Jump to content

Talk:H. G. Wells/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

I've been working on Nikola Tesla in popular culture, Mark Twain in popular culture, Thomas Edison in popular culture and others (as well as proposing others) which deal with a real person portrayed as a fictional character and this entry is ripe for this with the information in "Appearances in other contexts" which could form the core of a H. G. Wells in popular culture. There might not be much of a call for it at the moment but it seems editors can get nervous about such sections and if so (or if the entry requires a split) then I am throwing this in as a possible solution. (Emperor 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Why is the nationality "English"?

Wells was English. His nationality was British.

I suspect the influence of some heavy handed American with little understanding of the subtle differences, or a political agenda.

I say this having seen the inane suggestion that his whole piece be rewritten to neutralise (or neuter) statements.

That risible idea came from someone who admitted not having read what Wells said about himself.

Sheesh.

The nationality is English because English is a nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.25.122 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no such thing as an English passport, English is not a nationality, England is a region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, therefore his nationality was British-Ted Fox 20:15 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

His ethnicity may be English but his nationality (citizenship) was British.PonileExpress (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note on copyright?

I have seen too many suggestions that Wells is out of copyright, with "eBooks" showing up on eBay for example. This is not the case.

http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/UK/hgwcopy.html

Is this something that should go into the article? Or do we assume that everyone will do their own research? {unsigned}

It might worth having a section called "Copyright status" that describes the different copyright status around the world since it is a subject many people will be interested in, using the above link as a sourced reference. -- Stbalbach 14:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the link to Britannica article. It is their policy that, while the full articles cannot be accessed directly from their site unless subscribing to their services, full articles can be read if linked from another site. Goochelaar 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The only way the article can be read is to click the "free trial" button which is inappropriate as it is a subscription based service. The article is not freely online. -- Stbalbach 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Please check better: you should see the short introduction and (under the invitation to a free trial) the link to "Next page: Early life" and so on. Britannica's weird link scheme is curious in itself and can be discussed, but neither Britannica's nor Wikipedia's policies forbid this kind of link (EB encourages them, apparently). Goochelaar 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Checked. Better. -- Stbalbach 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Critical Essays section in disorder

There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to the order of the Critical Essays section at the end of this article. Some of the essays appear to be in alphabetical order by title and others by author, still others seem to be ordered by date. I only noticed this problem when I attempted to add an essay and could find no discernable niche in which to slot it. I just placed it at the end, but surely there is a better system. I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policy regarding collating links, however, so I'm reluctant to change them myself.

The blackbird is involved 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich Quote

Hello. What is the value of having this quote in the article? It is representative of such a profound misreading of much of Wells output that it suggests to me Gingrich never actually read Wells. Was Mr Gingrich's imagination dazzled with hope and optimisism by The Time Machine, where society has progressed to cannibalism, and the essential futility of human action is revealed by the death of the sun? The Invisible Man, where the hero is bludgeoned to death by an angry mob while crying out 'Mercy'? Or by War of the Worlds where man's hubris is revealed first by Martians then by bacteria? The Island of Dr Moreau? Kipps? Tono-Bungay? Mr Gingrich may or may not have been an effective poltician but he is not any sort of authority on H.G. Wells and I don't think that a section entitled 'Legacy' should really stand or fall on his word alone.--Leau 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to back this up here's a quote from J.R.Hammond's book H.G. Wells and the Modern Novel (Macmillan, 1988, p.78): "The pessimism of The Time Machine ... is quite deliberate. It was a pessimism to which [Wells] returned not only in the early romances and short stories but in much of the later work..." Gingrich's claim for dazzling optimism in Wells is not supported by scholarly sources and is not, I would argue, his legacy. --Leau 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Newt is not a literary critic, it is not a good source for the legacy section. Perhaps it could be included in an influences section, to show how how Well's influenced American culture, but the quote is not from a scholarly source and it doesn't fully represent the complexity of his legacy, it's rather shallow. -- Stbalbach 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Wells, for a time starting in the 1920s, became known for his utopian works. Wells was one of only a handful of authors after World War I to do utopias at all. These include Men Like Gods and, to an extent, The Shape of Things to Come. For a time the term "Wellsian" meant a future made happy, if somewhat bland, through gadgets and education. Wells was not optimistic of a utopia occurring, but he was an advocate of utopia in a way and that influenced many views of him for later generations.--T. Anthony 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


There doesn't seem to be any real reason for rubber-stamping the optimistic streak in Wells' philosophy with Newt Gingrich's approval, does there? As Stbalbach writes, quoting Gingrich here is rather shallow.

If we are to understand Wells as a thinker, then we must understand that we cannot flatly call Wells either an 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic' thinker. For example, is this famous conclusion optimistic? ('The Discovery of the Future', 1902): "A day will come when beings, now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins, shall stand upon Earth as a footstool and laugh, and reach out their hands amidst the stars." Of course it is. Were Wells' Utopias written in hope, as well as fear? Certainly. It's best to remember that Wells was a dynamic, sometimes contradictory thinker, and that the complexity of his attitudes towards the future may preclude sweeping generalisations, like the above. 79.64.23.116 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some proposed revsisons/additions

I'm researching HG Wells for a masters at the moment and have come across a few things that I would propose to change in this article, namely: (i) a section on Wells's career in the 1890s, which included the publication of a science textebook and a period as a drama and literary critic in the years 1895-97; (ii) a section on his relationship with other authors, such as Joseph Conrad, James Joyce and most notably Henry James, which culminated in a long running argument about the nature and function of the novel and literary technique and lead to HG Wells satirising James in one of his novels (iii) a section detailing the reasons why Wells distanced himself from Jules Verne. If no-one's got any objections I'll try and add these over the next month or so. --Leau 22:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article certainly needs a lot of work, in particular as regards his private life in relation to Amy Catherine, which gives a conventional but misleading impression of her position. Nick Cooper 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Didactic or polemic?

The all important first paragraph, apart from being poorly written, makes the puzzling assertion that "His later works become increasingly political and didactic."

Does the author really understand the meaning of the work didactic?

This is usually used to describe something that sets out to teach. It can carry overtones of "preachiness," which would be true of Wells's later work. But I would have thought the word "polemic" would be more appropriate. Actually, just stopping at "political" might be enough.

To be more a reflection of Wells's state of mind, "frustrated" would also fill the bill.

MK 18:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think didactic is appropriate for some works, while others are more overtly polemical (e.g. Crux Ansata). Nick Cooper 18:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A little history might help- I originally read this on December 8, when the word used was "diabetic". My quick guess was that the original author meant "dialectic", another author corrected this to "didactic" shortly after. On preview, just stopping at political seems appropriate, but so long as we avoid "diabolical", "diagonal" or "dyslexic" I'll be happy. WotherspoonSmith 11:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. Looking back at the edits before yours on 8 Dec, it seems that it was originally "didactic" but got changed to "diabetic" during a splurge of more obvious vandalism on the 7 Dec. Of course, Wells was actually diagnosed as diabetic late in life, and in fact only the other day I did make a mental note to put the detail in at some point, as a quick word search didn't show up the word (or "diabetes") on the page! Nick Cooper 12:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "didactic" is appropriate. I recently read The War in the Air, and while there is some brilliant science fiction and moving drama, Wells repeatedly stops the story dead for a lump of political exposition that is now long out of date. 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Vandalism

FYI, I reverted vandalism by user:195.248.97.201 to this page. --KNHaw (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

New Worlds for Old

New World For Old (various authors)- the actual Wikipedia article about this book fails to list Wells as a contributor. google this, get very few results: "new world for old" h g wells—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 April 2007.

That's because they are different books. At present the link in "Works" goes to the wrong one, so thanks for pointing this out! I will disambiguate in due course, unless someone beats me to it... --Old Moonraker 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Done --Old Moonraker 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New article for his Works?

The "Works" section is currently very long and clumsy. I think there is enough here to warrant a separate article, say H. G. Wells bibliography. Then I think it should be subdivided into something like "Novels", "Short stories", "Non-fiction", etc. Any thoughts? (This point was raised last year here.) --Bruce1ee 05:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea: separate article with subdivisions. Cheers, Doctormatt 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The body of Wells's work is so extensive that it can't really be hnadled sensibly on the biography page. Nick Cooper 07:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Although in another area I have done work on List of published material by Alan Moore and separating and splitting up into easie to digest chunks has proved helpful. (Emperor 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

I've created H. G. Wells bibliography and relocated and resorted his Works – still trying to sort out some of the titles. --Bruce1ee 11:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add a link like:

to the 'External Links; Sources - collections' section. This links to a list of Wells works that you can download to read on a cell phone. I have read quite a few from this site and got a lot of value out being able to read the PD texts away from the PC.

The texts are Public Domain in the US, just like Project Gutenberg, they are packaged with the reader and available under a creative commons licence (share if (attribution, non-commercial, no derivative) ). The site is non-commercial without registration, subscription, or advertising. The texts as packaged together with the reader as a java program that runs on cell phones, this is a way for people to access the authors work that adds to the range in the existing external links (hopefully translating to more reading going on).

I checked WP:EL and the link seems appropriate:

  • What should be linked: '...should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.'
  • Links normally to be avoided: it seems only #8 might apply; 'Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content...'. The site lets you download java programs that only run on a J2ME environment, this means most/all current cell phones. So although they are limited to being read on a phone they do add an access method to all the others in the existing External Links, in the same way that LibriVox adds a format but requires an mp3 player.

Filomath 08:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wells's works are still in copyright in the UK and most of the rest of the world. Nick Cooper 11:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This opens an interesting discussion. Wells works are Public Domain in some countries, and in copyright in others. What criteria should Wikipedia use when linking to External sources?

  • Only items that are PD in country of the servers hosting Wikipedia?
  • Only items that are PD somewhere in the world? The two existing Gutenberg links point to collections that are PD in different countries, the Guenberg Australia books are still in copyright in the USA I think. It seems this option is the defacto policy.
  • Only items that are PD everywhere in the world? this seems to be what you propose.

USA Gutenberg and Internet archive are widely linked to from Wikipedia pages - do you think all those links should be eliminated for copyright reasons? Filomath 00:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

der

he wrote the red room !!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.114 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at H. G. Wells bibliography. --Bruce1ee 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Georgyporgy Wells? OK, so maybe I'm missing it, but how do we change that to correct his middle name? Bedens67 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Epitaph

I'd like to suggest that someone adds a note about Wells' epitaph, "I told you so, you damned fools.", and an explaination for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.163.166 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added this to the Legacy section. --Bruce1ee talk 08:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed move by Egyptianboy15223

The above user has totally ignored the previous vote/discussion on the name of the page. Can an Admin sort this out, please? Nick Cooper (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a move request to repair this undiscussed change. --Ckatzchatspy 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please admin. Move this, he is always known and credited as H. G. Wells. Parable1991 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, please undo this move. MoS:BIO#Names states that "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". Also note that Egyptianboy15223 only has 7 edits to his name. --Bruce1ee talk 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please undo rename. See naming conventions, which specifically mentions this article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should be undone. The place for the full name is where it stands, as the first words of the article, in bold. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The form with initials is definitely the most common, and should be used. Knepflerle (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Article has been moved back. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, not quite. It was H. G. Wells, not H.G. Wells. --Bruce1eetalk 10:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted: now back to its original state, before the drive-by edit set all this off. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that! --Bruce1eetalk 11:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Magazine articles

It would be worth adding a section on magazine articles written by HG Wells to his entry. In one of the most extra-ordinary articles in the New Stateman magazine he visits Russia to interview Joseph Stalin.

Robbyyy (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Robbyyy

"Three Greatest Men in History" - A fake?

I was reading an artical on Buddhism and saw a reference to this book: "Three Greatest Men in History" by H. G. Wells. But now I can't find the book. Is this just a fake quote from a book that doesn't exist? Or has the name been changed?

http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/

Google Search

Rush4hire (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was in Readers' Digest, ca 1935, and anthologised in 1940. [1] --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Influences

I'm not happy with the list of influences given in the infobox. Jules Verne? Wells repudiated that suggestion. Darwinian theory? OK, but it would be better to give Thomas Huxley as a direct influence in this and other scientific matters. Mark Twain? Is there anything other than the time-travel element of “A Connecticut Yankee in the Court of King Arthur”? Not that “Connecticut Yankee” was an influence; the article on Twain stresses that Twain's novel preceded Wells's “The Time Machine” by six years, but Wells's own “The Chronic Argonauts” appeared a year earlier still. Mary Shelley? OK, it could be said that the theme of scientific responsibility of “Frankenstein” is echoed in “The Island of Doctor Moreau” and other stories. Jonathan Swift? Certainly - Wells acknowledged his debt there. If we must have a list of influences, it would be better presented, with citations, as a separate section in the article, when names such as Plato and J. M. Barrie could be included.--Mabzilla (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's all much too vague and totally unsourced. I think it should be canned.
For one thing, although it wasn't a genre as we know it, and although the name "science-fiction" hadn't been coined, it wasn't limited to Verne and Wells; it was sort of in the air. For example, Jack "Call of the Wild" London wrote at least a dozen stories that would be classified as science-fiction today.
And if we're going to guess at influences, which we shouldn't do, the list is incomplete. Can anyone doubt that his novels that rely on radioactivity (the latter part of Tono-Bungay; The World Set Free;) were influenced by Ernest Rutherford? Can anyone read "The New Accelerator" or the early chapters of "The Time Machine" and not believe he must have seen some early cinematography, time-lapse and slow-motion? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted all except Swift in the list and added Plato and Huxley.--Mabzilla (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Trencacloscas objects

I do not understand your objection to my recent edit. Please explain. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wells's age at which his leg was broken

There is recurrent dispute about Wells's age when his leg was broken. In his Experiment in Autobiography, Wells states that this happened when he was "between seven and eight". As he later went to Morley's school "at the age of seven (and, to be exact, three quarters)", the accident obviously happened between his seventh and eight birthdays, ie he didn't mean to say he was seven or eight. Presumably Wells had either forgotten or didn't think it mattered what the exact date was.--Mabzilla (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

HG Wells was not a socialist!

Wells left George Bernard Shaw's socialist movement because of disagreements with it. His book "the Time Machine" criticizes Marxism. The workers eat the Bourgouise.PonileExpress (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wells also criticizes socialism in "Men Like Gods". Rick Norwood (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
PonileExpress, your objection seems to be predicated on the misassumption that "socialism" is a single monolithic entity, which it isn't. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, the word "socialism" is used to mean everything from nationalization of the banking industry to free school lunch. But, generally, Wells broke from the socialists, especially the Fabians, so the article should not say "Wells was a socialist". Rick Norwood (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Although Wells fell out with certain other socialists (a not uncommon occurence in such circles), he remained commited to socialist principles throughout his life enough to justify it's use on the page, but it probably merits an appropriate elaboration. Personally, I have more issue with the label of "pacifist". Nick Cooper (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Wells held on to certain socialist principles -- these days everybody is a socialist, whether they realize it or not (except the Libertarians). I still think calling him a socialist is apt to give the wrong impression. In Men Like Gods, a late Utopian novel, the POV character expresses a disbelief that a utopia can exist without money and banks. Without clothes, yes, but without money and banks, no. So where do our godlike nudists keep their money? It turns out that the landscape is dotted with ATMs! And this was written in 1923! Rick Norwood (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you apply the word Socialism with such a broad brush, then you would have to include George W. Bush, Henry Paulson, Barack Obama, and every member of congress who voted for the bailout as socialists.PonileExpress (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the politicians you name are much more socialist that Wells. The ultimate excess of socialism is nationalizing the banks. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H._G._Wells/Archive_2&oldid=1136781629"