“The book is a classic summer beach read...Eruption will revive the art of speed-reading...told with a singular voi“The biggest thriller of the year!”
“The book is a classic summer beach read...Eruption will revive the art of speed-reading...told with a singular voice that is a compelling amalgam of the two writers.” — USA Today
“Eruption is an epic thriller…fast-paced and deeply considered…a cinematic story rooted in science and infused with plenty of heart, tackling big themes like love and loss.” — Time
“Red-hot storytelling... The action scenes will make readers’ eyes pop as the tension continues to build." –Kirkus, starred review
“Explosive…the summer’s ultimate literary mashup.” —Washington Post
“Takes readers on a thrilling journey.” —BBC
“Beachbag-ready.” —Boston Globe
“A seismic publishing event…all the elements of a summer blockbuster…it’s a thrill and the pages practically turn themselves.” —Associated Press
“Eruption is this summer’s literary version of a blockbuster action movie.” –Los Angeles Times
“Breakneck and plausible.” —Publishers Weekly
The plaudits alone would lure anyone into reading this book. Throw in two extremely popular authors coupled with excellent ratings (4.3 stars on Amazon from 11,300 reviewers and 4.0 stars on Goodreads from 13,200 reviewers and counting), and you're ensured this book will be a blockbuster hit.
Yet once again, I find myself on the other end of the spectrum. Not only did I not enjoy this book, but I found myself, time and again, annoyed by it.
And here's the thing: if this one day did become a movie, I would more than likely enjoy it. Why? Because for these kinds of impending-disaster-end-of-life-as-we-know-it movies, I check my brain at the door, completely ready to just enjoy the popcorn, soda and candy I would inevitably buy while all the drama, explosions and scenes of people running away from (or towards) danger entertain me. After all, there's only so much you can fit into 90 minutes---or 120---tops. And only after the movie's done will I discuss it with whomever I saw it with and pick it apart, piece by piece. But again, that's part of the fun, which is not only an expected but treasured ritual among friends.
And let's face it: we know that what's in the book will often serve as a broad-strokes outline for the movie since any producer and/or screenwriter will want to tack on their own take on things. While movies rarely ever hew close to their source material, in this case, it doesn't really matter if they don't. The adaptation may even be better (one would hope).
But with a book? There is no checking my brain at the door. Not if I want to remain engaged in what I'm reading.
Here's the thing: I should have known better, because: 1. I generally don't pay much attention to hype. Each person has different tastes, so what pleases me will not please someone else and vice versa. And each time something is hyped in the superlatives, I generally find it to be hyperbolic. Sure, sometimes, it can be on the nose, but in my experience, that doesn't happen as often as I'd like it to. So inevitably, when I read something that is hyped to high heaven, I will often find myself questioning why I bought into the hype to begin with.
3. I have never read James Patterson, nor have I ever planned on doing so. Patterson is more of a brand and less of an author (in my mind). It's a well-known publishing secret that he employs an entire army of assistants and ghostwriters (or before I get pummelled by Patterson fans, the more PC term would be "collaborators" now that they share billing on books published, although Patterson's name comes first in big bold type while the collaborator's name comes under his, in text roughly a third the size). Die-hard fans of Patterson will say that the collaborators are the winners in this arrangement, since not only do they get paid to write and bring to life a James Patterson book, but they gain so much more because Patterson mentors and teaches them during the writing process. (Patterson edits their work prior to publication.) And yes, I do have a problem with this logic. Sure. Having Patterson mentor you about the publishing industry is nice. But editing is not the same as writing. If it were, then every book published should have its editor listed as a co-writer, but this obviously isn't the case. So if all of the writing is done by Patterson's ghostwriter--er, collaborator--then why does Patterson get top billing and not the co-writer? Because it's his concept? Which is the harder task? Coming up with a concept or writing and fleshing out the actual concept? But I shall get off my soapbox/high horse and move on.
Back to not checking my brain at the door. My husband and I listened to the Audible version together (Scott Brick did an amazing job, as usual), and as I am wont to do, I read along as we listened. We were almost taking turns pausing Audible, often to say "Wait, what? But..." or "No, that's silly. They didn't just go there, did they?" or, as in my husband's case, banging his head on the steering wheel (we were parked).
Crichton's wife, Sherri, writes at the end that this was Crichton's pet project. A work of love, if you will, that he spoke of often with various people (he was usually very tight-lipped about other projects until closer to publication) and did a lot of research on. She writes:
...however, he frequently spoke of his volcano project, and when we were traveling through Italy, we made a special excursion to Pompeii so that he could further research the story he set in Hawai‘i. After Michael passed, I came across the unfinished partial manuscript in the archive, and I couldn’t believe how he’d brought the story together in his inimitable way. Unearthing this treasure inspired an intensive research project that involved scouring his multiple hard drives and papers, finding all relevant material.
What this work unveiled, however, was remarkable: his story was brilliantly laid out. He had extensive volumes of scientific research, notes, and outlines—even video footage of himself on location conducting interviews with a volcanologist.
Crichton, Michael; Patterson, James. Eruption: Instant #1 New York Times Bestseller (p. 423). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.
Considering the amount of research Crichton did, and the number of assistants Patterson had at his disposal, I do have to wonder why there were so many implausible and/or weak scientific scenarios. The novel had a large cast of characters, and I get it. With a book like this, it's all about the set-up, the drama and the action. This is not a character-driven work. But the characters still have to make sense. For example, if you introduce us to Rachel in the Prologue, and she comes back later on, the expectation is that whatever she has to say would have some weight, especially for the main character, Mac. Another thing is that there was a big deal about Mac being a surfer and loving surfing. Since this was mentioned a number of times, you'd expect that our authors would somehow work that into the plot in a meaningful fashion. But these two things are prime examples of potential foreshadowing that went nowhere. Missed opportunities. It's a shame.
Look, I'm an engaged reader. And sometimes, when you're engaged, you question things, especially if they don't make sense. I guess I just questioned way too many things for my liking. (view spoiler)[For instance:
1. If they torched the banyan trees in the Prologue, and the black stuff didn't get into the air, why would our hero Mac be so concerned about the lava hitting the containers in the Ice Tube? His concern was the lava would aerosolize the black stuff, which would cause world catastrophe and kill all life on Earth. Which brings me to...
2. Rachel, the botanist in the Prologue. She shows up later in the novel to talk to two NY Times journalists, where she divulged that the army had previously burned down the banyan trees because of the black goo. The journalist ask Mac for his take on things, but Mac plays coy with them. After they leave, I had to wonder: why didn't he bother looking into what happened nine years prior or, at the least, ask his army friends if anything the journalists told him was true. Perhaps if he had, he'd have discovered what the army did, and that the black goo had been torched safely. No one died of black goo-itis. So in essence, the lava hitting the containers in the Ice Tube wouldn't have caused the end of the world. To me, this is seriously poor due diligence on Mac's part. I suppose if he'd done that, then there wouldn't be enough drama...because the explosion of a massive supervolcano isn't drama enough. God forbid the book ended thirty chapters sooner. Or perhaps the collaborators could've spent more time on character development...nah...how silly of me.
3. Mac, as the senior volcanologist, claims that this is the volcano eruption that will end everything. Forget the black goo. This will be the worst volcanic eruption in all of history. As a volcanologist who travels around the world, surely he would have known about the Toba eruption in Indonesia that occurred 73,000 years ago. That eruption did almost do the world in. Not many humans survived (some scientists claim that Toba caused the genetic bottleneck seen between 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, since there is a lack of genetic diversity in modern day humans). Volcanic winter occurred, with ash blocking the sun's rays that caused deforestation, death, and a temperature drop by almost 16°C. Toba sediments/ash have been discovered as far as 3000 miles from the Toba crater. If you're going to write a novel about supervolcanoes, surely Patterson could have had his army of assistants do some research on supervolcanoes. Even a one-sentence mention in the book would have gone far in establishing realism, in my mind. (hide spoiler)]
And this is why, at the end of the day, I did not enjoy this book. I'll say it again. If they make a movie out of this, I'd watch it just to see if the movie version is better or makes more sense.
And let's face it. With all the plaudits this book has already received from both critics and readers alike, there are more who love this book than hate it. So it's already a success. And I am happy for Crichton's estate, because I do think he was a wonderfully talented and inventive man who not only came up with a boatload of novels but some TV shows and movies I've thoroughly enjoyed: ER, the first season of Westworld, Twister, The Thirteenth Warrior, and Jurassic Park, anyone?...more
It scares me to think that this was meant to be the first in a series. Because...why? No, seriously. Why???
As someone who does not read a lot of romanIt scares me to think that this was meant to be the first in a series. Because...why? No, seriously. Why???
As someone who does not read a lot of romance lit, I have no qualms admitting that I actually adore Jessica Park. I've enjoyed her other novels, specifically the Flat Out Series and Left Drowning.
This one though...this was a mess. A horrible, stupid mess.
About a fifth of the way in, I thought "Eh. This is pretty messed up, but I don't care, I'm sticking with it. It will probably get better."
About a third of the way through, I thought, "Okay, standard Jessica Park steaminess." But I'm not still not sure what to think.
Shortly thereafter, it lost me. Death tripping, sure. Interesting concept. But if someone kills my boyfriend right in front of me and I start to question my own sanity, and I then engage in utter weirdness with my now-resurrected boyfriend and the guy who killed him?
Not my cup of tea.
The part that bothered me the most was how easily everyone forgives each other. Sure, friends make excuses for their friends' behaviors. Sure, friends give out free passes. Sure, you wanna make out with your best buddy, okay, if you're into it, why not? But dude, if you my boyfriend in front of me, or kill me later on? I'm not so sure that is an easily forgivable offense.
I understand that Jessica Park wanted to try something new. That she wanted to explore the nature of addiction. Of how to heal and be healed after suffering untold psychological traumas. But man, there had to be a better way to deal with it than this. And really, if I had known that something as simple (view spoiler)[as watermelons (hide spoiler)] could be a temporary curative for addiction...
Yeesh, I have no idea what possessed her to think that that would fly? Talk about suspension of disbelief.
So, Jessica Park. You usually entertain me, and I'll even admit it, you turn me a bit gooey on the inside with your inevitable heartbreaking moments. But this one? My disgust level for most of the characters in this novel, as well as the plot, was pretty much hovering somewhere between 8 and 9 for a majority of the time. And that saddens me.
It saddens me, Jessica Park! You owe us another Flat Out or another Left Drowning! But no more Death Tripping!!
In the end, it wasn't as bad as I thought in the beginning. Hearne obviously did his research, not only into Irish mythology, but also into other, morIn the end, it wasn't as bad as I thought in the beginning. Hearne obviously did his research, not only into Irish mythology, but also into other, more esoteric, religions/myths. So for that, I give the guy some kudos.
But man, was it corny. Corny, hackneyed, sometimes annoying, and in the end, after all that build-up to a huge battle, epically disappointing. The ending I could shrug off. The rest of the stuff? It just kept getting in the way of me enjoying what I was reading.
I'm partially curious to see what else he comes up with in the other books of the series, but the question is, how curious? Will it be worth it? Ask me the next time the moon is full....more
Loading...
