Victorians! discussion

For discussion of these chapter

When at the end of Chapter 10, I found myself disappointed that The Time Traveler left. I know he needed to escape the dangerous situation he was in, but leaving did seem strange. No heroism here...

In a typical sense, The Time Traveler returning to the present without any conclusion of the future, does make the story mysterious and leaves the reader with many questions. It also provided our hero with little or no proof of this event he is speaking of ever having been in the future or anytime really. Is he just a charlatan or he is mad, or telling the truth?

Any ideas about the significance of Weena?

I was just going to bring up Weena. What did you think of her? What I'm really asking is, how creepy did you find the relationship between her and the Time Traveler?

He seems to waver between paternal and romantic affection for her. Since she's basically a child, there was a creep factor for me.

I've been thinking about little Weena. I wonder if she is somehow less degenerate than the other Eloi. The Time Traveler did not expect her to feel gratitude for her rescue but she did. She brought him flowers, waited for him like a faithful puppy while he was off having adventures, and was willing to sleep with him outdoors despite the general reluctance of the Eloi to be outdoors at night.

I also wonder whether the romantic aspects of the Time Traveler's affection for Weena was in any way sexual. There are several references to the Eloi "making love". I am wondering whether Wells is using this in the modern sense of sexual intercourse or in the old-fashioned sensing of wooing, courting, etc.

Just based on the limited info we have on the Time Traveler's personality, I wouldn't think he would be too keen on inter-species breeding or sexual relations.

I am glad you both said that about that relationship issue. I felt the same way. I really didn't know if it was like a parent to a child, which I believe was written, or was there something else to it? It was very strange and off putting. I also got a yucky feeling.

Do you think this is because of the world in which we now live in, where sexual predators are in the news and we are so aware of them? I wonder if the people who initially read Wells' book felt as we do?

In the Victorian era, "making love" never meant sex - I've got that right, don't I? I'm pretty sure I'm solid on that. It was just a synonym for courting, as you said.

And yeah, Marialyce, I might be forcing my modern perspective onto this situation a bit. Certainly in the 1900s teenaged women were paired with older men as a matter of course.

On the other hand, that ubiquity means I've had to learn to avoid feeling all squicked out about May-December couples in Vic books (or else I'd have to avoid, like, all of them), so if this does squick us out, maybe we should call it legitimate. Weena didn't feel like an adolescent to me; she acted like a child.

Nobody saw any direct mention that the Time Traveler was romantically inclined towards Weena, right? While he does say it's a paternal thing a couple of times. Nonetheless, that's not always the feeling I got. I dunno, maybe we weren't supposed to get that feeling at all, and I'm reading too much into it.

I just checked out Wells' biography, looking for a child who died young; I thought if there was one, it would be evidence that the Weena / Traveler relationship really was paternal. (Okay, it was a weird avenue to go down, but whatever.) Instead I learned that Wells was a serial adulterer who liked much younger women. Not that that really proves anything.

This is just me, but I have settled on The Time Traveler's feeling toward Weena as comparable to those of a gallant knight towards a damsel in distress. Romantic with a capital R, if you know what I mean.

I never felt squeamish about the nature of the relationship while reading, though I didn't pay particular attention to it either.

So, we all did finish and what is everyone's consensus? I did like it, well not overwhelmingly.. but in the concept of stars, I gave it a three. It was good, well written, intriguing, but left me with too many questions and practically no answers, which I know is my thing and may not be others.

Alex wrote: "I just checked out Wells' biography, looking for a child who died young; I thought if there was one, it would be evidence that the Weena / Traveler relationship really was paternal. (Okay, it was a..."

Alex wrote: "I just checked out Wells' biography, looking for a child who died young; I thought if there was one, it would be evidence that the Weena / Traveler relationship really was paternal. (Okay, it was a..."

Well, shame on him!!! He had two or three wives too!

I agree it's really frustrating to have a story that's didactic but doesn't make a clear point. Maybe Wells was as confused as I have been. It's as if he was torn between his class and his politics.

I'm very glad you started the thread! I gave the book four stars on the theory that a story that keeps me thinking about it for over a week has something special going for it.

Let's do this again! I so enjoyed our great discusions.

Yeah, I dug it too. I wouldn't have gotten as much out of the book without it. High five.

Anna might still be reading. Don't worry, we won't leave you.

Not a big fan of the dystopic novels, Jackie?

Well certainly, Wells could have gotten it all wrong in the way of our future. Eventhough things don't look so great now for the continuation of humanity, perhaps eventually with higher brain function and less of the somewhat narcissistic way many of us have now, we will change into a population that cares for ALL, and everything that has to do with planet Earth from it people to its enviorment, and we will all live in peace and harmony. Chances of that happening are.....
And I guess one could call that heaven or Eden.

I read an article a while back that suggested humans are evolving away from the desire to fight. Those humans with particularly aggressive tendencies end up disproportionally in armies, and therefore have higher premature death rates than humans who are more inclined toward peace. War served its purpose once by culling the weak, but that's not really how it works anymore.

I tried to find it for this discussion, since it's an idea Wells specifically alludes to himself, but failed. It was far from proven - more one of those "Here's a neat idea!" things - but it was a neat idea, and a nicely optimistic one. (Well, sortof optimistic. It paints a slightly uncomfortable picture of soldiers, although a logical one.)

My conclusion for Time Machine: I gave it five stars. Wells packs more thought into his concise little books than many authors do in huge ones. Look at all the ideas this one brought up! I do think he hits a particular sweet spot with me, though; I see why he doesn't work as well for everyone else.

I think he just wanted to save Weena.

Gotcha. That's just one of those "to each her own" things, I think. I love depressing books, probably for the same reason I love living in Boston: I'm a miserable bastard.

I think the relationship between Weena and the Time Traveler was based on admiration, companionship and love but not sexual. What were your thoughts when he planned to take her back with him?

Overall I gave the book four stars. From books I have read this is groud breaking for this time. I know it's not a happy book but it makes you think of our future, our insignificance in the universe and how our actions can have grave impacts on the future of humanity. I am glad Wells went far into the future so generations could read this and not see it as silly by having the time traveler landing in 2000. I think books that don't leave you confused but leave you with questions are great books. Maybe you should question why Wells left you with those questions.

I feel like once he got back he felt just as out of place as he did in the future. He went to get proof through pictures and specimens. He also may have planned to get Weena. He might have found a time he could be happy in, had machine troubles, or died before being able to come back.

Looked up Wells' religion just for the hell of it (get it? sorry, that was terrible) and it looks like he was one of those vague free-thinking people. Not an atheist, but one who believed in a personal God outside of organized religion. God doesn't really make an appearance in Time Machine, does He?

I'm not a big sci-fi guy either. I am an atheist. As a believer, did Wells' vision of a human race that's clearly not under divine guidance make you uncomfortable?

Jackie Renee wrote: "the section where he regains the time machine felt very rushed. "

Yeah, good point, I thought so too. Kinda felt like Wells was suddenly all, "Okay, I wanna be done with this book."

Jackie Renee wrote: "I gave it three stars: it was well written (especially the early chapters) and thoughtful. I couldn't really give it more: the characters are two-dimensional (pun intended) and the section where h..."

When I said we were insignificant in the Universe I didn't mean it in a religious way (I believe we are very significant). I meant that with or without us, unless there is some intervention, the Universe will go along in the same way and humans, without certain technology, would not be able to survive. I also don't believe humans will alter into such creatures but when reading I try to analyze how the author interpreted the world.

No problem. I am glad you mentioned it so I could explain my meaning better. I was rushing to write my comment. I love reading everyones views on this book!

Also, I read on Wikipedia that Wells was the first to use "Time Machine". That is pretty cool!

I don't know what else to write about it!!! You've already said all that I had noted while reading it!!!
And I do agree with Jamie as well: nice read, nothing more, especially for a specimen of victorian literature: too flat, mainly with the characters!

Alex wrote: "Looked up Wells' religion just for the hell of it (get it? sorry, that was terrible) and it looks like he was one of those vague free-thinking people. Not an atheist, but one who believed in a pers..."

Alex wrote: "Looked up Wells' religion just for the hell of it (get it? sorry, that was terrible) and it looks like he was one of those vague free-thinking people. Not an atheist, but one who believed in a pers..."

Is the world "under divine guidance" is an age-old question. One explanation for the existance of evil is 'God's permissive will', which allows evil for several reasons.
1) If we were puppets on a string, there would be no such thing as true love, or hate for that matter.
2) If a big hand came out of the sky to stop every traffic accident, people would have no motivation to pay attention while driving or build good cars. 3) We have to take responsiblity for our actions. This concept has difficulty explaining collateral damage.