|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 22, 2004 11:59:36 GMT
I have wondered many times as to why HG changed the format of the story during "Book Two" when it was turned into the novel in 1898. The PEARSONS story does not contain "The Man On Putney Hill", so we are left to assume that the Artillary man has been killed during the attack on Weybridge and Sheperton. Also in the PEARSONS version the story teller becomes a special constable, serving in London for a short time before heading back to Woking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles on May 22, 2004 13:59:45 GMT
Wells wrote the story in three creative bursts from 1895-1897. At this time he was still relatively new at novel writing and revised his work often. "Worlds" is written fairly unevenly, and has many inconsistencies we have to overlook if we examine it very deeply. For instance, we cannot read the novel and expect every element in the story to have a verifiable real-life counterpart.
The main reason for the changes between the Pearson's serial and the Heinemann edition was to add the artilleryman's stark neo-Wellsian sociological message to the story. And after all, a serial is just a serial; novels tend to be taken more seriously.
Wells considered himself a social propagandist and saw novel writing as an opportunity to spread a message and not, as he later quarrelled with Henry James over, art for the sake of art.
In fact, this point in his career marks where he began inserting recognizable Wellsian sociological messages into his texts.
The bit about the special constable is rather silly and obviously Wells felt it detracted from the story and perhaps distracted the reader from properly digesting the points he had just written in through the artilleryman. Same goes for the original manuscript adventure about blowing up a Martian with dynamite. These revisions are Wells-the-author maturing before our eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on May 23, 2004 0:16:13 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Is there a version still in print that includes this material?[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles on May 23, 2004 2:54:38 GMT
It was printed as an appendix in Hughes & Geduld's 1993 annotated edition. Its not like the narrator actually carries out his mission, either. He receives bombs from a provisional government for a suicide mission against the invaders (hmmm, sounds familiar, eh?) but a short time later discovers the Martians already dead. It definately needed to be edited out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Earthrise on Jul 22, 2004 22:59:21 GMT
"He receives bombs from a provisional government for a suicide mission against the invaders (hmmm, sounds familiar, eh?)" Fancy that, a subject people using desparte force against a powerful invader. Wells must be a terrorist sympathiser. No wonder he changed it.  Earthrise |
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jul 23, 2004 22:22:53 GMT
Hmm... I guess that's why Christopher Priest had HG Wellsand others blowing up Martians with dynamite on a time travelling bed in 'the Space Machine'
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 28, 2004 11:50:02 GMT
Fancy that, a subject people using desparte force against a powerful invader. Wells must be a terrorist sympathiser. No wonder he changed it. Don't forget that the artilleryman - the character with views closest to Wells' own - has something to say about it: "And instead of our rushing about blind, on the howl, or getting dynamite on the chance of busting them up, we've got to fix ourselves up according to the new state of affairs. That's how I figure it out. It isn't quite according to what a man wants for his species, but it's about what the facts point to." I guess your insurgent friends never read "Worlds..." They'd HATE the athiest Wells anyway... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Jul 28, 2004 20:42:46 GMT
Quite...you don't run around disorganised with lumps of dynamite...you form yourself into an organised unit with a leader...and spend months and months scheming up horrific guerilla strikes on your enemy... ...sounds familiar...  |
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Jul 28, 2004 20:43:19 GMT
Quite...you don't run around disorganised with lumps of dynamite...you form yourself into an organised unit with a leader...and spend months and months scheming up horrific guerilla strikes on your enemy... ...sounds familiar... Hold on, I feel a thread bump coming on  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Jul 29, 2004 16:11:06 GMT
It was printed as an appendix in Hughes & Geduld's 1993 annotated edition. Its not like the narrator actually carries out his mission, either. He receives bombs from a provisional government for a suicide mission against the invaders (hmmm, sounds familiar, eh?) but a short time later discovers the Martians already dead. It definately needed to be edited out. The idea of a suicide mission would give the story an even more dramatic touch. But this type of attacks would be effective for only one or two times. Since the ordinary man is scared to death (hehe) for the Martians, it would be very strange if some people just ran towards them. Ofcourse the Martians will be suspicious <-bad spelling?! after some time and destroy every man who runs a bit too entousiastic towards them. Tripod |
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 29, 2004 18:08:06 GMT
I wouldn’t say it gave the story a dramatic touch; quite the contrary. It actually cluttered the climax with an adventure that almost shifted the focus away from the discovery of the dead Martians. Even for our flawed and contradictory narrator it was terribly out of character. In short, it’s the kind of maudlin adventure that appeals to Hollywood. If Wells had left that sort of thing in the novel, Hollywood wouldn’t hesitate to do a remake based more closely on the book.
But by all means, read it for yourself...
|
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Jul 30, 2004 10:14:33 GMT
suspicious <-bad spelling?! ...entousiastic Tripod Suspicious...spot on! Er...but I think you meant enthusiastic  |
|
|
|
Post by Happy Chappy on Jul 30, 2004 10:28:36 GMT
...the artilleryman's stark neo-Wellsian sociological message... Sorry Charles...You lost me after this bit!! LOL! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 30, 2004 13:05:46 GMT
Hmmm ***scratches goatee and shrugs***, that's okay; lets just say I'm more interested in the details and meaning of the original text than most normal people... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Happy Chappy on Jul 31, 2004 7:46:51 GMT
No probs Charles. I never was one to analyse books, or to slate those who do...
|
|
|
|
Post by krys666 on Aug 7, 2004 23:41:06 GMT
Wells wrote the story in three creative bursts from 1895-1897. At this time he was still relatively new at novel writing and revised his work often. "Worlds" is written fairly unevenly, and has many inconsistencies we have to overlook if we examine it very deeply. For instance, we cannot read the novel and expect every element in the story to have a verifiable real-life counterpart. The main reason for the changes between the Pearson's serial and the Heinemann edition was to add the artilleryman's stark neo-Wellsian sociological message to the story. And after all, a serial is just a serial; novels tend to be taken more seriously. Wells considered himself a social propagandist and saw novel writing as an opportunity to spread a message and not, as he later quarrelled with Henry James over, art for the sake of art. In fact, this point in his career marks where he began inserting recognizable Wellsian sociological messages into his texts. The bit about the special constable is rather silly and obviously Wells felt it detracted from the story and perhaps distracted the reader from properly digesting the points he had just written in through the artilleryman. Same goes for the original manuscript adventure about blowing up a Martian with dynamite. These revisions are Wells-the-author maturing before our eyes. Hey! I have a H.G Wells collection (with invisible man, time machine and all the classics) and it says: unabridged version. What story do you think i have, saddly i haven't read all of WOTW because of school assinements, ect. but in this sumer hols, i hope to finish reading. UNABRIDGED VERSION, does that mean ALL the version together? please, if you can, tell me, please.. |
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Aug 8, 2004 18:49:03 GMT
Not too sure what you mean Krys. But 'unabridged' means the content hasn't been edited, ie you get the full story. Not so common in print, but various 'talking book' versions are 'abridged' ie the miss out part of the story. For example, the Leonard Nimoy narrated record I have only follows the narrator on his path to London, missing out his encounter with the curate, the red weed and his brother's escape by steamer. Similarly, both the Robert Hardy and Tim Piggott-Smith voiced versions are also hacked-about to fit the length of the tape... |
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Aug 9, 2004 1:16:56 GMT
Not so common in print, but various 'talking book' versions are 'abridged' ie the miss out part of the story. For example, the Leonard Nimoy narrated record I have only follows the narrator on his path to London, missing out his encounter with the curate, the red weed and his brother's escape by steamer. Similarly, both the Robert Hardy and Tim Piggott-Smith voiced versions are also hacked-about to fit the length of the tape... The Worldtainment Corportation released two MP3s last year; one of "The Time Machine" and "Worlds," the other with "The Invisible Man," "The Island of Dr. Moreau," "The Crystal Egg," and "The Valley of the Spiders," all unabridged readings by Patrick Horgan. Highly recommended! |
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Aug 9, 2004 6:48:04 GMT
Charles...whereabouts could we get hold of this??  |
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Aug 9, 2004 7:11:21 GMT
Yeah i second that...Is the original draft of The War of the Worlds availible to read online Charles old bean?. D.F. |
|
;D
