The Lost Words

Many of you will know the Jurassic Park and Lost World films, but did you know that these movies are actually based on books? Neither did I, until about last October, when I was checking IMDB because of the new Jurassic World film and got stuck in a Wikipedia loop.
Now I wouldn't normally read novels in the 'techno-thriller' genre, not because I think I am above them, but because I have limited reading time and I'd like to spend that time on something really good (or at least worthwhile). Also, Michael Crichton wasn't very high on my 'to read' list. But sometimes, this kind of novel can be really nice to read, for example during a very long flight, or the many train journeys I've been taking for my job lately. Which is how I've read Jurassic Park while in Australia, and am currently reading The Lost World, the sequel.
I came to these novels expecting them to be like the films, at least in plot and characters, if not in setting and atmosphere. But funnily enough, it is exactly the other way around. The novels are very fast-paced and can leave me with my heart in my throat for minutes after I've put them down. The settings are also eerily similar; you know about as much of the surroundings as the characters in the story, and the descriptions are pretty vivid and graphic.
But that's where the similarities end. The plot lines, for example, are completely different. With The Lost World, the only thing that is really similar, is that there is this 'Site B' on Isla Sorna. And that Ian Malcolm visits it, at some point during the novel. All the other things, from the reason why to the people he meets there to the dinosaurs, are all completely different. Same goes for Jurassic Park; Spielberg took the basic premise of the amusement-park-with-dinos and turned that into a whole different thing. Interestingly, in the third Jurassic Park movie, the opening sequence is the same as the opening sequence in the first novel. So sometimes he does adhere to the story, only not in places where you'd expect it.
Does this mean the novels are weak compared to the films? You might think so, because Spielberg made up a lot on the side. The truth is, the novels have a very different angle; very scientific, and pretty philosophical. Ian Malcolm, much more the central character than Alan Grant, proposes his chaos theory and through that predicts most of the things that go wrong in the park. Added to that, the whole premise that genetic research and revitalisation of dinosaurs can only be profitable if they are put into an amusement park, instead of just studied on their own, stands out much more clearly in the novels. It is basically a critique of human intervention on nature, combined with a philosophical exploration of the connection between science and amusement. If that sounds pretty literary to you, that is because it is; apart from the scary thriller bits with the slashing dinosaurs, there is quite a lot of talking and philosophising going on. In some ways it reminded me of Life of Pi, which also explores the connection between wild animals in captivity and humans.
So if you find yourself in need of some dino entertainment while we wait for Jurassic World, why not try the novels? And if you can't be bothered about the whole Jurassic Park craze, maybe the novels are just the thing for you!