing each chapter with a foreboding message of disintegration.
Not literature, not amazing prose, but a true edge-of-your-seat thriller.
Not literature, not amazing prose, but a true edge-of-your-seat thriller.
July 1, 2024
I’ll say one thing, and one thing only…this was much better than the movie, and I loved the movie 😁
Displaying 1 - 30 of 21,953 reviews