First you have to know that "Jaws 2, The Novel" is NOTHING like "Jaws 2, The Movie". The only thing that remains the same is the ending. It's an entirFirst you have to know that "Jaws 2, The Novel" is NOTHING like "Jaws 2, The Movie". The only thing that remains the same is the ending. It's an entirely different story from the sequel film. This novel is supposedly "based on the screenplay" of Jaws 2, but that screenplay must have been an early version that was scrapped and revamped.
Anyway, Hank Searls is a technically competent writer who gives us some interesting shark biology facts, but unfortunately not as much shark action as I wanted. Peter Benchley's original novel had two subplots that were (fortunately) left out of the movie, but Searls' sequel expands one of those subplots - the town of Amity is being financed by the mafia who want to bring in a casino - to the point where I was bored. If you like reading about stereotypical mobsters threatening people, and small-town politics, you'll like those chapters. They take up a good middle portion of the book.
The shark itself, this time a pregnant female, doesn't feel as threatening as the original Jaws. The presence of a new shark in Amity seems to be almost an afterthought to the plot about the casino. Nobody even seems to realize or consider that another shark is prowling the waters until the last 50 pages or so - and then the consensus is that Brody never actually killed the original shark and that somehow it must be back. The new human characters who are introduced in this sequel are forgettable. I felt bad for the harbor seal though.
There is a running inconsistency throughout the book regarding how long ago the original shark attacks happened. Sometimes the narration says it's four years ago; other times it's two years. Also there are enough spelling errors that I'm thinking this was rushed to production as a movie tie-in and not given a good editorial overview.
This is only a book to pick up if you are a Jaws completest....more
I have mixed feelings about this book, and I haven't finished it, so I'm not sure if it's fair to write a review yet. But one thing keeps annoying me I have mixed feelings about this book, and I haven't finished it, so I'm not sure if it's fair to write a review yet. But one thing keeps annoying me throughout the text: her constant use of the term "animals" when she really means "mammals" or specifically livestock. She makes generalizations such as "animals are visual creatures" which is certainly not true for the majority of animal species. She's specifically talking about livestock and hoofstock, but she's not using the specific term. On page 59, she uses dung beetles in an example of differing forms of sensory perception but then actually writes "I know dung beetles are insects, not animals, but..."
Um, what? You have a PhD in animal science, but you don't think insects are animals?
In order to get through the book I find myself mentally replacing the word "animal" with "mammal" in order for the text to make sense -- but even then, there's too many gross generalizations that annoy me. Also, Grandin comes across as somewhat smug and snobby about her "talent", but I'll attribute that to her autism and difficulty with human social interactions.
I agree with some of her perspectives; disagree with others. It's not a bad book, but it's certainly not the be-all and end-all of animal behavior. ...more
Loading...
