Originally Posted by Silly goose
Identification:
Jurassic Park. Crichton, Michael. 1990. Novel.
Summary:
Michael Crichton’s novel, Jurassic Park, explores what happens when scientists clone dinosaur DNA and allow the dinosaurs to live on an uninhabited island as a theme park attraction. However, things go wrong when the dinosaurs get loose from their cages and run amok on the island, killing their keepers and creators. The dinosaurs prove to be too fierce for the humans to control and the humans are forced to leave the island in order to survive.
Analysis:
Jurassic Park would be classified as soft science fiction with elements of realism. The plot is based on developments in anthropology to further develop science. Scientists discover the DNA of dinosaurs in mosquitoes that have been preserved in amber. Developments in technology (advanced computers and software) allow scientists to piece together the DNA sequences of various dinosaurs and, by adding segments of DNA from frogs, to culture live dinosaurs in a lab. I think the story, considering when it was written, would primarily be classified as soft sci-fi, but the element of realism is also quite prevalent. Crichton is very knowledgeable in the sciences and he uses his background to keep the facts as accurate as possible, within the confines of modern science. This makes the story more realistic. We know that a female frog can mutate into a male, so it’s not such a stretch of the imagination to believe that a female dinosaur can change into a male due to the frog DNA they’ve been inculcated with. We also know that smaller animals, such as sheep, can be cloned, so it’s easier to imagine dinosaurs being cloned as well.
The story emphasizes the misuse of science and technology by a kooky dinosaur nut intent on making billions of dollars. The underlying theme of the story seems to present the idea of the power of science/cloning vs. human understanding. In the story, humans have figured out how to clone ancient animals for money, with no knowledge of the consequences. The scientists are using advanced science that has not been tested at length to clone animals they know virtually nothing about. Hammond’s obsession with Jurassic Park interferes with his common sense. He’s not worried that he is creating vicious creatures because all he sees are dollar signs and the “smiles on the children’s faces” when they see the dinosaurs. Eventually, the dinosaurs overtake the humans and their advancements in science prove futile (the dinosaurs are able to breed, they are able to get their lysine elsewhere, they’re smarter than humans realized).
Jurassic Park is not very influential, and didn’t contribute much, to the genre of science fiction. This is mainly due to its soft sci-fi nature and basis in realism. I would classify it as a minor work on all counts.
Evaluation:
Jurassic Park succeeds as science fiction and is still popular today, both on film and on the page. It succeeds in its classification because it draws so much on what we already know in terms of cloning animals and what computers are able to accomplish. The story handles plot and characterization well, but it jumps around quite a bit. This lends an air of urgency to the story, but takes away from it as well. The story has a hero, Dr. Grant, who saves the day on more than one occasion. It also has a villain in the form of Hammond. He’s not a typical villain because he’s basically a good guy, but his obsession clouds over that and his refusal to stop the dinosaurs leads to many people getting killed. Nedry is the evil scientist/technology genius who is easily bribed with money. His greed also contributes to the loss of human life, including his own. The setting is developed well, but the story’s strong point is characterization. At times, the story focuses too much on the technical side of things. For example, on page 248, Arnold goes off on the “resonant yaw” which doesn’t add anything to the story other than making it longer. There were several instances like this that the story would have been fine without. Overall, however, the story was well written and adequately presented.
|
