fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2387 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2387 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 046 secrets from Secret Submission Post #341.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't particularly care for Crichton's writing, but Jurassic Park is one of those books I've read cover to cover enough times that the spine's cracked and pages are falling out. I don't know much about science or maths (never really cared to), so the specifics of it being wrong don't bother me too much. The plot and characters are interesting enough, and there are some really excellent quotes in there.

Agreed. And I love the fact that they're getting the park back in order and then suddenly realise that they're running on aux power...

IA, though I prefer Lost World over Jurassic Park.

It's been a loooong time since I read the book, but I don't have any particularly negative memories about it, so I must have at least enjoyed it as a mindless break from doing other things. Nowadays I'd probably have a different opinion; the only way I can get through the movie (and I do enjoy it, for all its nonsense) is to tell myself that 1) it's entertainment, not science and 2) when they puzzle-pieced dinosaur DNA together they did not end up with dinosaurs, they ended up with something else entirely that just happened to resemble dinosaurs and that's why things are so nonsensical.
Also the computer stuff makes me laugh, but hey.

I liked it, but...I was 10 when I read it. I have a feeling that I'd have a very different opinion on it if I read it now.

I liked it. It was an enjoyable enough read.

I've never been a research stickler in my reading though.

I love his books! I love how he (tries) to pop in bits of science, including as many 'recent' article references as possible. I was delighted whenever there were PICTURES OF GENE SEQUENCING. Thing is, for all that he got loads of things wrong, now, by our time, when he was published a lot of what he referenced was accurate to the scientific knowledge of the time + his ideas of where it could go. Sure he cut and pasted from different studies and mixed it into something unrealistic, but the base knowledge and ideas were 50/50 accurate/fiction

So I find his books a lot of fun. I keep thinking I won't enjoy the next book of his in my to-read list but I've been pleasantly surprised and enjoyed them every time. Even the one's way out of my usual reading circle of comfort (really did not expect to enjoy Disclosure or Micro or Timeline or Next). *_______*
I just sit down...and can't put them away until I'm done *_*

Congo is my favourite book though. I loved that one a lot, then watched the movie and I was so angry/mad at the adaptation for being so faithless.

tl;dr I fucking love Chrichton, something about his stories and writing just hits all my buttons *_*

PS. Jurassic Park is great for nostalgia, even if things are so wrong. My sticking point will always be the frog DNA. Not knowing about feathers is forgivable, BUT THE FROG DNA. I get it was for the plot, but that's stretching the sci-fi a bit too far to me. I've have believed hormonal imbalances in the embryo's or temperature sex links over that XD But still fun to watch/read

~~Give me all the Crichton books plskthx~~

*OH, and I'm not a palaeontologist...but I am a zoologist ;) But I was introduced to the books by my paleontology-studying friend many years ago because she liked it and thought I would. So not all scientists hate it ;D

In my teens I read it over and over again. I think I liked Lost World better, but I loved both of them.
The science might not check out perfectly, but the guy was an MD before he was a writer...

I...don't remember if i read it or not. Possibly? Personally, i love his 'Eaters of the Dead'. Very cool.

Yep! Loved it, in fact, but then again, I read it well before the movie came out. I don't care what velociraptors were supposed to be like in real life, the ones in the film were absolutely terrifying.

"I don't know much about science or maths (never really cared to), so the specifics of it being wrong don't bother me too much."

This describes the majority of casual readers, which in turn nails why Crichton's a best-selling novelist.

I didn't dislike the book, but the style was rather dry for me. I liked the movie better for being more emotionally engaging, but it's hardly in the upper section of my listen of favourite movies either.

[ SECRET POST #2387 ]

Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

SA

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?

Re: Did anyone actually like the book?