Avatar. The Avengers. Iron Man 3. Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The Dark Knight Rises.
These are five of the top ten all-time highest grossing movies. Their (arguable) inclusion in the Science Fiction canon begs a question of the genre: is it just the spectacle that we shell out to witness, or is there some more primitive itch that these kinds of events scratch?
This blog is dedicated to figuring out how it is that Science Fiction addresses the problem of defining "human."
There are many interesting points that H.G. Wells highlights in the opening chapters of The Time Machine. A scene that particularly caught my attention came in the very first chapter, as the primary cast of characters is introduced to us. Here, the time traveler enlightens his acquaintances with his exciting discovery of “the fourth dimension.” Here, after he demonstrates his knowledge with the disappearance of his miniature time machine, the men are all appalled at the trick. This launches a discussion on how the time traveler could prove the success of his invention. In this dialogue the men try to explain time travel as best as they can comprehend but I noticed multiple flaws in their assumptions. For one they claim that if the object had been sent into the future, they would be able to see it in the present, similarly if it had been sent into the past, they would also be able to perceive the object in the present; because it had existed since whatever time it had been sent back to. I find all these theories to be completely asinine, to be honest. For one, if the machine was sent into the future, it would no longer exist in the present. By sending it into the future, you remove the machine from the present time. The theory about the past is a little more accurate; however the men overlook many key aspects. For one, just because something was sent into the past doesn’t mean it will stay in one place. As it exists in the past, it is subject to whatever is happening in that moment. For all the men know it could’ve been destroyed, and that’s why they cannot perceive the object in the present. I feel the men haven’t put as much thought into the concept of time travel as their companion has. I think this reflects the very limited knowledge of abstract science in that time.
As I read the first part of The Time Machine I really enjoyed the different theories on how humanity transformed into the little creatures found by the time traveler in the future. In a way, the narrator was joining in on the thought process that the class was probably going through also; analyzing the new characteristics of the creatures and debating how this happened. It sounded almost like our class discussions.
The one thing that I considered though is that maybe laziness just the got the best of us. These little people of the future all just seemed content to lounge around, eat, and let the world grow and thrive around them. They can not hold their attention spans for too long and are oddly disinterested when a completely new being (to them) enters their town unexpectedly and unexplained. None of them seem upset or distressed, but are perfectly content to just run around and laugh. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.
It ties into how people are evolving. People are constantly looking for something new to be entertained by. Read or watch one video and scroll on to the next. This is why vines and tweets are only so long. People don't want to dedicate as much time anymore. This is also why shows like Family Guy are so popular now; there's continuous cuts to other scenes and other quick jokes so the viewer doesn't get bored or lose focus during the half hour show. Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter.
From this I wondered if these new beings could even be considered humans anymore. They evolved from us, but we also evolved from monkeys. Where is the cut off or separation point to the next level? Are they just an exaggeration of what we are now or are they a new species of their own. There aren't genders anymore it seems as they are all small and similar looking. And if curiosity really does make a human then they definitely aren't. Between their poor focus and lack of intelligence or interest they don't show any sort of underlying passion that kind of defines mankind.
I’ve read Chapters 1-6 so far. I thought that The Time Machine was going to be a hard science fiction story. The first chapter felt a lot like reading a technical manual or textbook. It wasn’t until later on that I realized that it was supposed to set the foundation of the story. I do hope that the Time Traveller explains how the Time Machine works a little more. The gimmick with the bars of the machine is really interesting and I look forward to see what he does with them.
The narrative is a lot like Gulliver’s Travels. The only difference is that the Time Traveller speaks to the audience whereas Gulliver is writing a journal. The future the Time Traveller is in was described very vividly. Not only that, it was described to the best of his ability and he admits that a few times. He also describes the Eloi, the Murlocks, and the culture they live in. I can’t help but think that the Time Traveller learning the language was a reference to Gulliver’s Travels.
The fourth and sixth chapters have been the most interesting so far. The narrator is really puzzled that the Eloi don’t seem to do any work. He remarks that society as advances so far that they can afford to not work. When he realizes that the Murlock are the ones who work, he compares their relationship with the Eloi to that of the capitalist and the laborer. What makes this really odd is that he utters “Communism” after realizing that houses and cottages are no more. It seems as though the narrator feels that laboring is a key definition when it comes to being human.
Time travel stories are awesome because they bring everything to the table. Hardcore physics AND philosophical knot-tying. It's fun to travel down that rabbit-hole sometimes.
Alyssa's post noted the problem of defining the technical processes and paradoxes of time travel: how does it work?
The butterfly effect plus grandfather, bootstrap, and predestination paradoxes are all themes and concepts immediately recognizable in any film or book that deals with time travel. Navigating different formulas for time travel, rules and structures of timeline interactions and their paradoxes make awesome fodder for stories about fate and humanity. What makes "The Time Machine" so interesting is that it is (one of) the first books to build this fundamental framework around the mechanism of time travel. It pioneered the ideas that films like "Looper", "Back to the Future", "The Terminator", and "12 Monkeys" (among countless others) adopted, modified and added to.
Even though it kicked off a grand tradition, "Time Machine" is not a stumbling, primitive foray into this realm. While Wells understandably glosses over the troublesome task of explaining how the machine actually functions, besides a simple forward and reverse lever, he still introduces some serious concepts that leave the reader thinking. First, the Traveler is not a mere observer, he can physically interact with the timelines he visits. There's also no guarantee he won't end up being merged with some structure or object that gets placed in his way when he stops traveling. Time travel is done with an invented machine, rather than through some natural "wormhole" phenomenon, or mental or physical ability. He also brings back physical evidence of his trip, which serves two purposes: It's proof that such a trip took place, if anyone still harbored doubts, but it also defines a particular aspect of time travel as Wells imagines it in his universe: The flowers do not fade or vanish when they travel to a time before they could have existed.
Technical aspects like these are really interesting to me since they construct the universe and rules in which these kinds of stories have to operate. Done correctly, it makes for a fantastic, absorbing story. However, when a story makes mistakes while navigating these rules, it can completely dismantle any suspension of disbelief. (I'm looking at you, Back to the Future: Why doesn't Marty's mom freak out when her kid looks IDENTICAL to the guy she got kissy with back in the day?)
Anyway, I wonder what twists and turns in the timeline would have taken place if the Traveler journeyed to his PAST.
I thought that the time machine was very innovative for its time and was reminiscent of Galaver’s travels in the story tell of the time travelers passages. But for me the most interesting part was that this book really ended up defining what a time traveler should be just like Frankenstein defined a mad scientist. From what I understand there are two main things that make up a Time traveler other than the obvious of being able to actually time travel. One being that a time traveler needs to have an extreme overabundance of curiosity. Two is the time traveler must have some sort of companion to experience the new adventures with because where is the fun in a new discovery if you can’t share it with someone else. -Sebrina Thompson
From Katrina: Going off Laura’s comment about the evolution of the human species that is depicted in Wells Time Machine, I too enjoyed his observations and theories pertaining to the little creatures that seemed to have evolved from our race of Homo sapiens. Wells creates this Utopia that eradicates any resemblance to what I think most people would define as “human”. He plays with the idea that humans need to have the ability to produce and consume in order to be capable of any form of intellect or intelligence. In chapter 4 he says, “For after the battle comes Quiet,” my interpretation of the battle being the need to build and produce the next best thing, the drive to make life more efficient. But also the battle of the consumer, “The shop, the advertisement, traffic, all that commerce which constitutes the body of our world, was gone.” He brings to question the necessity of all that we know. Is our ability to produce and need to consume a fundamental part of being human? Based on the first few chapters of The Time Machine, I would argue yes. The creatures that the Time Traveler encounters are described as children, but I wouldn't even dignify them with that classification. They seem without ability to feel or comprehend anything that’s past their field of immediate vision. And without an ability to have complex thoughts or ideas (although the language barrier the main character encounters may have a role in this).
In all honesty I think this makes a great deal of sense. If 80,000 years into the future our descendants have created this perfect little planet where nothing seems to ever go wrong, of course the creatures living in that time would be reduced to a bunch of attention/gender/emotion deficient individuals. Without any battles, what else is there to do, or feel, or think about?
Going off Katrina’s comment about the creatures being our descendants in 80,000 years. I totally agree with this. I know if I lived on a perfect little planet where we didn’t need to worry about things going wrong and I didn’t need to worry about anything because everything is taken care of I would totally take advantage of that and become a lazy being that is care free.
The whole idea of time travel is very interesting to me. I agree with Sabrina’s comment about the time traveler being sort of a mad scientist. His curiosity is what makes him build the machine and then when he uses it he goes a couple hours into the future, but is even more curious which is why is goes many years into the future.
The relationship of the Eloi and the Murlock was very interesting. Wells separates them into almost an upper and lower class, the Eloi being the upper class and the Murlock being the lower class. The Eloi stay above ground and don’t do any work, while the Murlock are under ground and are the laborers.
I really like how the author makes the future in the book almost seem "dumbed down". You could argue that that is a fair description of today's society. Characteristics such as a different language could be compared to the massive amounts of shorthand that is used today. The book says how the people in the future also have a very short attention span and get distracted very easily. I think that that could also be very true about today in a world filled with video games and endless technology. Not to get on a political topic, but he even compares the future to communism which, today is not a fear, but has been talked about. I just think that the future in the book, can be compared to the actual future, being today. It just seems that everyone in the future was less mature, would could be argued as true in today's world. Not necessarily a negative thing, but kids are staying home longer, paying less attention to careers, and just all around doing everything adult-like at an older age than what used to be normal. I think the Time Machine was a fun book to read and I enjoyed it a little more so than Frankenstein.
I think that The Time Machine fits very well into this class's focus of defining what it is to be human. In the story the Time Traveler finds himself stranded so far in the future that nothing resembles the time he came from anymore. In this future, human beings have evolved into either the Eoli of the Morlocks. On the one hand, the Eoli live in a world free from any real challenges or responsibilities. Because of this they have, over the generations, lost the intelligence, physical fitness, motivation, and attention span that are associated with Homo sapiens. On the other hand, the Morlocks have been forced to live and work entirely underground. Just like the Eoli, they have adapted to the world they live in. The Morlocks have developed large eyes for night vision and have lost all pigment color due to lack of sunlight. Obviously the Eoli and Morlocks bare little physical resemblance to human beings, but they are similar to humans in other ways. We see in the story the friendly and innocent temperament of Weena and the other Eoli. And though we learn very little about the Morlocks we know that they still maintain some form of community by all living underground together. They must have some kind of society that exists below the surface. My point is I guess that while the Eoli and Morlocks don’t fit into the traditional parameters of what constitutes a human being they both exhibit characteristics that are uniquely human.
Kyle McKenna The Time Machine Honestly I am a bit underwhelmed by the entirety of the time machine. It could be that I am often reading it late at night but unlike Frankenstein where there are many messages being conveyed I can not seem to find any in The Time Machine. Honestly this seems like a novel (or short story) that happens to involve science more than true science fiction. I will say I really do enjoy the fact that we are getting this “ghost” story mentality and that unlike the film a lost love does not drive the time traveler but pure infinite curiosity. Which does give us the capability to talk about this book being about a mad scientist determined to prove time travel is possible. However my biggest problem overall is the fact that now in this day and age we know time is not linear. Time is a curvature it has a location on both the X and Y axis, time curves around the mass such as planets and throughout space. Einstein proved this decades ago in his theory of relativity; which H. G. Wells clearly did not have access to while writing this novel. However knowing this now it makes the beginning of the novel difficult to swallow. With that said, where this novel does hit home is in the essence of time. The way the traveler moves and throughout time and still finds the same evolutionary pattern occurring is quite fascinating. Imagine falling upon a world so close to death and you just happen to stop in the sunlight. Can you imagine if the earth had stopped rotating on the opposite side of the planet in complete and darkness? What could have survived or has survived over there? Would they be massive like the butterfly or crab? As I stated before I do not feel that this actually falls in the realm of sci-fi but more as a novel utilizing science. Again solely based on the fact there is not real human problem, there is no depth to the novel and it can really be read at face value for what it is.
I have a strange feeling that the Morlocks are a metaphor for society, but I still haven’t quite figured it out yet. It’s so ironic that the time traveler originally thinks them to be slaves and controlled by the Eloi, only to find out that the in fact rule the Eloi instead. Then we find out they’re cannibals who eat the cute, peaceful Eloi. I mean that has society written all over it. The big and scary control the weak and just to prove they have the power, they kill off a few and make them their meal. This goes back to the idea from class where there is no utopias, just dystopias in disguise. When the time traveler originally arrived everything seemed organized and peaceful, yet slowly and bit by bit he finds this time is even worse than his own. Makes us stop and realize that no matter where you may go in time there will always be someone stronger and in charge and those who are weak and fed upon. The inside is still the same, it just takes on a new candy shell each time.
The Time Machine by H.G Wells was a interesting novel to read in my opinion. This novel did have a science fiction side to it but a couple of chapters were confusing since the events were not going by quickly. When I saw the title, "The Time Machine", I thought it was going to be about an inventor who just uses his machine to show off and go to the future/past and then back without having any problems. I was sort of in the right page, but this novel had a interesting side to it, like the part where he finds the Morlocks and the Elois. At first I thought that the Morlocks were the poor/slaves of the Elois but then when I kept reading the novel, I found out that the Elois were the good people while the Morloks were the evil cannibals who feast on the innocent at night. The Elois did not hurt anytihng/anybody while the Morlocks would scare/kill Elois and control them. So I guess what this novel was trying to show was that where ever there is a civilization of living things, the scary and stronger living things will always have control over the kind and weaker living things.
There are many interesting points that H.G. Wells highlights in the opening chapters of The Time Machine. A scene that particularly caught my attention came in the very first chapter, as the primary cast of characters is introduced to us. Here, the time traveler enlightens his acquaintances with his exciting discovery of “the fourth dimension.” Here, after he demonstrates his knowledge with the disappearance of his miniature time machine, the men are all appalled at the trick. This launches a discussion on how the time traveler could prove the success of his invention. In this dialogue the men try to explain time travel as best as they can comprehend but I noticed multiple flaws in their assumptions. For one they claim that if the object had been sent into the future, they would be able to see it in the present, similarly if it had been sent into the past, they would also be able to perceive the object in the present; because it had existed since whatever time it had been sent back to. I find all these theories to be completely asinine, to be honest. For one, if the machine was sent into the future, it would no longer exist in the present. By sending it into the future, you remove the machine from the present time. The theory about the past is a little more accurate; however the men overlook many key aspects. For one, just because something was sent into the past doesn’t mean it will stay in one place. As it exists in the past, it is subject to whatever is happening in that moment. For all the men know it could’ve been destroyed, and that’s why they cannot perceive the object in the present. I feel the men haven’t put as much thought into the concept of time travel as their companion has. I think this reflects the very limited knowledge of abstract science in that time.
ReplyDeleteAs I read the first part of The Time Machine I really enjoyed the different theories on how humanity transformed into the little creatures found by the time traveler in the future. In a way, the narrator was joining in on the thought process that the class was probably going through also; analyzing the new characteristics of the creatures and debating how this happened. It sounded almost like our class discussions.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that I considered though is that maybe laziness just the got the best of us. These little people of the future all just seemed content to lounge around, eat, and let the world grow and thrive around them. They can not hold their attention spans for too long and are oddly disinterested when a completely new being (to them) enters their town unexpectedly and unexplained. None of them seem upset or distressed, but are perfectly content to just run around and laugh. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.
It ties into how people are evolving. People are constantly looking for something new to be entertained by. Read or watch one video and scroll on to the next. This is why vines and tweets are only so long. People don't want to dedicate as much time anymore. This is also why shows like Family Guy are so popular now; there's continuous cuts to other scenes and other quick jokes so the viewer doesn't get bored or lose focus during the half hour show. Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter.
From this I wondered if these new beings could even be considered humans anymore. They evolved from us, but we also evolved from monkeys. Where is the cut off or separation point to the next level? Are they just an exaggeration of what we are now or are they a new species of their own. There aren't genders anymore it seems as they are all small and similar looking. And if curiosity really does make a human then they definitely aren't. Between their poor focus and lack of intelligence or interest they don't show any sort of underlying passion that kind of defines mankind.
I’ve read Chapters 1-6 so far. I thought that The Time Machine was going to be a hard science fiction story. The first chapter felt a lot like reading a technical manual or textbook. It wasn’t until later on that I realized that it was supposed to set the foundation of the story. I do hope that the Time Traveller explains how the Time Machine works a little more. The gimmick with the bars of the machine is really interesting and I look forward to see what he does with them.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative is a lot like Gulliver’s Travels. The only difference is that the Time Traveller speaks to the audience whereas Gulliver is writing a journal. The future the Time Traveller is in was described very vividly. Not only that, it was described to the best of his ability and he admits that a few times. He also describes the Eloi, the Murlocks, and the culture they live in. I can’t help but think that the Time Traveller learning the language was a reference to Gulliver’s Travels.
The fourth and sixth chapters have been the most interesting so far. The narrator is really puzzled that the Eloi don’t seem to do any work. He remarks that society as advances so far that they can afford to not work. When he realizes that the Murlock are the ones who work, he compares their relationship with the Eloi to that of the capitalist and the laborer. What makes this really odd is that he utters “Communism” after realizing that houses and cottages are no more. It seems as though the narrator feels that laboring is a key definition when it comes to being human.
Time travel stories are awesome because they bring everything to the table. Hardcore physics AND philosophical knot-tying. It's fun to travel down that rabbit-hole sometimes.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa's post noted the problem of defining the technical processes and paradoxes of time travel: how does it work?
The butterfly effect plus grandfather, bootstrap, and predestination paradoxes are all themes and concepts immediately recognizable in any film or book that deals with time travel. Navigating different formulas for time travel, rules and structures of timeline interactions and their paradoxes make awesome fodder for stories about fate and humanity. What makes "The Time Machine" so interesting is that it is (one of) the first books to build this fundamental framework around the mechanism of time travel. It pioneered the ideas that films like "Looper", "Back to the Future", "The Terminator", and "12 Monkeys" (among countless others) adopted, modified and added to.
Even though it kicked off a grand tradition, "Time Machine" is not a stumbling, primitive foray into this realm. While Wells understandably glosses over the troublesome task of explaining how the machine actually functions, besides a simple forward and reverse lever, he still introduces some serious concepts that leave the reader thinking. First, the Traveler is not a mere observer, he can physically interact with the timelines he visits. There's also no guarantee he won't end up being merged with some structure or object that gets placed in his way when he stops traveling. Time travel is done with an invented machine, rather than through some natural "wormhole" phenomenon, or mental or physical ability. He also brings back physical evidence of his trip, which serves two purposes: It's proof that such a trip took place, if anyone still harbored doubts, but it also defines a particular aspect of time travel as Wells imagines it in his universe: The flowers do not fade or vanish when they travel to a time before they could have existed.
Technical aspects like these are really interesting to me since they construct the universe and rules in which these kinds of stories have to operate. Done correctly, it makes for a fantastic, absorbing story. However, when a story makes mistakes while navigating these rules, it can completely dismantle any suspension of disbelief. (I'm looking at you, Back to the Future: Why doesn't Marty's mom freak out when her kid looks IDENTICAL to the guy she got kissy with back in the day?)
Anyway, I wonder what twists and turns in the timeline would have taken place if the Traveler journeyed to his PAST.
I thought that the time machine was very innovative for its time and was reminiscent of Galaver’s travels in the story tell of the time travelers passages. But for me the most interesting part was that this book really ended up defining what a time traveler should be just like Frankenstein defined a mad scientist. From what I understand there are two main things that make up a Time traveler other than the obvious of being able to actually time travel. One being that a time traveler needs to have an extreme overabundance of curiosity. Two is the time traveler must have some sort of companion to experience the new adventures with because where is the fun in a new discovery if you can’t share it with someone else.
ReplyDelete-Sebrina Thompson
From Katrina:
ReplyDeleteGoing off Laura’s comment about the evolution of the human species that is depicted in Wells Time Machine, I too enjoyed his observations and theories pertaining to the little creatures that seemed to have evolved from our race of Homo sapiens. Wells creates this Utopia that eradicates any resemblance to what I think most people would define as “human”. He plays with the idea that humans need to have the ability to produce and consume in order to be capable of any form of intellect or intelligence. In chapter 4 he says, “For after the battle comes Quiet,” my interpretation of the battle being the need to build and produce the next best thing, the drive to make life more efficient. But also the battle of the consumer, “The shop, the advertisement, traffic, all that commerce which constitutes the body of our world, was gone.” He brings to question the necessity of all that we know. Is our ability to produce and need to consume a fundamental part of being human? Based on the first few chapters of The Time Machine, I would argue yes. The creatures that the Time Traveler encounters are described as children, but I wouldn't even dignify them with that classification. They seem without ability to feel or comprehend anything that’s past their field of immediate vision. And without an ability to have complex thoughts or ideas (although the language barrier the main character encounters may have a role in this).
In all honesty I think this makes a great deal of sense. If 80,000 years into the future our descendants have created this perfect little planet where nothing seems to ever go wrong, of course the creatures living in that time would be reduced to a bunch of attention/gender/emotion deficient individuals. Without any battles, what else is there to do, or feel, or think about?
Going off Katrina’s comment about the creatures being our descendants in 80,000 years. I totally agree with this. I know if I lived on a perfect little planet where we didn’t need to worry about things going wrong and I didn’t need to worry about anything because everything is taken care of I would totally take advantage of that and become a lazy being that is care free.
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea of time travel is very interesting to me. I agree with Sabrina’s comment about the time traveler being sort of a mad scientist. His curiosity is what makes him build the machine and then when he uses it he goes a couple hours into the future, but is even more curious which is why is goes many years into the future.
The relationship of the Eloi and the Murlock was very interesting. Wells separates them into almost an upper and lower class, the Eloi being the upper class and the Murlock being the lower class. The Eloi stay above ground and don’t do any work, while the Murlock are under ground and are the laborers.
From Mike:
ReplyDeleteI really like how the author makes the future in the book almost seem "dumbed down". You could argue that that is a fair description of today's society. Characteristics such as a different language could be compared to the massive amounts of shorthand that is used today. The book says how the people in the future also have a very short attention span and get distracted very easily. I think that that could also be very true about today in a world filled with video games and endless technology. Not to get on a political topic, but he even compares the future to communism which, today is not a fear, but has been talked about. I just think that the future in the book, can be compared to the actual future, being today. It just seems that everyone in the future was less mature, would could be argued as true in today's world. Not necessarily a negative thing, but kids are staying home longer, paying less attention to careers, and just all around doing everything adult-like at an older age than what used to be normal. I think the Time Machine was a fun book to read and I enjoyed it a little more so than Frankenstein.
I think that The Time Machine fits very well into this class's focus of defining what it is to be human. In the story the Time Traveler finds himself stranded so far in the future that nothing resembles the time he came from anymore. In this future, human beings have evolved into either the Eoli of the Morlocks. On the one hand, the Eoli live in a world free from any real challenges or responsibilities. Because of this they have, over the generations, lost the intelligence, physical fitness, motivation, and attention span that are associated with Homo sapiens. On the other hand, the Morlocks have been forced to live and work entirely underground. Just like the Eoli, they have adapted to the world they live in. The Morlocks have developed large eyes for night vision and have lost all pigment color due to lack of sunlight. Obviously the Eoli and Morlocks bare little physical resemblance to human beings, but they are similar to humans in other ways. We see in the story the friendly and innocent temperament of Weena and the other Eoli. And though we learn very little about the Morlocks we know that they still maintain some form of community by all living underground together. They must have some kind of society that exists below the surface. My point is I guess that while the Eoli and Morlocks don’t fit into the traditional parameters of what constitutes a human being they both exhibit characteristics that are uniquely human.
ReplyDeleteKyle McKenna
ReplyDeleteThe Time Machine
Honestly I am a bit underwhelmed by the entirety of the time machine. It could be that I am often reading it late at night but unlike Frankenstein where there are many messages being conveyed I can not seem to find any in The Time Machine. Honestly this seems like a novel (or short story) that happens to involve science more than true science fiction. I will say I really do enjoy the fact that we are getting this “ghost” story mentality and that unlike the film a lost love does not drive the time traveler but pure infinite curiosity. Which does give us the capability to talk about this book being about a mad scientist determined to prove time travel is possible. However my biggest problem overall is the fact that now in this day and age we know time is not linear. Time is a curvature it has a location on both the X and Y axis, time curves around the mass such as planets and throughout space. Einstein proved this decades ago in his theory of relativity; which H. G. Wells clearly did not have access to while writing this novel. However knowing this now it makes the beginning of the novel difficult to swallow.
With that said, where this novel does hit home is in the essence of time. The way the traveler moves and throughout time and still finds the same evolutionary pattern occurring is quite fascinating. Imagine falling upon a world so close to death and you just happen to stop in the sunlight. Can you imagine if the earth had stopped rotating on the opposite side of the planet in complete and darkness? What could have survived or has survived over there? Would they be massive like the butterfly or crab?
As I stated before I do not feel that this actually falls in the realm of sci-fi but more as a novel utilizing science. Again solely based on the fact there is not real human problem, there is no depth to the novel and it can really be read at face value for what it is.
From Sam:
ReplyDeleteI have a strange feeling that the Morlocks are a metaphor for society, but I still haven’t quite figured it out yet. It’s so ironic that the time traveler originally thinks them to be slaves and controlled by the Eloi, only to find out that the in fact rule the Eloi instead. Then we find out they’re cannibals who eat the cute, peaceful Eloi. I mean that has society written all over it. The big and scary control the weak and just to prove they have the power, they kill off a few and make them their meal. This goes back to the idea from class where there is no utopias, just dystopias in disguise. When the time traveler originally arrived everything seemed organized and peaceful, yet slowly and bit by bit he finds this time is even worse than his own. Makes us stop and realize that no matter where you may go in time there will always be someone stronger and in charge and those who are weak and fed upon. The inside is still the same, it just takes on a new candy shell each time.
The Time Machine by H.G Wells was a interesting novel to read in my opinion. This novel did have a science fiction side to it but a couple of chapters were confusing since the events were not going by quickly. When I saw the title, "The Time Machine", I thought it was going to be about an inventor who just uses his machine to show off and go to the future/past and then back without having any problems. I was sort of in the right page, but this novel had a interesting side to it, like the part where he finds the Morlocks and the Elois. At first I thought that the Morlocks were the poor/slaves of the Elois but then when I kept reading the novel, I found out that the Elois were the good people while the Morloks were the evil cannibals who feast on the innocent at night. The Elois did not hurt anytihng/anybody while the Morlocks would scare/kill Elois and control them. So I guess what this novel was trying to show was that where ever there is a civilization of living things, the scary and stronger living things will always have control over the kind and weaker living things.
ReplyDelete