The Time Machine

Published in 1895, H.G. Wells' The Time Machine was one of, if not the first, popular science-fiction novels to deal with the concept of time travel, which is something that is almost too common today. I've seen both of the film adaptations of it, but this is my first time reading the source material, and was interested, if not enthralled, by how it differs from the progeny it has wrought.

The Time Traveller (he is known by know other name) has a dinner party, and explains: "Any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and--Duration...There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and fourth, Time."

The Time Traveller has built a machine that can move him through time, and when next the gentlemen meet, he tells his miraculous tale. In the machine, he travels forward in time, with the sun spinning around him. He alights in the year 801,272, and finds that, "gradually, the truth dawned on me: that Man had not remained one species, but had differentiated into two distinct animals: that my graceful children of the Upper-world were not the sole descendants of our generation, but that this bleached, obscene, nocturnal Thing, which had flashed before me, was also heir to the ages."

He speaks of the two branches of humanity that have come down to us even today: the Elois and the Morlocks. The former are small, childlike beings of little intelligence but fragile beauty. They have no technology, and he wonders how they make the make the fabrics of their clothes. The Morlocks are simian-like beings who live underground and shun the light, operating the machinery for the Elois. At first the T.T. believes that it is a master-slave relationship, but then, after exploring the Morlock tunnels and finding that the Morlocks eat the Eloi, he sees it as a rancher-livestock relationship, a truly symbiotic one that serves both peoples.

Given Wells' socialist views, The Time Machine can be seen as a parable for the time he lived in. Just as George Orwell's novel was called 1948 before he changed it to 1984, so to must Wells have reflecting the age he lived in, when the upper-class were largely twits while the downtrodden masses made everything for them. The only difference was that the working class had not yet decided to eat the benefactors of their labor. What then, are we to make of the T.T.'s repugnance at them, while he has a fondness for the Eloi (he saves the life of a female, called Weena, and they have a sort of half-hearted romance). Is the T.T. just another Eloi, or is Wells recognizing the plight of the modern-day Morlock while still uncomfortable with having anything to do with them?

After escaping the clutches of the Morlocks, the Time Traveller moves 30 million years forward, and sees the sun ebbing. The only living things are large crab-like creatures, so he moves forward even more: "The darkness grew apace; a cold wind began to blow in freshening gusts from the east, and the showering white flakes in the air increased in number. From the edge of the sea came a ripple and whisper. Beyond these lifeless sounds the world was silent. Silent? It would be hard to convey the stillness of it. All the sounds of man, the bleating of sheep, the cries of birds, the hum of insects, the stir that makes the background of our lives--that was all over."

My criticisms of the book are borne by prejudice of all the time travel literature and film that have come since. Coincidentally, I am reading a very good novel by Stephen King, 11/22/63, that fully utilizes his imagination when it comes to the concept. The film versions have the luxury of time--in the 1960 George Pal version, the Time Traveller is able to see World War II, which of course Wells had no idea was coming (although he would later predict it). If I were in a time machine, I might be tempted to visit the past first, or at least stop long before 800,000 years in the future. The film versions have padded the story (which is only about 100 pages) with visits to other civilizations. But then again, I suppose Wells was more interested in commenting on 1895 than he was 802,271.