H. G. Wells

[Loki]

I've opened this thread to discuss, if you like, about Herbert George Wells.
I enjoy reading science-fiction novels and I was looking forward to reading something by Wells, considered, I think, one of the pioneers of the genre.
I have to admit that I've only read two of his most famous novels, but I was really disappointed when I finished both books, I was bored.

The War of the Worlds: it was somewhat difficult to read for me, and I didn't like how it was narrated. I mean, the main idea of the plot was quite interesting, but not well developed maybe. I expected more from the novel, having seen the film.

The Invisible Man: more interesting than the first. I didn't enjoy the book on the whole, but I found a positive aspect, though (it could be Wells's main point, too). Generally I thought that being invisible is positive, that it may have a lot of advantages, but reading the novel I've come to the conclusion that it may present more disadvantages than what I thought. Anyway, I know it's all fiction but it made me think that what we desire will not necessarily have a positive impact on us and on reality.


In the end, I think that part of my disappointment derives from my knowledge of English, that is not good enough yet.

[Daniel del Real]

I've always wanted to read Wells, but never did. I'm not a big fan of sci fi books so that's why I've postponed it so many times.
However in my scope still is Dr. Moreau's Island and The Time Machine, a novel that my sister recently read and liked it very much.

[lionel]

I've always wanted to read Wells, but never did. I'm not a big fan of sci fi books so that's why I've postponed it so many times.
However in my scope still is Dr. Moreau's Island and The Time Machine, a novel that my sister recently read and liked it very much.

But Wells wasn't just about SF, and very far from it. And if we forget the very early 20th century 'materialist' stuff that Virginia Woolf famously criticised him (and Galsworthy, and Bennett) for, Ann Veronica (1909) and Tono-Bungay (1909) are very interesting comments on contemporary English society. Why don't more people read them, instead of ghettoizing Wells into his early material?

[Loki]

Because those novels are the most famous. When I choose to read something by a writer, I usually prefer to start from his most known works. I wish I had the time to read what you've just mentioned. Lucky you that you have it.

[lionel]

Because those novels are the most famous. When I choose to read something by a writer, I usually prefer to start from his most known works. I wish I had the time to read what you've just mentioned. Lucky you that you have it.

My point is that it pays to reflect before you make a decision: 'famous' by no means means 'best', and often means quite the reverse.

blog

[Loki]

My point is that it pays to reflect before you make a decision: 'famous' by no means means 'best', and often means quite the reverse.

I know that. Next time I will go eeny meeny miny moe!
Joking aside, as I'm studying literatures at university, I prefer to read the so-called classics first, it doesn't matter if they're not the best.
I'd like to read every book in the world, but I have to choose among them the ones that maybe have had more influence in the history of literature.

Anyway, I read those two novels because I liked the main idea of the plot, not just because they're famous novels.

[marilynmonroe_007]

The Island of Dr. Moreau is a great read.

His other novels are definitely lofty and stately in style, but also a bit more dry. The ideas within are fascinating though. You'd need a fairly good vocabulary or else be stuck with looking up quite a few words.

[lionel]

I have to choose among them the ones that maybe have had more influence in the history of literature.

Ann Veronica is a classic in the history of the New Woman novel, particularly so as it was written by a man. And it's very interesting in light of Rebecca West's criticism of Well's novel Marriage (1912), which in effect began the long relationship between the two of them. That is literary history.

[Loki]

I dind't know that, thanks for the information. I'll read it one day, although it doesn't sound interesting to me.
I'd be more interested in reading The Island of Dr. Moreau, and in re-reading The Time Machine: I read that in Italian some years ago but I don't remember a thing.

[lionel]

I dind't know that, thanks for the information. I'll read it one day, although it doesn't sound interesting to me.

Maybe not, but you're the one who started an H. G. Wells thread, not just an 'H. G. Wells and Science Fiction' thread. Most of Wells's works weren't SF.

[Igu Soni]

I've read some of his sf, and it seemed like they stopped short of great ideas. Invisible Man, for example. His problem was that he went mad, and not because of his condition but that thing he gave himself to go invisible.

[Heteronym]

I loved H.G. Wells as a child, but nowadays I dislike him. After the initial shock of his ideas, it becomes clear he was writing pamphlets and not literature. His 'scientific romances' - a beautiful name for what used to be science fiction - boil down to this: science is dangerous in the hands of loonies like Moreau and the Invisible Man. Of course it wouldn't be dangerous in the hands of higher intellects that rose above the herd and used it to create Utopia.

His optimism is so sickening in a world that's been ravaged by science and so-called progress. I really wish he could come to life just for a day and see what all his hopes and dreams amounted to: a world united by war, with mass famine, mass polution, mass unemployment and mass stupidity. He did say things in the future would get bigger and bigger.

[lionel]

After the initial shock of [H. G. Wells's] ideas, it becomes clear he was writing pamphlets and not literature.

Since when, exactly, have pamphlets not been literature? Since you decided on a definition of the word 'literature'? Come on, there has to be some consensus.

[H. G. Wells's] optimism is so sickening in a world that's been ravaged by science and so-called progress.

Agreed! So, er, so... Technology is making us and breaking us at the same time. Go back and you're a cave dweller, move forward and you're a nerdy technophile, you can't win, just flow with the go (in that order). Death is permanent, change is immortal.

blog

[Jayaprakash]

The original poster preferred the Spielberg version of War Of The Worlds? The one where the kid says 'daddy, is it the terrorists?' The thinly-veiled 9/11 allegory with a garnishing of child-abuse thrown in for added frisson? Surely this is is a piss-take.

I won't comment further on WOTW but Moreau and The Time-Traveller are excellent novels. A simplistic view that Wells was a sort of advocate of science and progress as absolute good can be countered by his pessimistic view of human development in the latter and his anti-vivisectionist critique in the former. Anyone who still accuses him of being some sort of unreflective optimist really ought to read his Outline Of History and A Mind At The End Of Its Tether.

His story The Door In The Wall is a poignant evocation of the importance of wonder in our lives, and the tragedy of the loss of the ability to lose oneself in wonder. Several of his short stories are worth reading, as noted his non-SFnal social novels are also worthwhile.

I'd also like to say that Science Fiction is a very misunderstood genre, especially by its practitioners and fans; it is a genre that attempts to embrace the sublime using the rational language of the 20th century. All the emphasis on scientific rigour and extrapolatory prescience are beside the point that the essential nature of SF is a sort of modern aesthetic of epiphany.

[Igu Soni]

I'd also like to say that Science Fiction is a very misunderstood genre, especially by its practitioners and fans; it is a genre that attempts to embrace the sublime using the rational language of the 20th century. All the emphasis on scientific rigour and extrapolatory prescience are beside the point that the essential nature of SF is a sort of modern aesthetic of epiphany.

Is that 20th century rationalistic for 'it's about ideas'? That's what I always thought sf was.


Seriously, 'modern aesthetic of epiphany' makes absolutely no sense to me. Not to mention that it brings to mind an ejaculation. Please explain.

[Jayaprakash]

Most SF narratives that I've read build to some sort of epiphanic moment. This moment of epiphany is a recurring aspect in a lot of literature, both the realist form of literature with its slice of life leading to a personal epiphany or genre fiction. Literary epiphanies are conveyed in spiritual, magical or personal forms depending on the genre of literature and the social context it evolves from. SF's epiphanies are couched in the trappings of space travel, or cyberpunk, or other devices that reflect the concerns and preferences of a modern, science-positive ethos.

Also, I think the traditional SF justification as a literature of ideas is incomplete at best. It often just serves to mask the quest for those epiphanic, sublime moments in a respectable intellectual pursuit.

[Igu Soni]

Most SF narratives that I've read build to some sort of epiphanic moment. This moment of epiphany is a recurring aspect in a lot of literature, both the realist form of literature with its slice of life leading to a personal epiphany or genre fiction. Literary epiphanies are conveyed in spiritual, magical or personal forms depending on the genre of literature and the social context it evolves from. SF's epiphanies are couched in the trappings of space travel, or cyberpunk, or other devices that reflect the concerns and preferences of a modern, science-positive ethos.

Also, I think the traditional SF justification as a literature of ideas is incomplete at best. It often just serves to mask the quest for those epiphanic, sublime moments in a respectable intellectual pursuit.

The epiphany will come in any genre. Why choose sf? What makes sf a more satisfying medium for this than any other genre?

[john h]

A novel by Wells that nobody has mentioned so far is "The Passionate Friends". Nabokov was an admirer of this book. I read it about 20 years ago and liked it a lot. It was funny, parts of it were great and other parts actually boring. The great parts certainly made it worthwhile for me.

[Heteronym]

Since when, exactly, have pamphlets not been literature? Since you decided on a definition of the word 'literature'? Come on, there has to be some consensus.

I think it's generally accepted that they're not. Literature, in all its expressions from poetry to novel to theatre, is defined by its uselessness. This is something that finds agreement from Umberto Eco to a school guidebook to literature. Literature doesn't have a purpose, like a how-to-book or a dictionary.

Pamphlets have a purpose: they're a medium to express ideas, in a clear and unadultered form, that someone thinks other people should be aware of, that they consider socially important or useful. That's why there are people in the streets handing out pamphlets about the perils of drinking, about how to use condoms, why abortion is evil, why foreigners are dangerous, why the environment needs saving, why we should throw down the US Empire, etc.

H.G. Wells thought very highly about his ideas, he was a social refomer at the end of the day. His novels are nothing but thinly-disguised pamphlets enforcing his ideas about how great society would be if people only paid him any attention.

That's a second thing that separates him from a real writer. Real writers mock people who think they have all the answers, all the solutions, all the explanations. They mock people who think everything could be explained or solved by science and technology. They know life is too complex for that.

[LeonConstantin]

Thank you for your comments.