Sorry guys, this is part two from my book review, it seemed too good to not share. There are numerous points in the story at which a character is faced with a moral dilemma. The first comes when the scientists send the professor and the students back to 1357 AD. A moral issue arises when Doniger chooses to send them back without warning them of the transcription errors that happen every time a person is sent back and forth. Knowing that there are serious, potential problems with the travel process, is it right to make use of the technology? Doniger breaches the line of morality when he sends back the students without telling them of the dangers and also by trying to hide it from the one student that remained behind. Another major moral dilemma is faced by Marek, Chris, and Kate, the three students sent back to rescue the professor. When they are in the past, they face death numerous times at the hands of the British and French, who are in the middle of the Hundred Years War. All three of them defend themselves from attacks by armed soldiers and in the process; each of them kills at least one person. Marek easily steps into the role of soldier and takes the lives of many men. The big question here is: is it moral to kill, even in self defense? Chris and Kate may have stayed on the side of morality, but Marek is a tougher subject to evaluate. Before he even knew it was possible to go back in time, he was infatuated with the past. He was so in love with the age in which it was kill or be killed that he taught some archery students with the phrase: “In order to kill a man, aim for the neck and legs.” This is common sense and even historically proven, but what is the point of teaching high school archery students this concept? Is it wrong for Marek to kill on the fact that he feels no remorse for it? Granted, much of the killing was in self defense, but he did remain in the past and lived out the rest of his life there. I don’t think Marek was a moral degenerate, but he did come close to crossing the line. It is easy to forget sometimes all the moral questions an individual faces every day, which makes it all that much easier to cast blame when someone does cross the moral line.