Just Finished
Subtitled: A Prophetic Vision of the Future this book was definitely not what I imagined it would be. The cover illustration – on my edition (rather than the one pictured above) shows the giant gun & Raymond Massey as featured in the 1936 film directed by William Cameron Menzies. After seeing the film several times – worth a viewing if you haven’t already seen it – I fully expected that the book would follow the same plot. How wrong I was. It appears that Menzies took some of the essence of the book and really ran with it.
I wouldn’t classify the book itself as a work of fiction at all. It is a speculation from the point of view of citizens living in a
This is definitely not a light read and took me almost two weeks to finish – being almost 500 pages long didn’t help. There is a lot of discussion of the failings of both capitalism and democracy which may seem rather quaint and uninformed from our perspective 75 years after the book was published. There are also rather offensive comments regarding the role of women and non-Europeans (which is par for the course at the time but still irritates). The second half of the book is generally more interesting though somewhat far fetched as a reasonable speculation. The
10 comments:
I agree.
I too have troubles with most sci-fi 'utopia' books. Racism and misogeny were inevtiable though, in Well's work: the first due to the times and the second due to his unfortunate love-life.
I find it very irritating too, but I always try and remind myself that at the time, people were still quite uninformed and that, had Wells lived in a more recent time, he would've hopefully been more open to change.
Wells is one of my favourite authors, but for me his best works will be his less political ones.
I haven't read the book so let me ask you questions so I don't have to :-).
What differentiated the remaining technocrats from the mass of barbarians. How did they manage to escape what befell the rest of the population?
Does the World State succeed, long-term, in saving humanity? Do you think this World State something Wells saw as a good thing?
Did you notice any precedents for Wells's vision of society (i.e., the Republic, etc.) that he may have used as a model?
Dr S said: I too have troubles with most sci-fi 'utopia' books.
Mostly they're deadly boring. I *far* prefer Dystopia for an interesting read.
Dr S said: I find it very irritating too, but I always try and remind myself that at the time, people were still quite uninformed and that, had Wells lived in a more recent time, he would've hopefully been more open to change.
I read a book recently based in the pre-Civil War South. It was *dripping* with racism & I really struggled with it.
Dr S said: Wells is one of my favourite authors, but for me his best works will be his less political ones.
I loved 'War of the Worlds' and 'The Time Machine' best.
LB asked: What differentiated the remaining technocrats from the mass of barbarians.
Education, technical skill, youth, forward thinking & luck.
LB said: How did they manage to escape what befell the rest of the population?
They were mainly aviators so had the skills and opportunity to keep out of the way of the barbarian hordes & form a world spanning organisation - free from the interference of existing governments.
LB asked: Does the World State succeed, long-term, in saving humanity?
Yes. Not only did it save humanity it put them on the road to greatness.
LB asked: Do you think this World State something Wells saw as a good thing?
Most definitely. Though not totally uncritical of the World State it did come across as an obvious solution to all (not just most) of the worlds problems.
LB said: Did you notice any precedents for Wells's vision of society (i.e., the Republic, etc.) that he may have used as a model?
He did indeed mention Plato's Republic several times. I haven't actually read it (yet) but what I know of it seems pretty good. He also looked for inspiration to the Soviet Union as well as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Thanks. Now I can add this to the list of books I've "read" :-).
They were mainly aviators...
Interesting. Why do you think Wells chose flying? Many such scenarios have the revolutionaries/redeemers going underground. He has them going upwards. Do you think he might have been further associating these "better" men with Plato's idea of the Forms and the goal of "ascending" to their truths?
LB said: Thanks. Now I can add this to the list of books I've "read" :-).
[laughs] Happy to be of help.
LB asked: Interesting. Why do you think Wells chose flying?
Possibly because it was still pretty new at the time. Also that it was believed that "the bomber would always get through". This was, of course, later proven to be a fallacy.
LB said: Do you think he might have been further associating these "better" men with Plato's idea of the Forms and the goal of "ascending" to their truths?
It's possible but I think it more likely the flying would give the revolutionaries unopposed access to most of the world and a great deal of power over people who couldn't easily engage them in combat. It might be a metaphor for freedom but I'm not sure if Wells was that subtle.
I always assume there's more subtlety in a work than I'm grasping, but your pragmatic take makes good sense.
One last question. You say, "...had serious doubts throughout that [the World State] can be achieved in the ways outlined in this work." Meaning what exactly? Through technological advantage and brute force? Through what means was it achieved in the book and what are your doubts about any possible real-world implementation?
That's more than one question, but if answered, perhaps I can teach a class on the book at my local community college.
LB said: You say, "...had serious doubts throughout that [the World State] can be achieved in the ways outlined in this work." Meaning what exactly? Through technological advantage and brute force?
It was through a mixture of both. The aviators had the technological advantage & they used it to take global power. No one or nothing was allowed to stand in their way - for the 'greater good' of course...
LB said: Through what means was it achieved in the book and what are your doubts about any possible real-world implementation.
It took the form of economic dominance - the aviators had most of the worlds resources - and total air supremecy, which meant they could bomb (with gas) anyone who posed enough of a threat to them. They also instituted a programme of indoctrination in the areas they controlled in order to have a great (if not total) influence in the way future generations thought & what they believed. This meant that *any* other mode of thought was totally supressed.
The problem with the idea of a World State is that humans are not really built to co-operate on a global level. We're just too argumentative for one thing. Can you imagine getting the whole world to agree on *anything*? I can't. The only way a World State could exist is by force - which, of course, just wouldn't work. We might get to something resembling a World State @ some point in the future... but we'd have to be very different kinds of people to achieve that.
for your outstanding work and achievements and so on and so forth you shall recieve a special prize! scoot on over to the consortium of badness as soon as you read this!
I always find Wells's work to be quite prophetic. Of course, he was a Technocrat, so he was obviously biased in his visions of this particular future.
JS said: I always find Wells's work to be quite prophetic.
Hi JS & Welcome.
I find Wells's work often entertaining but not really prophetic. His writing inevitably reflects the ideas and prejudices of the time as well as his own.
He certainly made some astonishing leaps of imagination - including almost predicting the atomic bomb - but there was much that he 'got wrong'. Such is the life of a prolific SF author.
Post a Comment