The Student News Site of Van Nuys High School

The Mirror

vnhsMIRROR.com

The student website of Van Nuys High School
Van Nuys, California
The Student News Site of Van Nuys High School

The Mirror

The Student News Site of Van Nuys High School

The Mirror

Jurassic Park is a crappy book

Everyone knows the film. But what about the book that inspired it?
It+might+surprise+most+younger+viewers%2C+but+the+1993+film+is+actually+an+adaptation+of+a+1990+novel+written+by+Michael+Crichton%2C+an+M.D.+whose+background+helped+him+create+the+genetic+aspect+of+Jurassic+Park%E2%80%99s+plot.
THE MIRROR | DAIMLER KOCH
It might surprise most younger viewers, but the 1993 film is actually an adaptation of a 1990 novel written by Michael Crichton, an M.D. whose background helped him create the genetic aspect of Jurassic Park’s plot.

First things first: I’m not attacking the film adaptation of Jurassic Park, the original movie released back in 1993. That movie’s fantastic. Great plot, terrifying antagonists, unforgettable characters (“We spared no expense…”).

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said about the book it was based on.

I read Jurassic Park before I ever watched it. At the time, I thought it was decent. Written by Micheal Crichton, it was pretty typical of novels of its era: stacked with pages from cover to cover, typed in cheap tiny print, and somewhat fast-paced. Somewhat.

But when I watched the film adaptation, my perception of the book changed greatly.

So, instead of this being a typical film or book review, I’d like to compare the two and argue why the book is crappier than the movie.

The book starts off slow. Mysterious, but slow. Someone’s been bit by an unknown animal (guess who?), and they’ve been flown to a Costa Rican hospital. No one, however, will tell the doctors who the patient is or what he got bit by, even as he bleeds to death through his clothes. Again, slow but mysterious.

The movie’s obviously different. I don’t recall, for example, there being a drop of blood in the opening scene. And no one gets flown to a hospital, nor do they have a true medical professional on scene in case of an “accident”. Yet, I find that the movie foreshadows the future bloodshed and sets the tone for the rest of the story far better than the book. Who can forget the screaming face of the worker trapped between the cage and the outside, between life and death, as so many of the characters will find themselves later in the movie? Meanwhile, all the book does is cause a trifling sense of curiosity in its opening moments, which is fine, I guess, but it’s far too calm and confusing to give us any sense of the plot. We know the mysterious animal is a dinosaur; the book’s called Jurassic Park, that’s why we picked it up off the shelf, saw the “New York Times Bestseller” phrase typed across the top, said “aw, what the hell?” and bought it. We know (or think) that dinosaurs are robotically violent predators, and while the movie reinforces that stereotype greatly from the beginning, it takes a long time for the book to do so.

The paces, too, are different. Crichton has a somewhat unusual beat. The slow parts are protracted, the fast parts ephemeral. It takes Grant five pages to get through a shallow conversation with two kids, yet only a sentence for a person to get their head ripped off. When I initially read the book nearly a year ago, I thought it was a decent effect, but after I watched the movie, which has a consistently dramatic pace throughout, I began to see the effect as choppy, getting in the way of the reader. Some might argue that it makes the dinosaur attacks unpredictable, but I disagree. Crichton hints way too far in advance when someone is going to get attacked, rendering the effect useless.

The third problem the book faces is character development. Everyone lacks dimensionality. Grant, whose disdain for kids is obvious from his first appearance on the screen, doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with them in the book. Satler’s not the caring and rational antidote to Grant’s cold studiousness; she’s just his associate working in the field. Perhaps the character with the biggest change from page to screen is Hammond, whose signature egoism is surprisingly lacking in the book (no “We spared no expense…”), and the only one who remained somewhat consistent is Malcolm, who, in both the book and the movie, constantly voices his conviction that the park will fail due to the mathematical functions of entropy (chaos) in the universe. Even the kids seem to be lacking the energy they had in the movie, as if Crichton couldn’t find a way to make them annoying or stubborn enough. In the book, everyone’s a lifeless puppet, shoved in there by Crichton’s fingers against their will, and we have to watch these cold beings flop around, panic, and die, even though there’s nothing about them that would make us give a damn about their sufferings.

I can’t say much more about the book, except that if you have watched the movie, then you’ll probably be let down by Crichton. 

Jurassic Park is a typical action novel of the early ‘90s. It was written during a time when books were written only to be bestsellers, when they came in smooth softcover and tiny print, when they placed a racing plot above everything else. Whereas Jurassic Park is a typical Spielberg blockbuster of the early ‘90s. It wasn’t made necessarily for the money, but for the experience. Spielberg, and others like him, pushed for the latest advancements in technology and for believable characters and unparalleled storytelling. They didn’t settle for the same formula, to have the glory of being acclaimed by the New York Times like the millions of other stories out there. Spielberg spared no expenses in bringing the book to life, and as a result, he left the book to die in its own shallowness.

View Comments (2)
Donate to The Mirror
$385
$20000
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Van Nuys Senior High School. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

About the Contributor
Daimler Koch, Online Editor-in-Chief
As the Executive Editor-in-Chief of my own weekly satirical newsletter, I’m always striving to improve my writing skills in all forms. During my first year of Journalism, I was an Arts and Entertainment staff writer and later the editor of the Opinion section. Now, I’m the Online Editor-in-Chief for the Mirror. Outside of school, I’m always either reading, pretending to be four different people for my newsletter, or preparing for my next martial arts belt test. After I graduate high school, I will go to college and study to become an English professor.
Donate to The Mirror
$385
$20000
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (2)

Comments are encouraged and appreciated. All comments are moderated. Please limit all comments to the topic of the post. Observe proper online behavior rules: No name-calling, profanity or personal attacks. ALL inappropriate content will be immediately removed.
All The Mirror Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • R

    RayNov 26, 2023 at 11:04 pm

    Jesus God this is a terrible review. I can appreciate the desire to take an opposing view point, especially against something popular, but not when you’re just going to be unapologetically WRONG. You say that the book is typical of its era, but that just isn’t true. Michael Crichton was famous for breaking that mold. His whole THING was big questions surrounded by scary monsters. It’s interesting and thought provoking, even provocative, but its fast paced action makes it approachable for general audiences. It’s not at all difficult to recognize the deeper philosophical themes of the book. The book tackles issues of hubris, greed and pride, even existentialism at times. And its approachable nature encourages audiences who are new to those big questions to start finding answers for them.

    You claim the book “starts off slow.” In what universe is a CHILD GETTING EATEN OUT OF ITS CRIB slow? How much faster do you need to go? Do you have somewhere to be? And of COURSE we know the “mysterious animals” are dinosaurs. But the characters don’t know that yet. That’s what is interesting. It’s like getting someone a present and watching them open it: YOU know what it is, but they don’t, and the excitement comes from watching them figure it out. Crichton does an excellent job of displaying the shock and awe of his characters as they realize that dinosaurs have been brought back to life.

    About the pacing. The book reveals exactly what it needs to, when it needs to. Jurassic Park does an excellent job of building and releasing tension. Its climaxes are nerve-racking and instill a genuine sense of fear for the characters, and the stakes are clear and real. It is live or die for these characters, and the book does a good job of creating adversaries (dinosaurs) that kill indiscriminately.

    And the characters. You claim that Grant’s disdain for the children is absent in the book. The very MOMENT the children arrive on the island, it is mentioned that Grant never wanted kids, and never liked kids. Over the course of the book, we get to watch him change and grow and care for them as if they were his own. And your take on the novel’s Sattler (and by the way you got her name wrong too; two Ts) is completely off the mark as well. The book makes no bones at all about her value to Grant and to the rest of the party, especially in the final chapters. No where in the novel is she “just his associate working in the field.” Throughout the book she is an asset. Gennaro even gets ragged on for thinking of her as such. Congratulations, your take is comparable the most forgettable character in either story, although to be honest, I’m not certain Gennaro isn’t more likable by the end. Furthermore, your image of Hammond is off too. Book Hammond is just as much of an eccentric, egotistical rich guy as movie Hammond, it’s just that book Hammond is more of an actual villain and less of a sweet old grandpa. He’s a lion, a total cutthroat entrepreneur. I’m surprised you didn’t lay into book Malcolm as harshly as you did, but to be fair, no one’s living up to Jeff Goldblum. As far as the children go, they’re children. Children are stubborn.

    NOTHING is typical about the Jurassic Park novel. All you’ve done with this review is prove to me and anyone else who read the book that you have the reading comprehension of a duck.

    Reply
  • A

    AlecApr 11, 2023 at 9:19 am

    This is quite possibly the worst “review” I have ever read. Nearly 99.9% of fans not only agree that the book is far superior but that the two exist completely on their own. No movie scene could ever compare to the feeling while reading in the book the Trex chasing the raft. Crichton spent a lot of time getting the terminology and the science right. Not just the book, both books. Character development? Tell me you didnt actually read the book.

    Reply