Can you rate Michael Crichton's book Jurassic Park on a scale of 1 to 5?

Question

The book. Not the movie, the book.

I read Congo and, frankly, it was terrible (especially when compared to King Solomon's Mines). I haven't given Crichton a thought since then, but then someone here mentioned how good the book was....

So is it *really* any good?

What I like to read (at age 45):
Fantasy
SciFi
History
Bible
Archaeology
Science
Adventure

Thanks for the help!

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 1

If anything, the book was better than the movie. That seems to be the case in general. The book is entertaining and peppered with real science and borderline "science" made believable.

It does drag in a few places, but most of Crichton's writing does. Come to think of it -- so does mine, but I can forgive myself!

I believe you will like the book (much better than CONGO).

Scale of one to five? Three and a half, approaching a four in spots. It's a good book.

J.

http://www.jrichardjacobs.net

"The speed of the brain is inversely proportional to the speed of the mouth squared."

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

I would have to agree with you about Congo. That was my least favorite novel by him. The movie wasn't that great either. As for Jurassic Park, that is my absolute FAVORITE novel ever, so on a scale of 1-5, I'd give it a 7. I would not recommend sitting there and comparing it to the movie, though, since they are a bit different.

EDIT: One of my favorite quotes from the book is as follows. I will have to correct it when I get access to the book (when I get home), so it's not a direct quote right now:

Said by Malcolm when the T-rex is attacking the vehicle with the children: "It's times like this when you think that perhaps extinct animals should, well, stay extinct."

Answer 4

a 6

Answer 5

From what I remember, the book was great. I read it before the movie came out, so I've forgotten a lot.
I give it a 5. It's Michael Crichton at his best!

Answer 6

1 to 5, um, well is 1 the best? or is 5 the best? lol

I thought the book was great and the movie was so-so. I usually hate a movie made from a book I've read though, I never think they do the book justice. So if 5 is the best, I'd give it a 4. It was a good book.

Answer 7

It's been probably close to ten years since I read it, and that was like a the year the sequel movie came out. I remember being shocked at how different it was from the movie, so overall I'd put it at about a three. Memorable enough after about ten years to remember some of what was not in the movie, but not enough that anything about it is really all that vivid anymore.

Answer 8

I'd give it a two (I regret wasting my time reading it, but it beat reading romance novels).

If it was shorter, it'd be a 3. Crichton is good at absorbing a lot of fine, scientific detail and regurgitating it in a believable manner (that is why ER was originally popular or for that matter Andromeda Strain,) but I'd say his books are never great (meaning a five) and lack the flair that most good sci-fi is strongest at providing.

Answer 9

After I saw the movie, which was steeped to the gills with special effects, I read the book. I was very surprised that the book was great. I was inspired enough to read the Lost World afterwards and that was pretty good as well.

Answer 10

I absolutley loved it when I first read it and I was a kid at the time, I read it again recently and all the more technical stuff made sense, such as elements of chaos theory and cloning mentioned.

Theres not too much science etc. though, its constantly entertaining, way better than the movie and judging by your interests you'll love it. It has pretty much everything on your list. Except bible obviously!