NationStates Jolt Archive

He wrote "Jurassic Park" along with other interesting stories.

The book, Jurrasic Park, was a hundred times better than the movie imo. I just wish I followed up on his other readings.

Decent author, tells a great story, makes things seem plausable.

What I hate, though, is the number of people who read his *fiction* and take it for reality.

The book, Jurrasic Park, was a hundred times better than the movie imo. I just wish I followed up on his other readings.
He helped write the script. But I quite agree with you on that point. Grant loved kids in the book...

yuck.

but im not really into that type of literature.

I love his writing. I was actually inspired by his books to start reading non-fiction as I found that I really enjoyed the fact that I learned something from each of his books. I must say that his autobiography threw me for a loop though. Among some great personal stories were stories of how he has visited tha astral plane and other far out stuff. I didn't expect this from what I consider a scientific mind.

Decent author, tells a great story, makes things seem plausable.

What I hate, though, is the number of people who read his *fiction* and take it for reality.
What's funny is that I heard Rush Limbaugh reading from Jurassic Park in order to justify not giving a shit about the environment.

What's funny is that I heard Rush Limbaugh reading from Jurassic Park in order to justify not giving a shit about the environment.
Somebody needs to get that guy an OxyContin.

Somebody needs to get that guy an OxyContin.
No, this was during the Clinton years. I think he was on oxy at the time.

I've read a lot of his books, and, well, obviously I enjoyed them, or I wouldn't have read them. I wish they'd make more movies of them too.

he's a pretty good writer but like any author you need to be careful about what books of his you bother to read. about half of them are poorly written as if he needed some cash to send a kid to harvard or something.

I've read a lot of his books, and, well, obviously I enjoyed them, or I wouldn't have read them. I wish they'd make more movies of them too. They have movies of: "The Andromina Strain", "Jurassic Park", "The Lost World", "Sphere", "Congo", and "Timeline."

he's a pretty good writer but like any author you need to be careful about what books of his you bother to read. about half of them are poorly written as if he needed some cash to send a kid to harvard or something.
Which ones?

He wrote "Jurassic Park" along with other interesting stories.

Nah, he just writes glorified film scripts. See also that legal fella, wassisname, did "The Firm"

They have movies of: "The Andromina Strain", "Jurassic Park", "The Lost World", "Sphere", "Congo", and "Timeline."

Of course, he wrote "Westworld" which shits on all of them.

And you forgot Disclosure and - i believe - Rising Sun.

He is a good fluff writer. Kind of has weak hurried endings.

His books are good for plane flights.....

Which ones?
jurassic park 2 springs to mind. what was it really called?

'the andromeda strain' i believe to be his best work. i've got all his books.. and i love them, although mostly the endings get a bit much and he loses the point. but up to the apex his books are wonderful and i do collect them. 'prey' is super cool until he goes overboard. 'sphere' is another good one, and there are many others. 'jurassic park'.. hmm. no comment.

He is a good fluff writer. Kind of has weak hurried endings. His books are good for plane flights.....

YES. fluff writer deluxe. great for reading in a day. yup! shitty endings. good "in the moment" books. 'the andromeda strain' though i think is a "full" book. that's the only one.

I used to love Chrichton; however, as time went on, I grew increasingly blasé about his work, until finally I read through the first few chapters of State of Fear. I finally realized what I disliked about him- Chrichton relys strongly on the idea that science will doom the world.

Think about it. In Jurassic Park and Prey, the monsters are the creations of science, and the scientists that created them always die. The people who survive are the ones who have had misgivings about everything from the start- who thought that There Are Things Man Should Not Meddle With. He comes right out and says it in The Lost World: the last chapter involves a long monologue about how scientists are undisciplined (apparently the mental discipline of learning the methods and conclusions of science is less effective than the physical discipline of a martial artist) and mess the planet up because they can, and that science, like religion, has fallen to the wayside as the guiding basis of viewing the world, and that it would be replaced soon.

Chrichton is simply far too anti-science for my tastes.

Chrichton is simply far too anti-science for my tastes.

(Crichton's an M.D., i believe?) / ..i know what you mean, but i think he's more anti-faith-in-humanity's-intelligence than anti-science. i think he's into science and is trying to foresee what humanity is capable of doing with it. and it sells.

They have movies of: "The Andromina Strain", "Jurassic Park", "The Lost World", "Sphere", "Congo", and "Timeline."

Yep.

Of course, he wrote "Westworld" which shits on all of them.

And you forgot Disclosure and - i believe - Rising Sun.

Yep, yep, and yep.

And don't forget "Terminal Man", "13th Warrior" (based on Eaters of the Dead), "Twister", "Runaway", "The Great Train Robbery", "Coma", and "Emergency Ward" (based on his first book, A Case of Need).

Jurrasic Park IV is in pre-production and there's a remake of Westworld in the works.

He helped write the script. But I quite agree with you on that point. Grant loved kids in the book...

And Hammond was a greedy, selfish old man.

I like Chrichton well enough. He's not one of my favorite authors, sure, but the books of his that I've read have kept me interested and/or amused.

Prey and State of Fear were my favorites.

He wrote "Jurassic Park" along with other interesting stories.

Good writer. But his books tend to end rather anti-climactically and/or climax too early.

Still, he has produced some very entertaining reads. *nod*

The book, Jurrasic Park, was a hundred times better than the movie imo. I just wish I followed up on his other readings.

Since the movie was fantastic, that must make the book truly wonderful. I'll get it when I go to the library next.

Yes

"Eaters of the Dead", Chrichton: yes

"Congo", Chrichton: no

Do you like to Michael Crichton?
Uh ... how does one "Michael Crichton?" :confused:

( Sorry. Just couldn't resist! ) :D

He's one of tose authors who is good at providing cheap thrills, but I doubt he will ever write anything significantly original or moving to merit being a classic.

He's one of those authors who is good at providing cheap thrills, but I doubt he will ever write anything significantly original or moving to merit being a classic.

well, *sigh* i think Jurassic Park is probably a classic.

I used to love Chrichton; however, as time went on, I grew increasingly blasé about his work, until finally I read through the first few chapters of State of Fear. I finally realized what I disliked about him- Chrichton relys strongly on the idea that science will doom the world.

Think about it. In Jurassic Park and Prey, the monsters are the creations of science, and the scientists that created them always die. The people who survive are the ones who have had misgivings about everything from the start- who thought that There Are Things Man Should Not Meddle With. He comes right out and says it in The Lost World: the last chapter involves a long monologue about how scientists are undisciplined (apparently the mental discipline of learning the methods and conclusions of science is less effective than the physical discipline of a martial artist) and mess the planet up because they can, and that science, like religion, has fallen to the wayside as the guiding basis of viewing the world, and that it would be replaced soon.

Chrichton is simply far too anti-science for my tastes

Well, I happen to agree to an extent. There is no reason to believe science will remain the most valid mindset forever and it really does have its limits (try proving the concept of human dignity with pure science), but I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say scientists are undisciplined so much as limited by current knowledge of reality and ideas of what is considered valid truth.

Yes; especially because you always know what you're getting with a Michael Crichton book. Some people don't like that, but I enjoy it a lot of the time, especially during the school year, when I'm just not motivated enough to risk trying something totally new and risk it being really awful.

The only book I've read of his that I didn't like, so far, has been Congo. There just seemed to be something missing from that which could have made it awesome.

Sphere and Airframe are probably my favourites, because they were the first two I read (and reread... and reread... and bought, and reread, and reread). State of Fear is... good. I read it in one sitting though, so I probably glazed over some things and should refrain from judging it until I reread it.

You forgot to mention, he also writes ER.

Anyway, my verdicts on his books -

Jurassic Park - excellent: great premise, superbly written and gripping
Lost World - shameless cash-in
Rising Sun - overlong, too complex, boring and anti-Japanese
Andromeda Strain - good, but slightly too many turns in the plot
Westworld - haven't seen, but the Simpsons' parody is funny.

Is Airframe any good?

I've given up Michael Crichton-ing for Lent.

You forgot to mention, he also writes ER.

Anyway, my verdicts on his books -

Jurassic Park - excellent: great premise, superbly written and gripping
Lost World - shameless cash-in
Rising Sun - overlong, too complex, boring and anti-Japanese
Andromeda Strain - good, but slightly too many turns in the plot
Westworld - haven't seen, but the Simpsons' parody is funny.

Is Airframe any good?

Prey you should read it if you liked Jurassic park

Rising Sun- Hey he doesn't make stuff up for the politically correct crowd (State of Fear w/that too) thats one reason I like him. But it was long.

I used to love Chrichton; however, as time went on, I grew increasingly blasé about his work, until finally I read through the first few chapters of State of Fear. I finally realized what I disliked about him- Chrichton relys strongly on the idea that science will doom the world.

Think about it. In Jurassic Park and Prey, the monsters are the creations of science, and the scientists that created them always die. The people who survive are the ones who have had misgivings about everything from the start- who thought that There Are Things Man Should Not Meddle With. He comes right out and says it in The Lost World: the last chapter involves a long monologue about how scientists are undisciplined (apparently the mental discipline of learning the methods and conclusions of science is less effective than the physical discipline of a martial artist) and mess the planet up because they can, and that science, like religion, has fallen to the wayside as the guiding basis of viewing the world, and that it would be replaced soon.

Chrichton is simply far too anti-science for my tastes.

His not anti-science, his pro responsibility. His main theme is that people have to take responsibility for their actions, and they also have a responsibility to show things as they are and without political biased.

Yeah, I can agree that Crichton writes his books as though they are going to be made into movies, not that I can say that is the expectation when he writes them, but the style of it just seems more like a preliminary script. So his writing is somewhat formulaic: take one piece of cutting edge scientific theory, ignore the one little thing that makes it impractical and see where it goes from there. Even so, nobody else goes down these roads, so his stories are a welcome addition to the mainstream reader.

I think i prefered Time-line

Great author! If only I knew how to pronounce his last name, I'd be happier!

Is it "Cry-ton", "Crick-ton" or "Chrish-ton"?

Good solid potboilers imo.

I liked his book ''State of Fear''. I went through the bibliography and checked alot of the sources out and it seems to a large extent that global warming is greatly exaggerated, that we are arrogant to believe that we can affect weather on a global scale when we don't even fully understand fully how weather patterns work. This old Earth has being around for many millions or even billions of years and we think that a couple of hundred years of the industrial revolution can affect changes in global weather patterns.I'm not fully convinced, but it has given me alot to think about.

I didn't like Jurrassic Park (the movie, not the book) and Crichton's politics have put me off of his writing. Anyone who is foolish enough to deny Global Climate change and still hold a degree in anything probably hasn't got the intellectual fortitude to create interesting books. :mad:

I've read probably most of Crichton's books, enjoyed most of them.

However I believe that because so many of his works have been made into movies it's affected his writing style, for the worse.

"Prey" read like it was anticipating a screen play being made from it...

Has anyone else noticed that many of his books abandon the story arc near the end, 1-3 completely unrelated/semi-related and brand new conflicts arise and reslove themselves within a couple of pages, and then everything is tied up in a nice little bow in a paragraph or two, quite abrubtly? Especially more so in his early work.