Michael Stanwick

Reading notes:
*** Seriously... this got a Hugo Award? Very disappointing!
*** The setting might be interesting (in the future when time travel is possible, rich people travel back to the Cretaceous to experience a fancy gala while watching dinosaurs and eating dinosaur hors d'oeuvre) but the story itself is rather unoriginal and lacks any special message.
*** Moreover, there are serious wholes in the logic: the time is mutable but somehow if you are able to change it and, let's say get rich show more by passing a message to your past self, it wouldn't help you, because the government keeps an eye on these kind of things. Seriously? If you changed the past, how would they know that the current-present-time is different from the previous-present-time? There were some other things that didn't make sense which I forgot...
*** There is no time paradox either that would explain the award: the main character gets to meet at the same table two versions of his unknown son, during the same night that he fathers him, but there is no unexplainable loop.

There is a lesson in each book:
*** A book without any kind of message is a FORGETTABLE book... A good book needs both a message and a philosophy.

What is the "time travel"/"change is time"/"discussion of time" used for?
As a simple mean for furthering the plot and/or putting the characters in an interesting situation. show less