As far as geneses (genisisses? genesi?) of genres go, sci-fi probably couldn't have asked for a better one than The Time Machine. It introduces the reader to a fantastic, though well-explained and eminently plausible world and does so with not a small amount of literary talent.
The Time Traveller's initial explanation of 4-dimensional geometry is clear and, considering the understanding of the universe we now possess, very much ahead of its time. Even the idea that once the time machine was in motion, it would be invisible to people moving at a "normal" rate of time was impressively clear.
That being said, the passage of a little over 100 years of science and technology led to my amusement at certain little "facts" that the Time Traveller explains. I chuckled at his understanding of the death of the Sun (that the planets would fall back into it, fuelling it for a short time longer) and the fate of the millenia-old Earth.
These, of course, are just small details compared to the full scope of the book which, while excellent on the whole, was very frustrating at points. That the Time Traveller would have so little foresight as to what he should bring into the future is hard to believe. I suppose it fits his "nutty professor" M.O., but it still seemed unlikely. Further, that no great technological advances had been made past his time seems strange. Though the Time Traveller frequently states that it would have taken much time for humanity to perfect its worker exploitaiton system, he ignores that other developments would be made during that time.
The part of the book that I enjoyed the most was the Time Traveller's original and second impressions of mankind's evolution. In the first, he believes that technology along with communism caused a lack of struggle which eventually caused humans to become weak and stupid. In his second evaluation of human history, perfected worker exploitation in a capitalist framework led to the schism of the human race into the Eloi and the Morlocks. In both cases, the overspecialization of humanity removed its drive. Wells believes that conflict, though destructive, is essential to the progress of humanity. If it were removed, humanity would stagnate and decay into nothingness.
Wells' vision of human evolution, fitting into his era of biological common wisdom (Social Darwinism, etc.), is much more negative than the visions of humanity in many other sci-fi works. I think of it specifically as at odds with the show that first got me interested in sci-fi, "Star Trek." Gene Roddenberry's vision of humanity in the future was almost unilaterally positive. For him, humanity had a natural urge to explore and never to be satisfied with the status quo. Roddenberry's version of humanity would never allow for the stagnation of society that Wells indicates as inevitable. For Wells, humans are slaves of their biology - our own drives are just part of that biology.
Personally, as a member of the human race, I hope this is not the case. I prefer to believe that we will always boldly go where no one has gone before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you and Gene. Humanity has an existential drive to do something with itself. To "seek out new worlds" etc. The problem with good ole Wells is that he thought of humans as biological machines. All of our triumphs were reactions to evolutionary challenges. This clearly is an impoverished and incorrect view of human nature. As Heidegger pointed out, humans are the only species which asks "why." That makes us special, and unlikely to become Eloi or Morlocks.
I like what you said about the Time Traveller ignoring technological advances that would have taken place in the intervening years between his time and the future to which he traveled. To me, it points to a difference between what he seems to have seen as an ultimate upper class and what we experience today. In Wells's world, the Eloi run around and play all day because all of their needs have been cared for, whereas we are not content with having our needs fulfilled, but require computers, video games, DVDs, cell phones, etc. to feel as though we have even a normal existence. I don't have the skill to build a cell phone, but I know how to use one and am unlikely to forget how it works. On top of that, I expect more advancement of cell phones and other technology in the future, and I expect future generations to think of those advancements as necessities just as much as we tend to think of televisions and washing machines as necessities.
Post a Comment