(Of course, by then I hadn't read yet Back in 1993, after reading Jurassic Park (see review of that book HERE), I was like in Crichton-mode actived! ) WoW!!!!!!! Since the beginning I was in shock amalgamated with happiness since the style and mood of the novel was astonishing good. ) So, I bought it and started to read it.
Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:īack in 1993, after reading Jurassic Park (see review of that book HERE), I was like in Crichton-mode actived! ) So, my next novel had to be by Michael Crichton! I went to the bookstore and this one was the first book that I checked and after reading the premise, I found it promising. I especially have to laugh about the „psychological thriller“ argument that was used to sell it, because Crichton's characterization and dialogues are so terrible in this one. Possibly, in its time, when there were not much of similar techno- and science-thriller works with Sci-Fi elements for a broader audience, it could have been seen as not so bad because of a lack of alternatives, but especially compared with what today's genre writers produce on a yearly basis and very high level, it sucks. It tried to be mindfu**ing, but the realization was poor. Some seem to see some kind of deeper philosophical meaning in this one, especially towards the end with something one could call a subtle plot twist, but to me, it was a too constructed, not well designed novel. I still remember how boredom and disappointment grew, after the first few chapters showed the setting and some suspense was built up and then it got lengthy and neither the psychological inner character plot nor the other big mystery plot made much fun or sense, especially because the logic of motivations and thinking capacities and abilities of the protagonists were… average. Some seem Very much yada yada, humanities vs natural sciences and a wasted plot idea with far too less action and twists. Very much yada yada, humanities vs natural sciences and a wasted plot idea with far too less action and twists.
Too many writers can do neither (particularly fantasy/sci-fi writers, whose purple prose is a pathetic attempt to hide this fact). Crichton was good enough as an action writer to compensate for lack of character development. Sphere was probably the only book where the action was driven by the characters, rather than the other way around. Norman in Sphere was probably his best-developed character in any of his books, but we still only learned enough just to move the plot forward. Sphere was written during his prime, and is a good example of his style, although Jurassic Park was his masterpiece.Ĭharacter development. His later books got increasingly bad (Timeline had an interesting setup, but failed in execution, State of Fear was laughable climate-change-denier propaganda, Next was stupid and appealed to literally no one). His early prose was clumsy (The Andromeda Strain). He seemed excited about what was possible, but painted worst-case scenarios in his books and movies (Westworld). He took a long-view of technological progress and was cautiously optimistic. The action flows naturally in the story, and is never over-long.Ĭautionary tales. His action is (usually) easy to follow, more so that many so-called "action" writers (Ian Fleming, every Star Wars expanded universe novel). He naturally provides just enough of the scientific basis to suspend disbelief and move the story forward without bogging down the narrative.Īction. Dustin Dye I personally like Crichton's style, and I've read almost every one of his books, including his non-fiction and a number of his works under pseudonyms …more I personally like Crichton's style, and I've read almost every one of his books, including his non-fiction and a number of his works under pseudonyms (although nothing published posthumously).
0 kommentar(er)
