on 6 June 2011
H.G. Wells has to be re-evaluated fast. He is seen as a myth that has little to do with the reality of what he is.
Only a few of his novels are well known and have been over-used in the cinema: The Time Machine, The War of The Worlds, The Island of Doctor Moreau and The Invisible Man. His 1936 film, Things to Come, has been re-mastered on DVD. But all his non-fiction has disappeared in print. Luckily you can find it on the Internet.
This 1905 book is essential to get rid of the myth.
First of all, and above all, H.G. Wells is against any form of racialism, racism and racial discrimination. It is clearly expressed in the tenth chapter of the book. We cannot repeat it enough and mot people get trapped by the overuse of the word "race" in phase with that period when people decided to call the human species the human race, and to use race in all intellectual concoctions that could be invented about man and humanity.
But second H.G. Wells is a deep and intense eugenist. In the fifth chapter of this book he enumerates the people that should be "eliminated," the word is his: "congenital invalids, idiots and madmen, drunkards and men of vicious mind, cruel and furtive souls, stupid people, too stupid to be of use to the community, lumpish, unteachable and unimaginative people." You cannot be more systematic in the elimination of people who are a burden to society. They have to be eliminated not by being killed but isolated in islands, one category in each island and sexes separated for each category in two different islands.
Even worse. He advocates in 1905 a minimum wage for those who are out of work. That's a great idea in his time but these unemployed have to do a few things in society to compensate for the money they receive from the state, and there is an absolute condition: they have to refrain from procreation. The poor and unemployed have to stop making children. That is more that gross. It is absurd and absolutely in-humane.
We could spend a lot of time on the positive vision of a society entirely dominated by scientists and reason. He will advocate these ideas in his 1936 film and that is frightening because science and the scientific elite become the tyrants of this society.
But we have to see that this extreme social Darwinism has little to do with the Marxisrt social genetic Darwinism he exposes in The Time Machine for example, and even less to do with the American social Darwinism of his time that advocated that the poor were not supposed to be helped because to be successful in society is a sign of the fact that the hand of God is on your side, and to be poor is the sign of the fact that God has abandoned you. This bunch of mostly religious thinkers - if they can be considered as able to think - defend the natural social selection of dying early from diseases and starvation, especially children.
But H.G. Wells advocates a eugenism that is at least as extreme as what was standard in Scandinavia at the time and will produce the criminal eugenism of Hitler and consorts.
There is a lot of re-evaluation to be done about H.G. Wells. And it is urgent indeed. I must say Simon Wells, the great grandson of the writer, has already done a lot about that in his adaptation of The Time Machine in 2002.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
on 24 February 2016
So, H.G.Wells decided to write a novel about his view of a Utopia.
Well, the finished book is nothing like a Utopia I have ever come across.
The book should be called 'A Modern Authotarian World'. There is nothing at
all Utopian in this novel. Wells thought that the only way to end wars was to
have a world government. But that most certianly doesn't mean it will be Utopian.
This book is his vision of a world government. And where you have government,
naturally have control. Of all the Utopian books I have read, the most possible is
'News from Nowhere' by William Morris. Basically an Anarchist Utopia.
on 11 June 2013
You should clearly state in the title description this is a computer generated copy. I didn't know they even existed until this garbled rubbish turned up.
I really do not understand why someone would think this is a good idea, the technology is clearly not up to it, so why bother.
Just because computers exist, it doesn't mean we have to create jobs for them.