3 ms·

Crichton was not a great author but his books are perfectly crafted, entertaining all the way through, and low-key super creative. He loved the research and it

by tomcam 4y ago

Crichton was not a great author but his books are perfectly crafted, entertaining all the way through, and low-key super creative. He loved the research and it shows. The result was potboilers that never condescended and read smooth as butter. Like Lee Child or Robert B. Parker he made it look easy.

rjsw 4y ago
The one Grisham book that I have read felt like the author had not done enough research. It was set mostly in Europe and contained a lot of minor details that were wrong.
vlunkr 4y ago
So what makes him not a great author then?
- Barrin92 4y ago
  because ultimately everything he's written is forgettable. He wrote the same techno-thriller over and over and because it's easy to digest it became a good template for movies but other than that there's nothing really about any of his books that'd make you read them more than once.
  - vlunkr 4y ago
    I don’t know, if the books are so forgettable why are we talking about them decades after they were published?
    - Barrin92 4y ago
      we mostly talk about Crichton as an author rather than about the actual contents of the books. He's "famous for being famous", sort of like Madonna. look at the article we're commenting on which like almost all Crichton pieces talks about his success and sales rather than talking about his work at all.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    Not forgettable to me. I find his books vivid and fulfilling even after many reads.
- tomcam 4y ago
  Very little character development. In great literature characters are changed by their circumstances. TBH I do think his books are classics, but your high school English teacher would disagree.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    This is a really simplified take on what makes literature "great". This might be one person's preference for what they like in literature, but I'd question the credentials of any English teacher who thought they could assign or revoke the label "great" based on any single aspect of the writing. Every good book has many facets, and no book can flesh them all out fully. Take Jurassic Park: it's a very well constructed book with a theme of man's hubris in trying to control nature. The book is an exploration of human weakness, not human growth, so any more focus on character development would have just been a distraction from the themes. The characters are raw archetypes on purpose, because that's the best way to emphasize the theme.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Jurassic Park (and The Andromeda Strain) are probably his two best. That one was made into a good movie and the other one a groundbreaking one probably colors our memories of them too.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > Take Jurassic Park: it's a very well constructed book with a theme of man's hubris in trying to control nature. Hmm, that sounds more like the movie than the book. The book isn't really about "nature... finds a way". The book is more about the dangerous synthesis of startup capitalism and cutting edge scientific research. Almost everything that goes wrong on the island happens because Hammond cuts every corner he can, explicitly to save money. And this is allowed to happen because when a startup is developing cutting edge technology, government regulators are clueless about what's even going on. Scientists in the field can't self-regulate their own field because all of them have a stake in various commercial enterprises, making them behave more secretively and protective than scientists should be. The introduction at the beginning of the book lays this theme out clearly; it's basically an essay/rant against bioscience startups with the corrupting influence of capital as the central thesis. Incidentally the book has some character development from the lawyer Gennaro, coming to recognize and take responsibility for his own role in the disaster. It's minor though, almost like Crichton was conscious of how little character development was in the story and felt he needed to add a little. The movie strips this out entirely, and has Gennaro get eaten by the T-Rex instead of Ed Regis (who was removed from the story.)

by tomcam 4y ago

rjsw 4y ago

The one Grisham book that I have read felt like the author had not done enough research. It was set mostly in Europe and contained a lot of minor details that were wrong.

vlunkr 4y ago

So what makes him not a great author then?

Barrin92 4y ago
because ultimately everything he's written is forgettable. He wrote the same techno-thriller over and over and because it's easy to digest it became a good template for movies but other than that there's nothing really about any of his books that'd make you read them more than once.
- vlunkr 4y ago
  I don’t know, if the books are so forgettable why are we talking about them decades after they were published?
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    we mostly talk about Crichton as an author rather than about the actual contents of the books. He's "famous for being famous", sort of like Madonna. look at the article we're commenting on which like almost all Crichton pieces talks about his success and sales rather than talking about his work at all.
- tomcam 4y ago
  Not forgettable to me. I find his books vivid and fulfilling even after many reads.
tomcam 4y ago
Very little character development. In great literature characters are changed by their circumstances. TBH I do think his books are classics, but your high school English teacher would disagree.
- lolinder 4y ago
  This is a really simplified take on what makes literature "great". This might be one person's preference for what they like in literature, but I'd question the credentials of any English teacher who thought they could assign or revoke the label "great" based on any single aspect of the writing. Every good book has many facets, and no book can flesh them all out fully. Take Jurassic Park: it's a very well constructed book with a theme of man's hubris in trying to control nature. The book is an exploration of human weakness, not human growth, so any more focus on character development would have just been a distraction from the themes. The characters are raw archetypes on purpose, because that's the best way to emphasize the theme.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Jurassic Park (and The Andromeda Strain) are probably his two best. That one was made into a good movie and the other one a groundbreaking one probably colors our memories of them too.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Take Jurassic Park: it's a very well constructed book with a theme of man's hubris in trying to control nature. Hmm, that sounds more like the movie than the book. The book isn't really about "nature... finds a way". The book is more about the dangerous synthesis of startup capitalism and cutting edge scientific research. Almost everything that goes wrong on the island happens because Hammond cuts every corner he can, explicitly to save money. And this is allowed to happen because when a startup is developing cutting edge technology, government regulators are clueless about what's even going on. Scientists in the field can't self-regulate their own field because all of them have a stake in various commercial enterprises, making them behave more secretively and protective than scientists should be. The introduction at the beginning of the book lays this theme out clearly; it's basically an essay/rant against bioscience startups with the corrupting influence of capital as the central thesis. Incidentally the book has some character development from the lawyer Gennaro, coming to recognize and take responsibility for his own role in the disaster. It's minor though, almost like Crichton was conscious of how little character development was in the story and felt he needed to add a little. The movie strips this out entirely, and has Gennaro get eaten by the T-Rex instead of Ed Regis (who was removed from the story.)