![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I found this book first edition, for a pound at the second hand bookshop across from the British Museum. It is an essay that Wells wrote in 1939 about the state of the world. It is a very interesting read. It is full of bitterness and disappointment, and yet he still has a small belief that man may be able to avert himself from total destruction. Written just before (or at?) the start of the 2nd world war, I can’t help but think how his opinions would be worsened over the next several years, and I wonder what he thought after the war finished, before his death. I’m sure he wrote more after that and I shall have to find it.
The books start off with a look at how evolutionary theories have changed people’s attitudes towards history, the past and the future. He discuses how the Victorians had very little concept of the future. He talks about how he was able to write the Time Machine and see the destruction of mankind as a far off and unreal thing that it wasn’t disturbing and could be discussed without making anyone uncomfortable. “The future was something in another universe, in another dimension. One could say or think anything one liked about it because it did not seem to matter in the least.” (83) Another interesting insight was how he talked about his ideas changing over time, he mentioned past works and what he thought and how his ideas were always evolving, how he saw himself as very much a product of his time, how he was caught up in the beliefs of the late Victorian era, or the 20th century, and that his ideas grew and changed with time (for example his attitude towards the league of nations).
There was an interesting reference to the importance of printing in the development of Christianity. With printing, the book replaced the priest as the most important voice of religion. I thought this was a very interesting idea, and one that I’d not considered before. Printing and religion are closely tied in China, indeed my old professor, Timothy Barrett, is working on a book looking at the religious impetus behind the invention of printing in China. Yet there texts frequently remained magical in themselves, possessing or copying a scripture would give future reward or save you from earthly peril. There was also a huge variety in what was written, the was not one specific text that was viewed about all others. Why was this different to Europe? This obsession with the holiness of the Bible comes across today in the fanaticism of Evangelicals who seem to forget its origins. It also magnifies the power of books in their own lives so that one must be very careful about what one reads, or lets their children read, as if one book is true then people might easily mistake all books as true. (Hence their problem with Harry Potter, but I digress).
It is a very un-pc work. He talks with great distaste about all the flaws inherent in different cultures and religions. He has very little nice to say about anyone anywhere. It is because of this that I find it interesting that he is constantly referring to the future of the human race and people. It seems that he was carefully and deliberately including women in his arguments about the fate of the world. While I was half way through this book [Bad username or site: ”oursin” @ livejournal.com] was researching correspondence with Wells from the 30s about how women should have a more active role to play in his society of the future, besides simply breeding. There was little explicit references to the role of women in this book. He saw the problem of humans being a problem of too many young males, and that they needed something to do, or some way to be controlled and women were hardly mentioned at all. The only reference really to the role of women came across as unspoken, when he mentioned, almost as an aside, the dangers of birth control. He seemed to think that it would lead to the human race disappearing from existence because people choose not to breed. The conclusion could then be drawn that the role of mother was the most important one for a woman, whether or not it was the only one is not mentioned. I adore Wells’ and so my bias is to say that I do not think he does think this is the only path for women, but I may be deluding myself.
After criticising religion he goes on to be critical of the secular powers of the world. There was one line that seemed amusing for its description of today, rather than 70 years ago when he stated, “The labour party is densely conservative”. He looked at fascism in Italy, the Nazis, England, the US and China. I thought it was interesting to see how he described Chiang Kaishek as a fundamentalist Christian fascist, which I fully believe he was. I think it’s interesting because at the time, and for the years afterwards he was favoured by the Americans who never wrote of him in this way. He discussed Russia; he talked about how he hated Marx, but how he had met Lenin and Stalin. He talked about the problems and hopes of communism, and the way communism seemed to draw English youth in an almost ridiculous manner.
It was a joy to read. It was an interesting look at the way things were, and how he thought they had gotten there. While it was impossible to agree with all his arguments, and to know that none of the things he wanted (with the exception of the continuance of mankind) ever came to be, it is still well worth reading. It was depressing and enjoyable. It was especially interesting to read after The Devil Rides Out, having been written only a couple of years later. Together the two, (along with the Smedley I read a few months ago) have renewed my interest in this decade. It was definitely an interesting time for ideas and writing.
The books start off with a look at how evolutionary theories have changed people’s attitudes towards history, the past and the future. He discuses how the Victorians had very little concept of the future. He talks about how he was able to write the Time Machine and see the destruction of mankind as a far off and unreal thing that it wasn’t disturbing and could be discussed without making anyone uncomfortable. “The future was something in another universe, in another dimension. One could say or think anything one liked about it because it did not seem to matter in the least.” (83) Another interesting insight was how he talked about his ideas changing over time, he mentioned past works and what he thought and how his ideas were always evolving, how he saw himself as very much a product of his time, how he was caught up in the beliefs of the late Victorian era, or the 20th century, and that his ideas grew and changed with time (for example his attitude towards the league of nations).
There was an interesting reference to the importance of printing in the development of Christianity. With printing, the book replaced the priest as the most important voice of religion. I thought this was a very interesting idea, and one that I’d not considered before. Printing and religion are closely tied in China, indeed my old professor, Timothy Barrett, is working on a book looking at the religious impetus behind the invention of printing in China. Yet there texts frequently remained magical in themselves, possessing or copying a scripture would give future reward or save you from earthly peril. There was also a huge variety in what was written, the was not one specific text that was viewed about all others. Why was this different to Europe? This obsession with the holiness of the Bible comes across today in the fanaticism of Evangelicals who seem to forget its origins. It also magnifies the power of books in their own lives so that one must be very careful about what one reads, or lets their children read, as if one book is true then people might easily mistake all books as true. (Hence their problem with Harry Potter, but I digress).
It is a very un-pc work. He talks with great distaste about all the flaws inherent in different cultures and religions. He has very little nice to say about anyone anywhere. It is because of this that I find it interesting that he is constantly referring to the future of the human race and people. It seems that he was carefully and deliberately including women in his arguments about the fate of the world. While I was half way through this book [Bad username or site: ”oursin” @ livejournal.com] was researching correspondence with Wells from the 30s about how women should have a more active role to play in his society of the future, besides simply breeding. There was little explicit references to the role of women in this book. He saw the problem of humans being a problem of too many young males, and that they needed something to do, or some way to be controlled and women were hardly mentioned at all. The only reference really to the role of women came across as unspoken, when he mentioned, almost as an aside, the dangers of birth control. He seemed to think that it would lead to the human race disappearing from existence because people choose not to breed. The conclusion could then be drawn that the role of mother was the most important one for a woman, whether or not it was the only one is not mentioned. I adore Wells’ and so my bias is to say that I do not think he does think this is the only path for women, but I may be deluding myself.
After criticising religion he goes on to be critical of the secular powers of the world. There was one line that seemed amusing for its description of today, rather than 70 years ago when he stated, “The labour party is densely conservative”. He looked at fascism in Italy, the Nazis, England, the US and China. I thought it was interesting to see how he described Chiang Kaishek as a fundamentalist Christian fascist, which I fully believe he was. I think it’s interesting because at the time, and for the years afterwards he was favoured by the Americans who never wrote of him in this way. He discussed Russia; he talked about how he hated Marx, but how he had met Lenin and Stalin. He talked about the problems and hopes of communism, and the way communism seemed to draw English youth in an almost ridiculous manner.
It was a joy to read. It was an interesting look at the way things were, and how he thought they had gotten there. While it was impossible to agree with all his arguments, and to know that none of the things he wanted (with the exception of the continuance of mankind) ever came to be, it is still well worth reading. It was depressing and enjoyable. It was especially interesting to read after The Devil Rides Out, having been written only a couple of years later. Together the two, (along with the Smedley I read a few months ago) have renewed my interest in this decade. It was definitely an interesting time for ideas and writing.