レビュー

• Fun, well written and interesting. A reminder that the best of science fiction is very good. I hope the author lives long and prospers.

• Some very interesting ideas about endoctrination and the initial characterisation of the main protagonist is good. But that's it. The writing is not good, some paragraphs are confusing, there are repetitions, and the Sci-Fi elements are meaningless mumbo Jumbo. The structure and rythm is not good, so many parts are highly predictable and dragging. The main character grows only by the magic of time travel. Lots of sentimental cringe dialogue near the end (I'm happy with emotional moments when well done but none of this feels earned). Had to skim at the end, and the ending is not good either. More fanfiction level, frankly I don't think I'll be buying another Hugo award winner soon.

• I loved the book and questions it poses. Books that don’t hand you answers but instead unsettle your certainty tend to stay with us the longest. Those kinds of questions work quietly. They keep resurfacing at odd moments when you are judging, choosing, forgiving, or doubting yourself. Not because the book told you what to think, but because it sharpened your awareness of how fragile and contingent our thinking really is. We walk around with enormous confidence, as if the ground under our judgments were bedrock, when in truth much of it is sediment layered from culture, upbringing, trauma, privilege, fear, love. Perspective is not just a factor. It is the lens through which the entire world comes into focus. Two people can look at the same act, the same policy, the same life, and see not merely different interpretations but different realities. So is there such a thing as “right”? If by right we mean a perfectly objective, context-free moral truth that applies identically to all people, in all situations, across all histories, then the honest answer is probably no. Human life is too contingent, too situated. What feels like justice to one person may feel like erasure to another. What feels like order to one may feel like suffocation to someone else. But that does not mean everything collapses into nihilism or “anything goes.” There may not be absolute answers, but there are orientations. Across cultures and centuries, certain patterns keep resurfacing, not because they are philosophically airtight, but because they seem to reduce unnecessary suffering and allow life to flourish: care for the vulnerable, restraint of power, honesty over deception, dignity over humiliation, love over domination. These are not proofs; they are recognitions. They arise from lived consequences rather than abstract certainty. In that sense, “right” may be less a destination and more a direction. As for whether we can ever have a world that is good or best for all, that depends on what we mean by all. A world that perfectly satisfies every desire, identity, fear, and aspiration simultaneously is almost certainly impossible. Human values genuinely conflict. Some losses are unavoidable. Some tradeoffs are tragic no matter how wisely they are made. But a world that is good enough for all — one that minimizes cruelty, resists indifference, and remains open to correction — that is not incoherent. It just requires a different posture than certainty. It requires humility: the willingness to say, I might be wrong, and empathy: the effort to see how the world looks from a place we do not inhabit. The danger is not that we lack perfect moral ground. The danger is that we pretend we have it. Perhaps the most ethical stance available to us is not moral certainty but moral attentiveness: listening carefully, acting cautiously, and measuring our beliefs not by how righteous they feel, but by what they do to the lives of others. That may be as close as we get to “right.”

• At first I wasn't that excited about this book but all of this changed once I reached the first pivot point in the book. Masterclass! Really engaging characters in a complex and deep story. Loved it

• Nothing

購入リンク