Finished: March 2, 2025
Why I read this
Looking over some reviews of the 2002 The Time Machine movie I realize that when I watched this film as a child I was probably among the few positive reviewers. I remember being fascinated by the rotating ball that was the time machine and the spinning, warping background as it whirled through thousands of years into uncharted space and time. This being my only reference for this book, I was interested to see that it was included in a list of “sci-fi classics” and surprised to admit that I knew nothing of the story beyond the quickly fading flashes of memory from a 20 year old movie. Seeing that it was only about 100 pages it was no big ask to take the plunge into a quick read, yet I never expected it to be not just a classic, but THE classic of time travel novels.
What I learned
The relatively simple story of a man travelling forward into the distant future and discovering a vastly different humanity feels today like a simple plot. The idea that even an eon from now the rules of society today will remain is tried and tested. We will always have good and evil, always high society and low society. No matter the modern science fiction this fact remains. Susan Colin’s Hunger Games, Frank Herbert’s Dune, Stephen King’s The Running Man, Philip K Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep. Humanity, or at least societal structures, survive through time. So when we arrive in H.G. Well’s classic, the society of the Eloi and the Morlocks is not shocking, it is even something we find familiar. The themes and tropes comfortable. All of this to say that The Time Machine feels like science fiction at its best and purest, and it should because I learned here that the classic novel was the first to even present the idea of time travel by mechanical means. In naming his book he literally coined the term. Just like how Pride and Prejudice felt cliché because in fact it invented many clichés, so too The Time Machine quite literally created a genre.
Beyond my astonishment at discovery the grandfather of all science fiction, one thing I constantly asked myself throughout this read was about how this must have been perceived at the time. Published in 1895 it feels much closer to something we would read today than something of almost 150 years ago. Comparing my recent reads the language, themes, technology felt much more modern than those presented in Great Expectations which was released only 34 years before this one. Even the idea of evolution, which was heavily leaned upon throughout the entire book was presented by Charles Darwin just 36 years earlier. What an incredible time it must have been where the world could change so quickly that a blasphemous and groundbreaking theory could go from unknown to the basis of popular fiction. All of this done without internet or mass communication. Even language itself moved at lightning speed from what was “perfect English” with Dickens to this newer, faster, more fluid written language.
And it would be one thing to slightly mention evolution, but wow Wells really leaned into the heavy themes of evolution! Themes that feel incredibly relevant today as they must have at the end of the industrial revolution. In our modern world, quickly turning oligarchy, are we not slipping slowly towards the extremes presented by H.G. Wells? An oppressed lower class and a unbothered and ignorant upper class? Snowballing wealth and power creating an upper echelon that will eventually become defenseless and stupid after generations without need of defense or intelligence? While those who are oppressed into working roles eventually evolved in such a way where they cannot live outside of their abysmal conditions.
It all reminded me of the ideas presented in Utopia for Realists where Rutger Bregman reviewed several ideas about what the word Utopia really means. I believe he would have agreed with Wells’ idea that once all human challenges are conquered we risk to lose any vision. That we would lose our drive and ambition and become slower, weaker, less innovative. That without a long term vision for an improved future the only option becomes complacency and stagnation. But at what point in stagnation acceptable? Progress cannot continue forever, can there be a point at which humanity can be sure to achieve optimal conditions? Where we can not, and should not “progress” any further? Or will humanity only be satisfied once the Earth is abandoned to the monstrous centipedes, or left totally barren under a dying red sun?
What I didn’t like
Almost universally I find the end of very short books to be slightly disappointing. I can’t help but say “that’s it?” at the end of a two-three hour read. Something like a novella or short story doesn’t give the reader enough time to digest the content. To really appreciate the themes. I go back and forth each time on this subject (just before I said I was happy that The Man in the High Castle ended when it did, but I still believe there’s a big difference between 300 and 100 pages). Regardless, I feel it was a shame that Wells did not continue with the rich setting he produced in this book and I was disappointed when it came to its inevitable conclusion.
Questions I asked
When this book was released were its themes of evolution controversial?
If our tastes, talents, preferences, and attitudes are infinitely variable, is it possible to treat people truly equally?
If the Morlocks were adapted to their underground society, were they happy within it?
My Favorite Quote
“Strength is the outcome of need ; security sets a premium on feebleness.”
The Time Traveller
Books I liked like this one
The Hobbit : J.R.R. Tolkien (for a simple, and at times childish, novelette with surprisingly deep insights)
The Alchemist : Paulo Coelho (for a short and inspiring book)
Book Reviews for Mom 