Disussion Post: The Time Machine by HG Wells.

[momebie]

Good afternoon! My name is KL and I'm going to be heading the discussion post for The Time Machine. What follows is a mixture of notes and questions I took down while reading the book, and interesting questions I found on the internet. I don't expect anyone to answer all of the questions, I just wanted to give you a large spread so you could

Comments

[hellboy]

Why do you think the time traveller decided to go so far into the future? Do you think that it would have been more beneficial if he had decided to stick closer to his own time? One thing that I find to be interesting is, as I recall, the original movie adaption of the book addresses this very thing by having him skip around a bit in the future before he gets so very far into the Morlocks et al. era of earth. It would've actually made more sense if the Traveller had done this in the book, because for scientific purposes that would probably be what a real person in the real world would do if presented with a Time Machine

[lindentreeisle]

But in regards to the book (which is of course what the discussion is about, regardless of my irrelevant tangents) I personally think he went that far out of eagerness. The character to me signifies a rather impulsive scientist than a logical one. More the "ooh shiny!" than the "we're documenting this.. FOR SCIENCE" type.

I actually question whether he's a "scientist" in the sense we use the word at all. An engineer, certainly. But he doesn't seem to have any notion of methodology, or evidence. Or else he just doesn't care. He doesn't plan, his "testing" of the concept of time travel seems more like a showpiece than anything else, he doesn't collect evidence. He doesn't even reason very well- his assumptions and deductions once he gets to the future leap far ahead of any data. He reminds me of the early archaeologists, who were nothing more than rich berks who fancied themselves adventurers and scientists, and dashed around smashing things open in search of shiny things they could take pictures of themselves with.

[hellboy]

You make a good point. He clearly has some knowledge of a field, because he built the machine and all, but he doesn't bother to document anything at all. Either he fancies himself above the process--in which case, it's called an assistant, dude--or he thinks he'll remember everything when he (assumes that he) gets back and does it then.

I wonder why Wells decided to have such a frivolous man be his main character. It definitely says something about the supposed "experts" of the era, or at least of how Wells saw them, but if all art is to be a mirror of the masses, he has to be aiming it in a particular direction to get such a disparaging conclusion.

[lindentreeisle]

I guess maybe it is a send-up...given Wells' schooling in science in the 1880s I can't believe he was unaware that even then, science required experimentation and not just induction/deduction. The scientific method was at least under development at the time.

[lindentreeisle]

Why do you think Wells chose not to give most of the characters names? Do you think this is meant to be an affectation of the narrator, or a noted disinterest from the time traveller?

I'd like to connect this question to this one: When you first encountered the two groups in your reading, were your assumptions colored differently by our own time? Did you have a projection in mind that you could readily ascribe to their differences? . If I may

[fishandcustard]

Why do you think Wells chose not to give most of the characters names?

I thought of it as him drawing the characters more as archetypes (of a sort). The Medical Man, the Time Traveler, the Psychologist, the Editor, the Journalist. Everyone is defined by a Capitalized Position, as if their title tells you everything you need to know about who they are, when it really tells you nothing.

I also thought this bit was interesting, looking at it from a modern perspective:"Seeing the ease and security in which these people were living, I felt that this close resemblance of the sexes was after all what one would expect; for the strength of a man and the softness of a woman, the institution of the family, and the differentiation of the occupations are mere militant necessities of an age of physical force. Where population is balanced and abundant [...] violence comes but rarely and offpsring are secure, there is less necessity - indeed there is no necessity - for an efficient family, and the specialisation of the sexes with reference to their

[bewize]

I agree about the naming convention.

I suppose I'm wondering what the traveler would think about the era we live in, the overall equality and men and women, and if he would think that the 1895 trajectory towards a future where men and women are literally practically identical has been upset in the slightest or is hurtling even faster forward.

I don't think that the Traveler found the merging of the genders upsetting, although I hadn't thought about it until I read your comment. It does make me wonder what Wells thought about it, though. In our era, I don't know what Wells or the Traveler would think. Men and women are more equal than we've been before (for the most part), although there are tremendous shortcomings still.

I would guess that Wells/the Traveler would think we were moving towards that same future, though.

[lindentreeisle]

He (in his aspect of the narrator) doesn't really remark on it much so I'm having a hard time telling if he views the uniformity of gender roles and appearance as negative or not. On the one hand, he identifies it as one of the trends which leads to this clearly unappalling future full of creatures he considers not really human. On the other hand, he doesn't say anything particularly negative about it otherwise; I can't recall the narrator making any comments about female eloi being unattractive or male eloi lacking manliness or the sort of pointed comments you'd expect from someone who viewed the blurring of gender roles with disdain

[escherzo]

The time traveller first concluded that the race of above ground people and the race of below ground people must be a widening of his contemporary social construct and assumed that they must be the descendants of the Capitalist and Labourer in his society respectively. When you first encountered the two groups in your reading, were your assumptions colored differently by our own time? Did you have a projection in mind that you could readily ascribe to their differences? I can definitely see how one could come to that conclusion seeing those who worked vs. those who didn't (weak vs. strong, etc) but I have to say, that was something I objected to in the book. Not that specifically, but--when I first read it at age 9 or 10 or so, I didn't grasp the commentary on class nearly as well, and now I can't help but see it. The fact that the 'haves' become weak and unintelligent but inherently beautiful and pitiable/sympathetic while the 'have-nots' become monstrous creatures that the time traveller doesn't seem to be bothered by killing

[bewize]

I found it equally interesting for that all he condemns the "haves" of the future, as soon as he got home, he was ringing bells for servants.

[escherzo]

I overlooked that, actually, may have to go back and find it--interesting indeed.

[lindentreeisle]

THIS.

One of the things that made me dislike the Traveler is his complete lack of self-awareness.

I'm having a hard time telling if Wells did that on purpose or not.

[neurotictealeaf]

Why do you think Wells chose not to give most of the characters names?

Like fishandcustard, I read the characters as (sort of) archetypes: all we seem to need to know about them is a profession, a title... except for Filby. Filby is the only one of the Time Traveler's contemporaries to be given a name -- but not a profession -- and he's introduced as "an argumentative person with red hair."

So, two characters with names (Weena and Filby), two very different personalities. So, why does Filby get a name? And, if we read the novel as an allegory, how does that complicate the question of what humanity is and isn't (a la lindentreeisle's above point well made)?

What did you think of the commentary of the museum? Do you think the fact that the books were rotted away entirely while the machines and bones still stood was a deliberate message to Wells' contemporaries? If so, do you think that message is still relevant to us?I do think that, yes, that was a deliberate message, and I think it's an interesting point in its context, too: literacy is a sign of privilege

[lindentreeisle]

I forgot about Filby

[neurotictealeaf]

Gah! Late reply is very late - my apologies.

I have to admit to always having had something of a soft spot for Filby, if only because I spend a lot of time wanting to be argumentative at the Time Traveler, so I tend to a positive reading of him as a skeptic. Because you're right: idealism doesn't work without skepticism.

Come to think of it, neither does Weena's "gratitude and mutual tenderness." Not that they're not traits that aren't (my altruism tells me) important to calling oneself human! Every once in a while, though, you've got to have someone that stands up and says 'no, wait, this isn't right.' I'm not arguing that skepticism works on its own, either, but I wonder if by showing us a whole group of flat characters, in societies that are probably not without their complexities, but giving us a protagonist who never really seems to look for or interrogate those complexities, Wells was making a point about the shades of grey that comprise humanity. Have an inventor/scientist who flies off on illogical fancies, and you've got