About book The Time Machine/The Invisible Man (2005)
In this as in other older books, edition is important. This is the 1984 printing of the Signet Classic edition 'with an introduction by John Calvin Batchelor'.I'm of two minds about whether to recommend reading the introduction. Its primary function seems to be to annoy readers of Wells' works by introducing all sorts of arguments about Wells as a person, implying (and sometimes stating outright) that Wells was quarrelsome, inconsistent, and sometimes downright immoral). Most of this is not the business of the reader, and if Wells had still been alive when this edition was published, there's considerable evidence he'd have sued Batchelor, on the grounds that what was written was either unprovable (and thus libelous), or none of the public's business, and thus an invasion of his privacy.There's one exception, however: I think most people tend to assume that Wells was well-educated, and he wasn't. Furthermore, he was apparently pretty defensive about this fact. This may help explain why, in several of his stories, Wells refuses to explain scientific and technical points. It's not just that he gave wrong answers to questions nobody knew the answers to at the time. It's also that he didn't know enough to give right answers that WERE already known. More on this later.If you're planning to skip the Introduction, I'd advise at least reading the capsule biography on the frontispiece. This at least gives useful information about when the two enclosed stories were first published (1895 and 1897, respectively). THE TIME MACHINEThere's a prevailing tendency to describe all English literature before 1900 as 'Victorian'. This is an understandable form of shorthand, since Victoria was around a record-breaking amount of time (though Elizabeth II, if she can make it past 2015, bodes fair to break that record), and a lot of English literature was written in that period. In this case, it's also literally true: 1895 is in the late Victorian Era, in the period known as "the Gay 90's".This will stand as an explanation for why Wells knew nothing about Mendelian genetics. Precious few people did at the time. Although Mendel's publications began shortly after the printing of Origin of Species (1859), they didn't become widely known until well after Darwin's 1882 death (they were widely published in 1901). Darwin himself was somewhat agnostic about the mechanisms of inheritance, and did believe (if warily) in the inheritance of acquired characteristics.On the other hand, if Wells was planning to apply Darwinian principles in a book, he really had no excuse for not knowing what those principles WERE. Darwin's works have mostly remained in print since they were first published (it's a little difficult at present to get current editions, but older ones are still available, pretty generally). And they're easy to read: Darwin was a good writer. There was no need to turn to Huxley's versions, especially since Huxley often modified Darwin's theories without comment when he disagreed.For one thing, Darwin was a convinced gradualist. He wouldn't have accepted an argument that any substantial genetic change could have become established after a (geologically) short interval like 800,000 years and change. He would have argued that no major genetic variation had happened among humans since their first separation from an isolated population of hominids (Homo erectus, but he wouldn't have known that part), whenever that happened (still not clear). Indeed, it's now known that even the most maximally morphologically divergent humans differ by no more than one hundredth of 1% from ANY other humans). For another thing, Darwin was aware that natural selection is not necessarily a directional process. There's no particular reason to believe in trends of any sort (progressive, regressive, or whatever) UNLESS other processes are active. Darwin tended to try to add fudge factors, because he was a meliorist--he did believe in progress. But they're not a necessary part of his own theoretical framework, and he added them because he was uncomfortable with a nondirectional variation.The first time I read The Time Machine, I was in my teens, and I remember being most concerned about the water. The industrial processes used by the Morlocks are not clear, but they almost certainly involve leakage of toxic materials; mutagenic, teratogenic, carcinogenic, you name it. And all known water cycles involve a subterranean passage of water at some point. How was the water prevented from becoming so toxic that even the few viable organisms became sterile?This rereading raised additional issues. For one, I simply can't believe in any sort of change that resulted in the elimination of ALL fungi and bacteria. There have been bacteria since the origin of life on Earth, and they still comprise the majority of living things. How COULD two (or maybe three) of the five kingdoms of life just be completely eliminated, in 800,000 years, or in 800 million? This falls under the heading of literally incredible. Furthermore, while the majority of bacteria are completely irrelevant to other life, some are crucial to survival processes (digestion, oxygen production, etc). And without fungi, bacteria, earthworms,etc to decompose the bodies of dead creatures, how could the essential minerals, etc be returned to the life cycle of plants and animals? The Time Traveler describes many familiar plants, most of which depend on those recycled nutrients. And what about insects? And other pollinators, seed dispersers, and insectivores? Without all these, the whole system crashes. The surviving plant and animal communities are piecemeal. It's not surprising, for example, if equines had all gone extinct. Most species of equines are dependent on human cultivation and protection. But what about cervines (deer and their ilk?). Those are currently flourishing in the most improbable places, such as hedgerows and the verges and central vegetation on highways. What has become of them, in this improbably near future?It's perhaps not surprising that a British author is so insular. In the whole period (not much above a week, but still...) he's in this future time, he doesn't get more than about a day's pedestrian travel away from his landing point (if he'd thought the matter through more thoroughly, he might've put a bike rack on the thing. And thrown in a picnic basket, just in case. And a first aid kit, maybe?). He does, at one point, come near the seashore (moved in more toward London by erosion), but doesn't consider marine assets until later. But if the terrestrial flora and fauna were so affected, what ABOUT the marine systems? And come to that, if, in the present day, coral reefs in the Caribbean are deleteriously affected by dust from the Sahara, it's not likely that even the most insular society won't be affected by impacts from 'the Continent'. Or Iceland, for that matter. What's happened to Icelandic glaciers if average temperatures in Britain have heated enough to make outdoor life comfortable year 'round?Then there's the question of exactly what the Morlocks do to supply the Elois' 'wants'. What ARE those 'wants'? Food is easily acquired. Sleeping rooms probably don't need much maintenance. Water seems to be plentiful. Unexpectedly, the Eloi don't even seem to want any games to play with. All they do is dance, swim, and make love. Weena doesn't even understand the utility of pockets, because she and her companions don't have any property to carry--though you'd think they'd pick up things like pretty rocks as well as flowers. And as for clothing, they wear lightweight clothing (?why wear any?), which could easily be made durable, comfortable, and easily cleaned. After a certain amount is made in suitable sizes, what need for more? The 'Time Traveler' is careful to disavow any knowledge of 'drains'...but the reason he gives is not very good. There aren't a lot of possible variations for plumbing, after all. But if the society HAD come up with vastly superior plumbing, the best improvement is mechanisms to keep it functional--so what is there for the Morlocks to do? Keep the service robots in repair?And the price they charge is simply unreasonable. Eloi may not be very wary except on dark nights, but they're still about as large as the Morlocks (who are also small). Wouldn't it be easier for the Morlocks to do some night fishing? There is clearly life left in the ocean, and even if all the plankton (krill and the like) were gone (and life in the ocean probably wouldn't persist if they were), fishing is a lot easier than hunting down intelligent beings, who might sell their lives dear.I doubt, by the way, the premise that having no conflict (and no drudgery) in people's lives would mean that they wouldn't develop their intellects. In reality, I would say it was the reverse: that people who dull their talents with drudgery and exhaustion are the least likely to develop intellectually, all other things being equal. From babyhood, most humans learn for the fun of it, after all. And their investigative edge, too often, is blunted by the imposed need to get serious (read obsessive) about it all.If, having heard the Time Traveler's story, he had asked me for advice, I would have suggested taking tools to fortify the museum he spent far too little time in, and to study there until he got a pretty good idea what happened. And then to try to find other museums, and maybe even some surviving libraries. And THEN to go back to an earlier time, bearing evidence of how things were trending, and set up a school, in an attempt to head off what is coming.The penultimate scenes in an (unidentified) far future time are untenable. Granting that, with time, the Earth would likely become tide-locked to the sun (really, it would probably happen with the Moon, first. The Moon is already tide-locked to the Earth; in time it would probably become reciprocal), it'd almost certainly be too MUCH time. In about 4.5 billion years, the Earth will be inside the sun. How? The sun will run short on hydrogen for fusion. Because it's no longer producing enough energy to counteract gravity, it will begin to shrink...until the heavier elements get close enough together to begin fusing. Then it will begin to expand again (slowly, because it's too small for there to be enough fusion reactions for an explosion). By the time it reaches maximum size, its photosphere will be beyond the orbit of Mars. Then after it runs out of fuel to produce iron (iron is the first element on the periodic table that produces less energy from fusion than it uses up in fusing--heavier elements are produced only in supernovae), it will begin to collapse again. But until it's shrunk quite a bit, the Earth, the Moon, and the inner planets will still be inside the sun. And all this would almost certainly be before the Earth could become tide-locked to the Sun. Afterwards, when the sun has become a neutron star, it might happen--but even if there were again oceans on the Earth by that time, it's unlikely they'd contain crustaceans: because probably life would have to get started again, and it's not likely that multicellular life would develop again. Details, details! But details count. THE INVISIBLE MANIt's said that Wells only realized after he had written the book that the Invisible Man would be blind--because the retina was no longer opaque to visible light. But there are a lot more technical problems than that. For example, it's the colored agents in blood (haemoglobin, particularly) that carry oxygen. If the haemoglobin lost its color, could it carry oxygen to the cells?But the technical problems, while interesting, are not the primary interest in this book. Griffin could easily have resolved some of them, by creating (as he proved he could) invisible clothing. The social problems, however, might be intractable. Griffin expects that invisibility will give him power. In fact, he finds that it brings him only troubles. He gains little or nothing, but he's often in danger (of freezing, if nothing else). And people finally chase him down and murder him, without negotiation or quarter.And the reason given for this ruthless behavior on the part of the visible is patently false, or at least unprovable. Note that the only person who ever TALKED to Griffin about his problems is the person who set him up to be killed. He CLAIMS to be accurately representing Griffin's story--but there's no way to question a dead man.So we're left with a situation where the only evidence we have about the man is people who have various sorts of grudges against him, or who stood to profit from his death (the homeless man Griffin drafts into his service has every intention of robbing him. If he didn't intend to make away with Griffin's property, why not just ditch it somewhere safe, and tell him where it is)?There's no evidence at all that Griffin meant to undertake a 'reign of terror'. Even if he thought of it at some point, he would have rapidly realized it was impossible, since he still had to get away from people to remain at large. And at one point there is a coordinated effort to deny him food and sleep, though he's evidently had a serious shortage of both for weeks.Furthermore, the description of the man's life BEFORE he developed his 'invisibility' technique is too easily dismissed. Born an albino, he has almost certainly led a life of pain and illness. Without any pigment in his skin, he was at terribly high danger of skin cancers (and there's no evidence that the process rendered him transparent in the UV range--so he's at even greater risk if he daren't wear clothes). Skin cancer, after all, is what killed Snowflake the White Gorilla. Furthermore, he must have lived a lifetime of pain, and not just from perennial sunburns. He must have been severely and chronically photophobic. And there's no evidence that he was able to arrange a nocturnal schedule. I would be surprised, really, if he hadn't had those 'smoked glasses' LONG before he ever experimented with invisibility.Then there's the question of irritability. Even if the one person who actually interviewed him hadn't accused him of extreme irritability (probably exaggerating for propaganda purposes), I wouldn't be surprised if someone in chronic, low-level pain did have a tendency to be irritable. The only escape would be in a darkened room. But in a society where people were considered to have no right to privacy, keeping in a darkened room might be hard to manage. I have to say that I never stopped feeling wincing pity for the man. Even when he did kill a man (in what sounds to me to be a fair fight against a man who assaulted him), I wasn't prepared to accept the sickening scene in which he's beaten to death by what amounts to a lynch mob. I don't consider the 'villagers with pitchforks' revelation a spoiler, by the way, because it's repeatedly telegraphed.I found this book a horror novel, in that it revealed the revolting cruelty of 'ordinary people' when faced with anything out of the ordinary.
Book Review: The Time Machine(83 pages)What is time? Is it the recording of the present and past and the peeking into the future? Is it the aging process of all things? Is it relative to space? Is it changeable or in a constant mold? Can you move about it and through it? These questions come to mind while either A) reading The Time Machine by H.G. Wells or B) having a deep, frustrating moment, pondering things beyond my own understanding. That is part of the reason The Time Machine was such a great read, different from most books I have found.There were two themes uncovered in this book, in my opinion. The first was to believe in yourself, even when people may not think you can achieve your goals. This first occurred to me when the time traveller was meeting in his study with friends, discussing his miniature model. They kindly joked and remarked on 'the absurdity' of his intentions, but he went along with his plan anyways. The second was curiosity. The saying "curiosity killed the cat" popped into my mind several times as I read. Chapter after chapter was filled with close calls and risks based on the fact that the time traveller was eager to see what lay around the corner. A scientist is supposed to be a skeptical and have a curious mind; I'm positive you could associate the main character as a scientist (based on his character traits).As I read, I realized the main character is never named; he is just referred to as "the time traveler". Multiple maids, servants, friends, and acquaintances are named, but he is not. I found that strange, but it added mystery to the story, and it mad The Time Machine more interesting to me personally. I think the time traveler can be described as naive, curious, adventuresome, athletic, and humorous. The traits naive and curious can be found any time he sits on the time machine and maneuvers its levers. Adventuresome doesn't describe the time traveler; adventuresome IS the time traveler. The moment he steps off the seat of the machine and into the year 802,701 A.D. he is an adventurer, like it or not. I also call him athletic, because at one point in the story, he runs, on his account, about 2 miles in no more than 10 minutes to escape the coming of darkness. His character is also humorous, because he always is turning his misfortune into a joke about himself, especially when he comes home a wreck and his friends want to know why--he tells them they must wait for him to eat and have a cigar. I probably admire this last trait the most about the time traveller.The story takes place in England in the mid-1800s. Some things that also went along with the setting was the descriptions of houses as cottage-like and clothing as 'evening' and 'day dress'.Another thing affected by either the setting of the story or the time the story was written was the dialect. This book wasn't written in a very modern form (by that I mean with modern slang or speech). It made me feel I was in a different world, and that was BEFORE he traveled into the far future. Those descriptions were of scenarios that I had trouble imagining myself in. A place with all rustic ruins and no technology? If that's what the future holds, I don't want to travel very far into it.In The Time Machine, the time traveler "travels" through time. That's pretty predictable because of the tittle, but what is unpredictable is the order of events as they take place. The story begins in the home of the traveller; his friends/colleagues are over and they are all thoughtfully discussing the concept of time. He tells them that with time, the fourth dimension, people should be able to move around it like they do the other three. His friends only ponder it with him long enough to cross if off their list of possibilities. The next week, he invites them back for dinner, only when they arrive, the time traveler cannot be found. A few moments pass before the time traveler finally stumbles in his front door, looking like he spent a week on Survivor (the game show). His guests are in suspense as he puts off the explanation for his condition until after dinner.When they are all settled in his lounge, the time traveler tells the small group of men gathered of the creation of a time machine, hand built and home tested. He tells them of his first trip into the future, the amazing sights he saw, and the two very different species that solely inhabit the future earth. He also projects the thought that people can evolve or change and loose the very thing that separates human beings from plain animals. His story may come to an end, and his guests may go home, but is his adventure really over?The author, H.G. Wells, has a distinct writing style to me; I haven't seen many books like it, but that's because The Time Machine was first published in 1895. The language used is older English than most people are used to hearing, but it essentially will cause the reader to slow down and be more thorough in how they read. I reread parts many times if I didn't feel like I understood the descriptions or dialect. What I could understand and what I enjoyed, was the writer's beautiful way of putting things that were pretty plain. Once, where the author could have said "As I went faster, night and day went by one after the other" he says "As I put on pace, night followed day like the flapping of a black wing". It makes me forget I'm reading a novel and not a poem; his writing as a piece of art.The Time Machine was not only thought provoking, mysterious, or artistic, it was also deep. The way he compares the futures inhabitants to animals really made me think about the human race and what makes people unique. That in itself can blow people's minds, and H.G. Wells had to throw in a concept as deep as time travel right in on top of it all. W-O-W. One reflection I had was that if time and the surrounding earth could change that much, would people really change that greatly? Would our minds evolve first, or our physical bodies? Have we evolved very much over the past thousands of years?I could go on forever with questions, as I'm sure any person could after reading The Time Machine. This book is for the scientific thinker or the adventurer; I don't recommend its reading if you don't want to think, ponder, or become curious, just like the time traveler.
Do You like book The Time Machine/The Invisible Man (2005)?
The Time MachineWell's classic still stands as a riveting tale. What makes this still fresh is instead of focusing on the machine, Wells focuses on the story of using the machine. Although he was a socialist, he was an adherent to particular idea of socialism, one where humanity organizes into something more like a hive-like structure. He didn't like Marxist socialism, with the forced classes of the workers and the owners. Eloi and the Morlocks are the results of 800,000 years of Marxist socialism, two different species. The Eloi are the upper class, rendered weak and useless except as food for the Morlocks, the race underneath the surface, who keep the surface creatures alive, like tending to a herd.Wells isn't writing a Scientific Romance just to write about time travel, he writes to explore ideas and uses things like the time machine as a vehicle. I have a different understanding of Wells reading him again as an adult. If you don't read at least one book by Wells, and it might as well be this one, you are missing out. Highly recommended.The Invisible ManJust as in The Time Machine, the fact that Giffin is invisible isn't the point, it's what he does while invisible, his slow decent into madness and unbridled ambition to start his own reign of terror. The image of the Invisible Man is iconic, the bandages, the glasses and hat. Wells' writing is better in this novel, sharpened and more expressive than it was in The Time Machine, the idea is the same, a dash of science to provide the background to explore ideas. In this case, the scientist as a god, or at least, something beyond human. And, of course, where that hubris leads.Again, highly recommended.
—Russell
Book seven (and technically book eight) of 2011: four stars. Since this is really a compilation of two books I'll do separate reviews for them, I suppose.For The Time Machine: For some reason I had mixed feelings about this book. I find it somewhat boring and dry for a large portion of the story. And I discussed that I felt that way about it with one of my teachers and we came to the conclusion that writing exciting climactic scenes just isn't one of H.G. Wells's strong points, so quite a bit of the book doesn't contain the emotion it's meant to contain unless you really put forth an effort to ingrain yourself in the text. That said, there were certain aspects of it that I really did like. Even though it wasn't part of the actual main plot, when the Time Traveler journeyed farther into the future to see the end of the Earth, I was actually more interested in the book than I was when he was running around chatting with the Eloi and trying to find his Machine. This is also one of the few books I've read where the characters have a ridiculously minimal amount of development throughout the book but don't feel flat or shallow. Still, I felt as though this was the lesser of the two novels.For The Invisible Man: I don't know if it was because I had to read Time Machine for school and that inevitably detracted from the enjoyment, but Invisible Man definitely felt like it was the stronger of the two. The plot was easier to become absorbed in and I felt like H.G. Wells was playing with a few more strengths in this book than he was with the other. It was a change to have the "bad guy" as the main character of a novel--that's something I haven't read in a while--so it felt very refreshing and I think that was one of the main things that prompted me to give this compilation of books four stars instead of the three I originally felt it deserved.
—Emmie
This review is only about 'The Time Machine' I read these 2 books in different times, they were both good, but I personally like 'The Time Machine' more. There are many, many books with time machines, but this story was one of the first books that used the term 'time travel' and this book is detailed because the story actually explains the theory and other characters bring up with doughts which makes it even more interesting. The ending is a little mysterious that there could've been a second book, but there is none. I think the reason why the author only went to the future was to give us some thought about what is actually going to happen in the future. Not just a few centuries but millions of years after. Another reason why I like this book is because it gives you something to think about after you finished reading it. It could be a little hard because of the theories, but if you understand them well enough the book becomes logical plus interesting.
—Minjae
