The Time Machine by H. G. Wells

The Time Machine

 H. G. Wells   

Published 1895

English Sci Fi

⭐⭐⭐

The Tine Machine was not very major "Reading England" material, but I added it since the setting is around London and the Thames at the end of the nineteenth century, as well as hundreds of thousands and millions of years later, into the future.  England in the late 1890s was a time of great scientific and technological advances and progress, as well as a time of conflict between laborers and the wealthy upper class.  

The Time Traveler was a scientist who built a time travel machine in his laboratory with the intent to explore the future, using the fourth dimension, which is space (not the astronomical kind either).  He expected to find a future utopia where man had ultimately solved all of his worldly conflicts with labor, poverty, and the environment; however, that was not to be the case.

SPOILERS COMING . . .

Hundreds of thousands of years into the future, he found a world of beauty, like a Garden of Eden, where the temperature was warmer, and the inhabitants had their pick of the land (vegetation) for food. Incidentally, the Time Traveler thought this was great news, until he met the people of this strange world. They were not very intelligent or knowledgeable, as they could not communicate with the Time Traveler about their world.  They were weak, lazy and leisurely, with no curiosity or interest in life, and there were no families.  These people, called the Eloi, were juvenile-like.  

He also learned that they lived in continuous apprehension of night and darkness, and of the underworld beneath them.  That was where the Morlock lived.  The Time Traveler discovered that it was the Morlock who took care of the Eloi, but they also ate the Eloi.  The Morlock attacked in darkness because their eyes could no longer adapt to the sun or light.  You see, the Morlocks were descendants of the modern world's factory workers who had to work in dank, dark conditions and dangerous situations.  Overtime, power shifted, and the descendants of the Eloi, the wealthy upper class people, became lazy and lost control.  Now it was the underground workers who controlled the upper class society of non-laboring citizens.  

For the short time that the Time Traveler stayed in this strange world, the Morlock stole his time machine, and he had a few run-ins with them in his attempt to learn about them. Eventually, he did get his contraption back, and instead of going home to 1895, he went on to see if there was any hope for human beings in the distant future.  Unfortunately, he found a dying earth with strange unusual creatures. It was totally disappointing.  Therefore, he returned home where he met with his colleagues and friends to narrate his strange tale to them.  

And just like a drug, he couldn't stop himself; by the end of the story he was back in the saddle of the time machine again, in search still of a better world for humankind.

FROM BOOK TO FILM 

It is difficult not to confuse the story in the book to the story of the 1960 film version because they are different, and the film fills in some of the missing pieces from the book.  The film focused more on war. When Wells wrote The Time Machine, WWI and II had not occurred, yet.  The film addressed life during and after war, and how it changed man.  Man was drawn into underground shelters at the sound of the sirens, a practice that continued long into the future.  That is how the Morlock captured their prey; people had become conditioned to go underground and seek shelter from danger, at the sound of the siren.

Also, according to the film, man was detached from human relationships and emotion.  At one point, an Eloi was drowning, and no one was compelled to save her.  It is totally believable.

This was a great book to read to my imaginative younger children.  My eight-year old transformed a recliner in our living room into a time machine, and since we read them the book, they have not stopped discussing time travel.  While the vocabulary level is extremely scientific, and not elementary, they were still able to follow the adventure of the idea of time travel.  Time travel is such an adventurous concept.

Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

Catching Fire

Suzanne Collins

Published 2009

American Sci Fi

⭐⭐⭐⭐ / 5

I really like this plot, Catching Fire, the second book inThe Hunger Games trilogy.  But, oh, how I wish George Orwell or Franz Kafka or Émile Zola wrote it!  (I was actually thinking about this while I was reading it.) 

Imagine the depth of the language and vocabulary and the force of the narrative if it was delivered by one of the aforementioned. Catching Fire is written for a juvenile or young adult audience, and the action and emotion are either simplified or limited.  It almost feels mechanical, and I am left wanting so much more from the story. 

Here is just one part that I feel a little snarky about:

Katniss, our heroine, often struggles with her thoughts about Peetr, and at one point she thinks about her feelings for him, over his kisses.

She contemplates:

This time, there is nothing but us to interrupt us.  And after a few attempts, Peeta gives up on talking.  The sensation inside me grows warmer and spreads out from my chest, down through my body, out along my arms and legs, to the tips of my being.  Instead of satisfying me, the kisses have the opposite effect, of making my need greater.  I thought I was something of an expert on hunger, but this is an entirely new kind.

In the margin I added my personal notation: "Blah! Such awful writing!  True love is not what you feel in a kiss."  (That is to assume the author wants the reader to believe this is the beginning of true love.  I don't know, yet.)

But I still like it, and I am going to finish the trilogy with Mockingjay.  Before I read The Hunger Games and Catching Fire, I was familiar with the plots because I saw both of the movies.  Of course, the film version is a lot different from the book, but I knew what to expect, to some degree.  However, there is no film version for Mockingjay, yet, so finally I will read this book in ignorance, which I prefer. 

Have you read The Hunger Games trilogy?  If so, what did you think about the writing style?  Am I being too hard on Collins considering this is young adult fiction?

Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Slaughterhouse-Five: The Children's Crusade 

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. 

Published 1969

Science Fiction

⭐⭐⭐ / 5

Banned Books Week was this week, and it was a perfect excuse to read another book from my TBR pile.  The lucky winner was Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., published 1969.

I found this little book at a used library sale for 25 cents and read it in three days.  Before I talk about it, however, I have an opinion concerning this whole banned books situation.  (BTW, I am a mom, and my opinion is formed with my motherly concern for young people.)

After reading Slaughterhouse-Five, I understood immediately why it was problematic, at least for those under the age of 17.   It makes sense that schools would vote not to make it available to minors.

Slaughterhouse-Five is a work for mature readers. Personally speaking, this book would have left my high school-aged mind in the dust, and I would have never been able to follow or comprehend it, let alone make an informed decision about it. 

Schools do not have to provide every book ever published.  If you want to read Slaughterhouse-Five at age fifteen, and it is not available at school, first check with Mom or Dad, then (with their permission) borrow it from the public library in town or buy a used copy for super cheap on Amazon.com.  (I understand my logic is old fashioned, but so be it.)

Elementary, middle, and high schools (at the very least) have an obligation to provide the most important and best literature to its students.  Schools should be in the business of educating young people by inspiring them with the great Masters of academia: math, history, science, composition, literature, art, and music.  Yet, some of those Masters should be postponed until college-age and adulthood.

Books with vulgar language, blasphemy, and sexual content should be reserved for a more mature audience that is equipped to self-sensor. Self-censorship allows us to make decisions about what is personally appropriate.

It should not be the school's responsibility to shock students by using literature that oversteps boundaries.  Those boundaries are there to protect the immature sensibilities of young minds that may not have the ability to discriminate in a healthy manner, yet.

Instead schools should be fortifying students with standards and values in order to prepare them to make good judgements later when they are more experienced.  This is how we teach young people to self-censor.   

Again, parents should be the first filter regarding what their child is exposed to, but they should be confident knowing that the school they send their child to is not feeding him literature he is not ready to ingest.  Schools have plenty of other books to choose from, in place of those which are inappropriate. 

So, while I am in favor of freedom to read what we want, I also believe schools are responsible for using good judgement when choosing literature for impressionable minds. 

And now, my experience with Slaughterhouse-Five: 

In my initial opinion, I suspected that Vonnegut was angry about something or with someone: America, the U.S. military, the inevitability of war, God, Jesus.  He made a mockery of these things.

The main character, Billy, is a poor excuse for a man.  He is lame enough to believe that he has no ability to change anything in his life - he has no free will - so he cannot make a difference in the world.  He is a vegetable.

Through Billy, I think Vonnegut wanted to demonstrate that humans behave like machines: useless to do anything different outside of human nature, in order to effect change. Vonnegut particularly scorns people who cling to their religious beliefs - to which I say, he is wrong. Some religious beliefs are harmful to society, but the Christian beliefs Vonnegut personally targets are not.  (That's a topic for another blog.)

Also, I think that the author rejects the idea that war is inevitable, but unfortunately, it is true because of the world we live in.  Good nations and courageous world leaders must stand up to evil.  Hitler was destroying lives in Europe, and American men sacrificed their lives to help save Europe from Hitler. The questionable decision to bomb Dresden does not negate the reasons why WWII happened. 

And finally, Vonnegut makes the U.S. military appear as foolish clowns and self-interested slobs. This was difficult to swallow.

However, on the other side, if Vonnegut wanted to demonstrate the horrors of war and PTSD, he did a superb job because, overall, the story was powerful, and I do not think I shall ever forget it. 

You know, we still live in the same world that Vonnegut portrayed in Slaughterhouse-Five, and we still must face evil if we want to bring about change.  Sometimes life demands hard choices.

Or we can exist like a Tralfamadorian: focusing only on events that make us content, ignoring what is bad, and believing that life is meant to simply exist and then die - just like their hero, Darwin. 

But the good news is, we do have free will.  You decide.