Talk:H. G. Wells

The Pivot of Civilization

This Eugenist and Socialist also made the introduction to eugenics' book The Pivot of Civilization writen by Margaret Sanger.Agre22 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

money

Despite the popularity of his novels, the work that gave HG wells the greatest and steadiest income is supposed to have been his World History text book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Possessive with an s ending

I'm sure this will be covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I have no idea where.

Just had a little revert battle over Wells's. As I said in my edit comment, if I had used that form in my highest level English, it would simply have been marked wrong, and my teacher would have severely chastised me. That last s would have been a mortal sin in my school's view. How can it be correct in Wikipedia?

Is this explained better elsewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the point here, rather than simply reverting again. Your own experience at school can't be cited: it's original research, which isn't allowed. In my edit summary I cited Peters, who writes regarding personal names ending in -s: "treat... [personal] names ending in -s to the full apostrophe -s, just like any other noun. This is recommended by the Chicago Manual (2003), and the Australian Government Style Manual (2002)." Any help? I generally refer to Peters, by the way: she wasn't selected for this rejoinder just because she's a fellow Australian! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I know my own experience is original research, but it was not just a selfish view. I did go to a fairly well regarded mainstream Australian school, and the Well's form would have been treated as an example of lower class, ignorant, uneducated usage there. But I'm always ready to learn and adapt. I'm aware of Pam Peters and her role in linguistics. Surprised her name is a redlink in the Cambridge Usage article. The world moves on. Sounds like it's time for me to change! HiLo48 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Redlink: you sound like just the person to start an article on her! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! (Just a start so far) HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that was quick: I'm impressed! --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Warehouse 13

As this TV series has its own article I've removed excessive detail from the "Fiction" paragraph: it's all in the linked page. Example: "where it is revealed that H.G. Wells is actually a woman...frozen for 100 years". Seems somewhat off topic in an article about the male, unfrozen author and political commentator. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, Wells is not "revealed to be a woman" - instead, they established in the show that there were two H.G. Wells, Herbert George the author, and his sister, Helena, the creative genius that gave him the material to write about. I'm not sure if the entry here and in the Warehouse 13 section needs to be re-written accordingly. Nolefan32 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Introductory Text

It seems strange that the only two works mentioned in the introductory paragraph are Ann Veronica and The History of Mr Polly. These books seem to be mentioned just to prove a point. If we're going to mention any works in this section, then it should surely be the Scientific Romances for which is is best known.

The entire final sentence of the intro seems a bit too detailed. It would be better just to outline the direction his writing took as the century progressed, and leave the details for further on in the article. Does this seem reasonable? Captain Sumo (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it so?

Mike Ashley has written somewhere that when it come the matter of crediting Wells with what is to come as miracles of science, things have been over-done. That is, all these things (or most of them) we think Wells (and even Verne) said for first time were already there in popular culture when they were writing. How far is that true ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to say unless you can suggest some specifics. 07:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you meant? "(Mike Ashley):... 'I wish I had a pound for every time someone has said to me how clever Jules Verne or H.G. Wells were at predicting scientific developments in their fiction. Apart from the fact that they weren't -- they were pretty hopeless at it -- most of what they did "predict" had already been used in earlier stories, but because these stories were lost to anyone but a dedicated researcher no one realized it'" [1] Anyone with a keen interest in science fiction knows of examples of SF stories which have been widely praised for originality having been preceded by less well known stories with a suspiciously similar plot device. For example, Audrey Niffenegger's "The Time Traveler's Wife" may have been influenced by the ideas on time travel underlying F.M. Busby's earlier short story "If This Is Winnetka, You Must Be Judy". The importance of prediction of scientific discoveries in SF is overplayed; is not the idea of "If this goes on-" (to borrow a Robert A. Heinlein title) of more importance? That is, the thought-provoking development of a basic idea matters more than the origin of the idea itself.--Mabzilla (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really much of an observation on Ashley's part if he doesn't come up with specific examples. There are, of course, lots of things in Wells's work that had been done previously, such as traveling to other planets or in time, but the majority - if not all - had their basis in magic or mythology, rather than scientific application. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Place of Employment as Draper

I've just placed this 2005 image at the commons. It shows a plaque at an address on the High Street in Windsor Berkshire which appears to contradict the assertion in the article.

Plaque recording HG Wells employment in Windsor Berkshire

WyrdLight (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the refs, to confirm. He was at Hyde's for two years, as the article states, but he was with R&D for only a month, leaving because he couldn't give the right change. Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks OM - perhaps R&D and the subsequent shop owners became more interested in Wells once they thought he was good for business after all!! WyrdLight (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First world war

The key political issue in Edwardian times was the first world war, so I have added a sentence about Wells's attitude. He wrote extensively on the war, so more would be appropriate, when I have a moment. This is particularly important because he somehow gained a reputation as a pacifist, though in fact he supported the war (reluctantly).83.200.69.198 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The source and context would be useful. Looking forward to your development of the point. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Have added a reference; but Wells announced his support for the war hundreds of times, so this is just one example. 83.200.69.198 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think the reference in the lead to Wells as being a "pacifist" is problematic, not least because - unlike the one to him being a socialist - it is not qualified or elaborated upon elsewhere on the page. We don't have to look far for proof that Wells generally disapproved of wars because he considered them a wasteful use of resources - human and material - and generally rooted in the politics of a world composed of separate nation states that he clearly disagreed with. On the other hand, he eventually supported both World Wars specifically because of their causes and the issues at stake, so could be said to beleive in the concept of the "just war" that pacifists usually don't. Would a "pacifist" have written What We Are Fighting For? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the specific: thanks for the ref, now is there some context for the 1916 opposition to peace moves? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK: I've attempted a start to this; it should't be the last word.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wells's inclusion in "The Black Book"

The previous text stated:

"Near the end of the Second World War, Allied forces discovered that the SS had compiled lists of intellectuals and politicians slated for immediate arrest upon the invasion of England in the abandoned Operation Sea Lion. The name "H. G. Wells" appeared high on the list for the crime of being a socialist in The Black Book."

From the page of the book reproduced in the cited source, it is clear that the list in which Wells's name appeared was nominally alphbetical, so to say that he appeared "high on the list" is inappropriate. The entry also lists Wells only as a "Schriftsteller" - i.e. a writer - and not as a socialist. Lastly, the list clearly includes people other than "intellectuals and politicians," so the description shouldn't be limited to just them. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

" Wells was included in the alphabetical list on the same page of "The Black Book" as Rebecca West" so in an alphabetical list 'wells' was near 'west'. Well, whatever! Greglocock (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

BBC archives

The BBC has an "HG Wells on the future" collection. In addition to audio of radio broadcasts, there are letters and other documents. Via HTLit. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I believe it is worth to mention Well's plagiarism of Florence Deeks' "The Web of the World's Romance" in his own "Outline of History".

Bibliography:ki

"The Spinster and the Prophet: H.G. Wells, Florence Deeks, and the Case of the Plagiarized Text" by A.B. McKillop of Carleton University

Ioan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.61.66 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Already in—suit dismissed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is noted down as lawsuit of copyright infringement, and this is inaccurate. While decidedly, the court ruled against Deeks claims, this does not dismiss the fact that indeed, Wells did plagiarize her work, kickstaring his career in the process.

This however is not the only work Wells has been accused that in his 'The Wonderful Visit' to have plagiarized Grant Allen 'The British Barbarians'. About a quarter of Wells work takes word from word from Allen's novel.

H.G. Wells and his critics [by Ingvald Raknem]

(ioan.constantin at gmail dot com)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.61.66 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 June 2011

You are right: Deeks wasn't published, so it wasn't copyright infringement. A tweak to article to follow. Meanwhile, a reader's assessment on Amazon, definitely not a WP:RS and in no way acceptable on mainspace, is worth a look. See here.

"Copyright" tweaked as suggested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather laughable claim, given that Outline was published in 1919 when Wells was already well-established, and so didn't need to "kickstart" anything. Likewise the claim about Grant Allen, since The Wonderful Visit was published in early November 1895, and The British Barbarians not until the end of December the same year. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about Outline of History as launching his career. Please pay attention.

The Amazon comments are quite inaccurate for folks who allegedly read the book. Then again, this is the way of the internet.

In different news, the edit looks good enough. --Ioanvonhans (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was mistaken in my revision on 22:41, 2 October 2010, stating that Deeks sued for infringement of copyright. I was misled by details such as Deeks having taken out interim copyright on her projected work in 1916 (McKillop) and the statement in the Privy Council report that, as Deek's work had not been printed, there were no legal grounds at all for the action (MacKenzie and MacKenzie). I still dispute the use of the word "plagiarism", which is not a legal concept (check the Plagiarism: "Legal aspects" section). Deeks's lawyers told the court that that they were suing because unfair use had been made of her manuscript (McKillop).

The comments by Amazon reviewers, pithy as they may be, have no place in the discussion here. Nor do dogmatic statements such as "While decidedly, the court ruled against Deeks claims, this does not dismiss the fact that indeed, Wells did plagiarize her work...". Deeks's suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Ontario, by the Appelate Court and by the Privy Council in London. Finally, a petition to the King was refused. All this has to be balanced against McKillop's doubtful impartiality. --Mabzilla (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ioanvonhans, I think you're the one who should "pay attention." Outline did not "launch" Wells's career in any way, shape, or form, because he was well-established writer long before it was published. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism: wrong victim?

It seems that Deeks had relied upon A General History of the World by Victor Duruy (1898) in compiling her work: Kelley (2006) Frontiers of history: historical inquiry in the twentieth century Yale p. 156. ISBN 0300120621. Is it possible that Duruy had also inspired Wells and that this was the reason for the similarities? WP:NOR as it stands, and not suitable for inclusion without a more specific source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Deeks's use of Duruy's work is the basis of one of McKillop's main attacks on Wells. She had used Duruy's description of the formation of the solar system and claimed that Wells's wording of the same event was suspiciously similar. When questioned, Wells said that he had no memory of Duruy's work; this was advanced as proof that he could only have obtained the information from Deeks's manuscript. The actual passage in Duruy's "General History of the World" amounts to no more than two shortish paragraphs, and is "according to the Hypothesis of Laplace", says Duruy. McKillop glosses over Wells's scientific education, but it would be remarkable if someone who had studied physics as part of his B.Sc. work had never heard of Laplace's nebular hypothesis.

Of course, I can't write the above statement into a Wikipedia article - it would be debarred as unverifiable. McKillop, on the other hand, has been praised by reviewers for his imaginings of "what may have happened" to take the place of hard evidence that Wells's publishers had Deeks's manuscript delivered to his hands.

Duruy's "General History of the World" can be found online here

--Mabzilla (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, it looks as if McKillop's anti-Wells claims are about as valid as Michael Coren's...? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically, yes: controversy sells books, even those of "shoddy scholarship" (Magill Book Reviews).--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet it's ironic that this review highlights the contradiction that Coren suggests Outline was essentially ghost-written for Wells, whilst it seems McKillop regards the additional contributor credits in the book as bogus! It's also notable taht both writers base their case on their interpretation of works that are effectively unobtainable (i.e. Deek's MS, and Wells's Anticipations), so few readers are able to confirm their claims for themselves. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

ThinkQuest.org is not a reliable source

At least one claim is this article—regarding Amy Catherine's knowledge of Wells' affairs—cites something from ThinkQuest.org. ThinkQuest is a user-contributed, self-published site (much like Wikipedia) and its library pages are not allowed as a source here. For more information, please see WP:RS. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit also suggests that Jane (Amy Catherine) consented to his affairs with other women, using as a reference a publicity puff for Shadow Lovers: The Last Affairs of H. G. Wells (Lynn, 2001). This isn't ruled out in the book itself, but page 60 states only that she was aware of the many affairs, while page 52 suggests that her response remains unknown. Is there a page number, then we can add a proper reference? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)