3 ms·
Crichton's later works had that effect on me, too. For me it was the contrast between what I'm looking for in a SciFi book and what Crichton writes. I like Sc
by MikeTheGreat 6y ago
Crichton's later works had that effect on me, too.
For me it was the contrast between what I'm looking for in a SciFi book and what Crichton writes. I like SciFi that asks an interesting question and then tries to (speculatively) answer it. What would the world be like if <X> was different?
Crichton pretty clearly adopted a pattern of "OMG THIS TOPIC IS A DISASTER!!1!!1!! READ THIS THRILLER TO SEE THE DISASTER!!11!!". I exaggerate, but not by much. At some point each of his novels had a theme, and each theme was some well-written disaster porn. What if genetics goes awry (Jurassic Park)? What if nanotech goes awry? Etc, etc.
Which was sad for me - he was a good writer, and I enjoy reading his novels. It's just not what I'm looking for anymore.
- liability 6y ago> What if genetics goes awry (Jurassic Park)? That was the movie, not the book. The book was "What if profit-motivated biotech startups go awry." In the book Hammond is an unsympathetic greedy asshole who causes a disaster by cutting corners and evading regulators/oversight, all to get filthy rich. His reward is being devoured alive by petty scavenger dinosaurs at the very end of the book when everybody is is being rescued. The book is more a critique of capitalism than it is science. A critique of the commercialization of science. Predictably, these themes were diminished for the Hollywood adaptation. Hammond becomes a naive manchild who loves dinosaurs and is more a victim than a villain.