From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk

--- Natasa wrote:

...

Yes, I had quite a different impression while watching Jurassic Park (I haven't read the book). There is, for instance, the curious fact that practically everybody ends up with a leg injury - starting with the grandad who uses a walking stick from the start. What does it suggest, the warning that the society is moving in a wrong direction? Is it the same in the novel?

In spades ! In the novel, there is a kind of running commentary from Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum in the film) explaining the shortcomings of technological and scientific society, shortcomings which threaten humanity, as exemplified by the park. Science is equated with the will to dominate/ destroy.

That's not quite the impression I got. Malcolm (as Crichton's mouthpiece) is very critical of modern society as a whole, but for it's short-sighted, impulsive, recklessly goal-orientated mentality. Not so much a will to dominate or destroy as an oblivious disregard for the collateral damage. Nor does Malcolm ever advocate, IIRC, going back to some mythical halcyon Golden Age. He spends most of the latter half of the book (in which he dies, unlike in the film) being persistently misunderstood.

There's an enthralling conversation in the book (omitted in the film) between the park's director (forget his name) and Wu the geneticist. Wu argues that the public will reject the park because the dinosaurs move too fast, so he wants to reconfigure their genetic code to slow them down, make them the kind of dinosaurs that people want. The director, on the other hand, insists that the public will want 'real' dinosaurs. It's one of several ego clashes in the story in which domination and manipulation of nature are a by-product rather than a primary goal. Though it's a good five years since I got it out of the library and my memory's hazy on most of it. The one thing I do remember is that all the really good bits never made it to the film.

Neil

Oh yeah, obB7: If the B7 crew were all dinosaurs, what ones would they be?

--- Neil wrote:

...

In spades ! In the novel, there is a kind of

running

...

commentary from Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum in the film) explaining the shortcomings of technological

and

...

scientific society, shortcomings which threaten humanity, as exemplified by the park. Science is equated with the will to dominate/ destroy.

That's not quite the impression I got. Malcolm (as Crichton's mouthpiece) is very critical of modern society as a whole, but for it's short-sighted, impulsive, recklessly goal-orientated mentality. Not so much a will to dominate or destroy as an oblivious disregard for the collateral damage.

I think that's part of it but there's definitely a passage (I read the book last week) where Malcolm states that scientists are not content to observe but need to alter, to dominate, to leave their mark. He cites the fact that after palentologists finish digging for bones, rather than restructure or replant the landscape they just leave a blooming great hole. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern, in the film) is obliged to concede the point. Actually re-reading this I realise that one could argue the case in the way you have, (and IMO it is a stronger case than the one the book makes) but my impression was definitely that Malcolm was suggesting that this sort of thing is an intrinsic part of science rather than a by product.

Nor does Malcolm ever advocate, IIRC, going back to some mythical halcyon Golden Age.

I didn't say that he did. He does state, however, that the scientific world view took over from the medieval world view when the shortcomings of the medieval world view became apparent and that the scientific world view was running into similar problems and contradictions. Hence, to return to Nastasa's original question, all those injured legs in the film ?

This, I hasten to add, is Malcolm's or Chrichton's view and not my own.

He spends most of the latter half of the book (in which he dies, unlike in the film) being persistently misunderstood.

There's an enthralling conversation in the book (omitted in the film) between the park's director (forget his name)

John Hammond

and Wu the geneticist. Wu argues that the public will reject the park because the dinosaurs move too fast, so he wants to reconfigure their genetic code to slow them down, make them the kind of dinosaurs that people want. The director, on the other hand, insists that the public will want 'real' dinosaurs. It's one of several ego clashes in the story in which domination and manipulation of nature are a by-product rather than a primary goal.

I think that the stronger part of the book's message is it's critique of the alliance between commercialism and technology. The fact that genetic engineering can make fundamental alterations to life on earth and that the application of this technology is being driven by short term commercial goals scares me witless.

Though it's a good five years since I got it out of the library and my memory's hazy on most of it. The one thing I do remember is that all the really good bits never made it to the film.

Ah well, Crichton wrote a good thriller, incorporating some interesting theories about dinosaurs, with a serious underlying message. Spielberg wanted to make a film about dinosaurs as spectacle with a sub-plot about a grouchy scientist who learns to love children.

Oh yeah, obB7: If the B7 crew were all dinosaurs, what ones would they be?

Avon and Tarrant: Godzilla and Godzuki

Stephen.

____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie