C
I’m a big fan of hard sci-fi and horror. Jurassic Park starts off feeling like it’s going to satisfy both of these things, but it quickly mutates into something more akin to a standard pop-thriller with the veneer of science fiction. A tale about playing God and watching as it all goes wrong is far from a novel concept for science fiction, has been told much better, and much of the actual hard science in the book is not at all correct. But Jurassic Park still manages to be a fun and pretty easy read despite these problems. Being a big fan of the 1993 movie, I also found it fun to finally compare it to the source material.
I’m sure most people these days have probably seen the movie before reading the book. I’m not going to be that snob who says the book is better than the movie, because the movie does a lot of things better than the book when it comes to giving every character something to do and how it handles the action. But I think I do prefer the way events play out in the book and the characterization of the major characters in the book, specifically John Hammond. Hammond in the book is a far more disgusting individual, thinking himself a super genius like a certain South African asshole tech owner. And much like Elon Musk, he takes credit for all of his employees’ achievements, cuts corners on just about everything (especially safety), and blames everyone else when shit inevitably hits the fan. It’s wild and honestly pretty disappointing that the movie sanitizes the hell out of Hammond and turns him into a loveable grandpa who just wanted to bring joy and cheer to kids around the world. Hammond’s cruelty and desire to play God all in the quest of making money and a legacy out of his name is a far closer to the harsh reality of a man like him.
The book in general is much more violent and “grounded” compared to the movie. Unfortunately, much of the hard science is just straight up wrong. I can give some leeway because the majority of it isn’t really central to the book’s theme about considering the consequences of scientific advances without respect for its power. But it is rather annoying when the book pretends to be more hard science than it really is, especially when so much exposition is given to the science behind the dinosaurs and cloning. And much of it could’ve been easily explained away with about the same amount of detail that was already given. The book explains that the dinosaurs had been genetically modified so that they can’t produce lysine and must consume it from specific modified food. You know who else can’t produce lysine? The entire fucking animal kingdom. Michael Crichton was a medical doctor and should’ve absolutely known this, and so would the genetic researchers in the book. Just make up a fake engineered enzyme like you did with the fake lizard in the prologue Michael!
The bigger problem that is harder to ignore is how much chaos theory is used to explain why the park was doomed to fail from the start. Realizing that factors were not taken into account when predicting a system’s behavior isn’t all there is, nor is it unique to chaos theory. But that’s about as far as Jurassic Park takes it. It’s only ever relevant when Ian Malcolm uses it as a catch-all to explain why things are going wrong all over the island and inevitably causes the whole operation to collapse in on itself. But the arrogance of man and tinkering with the mechanics of life without a full understanding of its consequences is a tale as old as civilization. Contextualizing it as “chaos theory” is a silly rebrand to make it sound more technical than it really is.
I can see why this book is so popular. It’s a pretty fast read considering its length, characters are easy to love or hate, the story structure easily creates tension by changing between each character’s perspective as events unfold, and its core message is impossible to miss with how much it’s bludgeoned into the reader’s head. It’s the Dan Brown of science fiction: a simple thriller with enough “facts” to seem plausible enough to take seriously.
I’m a big fan of hard sci-fi and horror. Jurassic Park starts off feeling like it’s going to satisfy both of these things, but it quickly mutates into something more akin to a standard pop-thriller with the veneer of science fiction. A tale about playing God and watching as it all goes wrong is far from a novel concept for science fiction, has been told much better, and much of the actual hard science in the book is not at all correct. But Jurassic Park still manages to be a fun and pretty easy read despite these problems. Being a big fan of the 1993 movie, I also found it fun to finally compare it to the source material.
I’m sure most people these days have probably seen the movie before reading the book. I’m not going to be that snob who says the book is better than the movie, because the movie does a lot of things better than the book when it comes to giving every character something to do and how it handles the action. But I think I do prefer the way events play out in the book and the characterization of the major characters in the book, specifically John Hammond. Hammond in the book is a far more disgusting individual, thinking himself a super genius like a certain South African asshole tech owner. And much like Elon Musk, he takes credit for all of his employees’ achievements, cuts corners on just about everything (especially safety), and blames everyone else when shit inevitably hits the fan. It’s wild and honestly pretty disappointing that the movie sanitizes the hell out of Hammond and turns him into a loveable grandpa who just wanted to bring joy and cheer to kids around the world. Hammond’s cruelty and desire to play God all in the quest of making money and a legacy out of his name is a far closer to the harsh reality of a man like him.
The book in general is much more violent and “grounded” compared to the movie. Unfortunately, much of the hard science is just straight up wrong. I can give some leeway because the majority of it isn’t really central to the book’s theme about considering the consequences of scientific advances without respect for its power. But it is rather annoying when the book pretends to be more hard science than it really is, especially when so much exposition is given to the science behind the dinosaurs and cloning. And much of it could’ve been easily explained away with about the same amount of detail that was already given. The book explains that the dinosaurs had been genetically modified so that they can’t produce lysine and must consume it from specific modified food. You know who else can’t produce lysine? The entire fucking animal kingdom. Michael Crichton was a medical doctor and should’ve absolutely known this, and so would the genetic researchers in the book. Just make up a fake engineered enzyme like you did with the fake lizard in the prologue Michael!
The bigger problem that is harder to ignore is how much chaos theory is used to explain why the park was doomed to fail from the start. Realizing that factors were not taken into account when predicting a system’s behavior isn’t all there is, nor is it unique to chaos theory. But that’s about as far as Jurassic Park takes it. It’s only ever relevant when Ian Malcolm uses it as a catch-all to explain why things are going wrong all over the island and inevitably causes the whole operation to collapse in on itself. But the arrogance of man and tinkering with the mechanics of life without a full understanding of its consequences is a tale as old as civilization. Contextualizing it as “chaos theory” is a silly rebrand to make it sound more technical than it really is.
I can see why this book is so popular. It’s a pretty fast read considering its length, characters are easy to love or hate, the story structure easily creates tension by changing between each character’s perspective as events unfold, and its core message is impossible to miss with how much it’s bludgeoned into the reader’s head. It’s the Dan Brown of science fiction: a simple thriller with enough “facts” to seem plausible enough to take seriously.