Time Travel discussion

This month, we are reading Second Sight by David Williams.

I can hear some of you rolling your eyes and see some of you moaning at the prospect of a time travel romance. But they're not always half bad. Well, except for that pesky Outlander series ... But those of you who love time travel romances probably would disagree with me about that. Anyhow, here we are, in the month of love, reading a romance novel together.

Many people who have reviewed Second Sight have said they read it as a result of their or someone else's love of the movie, "The Two Worlds of Jenny Logan": http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Worlds-... (you can find a movie preview at that link). And the reviews for both the book and movie seem to all be 4- or 5-star ratings. So that bodes well for a nice read. So guys, even if you aren't normally inclined toward time travel romances, I hope you'll give it a try anyway.

The original book came out in the 1970s (the movie in 1979), but the book was re-released in 2013. The premise is that a woman tries on a dress in an attic and is instantly transported 80 years into the past. Of course, this leads to her being torn between 2 men in 2 different times.

WHERE TO GET THE BOOK
∙Kindle $10.37: http://www.amazon.com/Second-Sight-Da...
∙Paperback $12.96: http://www.amazon.com/Second-Sight-Da...
∙A group member has offered to buy a limited number for cash-strapped members who would like to participate. Contact me for more details.

WHERE TO WATCH THE MOVIE ONLINE FOR FREE
https://archive.org/details/TheTwoWor...

PRE-READING QUESTIONS
1.Do you normally read romances? Why or why not?

2. Do you believe it's possible to be in love with 2 people at the same time?

3. Are you technically cheating on someone you love if the 2nd relationship is taking place date chronologically before the 1st relationship? Are you really cheating on someone if they haven't been born yet?

4. What do you think about "insta-love" or "love at first sight? Does it exist? Is it sincere? Can it ever be substantive?

READING QUESTIONS
1. The prologue and the beginning of this book has a lot to do with an old house. Do any of you live in an old house? Don't you think the house itself becomes a character? Do any of you have a house that exudes character? History, or funny noises, the strange wind tunnel affect when certain doors are open etc.

2. I’m surprised that Jennie is telling her husband about the feelings that she’s having for David. Would you be so open with your spouse if you’d time traveled to the past and found yourself falling in love with someone there?

At 40%

3. From the reviews, I thought that the dress that transported Jennie to the past was one that she’d found in the attic, but it was just one created from a picture she found in the attic. Now I’m wondering if the person in the David’s drawings and painting is (view spoiler)[Pamela or Jennie. What do you think? Did David obscure the face on purpose to make it so that it could be either? (hide spoiler)]

4. Does the dress transport Jennie because it’s (view spoiler)[so close to Pamela’s original? (hide spoiler)] Or would Jennie be transported in the same frame of mind even without the dress?

5. If Jennie had visited the historical society to learn about the history of her house when she first moved in and before she traveled to the past, would the story they told about David Reynolds be the same story? Or did the story only exist in the present after Jennie traveled to the past?

6. For those who don’t believe you can love 2 people at the same time, what about in the case of someone whose (view spoiler)[first love died like David’s did? Can you still be in love with your first love while pursuing another love who is alive? Or do you think that you must have to fall out of love with the deceased person in order to fall in love again? (hide spoiler)]

Pre-Reading Questions response:

Don't read novels classified as romance, or romance for romance sake (see your comment about OUTLANDER series; I STILL don't get the attraction for this kind of "love." You can probably start a separate thread about this strange phenomenon). But if a romance develops out of any kind of story (mystery, suspense, sci-fi/fantasy, etc.), I'm OK with it -- if it's a natural, logical development.

Robert wrote: "Pre-Reading Questions response:"

Oh, yeah, I don't see how the "romance" in the Outlander series (view spoiler)[could be classified as anything but rape, even with her new love interest. It bothers me that there are so many people who read it and don't walk away from it seeing all the relationships in it as unhealthy ones. Same for The Clan of the Cave Bear series. Perhaps the nature of those relationships have been changed for the upcoming television series? I certainly hope so. (hide spoiler)]

I have to agree with you that I enjoy romance when it falls naturally into a story. My husband rented the movie "Tess" this weekend based on Tess of the d'Urbervilles, and I fell in love with it so much that I fear I'm going to be on a Thomas Hardy kick for a quite while to come. But what made the movie so good was how it dealt so deeply with human nature and how this mixed with the social mores of the time. For me, it was the strength of the characters and the intricate depth of the plot that made me love it, not the romance. And when I read Larissa Brown's Beautiful Wreck, it was the beauty of the writing and the scenery that hooked me the deepest.

Amy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Pre-Reading Questions response:"

Oh, yeah, I don't see how the "romance" in the Outlander series [spoilers removed]

I have to agree with you that I enjoy romance when it falls na..."

My wife has discovered all the period-pieces on Netflix lately, but I don't think she has "Tess" on the list. I'll have to tell her about it (guess what I'll be watching this Friday, Feb. 14th?). If it's done well, fine. Certainly a big part of life.

I dont read romance novels if they are not embedded in a genre that I enjoy such as of course time travel. So this would not have been my cup of tea if it wasnt for the time travel element. Romance and time travel works for me but not when its too explicit). Last year I suprisingly did enjoy EB's The Legend of the Bloodstone (which I can definitely class as hot romance but it was enjoyably sassy albeit sometime annoyingly naive.

There was also Brenda's Revise the World which contained a partly enjoyable romance in the backdrop of an epic sci fi canvas (which I felt Brenda neglected and concentrated too much on the domestic romance)

Rysa's Timebound was also a romance but being a YA fiction, its innocent and I actually do enjoy that kind of romance rather than the harder core explicit adult romance.

So for a good narrative in sci fi, I think romance often serves as an important narrative drive but I am just not keen on it as a sole device.



By the way, I have seen the film version of Second Sight. As given by the Amy's link it is FREE to watch. My thoughts on it here: I had given it a 7.5/10. Will be interesting to see how it compares to the book.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I don't generally read romance novels. I know they are very popular, but for me it seems to take a long time to develop an intimate relationship so it's hard to go from zero to "true love" in the span of a single book.

I just picked up Second Sight from the library. :) Need to sneak in Time Hunters read, first!

Michael wrote: "I don't generally read romance novels. I know they are very popular, but for me it seems to take a long time to develop an intimate relationship so it's hard to go from zero to "true love" in the ..."

Ha. And yet so many fictional romances (and real ones) create love out of little more than a glance across a room knowing nothing about each other. Chemical and physical lust/love versus emotional and experiential love.

MK wrote: "I just picked up Second Sight from the library. :) Need to sneak in Time Hunters read, first!"

From the library? Your library gets serious bonus points.

Yep, it had it! I had to get one for my fantasy/sci fi group from interlibrary loan (The Last Unicorn), but David Williams' Second Sight was in the stacks here in Portland, Maine :)

PRE-READING QUESTION 2:
Do you believe it's possible to be in love with 2 people at the same time?

Got mine from the library, too. It looks like it has been around for awhile! :) Seriously, it has a Date Due stamp from January 1979.

Just finished up last read and will start into Second Sight tomorrow.

Do I read romances? Why or Why not?

NO! There are simply better books to be had. I agree with Robert, if a character falls in love while on an adventure together, A.K.A. Becky and Will Scarlett of the Time Hunters...so be it.

My grandmother has a kindle full of Nora Roberts and Nicholas Sparks, and Debbie Macomber books. At her age who can blame her for being nostalgic for days that are past. However, she seriously has a skewed view of romance when it comes to the real world these last few years.

Do you believe it's possible to be in love with 2 people at the same time?

This is actually a good question, and pretty difficult to answer. I would say yes, although psychologically speaking you would have sub-conscious preferences to one you love more than the other.

Favorite Phrase to use while at school..."Back off!, I am a Psyche Minor!"

I am smack dab in the middle of Chapter 3 already and why am I giving it a chance after being so down on romance novels? Because, I am hoping against hope that its a spooky mystery wrapped in a cool old house, that will also happen to have some romantic overtones.

Here is a video of what I am hoping this turns out to be like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VM5ik...

Now that's the video that screams, lets go time travel and find out who lived here!

WHERE TO WATCH THE MOVIE ONLINE FOR FREE
https://archive.org/details/TheTwoWor...

^^^^ Fun! Thx for link, will check it out after reading.


PRE-READING QUESTIONS
1.Do you normally read romances? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe it's possible to be in live with 2 people at the same time?


Yes, I read romances. Because they populate to a large degree, the "Top 100 Best Sellers, Free" list on Amazon, and some of the covers grab my attention :). Besides, who doesn't like a happy story from time to time (and all romances end in happy ever afters!)


No, I don't think it's possible to be in love with two people at the same time. You can probably LOVE two people, but I doubt you can be IN LOVE with two people, simultaneously.

MK thinks 'and all romances end in happy ever afters'

That's a pretty open statement & I'd have to disagree.

Fanny & Alexander is, against a political backdrop, at the core a love story.

No happy ending there & it's only one example.

Just saying.

Howard wrote: "MK thinks 'and all romances end in happy ever afters'

That's a pretty open statement & I'd have to disagree.

Fanny & Alexander is, against a political backdrop, at the core a love story.

No happ..."

Ahhhhhh, point, Howard! True enough. My statement was overly general, and thus, ultimately false.

MK, my first Epic Fable contains a strong love story, an integral part of the overall plot & it also ends in an unexpected way.

I guess it's a question of True to Life as opposed to how Life should be.

However, many true lives were true love stories, as John & Abigail Adams, again just to name one.

In other words I did take your meaning, it's just the generality I questioned, as you said.

No problem, fiction is always wide open.

Another good example is Doctor Zhivago, which I am (still, lol) reading. No happily ever after there, either.

Answer to Pre-Reading Question #2:
Humans aren't strictly monogamous creatures. As such, over a lifetime, we may fall in love with and out of love with numerous people. There have been studies that show that people in a happy relationship are less likely to even take a second glance at an attractive person, even sometimes unconsciously adverting their eyes. But this doesn't always happen as evidenced by all the affairs in the world. But do people have affairs when engaged in a happy relationship? They do. And they do because different people have different things to offer. Is it ideal or even desirable to let yourself fall in love with 2 people at once? No. It's complicated by personal emotions and and social mores. Can you love both people equally? I think so. Perhaps your attraction to the one is a shared life, shared friends, and shared worldviews while the attraction to the other is in the way you interact, your shared hobbies, and the way the person makes you feel. Each person fits a certain niche in your life in a certain way, and to say that it's impossible to be in love with 2 people at the same time is to state an absolute that isn't an absolute. It's like saying that you can't have 2 close friends at once or love 2 children equally. After all, there are plenty of religious cultures and lifestyle choices that embrace this idea. But sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I would imagine that being in love with 2 people at once would work the least and be shorter lasting when everyone involved isn't in agreement that it's okay (polygamous marriage where not all parties consented to the addition of a spouse) or when one relationship connection is being hidden (within an extra-marital affair).

And this brings me to
PRE-READING QUESTION #3
Are you technically cheating on someone you love if the 2nd relationship is taking place date chronologically before the 1st relationship? Are you really cheating on someone if they haven't been born yet?

PRE-READING QUESTION #4
What do you think about "insta-love" or "love at first sight? Does it exist? Is it sincere? Can it ever be substantive?

I think insta-love is probably usually insta-lust ;-).

I started reading Second Sight last night. Only a couple dozen pages in, I'm reminded somewhat of Somewhere in Time, though, because of (view spoiler)[the dress, in this one, and the suit, in that one. I find myself wondering if she'll be pulled back to her home time because of a modern hairclip, or some such similarity to the coin, in Somewhere In Time. :-) (hide spoiler)]


Edited to fix autocorrect shenanigans ;-)

Amy's Question 4 asks if love at first sight can also 'be substantive'

History is replete.

Just saying.

I think love at first sight is almost always lust at first sight. However, in some cases, that lust grows smoothly into love, thus leading the participants to identify it, in hindsight, as love at first sight.

Do you normally read romances? Why or why not?

I don't mind some romance thrown in with a strong plot. But what I really can not stand in books is when despite being brutalized by the man, the woman cannot help being attracted to him. I think these storylines really do a disservice to women.

Unfortunately will not be able to read this with everyone-have put it on my TBR pile for April.

Yes, only insta-lust. I agree with message 21: by MK. Although, it could turn into love. (if they ever got over the lust part)

PRE-READING QUESTION #3
Are you technically cheating on someone you love if the 2nd relationship is taking place date chronologically before the 1st relationship? Are you really cheating on someone if they haven't been born yet?

I think this question should be a resounding yes...but if you don't take my word for it, lets ask Marty Mcfly and his mother.

Lincoln wrote: "I think this question should be a resounding yes...but if you don't take my word for it, lets ask Marty Mcfly and his mother. "

haha! Excellent point there, Lincoln ;-)

Reading Discussion Question #5

The prologue and the beginning of this book has a lot to do with an old house. Do any of you live in an old house? Don't you think the house itself becomes a character? Do any of you have a house that exudes character? History, or funny noises, the strange wind tunnel affect when certain doors are open etc.

Lincoln's Question #5:

A picture of my place, a converted Greenhouse & part of my Containment Unit, is on my Facepage:

https://www.facebook.com/HowardLoring...

Check out the rest of the Album, too

Nice Howard,

An old green house that you live in and is part of your containment unit...All kinds of character!

PRE-READING QUESTION #4
What do you think about "insta-love" or "love at first sight? Does it exist? Is it sincere? Can it ever be substantive?

I don't believe in "insta-love" however "insta-lust" can develop into love over time.

That being said Nicole Kidman had me at Far and Away...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXW83E...

These discussions have gotten me thinking about the chemistry of love. What process does our body go through in the process of falling in love. And it seems that our feelings and selection process is 1 part chemical, 1 part genetic. We are chemically and physically attracted to people who are better genetic matches for us. We talked in another thread about how the pheromones we smell from our potential mates give us a subconscious indication of whether or not we're genetically compatible. But even beyond that, studies of couples have found a correlation between couples' lung volumes, middle finger lengths, ear lobe lengths, overall ear size, neck and wrist circumferences, and metabolic rates. We tend to be most attracted to those who look most like us and are more genetically compatible. So I suppose that the process of "love" tends to often start with these subconscious things. Maybe one day, super-scientific online dating trends will extend to having subjects matched by ear shape and hand similarities.

Anyhow, here are the chemical stages of attraction, love, and relationships:

1. LUST -- caused by TESTOSTERONE (plays a major role in the sex drive of both men and women) and OESTROGEN
2. ATTRACTION -- PHEROMONES (smell) can play a role here as well as APPEARANCE which can be a subconscious way of determining genetic compatibility
3. INITIAL GIDDINESS -- caused by DOPAMINE (a pleasure chemical) which produces a feeling of bliss, euphoria, craving, and addiction. This neurochemical appears to be associated with mate selection.
4. EXCITEMENT AND FOCUS -- caused by NOREPINEPHRINE (similar to adrenaline) which results in a racing heart, excitement, heightened attention, short-term memory, hyperactivity, sleeplessness, and goal-oriented behavior.
5. ELATION -- caused by PHENYLETHYLAMINE (the product of mixing dopamine with norepinephrine) which produces elation, intense energy, sleeplessness, craving, loss of appetite, and focused attention.
6. OBSESSING OVER NEW PARTNER -- caused by lower levels of SEROTONIN
7. BONDING -- caused by OXYTOCIN (released as a result of physical touch and at sexual climax) produces feelings of satisfaction and attachment
8. MONOGAMY -- caused by VASOPRESSIN (antidiuretic hormone) continues to play a role in attachment
9. LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIPS -- assisted by ENDORPHINS (the body's natural pain killers released during sex and physical contact) which produce a general sense of well-being including feeling soothed, peaceful, and secure.

Hmm ... no wonder relationships that are absent the physical components often result in affairs. So with our time traveler being physically away from her first love, falling in love with someone else is chemically logical.

Sources:
(view spoiler)[*http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6...
*http://chemistry.about.com/od/valenti...
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopic...
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopic...
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopic... (hide spoiler)]

Amy wrote: "These discussions have gotten me thinking about the chemistry of love. What process does our body go through in the process of falling in love. And it seems that our feelings and selection process ..."


Not arguing your science there Amy...but what say you in relation to science-fiction? Can she get through your whole list twice in different time periods?

Lincoln wrote: " Can she get through your whole list twice in different time periods? ..."

Leave it to me to try to turn a romance into something scientific and logical. I'm betting she's not going to make it through my list twice since this is most likely a fluffy romance. It doesn't seem like a very cerebral or substantive book as to take into consideration all these complicated stages. I'm guessing she falls in love at first sight ... the end. :-)

I have yet to start reading because I've not been able to keep my eyes open long enough at day's end to do so lately. But here comes the weekend!

What are your thoughts so far in your reading? Typical romance? Does the time travel aspect make it a little more interesting?

Amy wrote: "Lincoln wrote: " Can she get through your whole list twice in different time periods? ..."

Oh, I bet not. It doesn't seem like a very cerebral or substantive book as to take into consideration all..."

Four chapters in and I haven't thrown it out the window. Enough mystery regarding the time travel and the house itself to keep me reading so far.

Concerning #32:

I feel Amy's list is not sex sensitive & could be shortened, at least for men:

Numbers 1 through 6 -- EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL

The rest -- MARRIAGE

Howard wrote: "Concerning #32:

I feel Amy's list is not sex sensitive & could be shortened, at least for men:

Numbers 1 through 6 -- EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL

The rest -- MARRIAGE"

I'd think the last few would be more likely result of excessive alcohol.

MK wrote: "... No, I don't think it's possible to be in love with two people at the same time. You can probably LOVE two people, but I doubt you can be IN LOVE with two people, simultaneously."

I've just gotten to the part where our time travelling Jennie meets the mysterious man from the past. It appears (view spoiler)[that either Jennie, or the author, or both, are of the same opinion as me, regarding this question of being in love with two people at once. A resounding, "No". Worse, Jennie realizes she was never in love with her husband at all, tho she did/does love him. (hide spoiler)]

MK wrote: (view spoiler)[Jennie realizes she was never in love with her husband at all, tho she did/does love him (hide spoiler)]..."

How convenient. I wonder how many people think that just because they find something different and new in a new love interest ... or maybe something closer to their ideal ... that (view spoiler)[perhaps they were never in love with their first "love" in the first place. Or perhaps their first love just became too familiar that they forget what made them fall in love in the first place. (hide spoiler)]

Interesting question!

Chapter 5

(view spoiler)[The man scrambles to get to Pamela...We only have Jennie's perspective but does anyone else think that perhaps this man thinks he is going crazy as well? (hide spoiler)]

Yes ! I do

really hate that you cant unhide spoilers on the tablet App. I'll have to get on a PC later to read your comments. U am on chapter 9 and as someone said, I havent thrown it out the window yet.

Suzi,

Access the site using your browser instead of the app and you will be able to read the spoiler.

Chapter 16, I *think!* most of the cast of possible 'bad guys' have showed their faces by now. Oh, and sex is like the Maine coast during a fierce summer storm. ^-^…

(I *think* that isn't spoilery ... someone please tell me if I should wrap that in spoiler tags, if I'm mistaken)

Wow I am almost too daunted by all of the scientific talk to attempt an answer, but here goes. I don't believe it's possible to be in love with two people at the same time. And I 'm defining being in love as having a relationship with ( not lusting from afar). My reason is because once you have acted upon the second love (begin the relationship with an intimate act), I believe you destroy the intimacy and trust that you have built with the first person and aren't those necessary components of love? (This is all going to sound very old fashioned , you'll see, but varied discussion is good remember, please don't attack! Lol) . So, no, I don't think a person can love two people- . ( although I do believe I follow the logic in Amy's steps for the most part, for example in #7 when there is physical touch, the bonding begins and attachment- how can this happen without hurting the bond and attachment already formed in another relationship?)

I share the majority review on romances ; however I have mostly read time travel without it and am excited to get a few titles from the group to add to the tbr list!

YES, I think it's cheating to your question, surprise. Time, in that question, is not a physical thing where you can say it starts and ends here. (Here's where I need some scientific words!) if you are in a relationship and another person comes along that you would like to be with, no, I don't believe you can just time travel so that you can make it morally right. Hehe

Candace is concerned with her terms, or lack thereof:

Not to worry, words are but symbols & jargon just technical symbols & you conveyed your point nicely.

But you're not 'old fashioned' for such an orientation can & has occurred in many given Timeframes & so it's not necessarily an old or even a new view.

Yet your assumption implies that you have control over your Time Travel & suppose instead you were sent against your will with no hope of returning, then these tender feelings would no longer apply, yes?

Now the exact, same personal protocol could be employed in this new Timeline & without regret, yes?

But then, suppose further, again against your will you were later (from your point of view) sent back.

Under such a circumstance would you then feel remorse, thinking you'd somehow betrayed the original significant other?

It's good to be grounded, but fixed ideas may be awkward in other realities.

Just saying.

@Howard I may be old fashioned, but I am open minded! I agree it's different if "dropped" in there. If permanently, that would be as if I lost a partner and if love presented itself, I would feel it ok to forsake all others and live a new life. ThEN If unexpectedly thrown back to original time, ( and if I could handle being blessed with so much love,) I would go back to previous lover- but not without telling him what had occurred- you say he doesn't believe me- I can't help that, now can I?

Just Saying...:)

Candace, again well said.

He might believe you, given your rendering.

Jargon, by the way, is a person in my 1st Epic Fable & language as symbols & its use as jargon is covered in my 2nd & also soon to be debated in my 3rd.

Again, just saying.

Sounds exciting!

Whew! I thought you were going to make me think/sweat again!