I've never read The Lost World by Michael Crichton. I saw half the movie once. The movie wasn't great, and I've got it on good authority that the book wasn't that swell either. This post isn't about either of those things.
It's about the original book. The Lost World, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
You may remember him for other reasons. He would be ashamed that's all you know him for.
I've read this book before. I've owned it for years, actually. But there was a public domain reading of it by one of my favorite public domain readers (dude's like a British Morgan Freeman), so I downloaded it and have been listening to it on my commute. And let me tell you something.
I don't remember it being so racist.
This is one of the wonderful things of being a child, you know? Missing stuff like that? But beyond that, I've been very impressed with the general quality of the story. He's hitting some of the same chords here as H. G. Wells, who is one of the great sci-fi authors. It's short, sweet, and (if you're from the 1800's) strikes far too closely to the germ of actual science to be dismissed utterly. Really, really good stuff.
But I think what interests me the most is how it relates to Jurassic Park.
The movie, unfortunately, since I haven't read that book either.
We had obviously learned a lot more about dinosaurs by the time Jurassic Park was written. But Doyle's book, like Jurassic Park and unlike Jurassic World, is fairly representative of the archeological evidence as we understood it at the time. So there's that. But more importantly, there's this idea of adaptation, of nature finding a way, and it features in interesting ways in both places.
In Jurassic Park, dinosaurs that were not supposed to be able to breed adapted to do so. We've got raptors that are far more intelligent than we gave them credit for. In Doyle's The Lost World, we have dinosaurs that haven't adapted to their surroundings for millions of years. In one case we bring ancient animals into the modern age and get bit by their ability to adapt. In the other we've got ancient animals locked into a time capsule and left behind while their descendants turned into chickens.
I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that Crichton read Doyle's book before writing Jurassic Park. Is he making a comment on something he thought Doyle missed? That nature isn't stagnant, and our efforts as humans to try and control it and maintain it as it is are futile? I can't say for sure, but when comparing the two works, Jurassic Park seems like a word of caution while The Lost World seems utterly presumptuous. It's an interesting lens for how I think about the natural world, to be sure.
But I digress. The Lost World is an excellent example of some fine 19th century sci-fi. I recommend it to anyone who has read and enjoyed a Sherlock Holmes story, if only because you need to know Doyle was more, and better, than a serial detective story writer.
It's about the original book. The Lost World, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
You may remember him for other reasons. He would be ashamed that's all you know him for.
 |
| Though if he were still alive, he'd probably be understandably less ashamed since 2009. |
I've read this book before. I've owned it for years, actually. But there was a public domain reading of it by one of my favorite public domain readers (dude's like a British Morgan Freeman), so I downloaded it and have been listening to it on my commute. And let me tell you something.
I don't remember it being so racist.
This is one of the wonderful things of being a child, you know? Missing stuff like that? But beyond that, I've been very impressed with the general quality of the story. He's hitting some of the same chords here as H. G. Wells, who is one of the great sci-fi authors. It's short, sweet, and (if you're from the 1800's) strikes far too closely to the germ of actual science to be dismissed utterly. Really, really good stuff.
But I think what interests me the most is how it relates to Jurassic Park.
 |
| Because everything is interesting when you consider how it relates to Jurassic Park! |
The movie, unfortunately, since I haven't read that book either.
We had obviously learned a lot more about dinosaurs by the time Jurassic Park was written. But Doyle's book, like Jurassic Park and unlike Jurassic World, is fairly representative of the archeological evidence as we understood it at the time. So there's that. But more importantly, there's this idea of adaptation, of nature finding a way, and it features in interesting ways in both places.
In Jurassic Park, dinosaurs that were not supposed to be able to breed adapted to do so. We've got raptors that are far more intelligent than we gave them credit for. In Doyle's The Lost World, we have dinosaurs that haven't adapted to their surroundings for millions of years. In one case we bring ancient animals into the modern age and get bit by their ability to adapt. In the other we've got ancient animals locked into a time capsule and left behind while their descendants turned into chickens.
 |
| Improvement? |
I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that Crichton read Doyle's book before writing Jurassic Park. Is he making a comment on something he thought Doyle missed? That nature isn't stagnant, and our efforts as humans to try and control it and maintain it as it is are futile? I can't say for sure, but when comparing the two works, Jurassic Park seems like a word of caution while The Lost World seems utterly presumptuous. It's an interesting lens for how I think about the natural world, to be sure.
 |
| Improvement! |
But I digress. The Lost World is an excellent example of some fine 19th century sci-fi. I recommend it to anyone who has read and enjoyed a Sherlock Holmes story, if only because you need to know Doyle was more, and better, than a serial detective story writer.
Ack! You haven't read Jurassic Park?! Just do it!
ReplyDelete