电影式精彩文笔，无法挽尊叙事意图宏大混乱

高开低走。

前一百页，经典。很深的情绪，哲学的发问，控制的文笔，精彩的悬念。光说无凭，引用在本文最后。

但是false memory syndrome (FMS)的成因揭开的那一瞬，也就是失望和坠落的开始。

很失望，因为成因的解释表明它本质不是科幻。科幻至少得有科学的逻辑，哪怕其现实可行性只有极微小的概率。科幻是唯物的。但是这个成因，完全唯心。

真的，人能如此随意地回到过去，而且连故障概率都没有，时间旅行的逻辑悖论也没任何讨论，彻彻底底写情绪，写感受，写动作片式的正反派追逐。

作者太像在写电影了，在以描述一帧帧电影画面的方式写故事。我能感到，如果拍成电影，会有很多瞬间让人觉得感动，惊诧时间线交错给人内心的震动。但文字阅读上，给人碎片化的阅读感受，只觉得混乱，没有逻辑，想怎么编就怎么编。缺少文字阅读应有的思索流畅度。

所以尽管我一百页后完全跳着看，我一点不遗憾错过了什么。它一开始提出的哲学问题没有去回答，而走向了不断的时间回溯，重复，走向了心灵鸡汤式的结局，“人要让过去真正地过去”。

男女主角为了解决问题一次次回到过去，作者调侃了他们的婚姻关系。女主角那句“I want to murder you on semi-regular basis”，我觉得这是很好的角度啊，这本书完全可以就从爱情和婚姻这个问题深入，一次次回到过去重复一生，爱情还是否是爱情，承诺和爱时什么。会幽默又深刻。

或者就坚持一开始提出的哲学问题，人的记忆，人的现实和人对现实的幻觉。已经提到了柏拉图和洛克，干嘛不再讨论得深刻一点。

或者就写一个科技的道德问题。从一开始就提出这个问题，应不应该销毁核武器，销毁可以改变历史的时间机器。

但作者花了三分之一写哲学，三分之一写爱情，三分之一写科技道德，结果成了什么也没写好。

这倒是给了我很大的启示。写作的意图要宏大，但目标要专注，要相信故事的细节可以无限丰富，但其指向要具有一致性。人是需要方向感，意图感，控制感，和意义感，这种需求在阅读中也非常明确。

写的好的段落的引用。再次说，文笔确实很棒。如果没有这好文笔，绝不值得我写这篇书评。

“She was the person who stole his heart again……Being in her presence slashed through the dream-withdrawal; he didn’t want her. It was a liberating revelation, even as it devastated him. Liberating because it meant he didn’t love this Julia. Devastating because the woman who haunted his dreams was truly gone. ”

“Because memory … is everything. Physically speaking, a memory is nothing but a specific combination of neurones firing together. But in actuality, it’s the filter between us and reality. “

“So by the time you know you’re experiencing something, it’s already in the past. Already a memory…. We think we are perceiving the worldly directly and immediately, but everything we experience is this carefully edited, tape-delayed reconstruction.”

“If you change the way your bran processes an event, you change the duration of the ‘now’…the concept of the present is just an illusion.”

“Our ancestors lived in the oceans. Because of how light travels through water versus air, their sensory volume was limited to their motor volume…(after coming to land) Their sensory volume increased, since light travels father in air than in seawater. Some evolutionary biologists believe this terrestrial disparity between motor and sensory volume set the stage for the evolution of consciousness. If we can see ahead, then we can think ahead; we can plan. “

“Our cognitions are shaped by what we can perceive, by the limitations of our senses. We think we’re seeing the world as it really is, but you of all people know… it’s all just shadows on the cave’s wall.”