Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park

A billionaire has created a technique to clone dinosaurs. From the DNA that his crack team of scientists extract, he is able to grow the dinosaurs in his laboratories and lock them away on an island behind electric fences, creating a sort of theme park. He asks a group of scientists from several different fields to come and view the park, but something goes terribly wrong...

DownloadRead Online
Title:Jurassic Park
Author:Michael Crichton
Rating:
ISBN:0345370775
Edition Language:English
Format Type:Mass Market Paperback
Number of Pages:399 pages

Jurassic Park Reviews

  • Alejandro
    Dec 07, 2007

    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 prec

    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,

    is a made up place but hey, no problem there, it's like

    or

    , always there are space for another fictional island in literature.

    I was lucky to get my paperback copy of

    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.

  • Brad
    Mar 25, 2008

    I always seem to forget how good

    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

    is a damn fine novel.

    Sure it's packed with

    's usual band of screenplay-adaptation-friendly archetypes, sure it derives much of its plot and thought from

    I always seem to forget how good

    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

    is a damn fine novel.

    Sure it's packed with

    's usual band of screenplay-adaptation-friendly archetypes, sure it derives much of its plot and thought from

    ,

    and

    , 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

    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

    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

    '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

    and Wells'

    , 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

    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.

    It just struck me that if I forget the quality of this book between readings, and I do, then my prophecy concerning

    's staying power is probably flawed. I think I may be more Nostradumbass than Nostradamus.

  • Simeon
    Aug 21, 2010

    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.

  • Nandakishore Varma
    Sep 20, 2011

    What do you say about a concept that has become iconic? Jurassic Park has grown beyond Crichton's novel, into a movie, into a theme park attraction, into a thousand types of paraphernalia... In fact, it has become so popular that we forget the original work this concept came from.

    I saw the movie first. It is a marvel of special effects and unbearably suspenseful. The book is nothing like that.

    This novel is a serious work of science fiction. As with Crichton's other novels, the research is so det

    What do you say about a concept that has become iconic? Jurassic Park has grown beyond Crichton's novel, into a movie, into a theme park attraction, into a thousand types of paraphernalia... In fact, it has become so popular that we forget the original work this concept came from.

    I saw the movie first. It is a marvel of special effects and unbearably suspenseful. The book is nothing like that.

    This novel is a serious work of science fiction. As with Crichton's other novels, the research is so detailed and the setting so well wrought that we are sometimes conned into believing that we are reading truth and not fiction. But that does not take away from the excitement the story generates - this is by no means a dull, expository work.

    But most importantly, it raises important questions about the existential import of man tampering with nature - something which is conspicuous by its absence in the film. Have we grown sufficiently as a species to do it safely? Or are we still the descendants of Dr. Frankenstein?

  • Zora
    Apr 04, 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 er

    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.

  • Kelly (and the Book Boar)
    Oct 09, 2014

    Find all of my reviews at:

    It all begins with a billionaire who has a big imagination and

    of spare money lying around. By dro

    Find all of my reviews at:

    It all begins with a billionaire who has a big imagination and

    of spare money lying around. By dropping a ton of dollars into the biotechnology field and

    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 . . .

    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

    = good.

    Man oh man I had

    what I had been missing. Spare me your “oh but it’s

    science-y and I got bored before the story really took off” or the “you

    know there is

    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

    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

    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

    the book.

    I know, Jeff. I know. It’s hard for me too.

    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

    since he refuses to acknowledge the magic and wonder that is all things Goldblum . . .

    ["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>

  • Wendy Darling
    Jun 06, 2015

    Rereading for obvious reasons. :D :D :D :D

  • Luffy
    Jun 30, 2015

    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

    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.

  • seak
    Aug 25, 2015

    I can't believe how much I enjoyed this book. I guess I've always had my reservations because of what an impact the movie had on me as a kid. I was about 9 or 10 when the movie first came out and it blew my mind. As the book likes to point out, boys love dinosaurs and that was true.

    As a side note, I'm loving how much my son (5 y.o.) loves dinosaurs. He knows so much more about them than I do, in fact his favorite is the Giganotosaurus, a dinosaur I learned existed from him.

    (the hipster's T-Rex)

    N

    I can't believe how much I enjoyed this book. I guess I've always had my reservations because of what an impact the movie had on me as a kid. I was about 9 or 10 when the movie first came out and it blew my mind. As the book likes to point out, boys love dinosaurs and that was true.

    As a side note, I'm loving how much my son (5 y.o.) loves dinosaurs. He knows so much more about them than I do, in fact his favorite is the Giganotosaurus, a dinosaur I learned existed from him.

    (the hipster's T-Rex)

    Now, I'll be the first to admit my memory of of the movie is a tad hazy, but from what I do remember, the movie actually follows the book quite a bit, at least up until about 2/3 of the book where either my memory is bad or the books is completely different (oh and Grant loves kids in the book, which is ... opposite). More than I would have guessed, which was not a lot.

    There's a little more detail to the initial attacks we see in the movie and it's not quite as gruesome in parts (and much more gruesome in others). The girl gets attacked by the Compsognathus (little green dinos), or **"compys" as they're known. **excuse my spelling, I listened to the audio and like Fox news, I don't feel the need to fact check.

    The park is just about ready to open and it's time to get all the consultants together to make sure it's on the right track. Thus, Grant and Sattler, Ian Malcolm, the attorney Jennaro, and a couple others are flown in.

    Of course, nefarious doings are going on and a competitor wants in on the dinosaur action. In comes Dennis Nedry, who is pretty much spot on copied in the movie. Excellent job Wayne Knight. He's pretty much built the entire IT system for the park and thus has quite a bit of control over pretty much everything. I don't remember his involvement in the park being this extensive, but then again, I was 9. There's a frikkin' T-REX!!!

    As we all know, everything goes to pot and we all know what goes from here. Even though the movie diverges from the book, we all know what goes on from here.

    And it's awesome. I had a blast listening to this book and Scott Brick is such a talented narrator, you don't even notice him reading. It's just pure story.

    A couple *important* things I wanted to point out... some

    for the book:

    1. The lawyer, Jennaro, is not

    spineless as in the movie, does not get eaten while he's sitting on the toilet by a T-Rex (okay, that was an awesome addition), and even saves the day at one point by pointing out law that doesn't exist. (

    )

    2. Was Lex Murphy that annoying in the movie? I really don't remember that. She's super duper annoying in the book.

    3. Ian Malcolm's Chaos Theory should have been cut down like in the movie. There are a number of times he's going off about it and you're literally thinking,

    Still a great character, just weird timing of his rants about corporations and such, which I'm not disagreeing with.

    (literally the only image you're allowed to use when referring to Ian Malcolm)

    4. So this book was published in 1990 and this book had maybe a total of 15 to 20 people at risk, not counting the rest of the world that could potentially be at risk by dinosaurs escaping. We're talking people you're honestly worried about dying or not throughout the book.

    Jump to 2015, Jurassic World, and we've got an entire park open with thousands and thousands of people at risk. Does that say something about how our society's penchant for destruction?

    5. But seriously, back to Malcolm, Chaos Theory essentially comes down to - because dinosaurs are an unknown, and much like the weather - unpredictable - you're all screwed and nothing will work right. And then Malcolm gloats. Even while dinosaurs are stalking him.

    Now, the opposing argument in the book is that zoos exist so why can't dinosaurs be kept in a zoo? My problem is that if everyone gave up because there was an unknown then we'd have just about nothing. People go forward with the unknown all the time. Many fail, but that's how great success comes as well. I guess I'm saying I needed more to this theory and preferably when I can think about the theory and not when DINOSAURS ARE LITERALLY AROUND THE CORNER TRYING TO EAT YOU.

    6. Jurassic Park gets lots of crap for providing false ideas as to what dinosaurs actually looked like (

    ). While it's true, if you ignore the story, it is explained. You know that whole science part toward the beginning, well they talk about only finding partial DNA and having to graft in DNA from other animals (which actually becomes a huge problem). This would lend toward dinosaurs that don't actually look like they're supposed to and I'm fine with that explanation.

    I have to say, after 25 years, Jurassic Park really held up well. Lots of the communication issues would be the same problem nowadays because of the fact that they're on a remote island that cell phones would be problematic on anyway. It helps that a book doesn't have to actually reproduce computer screens so you can picture those as high tech as you want as long as you ignore the amounts of memory they mention. At least they're in the gigabytes still.

    And most of this I just point out because of how into the book I was. I really had a blast listening to Jurassic Park and I can highly recommend a reading of this classic. One of the few book/movie combinations where I can honestly say I loved both for their own reasons. Now, I need to go track down a copy of that movie. If only there were some online subscription service like Oyster for movies.

    4 out of 5 Stars (highly recommended)

  • Lola  Reviewer
    Dec 23, 2015

    DNF. The movie is better.