Talk:The Lost World (Crichton novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

A Sequel?[edit]

The The Lost World: Jurassic Park includes characters from Jurassic Park but I do not see any continuation of the original storyline reflected in those characters, mainly Malcom and Harding. Neither of them mention ever seeing a dinosaur before they arrived at Isla Sorna in The Lost World Jurassic Park. Also Kelly is Malcoms daughter in the movie.

First, Harding wasn't in the original movie. Secondly, Malcolm mentions his experiences with the dinosaurs repeatedly in both the novel and film. I'm not sure where you got this. --Bishop2 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Malcom only hints that he was at the original park, the movie shows him as being very vocal about seeing dinosaurs. The Lost World is definately a sequal I just think some aspects of how the two books link together are debatable.

Malcolm is still alive?[edit]

I'm sorry, but I remember reading in Jurassic Park that Malcolm had died in the end, since he doesn't appear anywhere in the end of the novel. I would apreciate some enlightenment about this, thak you. --200.76.103.98 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Surten

IIRC, at the end of "Jurassic Park", the other characters were told that Malcolm was dead, but it was never verified. Zachcoggin (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall, Crichton deliberately left the readers thinking he was dead in Jurassic Park. Considering that Spielberg talked Crichton into writing this sequel (according to this Wikipedia topic), I think it's a safe bet to say he intended him to stay dead at the end of the first book. Crichton basically retconned Malcom back into the realm of the living. Dlsimon (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He was actually mentioned as being buried at the end of the first novel. So yeah, definitely supposed to be dead. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not an unheard of literary technique. See Retcon. -- ExtremeSquared (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the narration just said that the Costa Rican govt., wouldn't allow a funeral for Malcom or Hammond, who were presumably still rotting on the island.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Differences between the movie and the novel?[edit]

I want to point out that there is already a 'Differences between the movie and the novel' section in the The Lost World: Jurassic Park article (the one about the movie). I'd suggest that the section in this article be taken out and merged into the section in the article about the film (the film is based on the novel, and not the other way around, so it is in the article about the film where a section about the differences that the film has in relation to the source material makes more sense, or so I'd say). How the fuck did carnotaurus change color?!?

In any case, some of the facts stated in the section 'Differences between the movie and the novel' in this article don't seem completely all right to me. For instance:

  • Malcolm does not have any children in the novel. <- I don't think Malcolm has any children in the film, either.
  • In addition, The Lost World novel itself deviates from the established "universe" of its predecessor in the use of Ian Malcolm as a lead character, Malcolm having died from injuries suffered in the initial Tyrannosaurus attack in the pages of Jurassic Park. In this, The Lost World novel takes its cue from the film version of Jurassic Park, in which Malcolm survived. <- I guess mentioning this may have some point. However, I think this might be interpreted as saying that the novel just ignored what happened in the previous novel and went along with the script of the Jurassic Park film, and that's not right. It is true that Malcolm was said to have died in the first novel, but if I remember well the second novel justifies how that didn't actually happen. --gonzy 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and I made some propositions for changes in Template:Jurassic Park, in Talk:Jurassic Park --gonzy 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Malcolm does have children in the film - you'll recall that Kelly is now his daughter in the movie, and of course in the first film he mentions having multiple kids. As for the rest, well, I think you have a point that we shouldn't assume that Crichton was following the example of the movie unless we can cite that. However, I would debate whether the second novel really adequately justifies Malcolm's survival, but that's probably just semantics on my part. --Bishop2 13:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Also in 'Differences', the book makes a point of explicitly stating that the previous belief that the vision of the Tyrannosaurus is based on motion is completely false. During a Tyrannosaurus attack in the movie, Malcolm attempts to warn the fleeing InGen employees not to move, but none of them listen. There is no indication in the movie that the previous belief about Tyrannosaurus is wrong. --universaladdress 8:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty minor detail. If we wanted to get that picky, the list of Differences could be the length of five articles. --Bishop2 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't a minor detail in the novel. Remember Malcom's line? "They've been misinformed." Besides which, Malcom uses the 'theory' of T. rex supposedly seeing only motion as an example of junk science in the novel, and spends a fair amount of time pointing out just how ludicrous and implausible the idea is. It's almost as if he got PTSD from being mortally wounded by the adult Rex on Isla Nublar or something, and the beast is occupying his every waking thought (while, by contrast, he treats Velociraptors as little more than annoyances after the second time he's injured, when the "noisy bastards" attack the trailer). The Dinosaurs are the real main characters of the novels. How could such vital info on the King of the [Pretty Much Everything That Ever Existed] be a minor detail? --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Malcom didn't actually die in the first novel. He was mortally wounded (implying he would eventually die) and then the narrative just stopped talking about him. Compared to the other character deaths, which were invariably graphic and unambiguous, leaving Malcom's assumed eventual death so obviously open-ended was a pretty clear indication that Crichton was already thinking about a sequel, and wanted Malcom in it. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 01:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Malcolm did die in the first book:

"Under the circumstances, the government was not disposed to release survivors in a hurry. They did not even permit the burial of Hammond or Ian Malcolm. They simply waited." (Jurassic Park, Borzon Edition, 1990, p.398

I've never understood the level of denial on this subject from readers. The character was killed, though Crichton didn't dwell on it. And apparently there's so little reader attention to detail that he got away with writing a character back to life.(Kroessman 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm certain I've never read that line, and I've read the book a number of times. I just checked page 398 of my copy to be sure, and at the top of the page, I found the words, "They did not even permit a burial for Hammond. They simply waited." Might this be a difference of editions? --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 11:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheLostWorld.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:TheLostWorld.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What link goes to what...[edit]

Considering it was written eighty years earlier and more notable, I really believe that The Lost World (novel) should direct to The Lost World (Arthur Conan Doyle), and the other novel this article discusses should be linked only from The Lost World (Michael Crichton) 69.225.88.38 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to The Lost World (Crichton novel) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The Lost World (novel)The Lost World (Crichton novel) — Move is suggested per Wikipedia:Title#Books - literary works. Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply make The Lost World (1995 novel) and The Lost World (1912 novel)? We currently have the same delineation for two novels entitled The Talisman, Walter Scott's and Stephen King's: The Talisman (1825 novel) and The Talisman (1984 novel). Jmj713 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Support moving this somewhere. Both are in print and widely available, so I don't consider this to be the primary topic. Jmj713's suggestion sounds good. Dekimasuよ! 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the name of the author as a disambiguating factor. Readers are far more likely to know the author of a book than the year of publication. Jafeluv (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
After taking another look at the naming conventions, I support the disambiguation-by-author plan. Dekimasuよ! 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I have moved the "Talisman" books to the correct names, The Talisman (Scott novel) and The Talisman (King & Straub novel). Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A bit of rewording in "Differences between the film and the novel"[edit]

A bit doesn't make too much sense; it appears to be an unfinished thought of sorts-

"In the film, Ian Malcolm publishes a book about the incident on Isla Nublar, but the story isn't widely believed, destroying his reputation. In the novel, Malcolm starts giving speeches about the extinction of dinosaurs, improving his reputation."

The first part; "In the film, Ian Malcolm publishes a book about the incident on Isla Nublar, but the story isn't widely believed, destroying his reputation." mentions him writing a book and it ruining his reputation, specifically mentioned in the film.

The second part; "In the novel, Malcolm starts giving speeches about the extinction of dinosaurs, improving his reputation." implies that (considering the novel isn't mentioned in the first part) he never wrote a book, and doesn't describe why his reputation is tarnished.

It doesn't make sense to contrast the two without a little bit more information. It would make more sense if the first part "In the film and novel, Iam Malcolm publishes a book about the incident on Isla Nublar destroying his reputation. In the novel however, Malcolm starts giving speeches about the extinction of dinosaurs, improving his reputation."

I'm not too sure on the details of the novel, so I obviously don't want to make this change without the knowledge to back it up, but either way- the part needs rewording.

Crichton's own opinion?[edit]

This article doesn't seem to have any input from Crichton himself. I thought I once read that he would "never again" do a sequel—now I'm curious what the reasons are, if what I read was true. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)