Reviews - I sette killer dello Shinkansen

1.57k reviews for:

I sette killer dello Shinkansen

Kōtarō Isaka

3.85 AVERAGE

charlotte_37's review against another edition

4.5

challenging dark tense fast-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Character

Strong character development: Complicated

Loveable characters: Complicated

Diverse cast of characters: N/A

Flaws of characters a main focus: N/A

ncalv05's review against another edition

2.75

mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Character

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

aorticreader's review against another edition

5.0

If you like stand-up comedy routines, where they return to their first joke multiple times, but make it work on different levels then this is the book for you. If you're not down for a silly mystery novel then turn away

saaraa96's review against another edition

4.0

Just try reading something and see... How insignificant we all are, how we’re all just a single existence among the countless other existences. It’ll make you feel how small you are, how you’re lost in the limitless expanse of the ocean of time, swallowed by the waves. It’s powerful stuff. We perished, each alone.

وسط گشت و گذار بین کتاب ها برای گوش دادنِ سطحی‌ترِ بدون نیاز به توجه خاص، رفتم سراغ این کتاب چون که فیلمش هم حدودا پارسال دیده بودم؛ اما غافل از اینکه نه تنها تفاوت‌هاش با فیلم زیاد بود، بلکه مدل نوشتنش هم جذاب‌ترش کرده بود و باعث شد بشینم براش درست وقت بذارم.
کتاب خیلی واقعی‌تر از فیلم نوشته داستانو. مشخصا وقتی میری سینما دنبال اون شلوغ‌کاری‌ها ‌و جلوه‌های بصری هستی ولی وقتی کتاب می‌خونی شاید خیلی دنبال اونا نباشی. حالا برا کتاب چیکار کرده بود؟ بحث های فلسفی و اجتماعی جالبی رو گنجونده بود.
تو فیلم جدای از اون اکشن‌بازی‌های اضافه و فضایی، کاراکترها و دلایل کارا و مدل کارشون هم عوض کرده بود و کلی از بحث ها رو دیگه نداشتیم. بعد تو فیلم کلی باگ هست که تو کتاب نبود، حداقل اون میزان و به اون تابلویی نبود.
بخش بندی چپتر ها و پیش برد هم دوست داشتم. درسته طول می‌کشه تا گیرت بیاد چه اتفاقی داره میوفته ولی جذاب میشه و کشش داره.

حرف‌های تنجرین راجع به کتاب‌ها و آدم‌ها هم جالب بود:
▪ But it hasn’t even been a full day and he seems pretty much back to normal. Probably nothing going on inside, thinks Tangerine. Often the case with people who don’t read fiction. Hollow inside, monochrome, so they can switch gears no problem. They swallow something and forget about it as soon as it goes down their throat. Constitutionally incapable of empathy. These are the people who most need to read, but in most cases it’s already too late.

▪ ‘Just try reading something and see. Start with, I don’t know, To the Lighthouse.’
‘What’ll it tell me?’
‘How insignificant we all are, how we’re all just a single existence among the countless other existences. It’ll make you feel how small you are, how you’re lost in the limitless expanse of the ocean of time, swallowed by the waves. It’s powerful stuff. We perished, each alone.’

پرنس کتاب هم باهوش تر از پرنس فیلم بود، انتی‌سوشال بودنش هم بهتر مشخص بود، یه سری چیزای جالب هم می‌گفت.
▪ adults have problems too, that they aren’t always as strong as they seem.

▪ people act based on the influence of those around them. Human beings aren’t primarily motivated by reason but by instinct. So even when it looks like someone is acting of their own individual will, they’re always taking input from other people. They might think they have an independent, original existence, but once you put them on a graph they’re just another data point. See? For example, if you tell someone they’re free to do whatever they like, what do you suppose they do first?’
‘No idea.’
‘They look around to see what other people are doing.’

‘Even though they’ve been told they can do whatever they want! They’re given free rein, but they worry about what everyone else is doing. And they imitate others most of all when the question at hand is important but doesn’t have a clear answer. Weird, right? But that’s how human beings are built.’

I’m fascinated by how that works, how people are controlled by such a powerful force without even knowing it. They fall into the traps of rationalisation and self-justification, all the while naturally acting in accordance with what others are doing. It’s fun to watch happen

یه جایی بهش میگن بابا منبعت اینترنته برای خبره، درست نیست که، میگه:
▪ It’s so obvious that any source of information is a mix of truths and untruths, but everyone wants to say that one is better than another.

در کل فنقلی منیپولیتیو جالبی بود
▪ When people are told that someone’s dangerous, they just accept it and fear that person. Same with terrorism, same with diseases. Nobody has the time or energy to make up their own mind.

▪ Death cuts someone’s life short, but it’s not the worst thing you can do to them. You can also plunge them into despair right before they die.

آهان سوالی که هرکس رو میدید میپرسید هم جا نمونه:
▪ Why is it wrong to kill people, or how can everyone be so calm when every living thing is going to die, oh, life is so empty! Everyone thinks this stuff. It’s like standard teenage angst.

▪ Everyone says that it’s wrong to kill, but then we have wars. The same government that makes laws against killing goes to war and has the death penalty.

چون جواب سوزوکی به سوال پرنس رو دوست داشتم هم میارمش:
▪ ‘Life is full of rules and prohibitions.’ Suzuki shrugs. ‘Rules about everything. If you were by yourself all the time, there wouldn’t be any problem, but as soon as someone else enters the picture, all sorts of rules spring into existence. We’re surrounded at all times by infinite rules with no clear basis. Sometimes it feels like we’re barely allowed to do anything.

life is full of rules, endless rules. Now, there are plenty of rules that even if you break them you can still make up for it. Say I stole your wallet, I could just give it back, or if I spilled something on your clothes, even if they were completely ruined I could still buy you new clothes. It might put a strain on our relationship, but things can more or less go back to the way they were. When someone dies, though, you can never take that back.’

I'm not saying this because there’s anything particularly beautiful about human life. But think of it this way. What if you were to burn the only existing copy of a manga? Once it’s gone, you can never get it back. I don’t think human lives and manga have the same value, but as an objective comparison you could say they’re similar for that reason. So when you ask why it’s wrong to kill people, you might as well ask why it’s wrong to burn a super-rare manga.

▪ If people knew that they might be killed by someone tomorrow, economic activity would grind to a halt. To begin with, there’s no economy without stable rights of ownership. I’m sure you can agree with that. If there was no guarantee that the thing you bought would belong to you, then no one would have any use for money. Having money would cease to mean anything. And then we consider a person’s life, which is the most important thing they possess. If we look at it that way, then for economic activity to function properly there would have to be protection for people’s lives, or at least the pretence of protection. Which is why the state puts into place rules and prohibitions, one of which is the prohibition on murder. It’s just one of the many important rules. With that in mind, it makes perfect sense why wars and the death penalty are allowed. Because they serve the needs of the state. The only things that are allowed are the things the state sanctions. Which has nothing to do with ethics.’

دیگه بسه فکر کنم.
خوش گذشت.
۳.۱۴۰۴