Видео

It's true that there is some sweet nostalgia affecting my review of this book, because I did read it when I was a teenager. And I think it's true that the main characters are flat and the antagonists one-dimensional. However, I think that is a positive point for the book, given what Crichton's going for. I don't think anyone goes into a Crichton novel for the character development. We want a fascinating idea of something that just might be scientifically possible and then watch it play out in page-turning chapters. On that level, this book has stood the test of time for me. I still think it delivers on its promises. Though I would be interested in a different version of this story line if it were retold by an author who is good at character development. I'm trying to think of a good author example...

@@erikhillreviews Hi thanks a lot ... to be honest i did not know that Crichton = Action. my critique comes a little bit from the history buff side ... you know you are excited to have this medieval setting and you like to see all the interesting interactions and richness... and then everything plunges into a brutal action gorefest.

Your welcome, and I agree! The Great Courses are my favorite resource to cure the uneducated knucklehead in all of us :)

Good to know, I'll have to look into that one! What a fascinating time to be in American politics

Agreed. I would be happy to hear 1984 talked about more often and seeing it used more in school. Happy to help!

Good point! Ok, that makes me appreciate this book just a little bit more

Do it, Do it, Do it.... :)

Glad to hear it! I've had this idea in my head for years and it feels great to finally have it fleshed out in video form.

Thanks, I appreciate that!

Agreed. This book is definitely on my reread list, because I really didn't expect to like it, given it's premise. I've got to reread to figure out how the author pulled that off.

I found your response fascinating. It critiques Christianity for lacking logic while making some assumptions that might not be entirely logical themselves. While my response may be counter to what you've said, I hope that you will offer me the benefit of the doubt: I'm not trying to make this personal. First, I noticed that some of the language you use, like 'good little boy,' 'backwards nonsense,' and 'brainwash,' seems emotionally charged, which might undermine the logical tone you intended. Using neutral language would help focus on the ideas themselves rather than the emotions they evoke within you. Second, you suggest that belief in God and rationality are incompatible, which creates a false dilemma. Many individuals throughout history have been both deeply religious and highly rational, demonstrating that faith and reason can coexist. This perspective seems to oversimplify the complex relationship between empirical evidence and personal belief, and may come across as biased against religious individuals. Third, your point about salvation implies that following a set path precludes genuine self-discovery or individual growth. However, many Christians would argue that their faith involves deep personal reflection, choice, and a sincere quest for meaning-far from a passive act of obedience. For instance, even in scientific pursuits like building rockets, following established principles, such as the laws of physics, does not limit creativity or personal growth; instead, it provides the framework within which true innovation and self-discovery occur. Lastly, regarding free will and coercion, you equate consequences with coercion. While Christianity does propose consequences for actions, this does not necessarily negate free will. For example, in existentialist philosophy, such as the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, freedom is understood as the ability to make choices, even though those choices come with inherent consequences. The existence of consequences does not remove one's freedom; instead, it defines the responsibility and weight of one's decisions. I appreciate your commitment to logical reasoning, and I think a continued discussion with an open mind could lead to a deeper understanding of these complex topics.

@@JacobBroderick First - I use that 'language' to openly, honestly, and directly get my point across. I can see how someone might confuse it with being 'emotional' if they're sensitive or have gone through sensitivity training but I'm more concerned about making my point crystal clear than sugar coating it. Second - You're confusing rationale with intelligence. Of course there are plenty of examples of highly intelligent people who are also religious but that doesn't change the fact that being religious is not a rational activity. Believing in something because you 'feel' like it and ignoring the fact that there is zero evidence to support it, is not a 'rational' thing to do. Religion makes intelligent people behave and think irrationally all the time. There is either reason OR faith. They can't coexist, so there is no false dilemma. Third - What does deep personal reflection, choice, and a sincere quest for meaning have anything to do with religion? An individual can just do that on their own, without religion, just by having self-esteem in their own rational ability and it's what they should be doing instead of checking to making sure it's OK with their religious collective/tribe. Also, using scientists as an analogy is a false comparison. The laws of physics can be proven, God can't, therefore it is rational to accept the laws of physics (you don't 'follow' them. They're in place and work whether you believe in them or not). It's also why there is only one scientific method but there many different gods (because there is one truth and many falsehoods) Lastly - Interesting that you quoted someone else instead of arguing from your own mind but that's typical of someone who's part of a collective. But on to the point, when you manipulate someone by using their emotions (fear of the unknown after death or pain of hell) to get them to do something they wouldn't normally do or not do something they would normally do, that not freedom because you are using coercion (psychological force). Now you yourself might not be doing this deliberately (you're likely just parroting your collective's echo chamber in good 'faith', pardon the pun) but rest assured, it is meant to control people, even if you don't realize it. Why do you think religions were created in the first place? Rational men are free by nature, so to control them, you have to make them become irrational by believing in the absurd, such as believing in a all powerful entity you can't see, hear or touch who controls this thing called a soul that you also can't see, hear or touch and who can send this soul to either heaven or hell, neither of which you can see, hear or touch. What better way to control others than to trick them into believing something they can never disprove? Religions were invented by a few smart, corrupt men to control masses of irrational men that let their emotions (fear) guide their thinking (who were more numerous back in the day but as time goes on, society is becoming more rational, hence the decline of religions).

@JacobBroderick - That's very similar to what I was going to say in response. Well said. @LSebastien - Thank you for your perspective, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this. I do want to point out that the point of this video was to frame the similarities with a Christian perspective in mind. Christians don't believe they're giving up their rationality by embracing Christianity. I think it gets to a fundamental disagreement on terms. I think there can be rationality and faith. Believing in God suggests a long line of questions that have to be thought through. But if you've figured out that religion is a complete sham all the way through and that's the end of the matter as far as you're concerned, then that's the end of this discussion as far as I'm concerned. Christianity isn't for you, this video isn't for you, and I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

@@LSebastien Thank you for your response, and I appreciate the continued dialogue, which, on the internet, often rapidly devolves into name-calling. So, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to engage with me in an actual discussion. I’d like to clarify that my goal here is not to defend Christianity but rather to engage with the logic of the points you’ve made. First, while you emphasize the use of emotionally charged language to get your point across, I think it’s important to acknowledge that such language can sometimes overshadow the logic of the argument. Emotionally neutral language can help focus on the substance of the ideas without triggering emotional reactions, allowing for a clearer, more rational discussion. Another way of thinking about this is that you drive away the opposition by making them feel attacked. If your goal is to engage someone (or especially to convince someone) using language that is emotionally charged is counterproductive. Also, I want to clarify that I’m not saying you were emotional, but that the words employed carried emotional weight. Second, I understand now that your point isn’t that religion precludes rationality entirely but that the act of faith itself isn’t a rational activity. However, the way it was originally framed could easily be interpreted as implying that being religious disables rationality as a whole. I think it’s important to clarify the distinction between calling religion irrational and saying that religious people cannot be rational. After all, the human capacity for compartmentalization allows people to hold both faith and reason in different domains of their lives. As an addendum to this, the idea of faith as irrational is something many Christians might agree with. From a scientific perspective, the existence of a divine being fails to meet the criteria of being falsifiable and empirically testable. But while this may seem unscientific, it doesn’t automatically make it irrational. A person might hold such beliefs for very rational reasons, including social cohesion or personal comfort. There's a difference between a belief being unscientific and being irrational. If this seems too semantic, I won’t fault you for moving past it, but I think it’s valuable to recognize that religiosity can be seen as rational in some contexts, even if unscientific. Third, regarding self-discovery and personal growth, your second post’s argument seems to be that personal reflection doesn’t require a religious framework. I agree that one doesn’t need religion to engage in personal reflection. However, my point was in response to what I perceived your first post to be arguing. I was trying to say that following any structured path (religious or otherwise) doesn’t necessarily preclude self-discovery. Just as following scientific principles can lead to innovation, following a religious framework doesn’t eliminate the potential for personal growth or deeper meaning. You’ve pointed out that my analysis focused on science when drawing a conclusion about religion, but that’s the point. If the reason you’ve described was the actual reason that religion would prevent self-discovery, then other non-religious activities that have those same features would also prevent self-discovery. Since they don’t, the original argument seems less likely. Regarding your point about coercion and free will, it seems that you’re now saying that suggesting consequences is emotionally manipulative, but previously I understood you to be arguing that it was removing freedom of choice. Being emotionally manipulative is merely offensive; removing freedom of choice would be destructive of what makes us human. Still, I think there may be something interesting to discuss here. What about Christianity’s beliefs makes you feel that they are emotionally manipulative? It is not sufficient to say that you or I don’t believe the consequences that they suggest. The test of emotional manipulation must be applicable universally or it’s no test at all. Next, I noticed your remark about my citing Sartre. I find it curious that quoting historical figures, whose contributions have shaped intellectual thought, is seen as a flaw. The "collective" you're referring to isn’t some echo chamber, but rather the shared human experience and accumulated wisdom of those who came before us. As Goethe once said, "He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living hand to mouth." To dismiss their contributions seems to ignore the value of learning from history and the ideas that continue to influence our thinking today. If we’re logically reasoning from only our own rational capabilities, we’re knocking out our own knees and drastically weakening our abilities. It’s like doing math without being allowed to use addition just because we didn’t invent it. Lastly, regarding your broader point about the origins of religion, you suggest that religion was created solely by corrupt men to control the masses. This view oversimplifies the much more complex development of religions. Experts generally agree that religion arose as a way for early humans to explain the unknown, foster social cohesion, provide moral frameworks, and address psychological needs like the desire for meaning and security. While religion has been used for control in some cases, it also evolved organically from communal practices and served multiple functions beyond manipulation. It’s not simply a tool for irrationality and control, but rather a multifaceted cultural phenomenon that shaped human society in profound and even objectively valuable ways. I appreciate your continued dialogue.

@@erikhillreviews If you want the discussion to continue, then present some evidence. I'll be more open minded about God once there is evidence of God. Otherwise, you can continue preaching to the choir.

Yep, I can see that. It really didn't have a strong opening set up like these kinds of novels usually do.

Outrageously high or outrageously low? :)

@@erikhillreviews Why not outrageously spot-on?

@@erikhillreviews I think you should know that you've inspired me to start reading, again, despite my anxiety. Although there are many influences that have pushed me to get back into reading, your videos are near the top of the reasons I've started back into this enjoyable hobby that causes me anxiety. I've read a couple books in the past three weeks I started with Sophie's World. I'd give it 4.5 stars, except that I'm uncertain there's another book like it, so it gets 5 official and indisputable stars. I also read Klara and the Sun. 4.5 stars. It probably deserves 5 stars, to be honest, but my star system is broken and it only spit out 4.5 stars. The author won the 2017 Nobel prize for literature before publishing Klara and the Sun. Both of these felt like meaningful books to me. They say something profound. I've also begun reading a book called "Teaching with AI," though that's more technical than entertaining. I read the forward to Darwin's Origin of Species, but I can't bring myself to read the actual book. I would hate to read a book that is fun and forgettable like Dead Med. It would make me feel like I'd wasted my time. It's a bit like action movies. Action movies are incredibly boring to me. Car chase scenes are so boring it's depressing. It's weird because I think the people making these scenes think they're exciting. But there's nothing to think about; nothing to experience. It doesn't make me feel like I would feel if I were in the car driving away from someone. It just feels empty and predictable. Fight scenes are awful most of the time, too. It's like watching a meaningless ballet that has no plot and isn't well choreographed. It's just not worth the time. I suppose normal people see it as fun because they're fighting, but that doesn't inherently excite me. Fight scenes and car chases need to be exceptional to interest me - the fighting style needs to be beautiful, the consequences meaningful to the story, etc. Almost every time a gun is fired in a movie, my eyes roll, so some movies make me dizzy with boredom. They've made bullets meaningless to me. I'll also note that your video (I already commented on it) with Mr. Carnevale discussing his published works has inspired me to write some more, too. I wrote 6,000 words yesterday. Anyhow, thanks for your videos. They do inspire me.

@@JacobBroderick I'm so glad to hear it! Thanks for sharing, and I love your action thoughts. That's exactly how I feel when I watch a basketball game. I don't get how people are satisfied with just action. I've been wanting to read Klara and the Sun, because I love that author. The Remains of the Day is one of my favorite books of all time. I think I did a review of that one. It's around here somewhere. Anyway, I'm glad the videos are helping you read more. It gives me new energy to know that the channel is making a difference to people. By the way, 6,000 is huge for a single day, well done! What are you writing?

@@erikhillreviews It's a book about professionals whose job it is to scan patient thoughts before they die to record their memories. The difficulty lies in identifying the true memories. After all, even the true memories aren't relaying actual fact as much as perspective. For the current patient, the experts find a stream of thought that has many signs that it's related to his real memories, but the events are bizarre and it's hard to believe that he really experienced them. So, under the assumption that the patient's experiences have been made into a metaphor as a defense mechanism, they begin analyzing the events and trying to understand the patient and discover what might've actually happened to him.

Thanks!

Yep, that sounds about right :)

Glad you liked it! And I thought so, too. If he makes it big, this will be fun to go back and watch again :)

Glad you like the videos! There is something satisfying about summarizing your thoughts on a book into a five-minute video. Also, it's fun to read comments from people from all over the world. I figured that I'm reading a lot anyway, may as well post some opinions and see what people think. Let me know if you ever get that channel started, I'll check it out :)

Well, if I keep hearing glowing reviews like that, I guess I should! Thanks for the heads up.

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it!

Just checked out your review. Well done! Looks like you've got some great stuff on your channel. So did you see the movie and what did you think?

@@erikhillreviews I have not seen all of the movie yet. I did start it, and I definitely plan on finishing it when I get a chance.

Very good point. I don't quite get why Patterson is such a big deal.

Happy to help!

Haha, let me know what you think!

I don't remember anything objectionable in it, though that is the "Off with her head!" scene. I listened to this one, so I can't help on the illustrations much, either.

It was defiantly one of my favorite books as a child. It's the first book I ever memorized and one of the first books I read all the way through. I fully recommend it!

@@joystarsstory9915 You memorized it? That's impressive!

​@@erikhillreviews yeah, during my senior year in high school

Excellent point! I'll remember that for next time

But aren't there five "dun"s in shave and a hair cut before two bits?

​@@erikhillreviews Thus it's "like" it. If I were to type out the actual psycho theme's first five notes, it would be: Dun, dun. Dun, dun. Dun! But if you just take the first four notes, it leaves you wanting to say the last one. Like shave and a haircut... you just want to say that final "two bits". The lack of resolution is even more satisfying than the actual resolution because of how interesting it is to be dissatisfied by something so small. I scream, you scream, we all scream for... TWO BITS! Or wait... we all scream for... DUN! We definitely all scream for that one. :P

@@JacobBroderick I don't what I'd do if Bernard Herrmann gave me the first four notes of Psycho. I guess I would draw in the fifth note and convince myself it was there the whole time. Also, that would be the coolest souvenir I think I could possibly own. That would go straight into a fireproof safe.

​@@erikhillreviews Haha. Wait, wait. What is he giving you these first four notes on? Is he writing out a bar of music or just writing "dun" like me? Maybe I should email this guy and see if he'll send you an autographed copy of something with just the first four notes!! :D I mean, if it's going in the fireproof safe, I think he should be willing to help you out. :) Which makes me think that being famous and loved is a lot of work.

@@JacobBroderick If only he were still alive. He died in 1975. Also, I'm pretty sure the notes were on a musical staff. I'm not sure how I would feel getting an autograph where he writes out, "Dun dun dun dun dun." Umm.... thanks Mr. Herrmann.

Much appreciated! A hidden gem makes it sound like a secret club. I like that :)

Thanks!

Thanks! This one was really fun to put together. It always helps when I love the book.

Thanks! I hope you like it. Also, I'm glad you like the production! It's been a lot of trial and error over the past couple years :)

The debate about whether addiction is a disease seems too semantic to really focus on from my perspective. The real question to me is what are the implications of that. I'm hesitant to use Matthew Perry's language because it can be a way to escape responsibility for poor decision making. But in the way you talk about it here, I'm not sure we would disagree. If a person kills someone driving under the influence, they are to blame for that action, even if they have this so called disease of alcoholism. They would know they have this vulnerability and therefore the moral blame comes at their first instance of putting themselves in the compromised situation where they knew it would be a risk. There are two dichotomies that I don't follow, however. The first is that once Matthew Perry has the first drink, he's lost all willpower and he's not responsible for what happens next. It makes more sense to think of willpower as a percentage, with 100% being in complete control and 0% as being barely conscious. The more you drink, the closer you get to 0. The second is the division between addicts and normal people. Is it really possible to divide people into these two groups? I don't understand why this isn't a spectrum. I think addiction is a universal concept, to where we can all relate to some degree with an addict's situation, even if it is on a smaller scale. Again, I'm not sure how much we disagree vs. disagree on phrasing. Thanks for lending your expertise!

Steinbeck is an interesting choice for people whose native language isn't English. The dialogue is very regional and informal English, so I'm guessing it would be hard to follow. I did enjoy the Pearl, though it's been a long time since I read that one. That was another book that was short, simple, and got right to the point. Anyway, glad you enjoyed, thanks!

Thanks so much for dedication and Greetings from Spain. ​@@erikhillreviews

I'm not, but I've been told that sometimes I have an Irish lilt in the way that I talk :) What makes you ask?

Exactly that. You just have a slight hint of it in your accent 😊

@@liamsynthhead Haha, I didn't realize it was so noticeable! I'm okay with that, though :)

I didn't notice a political agenda, personally. Happy to help!

@@erikhillreviews Opens with a character sketch representing a young woman academic and government worker in a negative way, straight out of the conservative meme book. It is possible I am mistaken about that, but I suspect, from listening to the review, that there will be a capitalists-saves-the-world theme in this novel.

@@andywomack3414 I didn't pick up on that sort of messaging. I can't think of any mention of capitalism. I suppose there is some governmental incompetence in the set up of the situation, but it would be a stretch to group this book with Atlas Shrugged.

@@erikhillreviews First, blame the government. Show government worker with academic credentials as selfish and troubled. I was turned off by that. Maybe I rushed to judgement, but I saw similar negative character development with Rand. At least she didn't start with anti-hero. However, as the review mentions, the book seems made to order for blockbuster action movie, and I no longer find such stories interesting, being in my face with nothing new.

@@andywomack3414 yep, good decision not to stick with it then.

It's funny to me to think about what some people think about this book just because they had to read it in school. Personally, I had an immediate dislike for anything the teacher picked and was against the book before I started, just on principle. A very dumb principle, in hindsight. But that's funny, the giggling stuff that you picked up on. And I agree that it's still relevant. A timeless classic. Happy to help!

It is a short one :) If you do, let me know!

@@erikhillreviews I read it yesterday! I definitely see why some female readers would not appreciate the story. I would say that his target audience was probably men, but I could be wrong. The way one of the men casually mentioned how he drowned half a litter of newborn pups was disturbing - even though back then that is just how people did things. The men talk about frequently going to brothels - another thing that might not be appealing to female readers. The "mercy killing" of a human being could also be off- putting. I don't consider myself to be an average female reader, though, and I enjoyed the story. I have read plenty of fiction and non-fiction stories that had dark elements like this book has. I gave it a four on Goodreads. I took away a star because I can tolerate foul language in a book for the most part except when God's name is taken in vain incessantly because when I have to read it over and over it just irritates me - like fingernails on a chalkboard. Aside from that I am glad that I read it!

@@sunnypullen82 Wow, that was fast! I'm very impressed and thanks for dropping a comment. Good points, and I think that makes sense to explain the gender divide. Also, God's name being taken in vain really is everywhere. It tough to avoid without being extremely restrictive in what you read or watch on TV. Anyway, I'm glad you (mostly) liked it!

Very much agree with all your points. And I had been feeling overdue to read it again for all those reasons too, and now I'm happy to say that it was just as good as I remembered. This is why I loved Crichton when I was a teenager.

You are right that he had those two scenes and that it did last about ten pages. That's where it's different from a normal Crichton novel. It's a long time in Jurassic Park before we get to the island, a long time in Timeline before they find the glasses and the warning message from the professor, a long time before they're in the habitat in Sphere... In all of these, there is a lot of exposition and a lot of set up to the central action of the story. There's also a lot of back story and history that Crichton would get into before the world is put on alert, so to speak. In this book, it was ten pages (approximately).

@@erikhillreviews Crichton always filled his books with details. The Great Train Robbery is a fun read because of the amount of detail about the criminal world he put in. This novel needed fattening of that sort, a Hawai'ian language glossary, a good description of the HVO, even a simple backstory of the billionaire and his pet vulcanologists. And especially a better description of the eruption, how tall the flow was and how it overwhelmed the town.

Nice - let me know what you think!

@@erikhillreviews thanks -- so far liking it very much!!

Thanks! And thanks for all of your comments, too, I love hearing your opinions on some of the books I'm reading :)

Do you mean that as a complaint against the book, or do you mean that it was so good you didn't want it to end?

It had been a while since I'd read this one, and I was impressed. It was even better than I remembered. I don't think the book gets enough credit.

@@erikhillreviewsHopefully one day, it will if they decide to remake the Jurassic Park franchise.

Interesting rankings! Personally, I liked Rising Sun, but I think for other people it's on the lower side of Michael Crichton's books.

@@erikhillreviewsJust finished reading Rising Sun, and it was great book. 4/5

The author put too much effort into the ending and character development - meaning those things felt forced?

@@erikhillreviewsThat was he opinion about the book. But, he did enjoyed it nonetheless. He gave it a 3/5.

Agreed! Also, when you say darker and more brutal, what scenes from the book come to mind?

@erikhillreviews nerdrys death was more brutal then the movie Dodson death in the second book

@@rhyleygrant5660 Good examples! Yeah, I think both of those haunted me when I read them as a teenager.