Talk:The Time Machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Novels / Sci-fi / 19th century (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Science fiction task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by 19th century task force.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Interpretations Section[edit]

I think it's needed for someone to contribute an interpretations section for this classic work. For instance, I remember hearing how this work was indicative of Wells's interest in communism, with the Morlocks eating the Elois as symbolism of how the working class would eventually dominate over the upper class.--Waxsin 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Random fanon[edit]

Note that Roger Ebert gave the 2002 movie 1 1/2 stars; we can be pretty sure that fans won't accept it as canon.

Because the narrative is first-person, the Traveller's description is probably far from complete. He was wrong once, and he can be wrong again. From chapter 10: "It may be as wrong an explanation as mortal wit could invent. It is how the thing shaped itself to me, and as that I give it to you." Here's what some readers have suggested that the Traveller didn't see:

The Eloi don't naturally lack potential intelligence. The Morlocks keep them in line by genetically modifying the staple foods of the Eloi to produce psychoactive drugs. They let the Eloi grow until they're old enough to be harvested, leaving some of them to parent and raise the next generation. The Eloi have evolved a culture accepting that most children will be orphans. Each of the big buildings that house Eloi is run essentially like an orphanage. The appearance of those blasted Precious Moments figurines is based on that of Eloi children.

The sequel can follow any of several paths, one of them being the following: One of the Eloi fasts for a while. The drugs begin to wear off, and his thoughts are no longer clouded. He eventually learns which foods lead to craziness. He begins to convince the others that he is not crazy and that food grown from seeds really does produce enlightenment. He learns of fire, and now the Eloi have a weapon against the Morlocks. A situation like that of Animal Farm ensues. Some help may come from the Traveller. Eventually, the Eloi fall victim to "You are what you defeat."

Could this start a novel? Or should I lay off the dope? --Damian Yerrick

I suppose we can start off a novel like that... I was thinking of writing about a bunch of New Yorkers using Wellsian time travel technology to attempt to prevent the September 11 attacks. One idea would be to have them go back in time to prevent the construction of the World Trade Center (which might focus attention on the half-hearted efforts to preserve Radio Row in the days of yore - i.e., the 1960s. That, in turn, might call into being a Jack Finney-esque description of New York in the 1960s.) Another item might be to attempt to talk Mohammad Atta out of doing it. Perhaps another idea might be that a mistake leads to an even deadlier terrorist attack (i.e., a hijacked airplane plunges into Times Square or topples the Empire State bdg. immediately, killing, say, 6,000 folks in the process.)

I also wouldn't mind an Alexander Hartdegen novel (Alex was the name of the Time Traveler in the 2002 movie, but I'd have him bumping around NYC rather than the world of the Eloi.) - Richard Rabinowitz (Rickyrab|kibitz)

It's nice to daydream, isn't it? — Rickyrab | Talk 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers[edit]

Interesting ideas above for fan literature, I'd like to see them if they get done. But I'm more interested in an analysis of the original novel for this article, dealing with canonical issues (I doubt Wells thought of or grasped the concept of genetic engineering or dopants in food). I have started off an analysis of the plot of the novel. It started off as an intention to discuss the inferred social history (as mused upon by the Time Traveller) and how it created the Eloi/Morlock societies. Then I decided on a comprehensive outline of the plot, similar to what Khaosworks is doing for the film plots. For most literature and movies I normally disagree with extensive spoilers, but this is rather old fashioned and quirky and hard to read for young people and those whose first language is not English. The novel text is available on-site, so I hope my spoilers are used as a quick-access guide while reading the novel.--ChrisJMoor 01:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers aren't going to be a problem for a public domain novel. --Damian Yerrick () 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article is going to get rather large if I do this. Suggesting that we move the sections about the two movies to separate articles. Otherwise, downloading the page could become tediously slow for people on slow modems, causing them to back-click in disgust and all our work will be in vain!--ChrisJMoor 22:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

Should this article be included in the category "Dystopian novels"? 216.214.103.34 23:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aaaah dunno, but probably. Rickyrab | Talk 15:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

What I find interesting in H.G. Wells book is his description of the Tme Machine. He says that everywhere on the machine you can see the glint of quartz crystal. Did he foresee the role that quartz crystals would play in present day "time amchines" i.e. watches,clocks and many other timing devices. Science fiction writers have a habit of predicting the future. It may be only a coincidence but then again - it may not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.34 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A new chapter?[edit]

Does anyone know anything about the "new" chapter added to the story for the Great Illustrated Classics version? As a kid I read that book before I read the actual Wells version, and I was amazed to discover it did not include the chapter where the Time Traveller stumbles upon a future society where time travel is illegal. What's the story behind this?

Yes I'd love to know more about the extra chapter also. I'm RTFMing but haven't turned up anything yet. If it was written by Well (which one presumes) then the extra chapter must be copyright free in much of the world along with the rest of the book - ie free reproductions should include it. Robertbrockway 03:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
A bit more RTFM later. Here is an old Usenet post where at least one person believes the additional chapter was not written by Wells:
Google Groups
Would someone really be so gauche as to add a chapter to a classic like this? Robertbrockway 05:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
If it's public domain, anything goes. However, "most of the world" would still exclude primarily Mexico and Europe, which recognize life plus at least 70 years (doesn't that sound like a prison sentence for a double murder?) and thus still recognize a copyright in all of HGW's works. --Damian Yerrick () 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
An on/off series of Judge Dredd stories that's been going for a few years now features a Victorian time traveller intending to travel to 1920-odd but ending up in the 2120's instead, and also drifting off-course from London to Mega-City One (the east coast of the United States). There he is pushed off a balcony and robbed of all his clothes by vagrants, and then arrested for indecent exposure and illegal immigration. He is also found to have illegal subtances such as sugar and caffine in his bloodstream, and then tries to escape. I then missed most of the stories but eventually he escapes, re-builds the time machine and eventually forms a gang made up of different versions of himself from different times (one of which is old, one is a cyborg and one is a brain in a jar). Eventually the gang decide to go back and kill Dredd but see him doing various heroic actions throughout time, so instead travel to the point he first arrived and prevent him from falling off the balcony, and they tell him to return to his own time 82.153.230.138 14:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read the chapter. The greatest instance of disillusionment I have ever experienced was my discovery of the presumptuous editing and bowdlerization of the Great Illustrated Classics series. In answer to your question, I see two possible reasons for inserting that chapter: to appeal to a 20th-century view of the future as scientific and shiny, and to blantantly introduce racial diversity.
I don't think this topic belongs under the article's heading "Deleted text". That implies that the chapter is a legitimate part of The Time Machine, giving too much importance to Shirley Bogart's mysterious contrivance. The question, I believe, is whether it need be included at all. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]
So was this missing chapter written by Wells or not? I read the original unabridged story when I was in the 5th grade. If I am reading this article correctly, the abridged version was released shortly after the original book was published, right? Do any unabridged versions of the book include the missing chapter, i.e. tacked onto the end of the book (or something like that)? Somebody email me. I'd love to read this again, I didn't know about a missing chapter till I saw this article. :D --Ragemanchoo (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite sure it was not written by Wells. As I wrote above, the chapter appears only in the Great Illustrated Classics version, which was written by Shirley Bogart, a member of GIC's highly unfaithful team of authors. The chapter really isn't that notable in discussion of the novel. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC) [signed retroactively]
I beg to differ. I think purely because of the sheer audacity of adding a new chapter, for the stated reasons, bears mentioning somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.242.216 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. The article says that the Classics Illustrated comic of The Time Machine has this additional destination of 2200 AD, but I've long had this comic, since my teenage years, and it does *not* include this additional destination. The comic is, in fact, a fairly faithful adaptation of the book, much closer than either of the big screen movies. Yet here in the Talk section, you say it is the Great Illustrated Classics adaptation that has this additional destination, not the Classics Illustrated comic. Did the Classics Illustrated comics people originally have this additional destination but revised later versions of the comic to remove it? Or, as I think more likely, are people getting confused about the difference between the Classics Illustrated comic adaptation and the Great Illustrated Classics adaptation? If the latter, can we correct the entry to mention the proper adaptation that includes this additional destination, and stop adding to the confusion over the issue? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.70.158 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Article needed for the 2002 movie[edit]

Can somebody resurrect or restore the article dealing with the movie from 2002? What was the budget for the 2002 movie? Who was on the crew, and what were the names of the cast, the production company, and so on?

I just created the article for the 2002 movie with the movie-info box. But is a stub article, so be generous in filling it in. Val42 20:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge in to movie (1960) article[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any discussion here about the merge with the 1960 movie section with the 1960 movie article, so I'm going to just do it. Val42 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

wasn't he a racist?[edit]

Is The Time Machine wells way of showing what would happen if racial descrimination was allowed to continue long enough?

More like class division, actually. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 15:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Generally agree, although Wells was very likely against racism ("Our true nationality is mankind"). The relationship between the Eloi and Morlocks was hardly equitable and perhaps this is a weak satire of extreme racism (although the traveller doesnt specifically allude to this, IMO). No information on it, but it is possible that the Morlocks represent the pariah class of the Indian caste system(again, not mentioned in text). Wells would very likely know about that and the Eloi do treat the Morlocks with fear/disgust. Few if any web hits relating to this subject but perhaps somebody has an old fashion Wells' autobiography handy?--ChrisJMoor 02:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
An interesting suggestion, but the caste system in India is not two-tier like the one we see here. It's more likely - and more commonly argued - that Wells was talking about Marxist/socialist class models, i.e. the Eloi being the decadent bourgeoisie that oppressed the proletariat Morlocks but over the course of time the proles seized control of the means of production and turned on the upper classes. That sort of thing. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
From what I have read it is an exacerbation of the British class system. Doesn't something similar appear in When the Sleeper Wakes Up? --Error 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that one subtext is that there is a class/evolution subtext. Doesn't one of the Time Traveller's friends say something to the effect that the beginnings of the process of evolutionary division occurring at the time of narration? Jackiespeel 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Protagonist's name in 1960 movie[edit]

The article says, regarding the 1960 movie, "The time traveler had the first name of George." In fact, as can be read on the Time Machine itself in the movie, the Time Traveler's name was H. George Wells. --Heath 68.118.23.158 13:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Several questions[edit]

First off it seems to me that the summary of the plotline in the novel is a bit lengthy, in my opinion if somone wanted to know that much detail they might as well read the novel, its only 150 pages long. I would be happy to do some trimming, just thought I had better voice my opinion before shortening somones hard work.

Also, since we have seperate pages for both the 1960 film and the 2002 film, could we not take out some of the description of those in this article? Certainly we could mention them and wikilink to both articles, but it seems somewhat repiticious to me. Again I am not simply stating these things so others will do the work, just want to make sure I am on the same page with people. --Mr. Dude †@£КÇøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Time travel into the far future.[edit]

Reference should be made to the timeline for the Sun's future is in accordance with contemporary ideas of stellar evolution (of HGW's time), rather than present (late 20th/early 21st century) estimates.

Allowing for this discrepancy, how plausibie is HGW's description of the Earth at the intended point in its future that he was trying to describe?

Jackiespeel 17:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 11 (Not Bankruptcy)[edit]

Now, while I was perusing the Time Machine, I noticed that there was a label saying that Chapter 11 had been edited out due to excessive violence. I suppose it's possible, but I think of it as utterly implausible. The chapter deals with the last moments of a dying Earth (I read the book and expanded the article), but has no violence whatsoever. All that the Time Traveler does is marvel in stupefied horror at the world before him, and he is frigtened when one of the crab-like creatures investigates him. There is no violence whatsoever. Just think this might need investigation.

--Phantom.exe 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find much on the topic. There is this article, which says....
Indeed, in the New Review magazine version of the tale, published before the book, the Time Traveller witnesses even more degraded forms of the Eloi and Morlocks, still locked in their predator-prey relationship - small kangaroo-like creatures hunted by ghastly centipedes. The great overarching message is that social structures will give way to the forces of biology, and that life itself will ultimately give way to the forces of physics.
The novel was originally published in serial form: the early parts appeared in the National Observer in 1893; a more refined version was published the following year in the New Review. The episodes were collected and further refined for publication in book form in 1895.
So... I get the impression that Wells was just gradually working on the story and changed things (as opposed to the omg censorship! view that a violent-chapter omission would imply). As far as something specific to chapter 11... no comment. ~ Booyabazooka 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rod Taylor cameo in 2002 Film[edit]

I remember for a few brief seconds that after seeing the ending (not the full movie) of the 1960's movie (Rod Taylor's time machine) on Turner Classic Movies that the commentator said something about Taylor doing a cameo in the 2002 remake of TTM (Guy Pearce's time machine). Is this true, and where is a picture of him? --Seishirou Sakurazuka 06:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC) It was actually Alan Young (Filby in the 1960 movie) who makes a cameo.--Robors 05:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and copyright infringement?[edit]

I just removed this sentence "Do not Edit this again or I will kill whoever does." from the section on the plot summary. This sort of proprietary regard to content goes against Wikipedia's standards, but it made me think that the section might in fact be taken from one person's research paper, and not be the proper format for an encyclopedia. Any thoughts?


I agree, it should be changed. The style is sometimes inappropriate (mix of present and past) and there is at least one grave misreading: "...that his explanation for the Eloi-Morlock separation is simple, beautiful, and wrong." According to (almost) all critics the exploration of class distinction and the following evolution and split of humanity into Morlocks and Eloi with the Eloi merely being cattle is definetely Wells' central point. This functions not only as a critique of Victorian/capitalist class distincitions, but at the same time also as a critique of the teachings of Social Darwinism. While the time traveler - as a scientist - always is aware of the possibility of being wrong, he by no means thinks he is wrong as the text suggests. His exact words also quoted above are: "It may be as wrong an explanation as mortal wit could invent" Ch. 10. The issues of "birth control to eliminate the problems of overpopulation" also seems to me an anachronistic reading, at least I do not remember coming across it while reading the novel. I might be wrong, but I would suspect it is more to the fact that somebody's imagination has run wild - maybe the new novel mentioned under "Random fanon" is beginning right here ;-).

"Simple, beautiful, and wrong" should refer to the traveler's first theory, concocted before he met the Morlocks. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some explanations for the European reader[edit]

Re UNEXPLAINED. Mark Twain anticipated Wells in the 1889 publication of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, but Twain had not provided his protagonist with any machine or control over his travel in time, which is in fact left completely unexplained. "Completely unexplained??" our reader might well exclaim, "what are these American WP people talking about?" And at first glance, he would have a point. Mark Twain opens his book not only with a Preface but also with A Word of Explanation (10 pages long) in which we find everything explained in a most satisfactory manner. In a misunderstanding conducted with crowbars the Connecticut Yankee is laid out with a crusher alongside the head and comes to in Camelot. True, time travel is not explained, but why should it be? Nobody is travelling in time in Mark Twain's book. It was clear to Mark Twain: A blow on the head might land a man in Camelot, but no amount of travelling in time could ever do.
Yes, but currently this is not established knowledge. The American Wikipedia documents only established knowledge. A day will come when it will be established knowledge that Camelot is not situated on any point of the space-time continuum, and then, of course, Wikipedia editors will change the passage quoted above, along with the rest of all insults to the reader's intelligence in the current version of the article. Ultimately, the article will make sense. In the year 802701. Maybe. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get what your point is or why you compare American as opposed to European readers. It looks like your conclusion constitutes original research. Either explain how your edit contributes to changing the article or, if you can provide references for your view, include it into the article. If neither, then this is not the right place to post your personal essay. 67.173.254.237 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

American vs. European reader: The difference is that Canada uses the life+50 rule and the United States uses the pub+95 rule, both of which put The Time Machine in public domain, while Europe uses the life+70 rule, under which all of H. G. Wells's works are still copyrighted until January 1, 2017. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re ORIGINAL RESEARCH. "POV, Original Research?", our reader might well exclaim, "what are these American WP people talking about?" Literature is POV and Original Research. A thing that is not POV and Original Research cannot be called literature. And the same must needs be true for writing about literature, and for writing about writing about literature, and so on...
Yes, but the American Wikipedia documents only established knowledge. And currently this is not established knowledge. However, a day will come when it will be, and then, of course, it will be reflected in every article and on every discussion page. Ultimately, Wikipeda will make sense. In the year 802701. Maybe. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

canibal[edit]

do the morlocks eat the eloi?I am Paranoid 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

<spoiler>Yes.</spoiler> --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

I noticed that the article seems to go into excessive detail at times, with my understanding being that generally plot summaries are supposed to give a general overview of the story. Also, I noticed that the plot summary refers to the Eloi as being "human", although a very significant aspect of the book is that both the Eloi and the Morlocks are post-human creatures. So wouldn't such a description be misleading, if not highly inaccurate? Calgary 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

More than one Eloi community[edit]

There is more than one Eloi community in the book - Wells makes that clear as the Time Traveller and Weena venture toward the Palace of Green Porcelain. Which see. So, I've corrected it - minor, for sure, but a needed correction anyway. Peter1968 08:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1960 Film Vs. 2002 Film[edit]

I commented out this new section as I feel it has no place in this article, which is about the book. Both films have their own articles and a comparison between the two would be better suited at one of them. Peter1968 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Narrator's name given as "Hillyer"[edit]

In http://www.readprint.com/author-88/H-G--Wells the name of the narrator is given as "Hillyer". I assume that this is spurious, but does anyone have anything else on this? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's speculative. I've read a concordance of the Time Machine that states the same thing. It's all based on the Time Traveller's recounting of man coming into his lab. It could well be the narrator, and it could just be the 'manservant' Wells mentions the Time Traveller has. Peter1968 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Idea[edit]

The book has two remarkable science-fiction ideas in it: 1) traveling in time, and 2) the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes evolving into different species. It's worth noting that films have avoided expressing the second idea, since it was a blend of Darwinist and Marxist ideas. DonPMitchell (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

True. It definitely wouldn't have found an American audience in 1960 if Wells' socialist beliefs had've been kept intact. I'm still hanging out for someone to make a faithful remake of the book, small Eloi and all. Peter1968 (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could start "filming" it on January 1, 2017, when the copyright in the novel will have expired throughout most of the developed world. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Plattner story?[edit]

Stephen Baxter's authorized sequel The Time Ships (as well as its correspondent Wikipedia article) refers to a Wells story entitled The Plattner Story as Wells's original prequel to The time machine instead of The Chronic Argonauts. What about this Plattner Story? It's not even listed in the standard Works by H. G. Wells box here on Wikipedia. --87.154.1.53 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's number fifteen in The Country of the Blind and Other Stories anthology. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Location?[edit]

The book mentions the Time Traveler's home in "Richmond"; so it fits that in the 1960 movie, his lab and home were supposedly Richmond, also. I move the text be changed to be "in Richmond, Surrey".68.231.189.108 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary style and The Time Machine (2002 film)[edit]

Is the section here becoming a bit bloated, at the expense of the spin-off article? WP:DETAIL sets out what we should be aiming for. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I'd be interested in cleaning up the External Links section. It seems a little bloated and repetitive to me.

  • A link to a Blogger blog with "(taken from Sparknotes)" written at the bottom sounds like a) infringement of copyright or b) just useless, since anyone can look up Sparknotes. I'd like to see this removed, I guess.
  • One audiobook recording should be plenty, and I'm leaning towards the LibriVox because it's easier to access and download.
  • Full text should be replaced with Project Gutenberg, I think, because the existing site (PublicLiterature.org) does say "Copyright 2007" at the bottom. Project Gutenberg is purposefully public domain and is linked to on many other articles.

Would be interesting in hearing the responses from the Wiki hive mind. I'll be bold if I don't hear anything from anyone for a while (month-ish?). Similarly, is there any policy or guideline that refers to this that you could direct me to? Thanks in advance for your help and advice. Mononomic (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No response from the Wiki world since December, so I've changed the links. Mononomic (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

On re-reading the novel[edit]

The eloi are not in fact androgynous, that is only the Traveller's first impression. Are we so sure that his relationship with Weena is non-sexual, as the article suggests? (The Traveller seems oddly unrepentant about her death.)

Surely Hillyer is the manservant. The reference to him seems to balance one to the housekeeper.

Rogersansom (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm rather late to this discussion, but I'd like to clarify a few things for the benefit of other readers.
First of all, I'm not sure that "unrepentant" is accurate. The Traveller does feel strongly about Weena's death in late chapter 9/early chapter 10. Did you mean that he was unrepentant about starting the forest fire?
As for the possible sexual nature of the Traveller's relationship with Weena, it's hard to answer that definitively without resorting to original research. However, I noticed that the article uses the wording "innocently affectionate," which is accurate but may have unwanted connotations. SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Never noticed the original comment here, so allow me to add my ten cents. It's possible the Time Traveller and Weena had some sort of liaison but Wells specifically throws in doubt in Ch. 5: In the afternoon I met my little woman, as I believe it was. Fairly hard to have a sexual relationship if you're unsure of the sex of your partner, no? And unrepentant? Hell no. He was absolutely shattered by her loss. How does he describe it? Something like an intense wretchedness. In fact, I think he went on his second trip in order to save her - as was the intention of the Time Traveller in a couple of these non-Wells sequels. Peter Greenwell (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - that's exactly what I was trying to say, except that I wasn't clear enough — also, I may have been playing fast and loose with the definition of "original research." In any case, I can't quite see how we would incorporate any of this into the article.
Perhaps Rogersansom had one of the films or other adaptations in mind to some extent? This is just a wild guess, and I'm really not sure. SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
To clarify: I did not mean to imply that there was any major problem with the article; I was only questioning a specific wording (that is, "innocently affectionate"). As for the quote, I would have said that the problem is more about "little" than the uncertainty in gender—but I agree that the quote is relevant. SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Money written incorrectly[edit]

In the history section, Euros is on the left like our dollar sign would be. It should be: US: $100.00 Canada: 100,00 Europe: 100,00€

If no one objects before 8:30 tonight, I will change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.108.227 (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Object: [1] --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And, the "£" symbol stands for "pound", not "euro". --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Possessive case[edit]

Modern usage is, properly, "apostrophe s" for singular nouns. WP's style guide only requires internal consistency (which was lacking), but the definitive The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Pam Peters, Cambridge University Press, requires consistent treatment of all singular nouns, whether ending in "s" or not.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Serialized Printings[edit]

Does anyone know which issues and/or dates of New Review the original was published in? --66.110.6.119 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1978 Film[edit]

This section needs review and re-writing. The second paragraph presents as a discussion/opposition to the first paragraph. --RedKnight (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like much of the second paragraph has been lifted from here. I am not sure which of the following actions needs to be taken:

1) Delete the material since it might be plagiarized (however, note that the external site does not seem to specify any copyright or terms of use)

2) Make this into a quote and add a reference to the external site (but the external site does not seem to qualify as a reliable source) «Yase Chen» 15:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made the material into a quote and linked it to the site, but not as a citation. This, I think, is at least better than a copy-paste without even an attribution. However, if anyone thinks different, feel free to revert (but please, not without leaving a note here) -- «Yase Chen» / talk! 15:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Added Chapter[edit]

Shouldn't the article include something about that chapter that was added in some versions, where the Traveler goes to a rather zeerusty near future and gets hit with some apathy gas? And then explain why in God's name someone would think it was necessary to pad out a classic novel with original material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Which edition?[edit]

According to this page [2], the cover shown in the article is not from 1st edition but 1922 edition. Avia (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Word count[edit]

I am not sure whether the introduction of the article needs to mention the word count. Most other articles about books seem not to do so. (Where is the style guideline that discusses this?)

Also, I am not sure whether the word count is accurate enough (considering that the lack of precision may be intentional); the most common values I get from search engines are 33,015 and 32,149, and the former disagrees with the article as it stands. Could there be verifiability difficulties? SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "The Grey Man" (1,470 words) is rather too long to account for the difference above (866 words). Unless I figure something out, I will probably be removing the word count fromt he article soon. SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Time Traveler Section[edit]

Is this really necessary?? It is just an accounting of references to other stories/television shows/movies that happen to name a time traveler? This doesn't add anything to the description of the novel and subverts the original purpose of the writing technique that was used. Really, why? If you were describing the Bible, would you recount another work that hypothetically said the middle name of Jesus was Gregory? It should be deleted. 65.183.128.154 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose there might be some sense to trimming it down a little. However, the reason it exists at all seems to be that it was originally a separate article that was later merged. SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Posthuman[edit]

Do we really need this link in the "See also" section? Most of the hypotheses considered "posthuman" are significantly more positive than those made by Wells. SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Grey Man"[edit]

Are there any bibliographic data for publication of the excerpt material (Chapter XI only, no introductory material?) as "The Grey Man"?

ISFDB lists numerous titles some of which must be versions of the excerpted material.[3] For The Final Men (7pp, 1940) ISFDB says [unreliably in detail of course] "An 'episode' from The Time Machine omitted from all books except the 1960 Three Prophetic Novels of H. G. Wells". It lists this one as reappearing in a 1958 edition/version [4], as well as three times w credit to Forrest J Ackerman, first in Perry Rhodan #101 (1976) --presumably the object of our allusion in this article.

--P64 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment in 2002 film section[edit]

67.6.70.118 (talk · contribs) posted: "You forgot the cameo by Alan Young as "The Flower Store Worker". He was Filby in the original (1960) film. As well as the owner of "Mr. Ed" on television. And, at 93, he is still with us."

I'm not sure whether this is entirely on topic, and I still need to verify it anyway. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Error with Comics section[edit]

I just read the Classics Illustrated comic and it doesn't have any of the new chapter about going forward and a technocracy and environmental damage. I backtracked and it looks like the person who added this originally in 2012 referenced "Great Illustrated Classics", not Classics Illustrated. Someone must have assumed these are the same and changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamorse 99 (talkcontribs) 19:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)