A review by wade117
Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton

adventurous tense fast-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Plot
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

It’s impossible to avoid comparisons of this story to the iconic Spielberg movie adaptation and that might end up hurting my review of this book. I really enjoyed this classic Crichton thriller which took advances in genetic bioengineering to a logical, yet fantastic, outcome: resurrection of the dinosaurs. 

But like most of Crichton’s novels, this isn’t just a story about science gone wrong. He weaves into the plot, an interesting theme about mankind’s arrival at the limits of science and the dangers inherent if we don’t recognize those limits. As a chaos theory mathematician, Ian Malcom acts as the principal character vehicle for this theme. He provides exposition on the fatal flaw of John Hammond’s endeavor, which is, while science can tell us what things are, and through it we have greater capabilities, it cannot tell us how we should act or what we should do with our capabilities. In the film adaptation, Ian Malcom sums it up well, “We were so busy wondering if we could, we never stopped to think if we should.” Crichton’s critique of modern science is that it claims to have all the answers but sole reliance on science will lead to dangerous and terrible outcomes. This idea is echoed in Jordan B. Peterson’s Maps of Meaning where Peterson argues that religion traditionally guided human action through ethical and moral imperatives, but modern western society has progressively eschewed religion, which will inevitably have dire consequences (or has already in the case of the 20th century). 

One of my favorite parts of this  1989 novel is the description of cutting-edge technology right before the birth of the world wide web. There are a few places in the story that provide entertaining anachronisms, such as a detailed description of a CD-ROM or the use of phone lines to transfer computer files. These serve as unintended reminders of the unique setting of the story. 

There are some notable plot differences between the book and movie. However, I believe the movie remained faithful to the book’s theme and tone and improved on the book in some respects. I think pacing was much improved in the movie. There were times in the book where the pacing felt wrong, slow when it should have been fast and vice versa. In addition, some of the characters, such as the children, were much more believable and endearing in the movie. 

While I enjoyed Ian Malcom’s character, Crichton did a poor job of explaining why Hammond invited him to the park and why Malcom decided to actually go. The book did well explaining the paleontologist, paleobiologist, lawyer, and even the kids. Including a mathematician that stands opposed to John Hammond’s goals makes for an interesting narrative but little sense from a plot or character perspective. 

In conclusion, Jurassic Park is an extraordinarily rare example where I might recommend the movie before the book, which should not be interpreted as a slight to Crichton, but rather a fantastic compliment to Spielberg.