Reading “The Time Machine” has been a very interesting experience thus far. It has been vey different than the other texts that we have read thus far, and there is one question that has been lingering in my mind up until this point: what is the deeper meaning to this plot? Within Twain’s tale, it was obvious that the point was to make comparisons between 6th century and 19th century situations, and to show that the same sorts of problems arise in both societies, showing how far the world has to go in order to “evolve” into a fair place. Bellamy’s text created a futuristic socialist utopia where the world was a better place not because people had changed, but because the structure of society had been perfected. However, I am failing to see such an underlying premise within H.G. Well’s text so far. The narrator has been presented with a bad situation: he has lost his time machine and is forced to attempt communication with those who do not understand him. In terms of a plot, I think this fine. It is a struggle that needs a resolution. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be a deeper undertone.
Besides the fact that people in the future are not as advanced as our narrator would like, we do not know much about these people. In fact, we do not have much insight into the narrator either. In the other texts, we got to see a personal side of the characters, and it created a certain emotional connection to them. I am failing to see this within Wells’ novel. I feel rather distanced from the doctor, and to be honest, I do not feel bad for him or connected in any way to his situation. Because of this, I cannot discover any sort of meaningfulness to this story. It does not appear to be a critique of society (unless I am totally missing something, which is entirely within the realm of possibility), and thus pulls itself away from what we have established time travel novels to accomplish: either to show problems in a current society, or to form a utopia that can be realized under certain circumstances. “The Time Machine” does neither of these!
Perhaps there is an aspect of time travel novels that we need to look at that may change my perception of this book. But as for right now, this does not seem to fall into the category of books that we have talked about earlier in the class. Our previous tales have had distinct purposes: to compare societies, past, present, and future, and to send a message through the comparisons. Wells’ famous novel, in my opinion, fails to do this in any way, shape, or form. Maybe I will change my mind by the time I end the book, but if I don’t, I can make a pretty bold statement: this book, which is considered the quintessential time travel book, is really not a time travel book at all. It does not fit the mold that other books have outlined for us. I would like to know what other people think about this point, that this is not a time travel book in the sense that has been established in class.
If anyone has suggestions, or points to bring up that would make this a book that is in the mold I have spoken about, please comment. Or, if you agree with me, let me know, because I am always in need of an ego booster. Anyway, I hope I enlightened you in one or another through this blog. Let me know what you all think, and maybe we can bring this up in class!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Time Travel and Losing Yourself
Reading Edward Bellamy’s "Looking Backward" has been a very different experience from Twain’s "A Connecticut Yankee". The one thing that has struck me in this text is the difference in narration. This text depends on dialogue almost exclusively, which is an interesting switch from the first person view we saw in the last book. There is a specific quote said from Mr. West that has really struck me. He says that, since he has come into the future, he has had, “…moments when my personal identity seems an open question” (101). This struck me as strange when comparing it to the last book. Let me explain…
The idea of losing identity is one that is pretty apparent in Bellamy’s book. This begs a question, then: Does time travel lead to a loss of self? Within Bellamy’s book, this looks like a true fact. However, in Twain’s book, I saw Hank as finding his identity in his time travel. Before he went back in time, he was a normal man with a pretty ordinary existence. When put back in time, though, he makes he most of his situation and remolds the time period. In doing so he finds his identity: a man who, when in power, fights for the people. In this case, time travel does not cause one to lose identity; rather, it causes one to find it, as Hank made himself into the man he always wanted to be by traveling in time.
Now, looking at Bellamy’s text, I want to see if I can try to portray Dr. West has having a similar experience to Hank. Instead of going backwards, he goes into the future, so he does not have the knowledge of future events like Hank does. Part of the reason that Hank can find his identity is because he somewhat dominates society. He knows how things are supposed to be run, and therefore makes the world like he sees fit. West, though, does not have this luxury. He does not know what to expect. In this way, it is hard for him to find his identity, as he has no advantage over anybody in the time period, and cannot establish his dominance.
In a different sense, however, West does find his identity: through his infatuation with Edith Leete. This love for her somewhat creates a self perception for him: he realizes what he wants, and in doing so becomes rather introspective. While he does not gain identity like Hank, he gains something that I consider a way of discovering self: love.
The identities that are found in the respective novels are very different. Hank finds himself through power, while, in a way, West finds his through love. Whether you want to consider these identities on an equal level is up to you. Personally, I think that the finding of love is not quite as instrumental as the sort of self that Hank finds. Hank’s is one that creates who he is, while West’s is more of a “convenience”, in the sense that he finds a girl who is good for him at the time and helps him get through a difficult time. The question still remains, though: Does time travel cause one to lose the self. In Hank’s case, he had no real sense of self before, and was able to create himself in a way that made him the most powerful man in the world. West loses his sense of self, as he comes into a world that is unfamiliar, but finds a new self through his love of Edith. My conclusion on the issue, then, is that going back in time does not cause one to lose self; it makes you gain a new perspective of self. Going to the future, then, does cause one to lose identity, as being unfamiliar to the times and not having knowledge of history can make one not know what to do. While love does create a little identity, it is not enough to make up for what is lost. West lost everything, and does not know what to make of his life. Hank had nothing to lose, and created a new self. Time travel, therefore, can either make one have identity or lose it, depending on which direction one travels. Let me know what you all think and if you agree!
The idea of losing identity is one that is pretty apparent in Bellamy’s book. This begs a question, then: Does time travel lead to a loss of self? Within Bellamy’s book, this looks like a true fact. However, in Twain’s book, I saw Hank as finding his identity in his time travel. Before he went back in time, he was a normal man with a pretty ordinary existence. When put back in time, though, he makes he most of his situation and remolds the time period. In doing so he finds his identity: a man who, when in power, fights for the people. In this case, time travel does not cause one to lose identity; rather, it causes one to find it, as Hank made himself into the man he always wanted to be by traveling in time.
Now, looking at Bellamy’s text, I want to see if I can try to portray Dr. West has having a similar experience to Hank. Instead of going backwards, he goes into the future, so he does not have the knowledge of future events like Hank does. Part of the reason that Hank can find his identity is because he somewhat dominates society. He knows how things are supposed to be run, and therefore makes the world like he sees fit. West, though, does not have this luxury. He does not know what to expect. In this way, it is hard for him to find his identity, as he has no advantage over anybody in the time period, and cannot establish his dominance.
In a different sense, however, West does find his identity: through his infatuation with Edith Leete. This love for her somewhat creates a self perception for him: he realizes what he wants, and in doing so becomes rather introspective. While he does not gain identity like Hank, he gains something that I consider a way of discovering self: love.
The identities that are found in the respective novels are very different. Hank finds himself through power, while, in a way, West finds his through love. Whether you want to consider these identities on an equal level is up to you. Personally, I think that the finding of love is not quite as instrumental as the sort of self that Hank finds. Hank’s is one that creates who he is, while West’s is more of a “convenience”, in the sense that he finds a girl who is good for him at the time and helps him get through a difficult time. The question still remains, though: Does time travel cause one to lose the self. In Hank’s case, he had no real sense of self before, and was able to create himself in a way that made him the most powerful man in the world. West loses his sense of self, as he comes into a world that is unfamiliar, but finds a new self through his love of Edith. My conclusion on the issue, then, is that going back in time does not cause one to lose self; it makes you gain a new perspective of self. Going to the future, then, does cause one to lose identity, as being unfamiliar to the times and not having knowledge of history can make one not know what to do. While love does create a little identity, it is not enough to make up for what is lost. West lost everything, and does not know what to make of his life. Hank had nothing to lose, and created a new self. Time travel, therefore, can either make one have identity or lose it, depending on which direction one travels. Let me know what you all think and if you agree!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
A Battle of Morgans
I figured that we were going to talk a lot about the ending of Connecticut Yankee in the coming days, so I decided to take this blog into a different direction. We spoke earlier in class today about the connection between Hank Morgan’s and Morgan le Fay’s names. I thought about this for a long time today, and was stumped for a while. Then inspiration somehow struck: redemption! I think that Hank and Morgan le Fay share the common thread of redemption at the end of their tales. Let me explain this to the best of my abilities.
As we learned in class today from Lauren, who discussed some of the history of the King Arthur tales, Morgan and Arthur did not like each other very much. There was a lot of animosity between them. However, she is the one who ends up saving Arthur when he is wounded. She saves his life, and essentially redeems herself to him. The same thing can be said about Hank. He comes into the 6th century as a man who does not know much about what is going on, and seeks to put himself center stage in pretty much every possible way. As the story progresses, though, he becomes the champion for the people in society. He sticks up for them, and fights for them when no one else will. Hank gets to a position of power, and rather than abusing it like many would expect, he fights for justice.
The best example of this is during the knight tournament. After he wins, he makes the statement that, “…all political power has reverted back to its original source, the people of the nation…all men are become exactly equal, they are upon common level, and religion is free…” (389-390). While no one else is willing to make the playing field level, Hank does. In this sense, he redeems himself. However, it is not to the people in the society he is redeeming himself to.
While Hank does his best for the people, he still has to prove himself to one audience: the readers of the novel. As I have seen in class, many people do not trust him, and feel he is selfish and has bad intentions. The end of the book serves as a sort of reconciliation for Hank. He is able to prove himself to readers that he is a good man by helping others. In this sense, he redeems himself to a reader, as there is a lack of trust at first, but then he proves himself as a good person.
The theme of redemption connects le Fay and Hank. They both start off as untrustworthy characters that are not loved. However, at the end, they do something (le Fay saving her brother, and Hank standing up for the people) that redeems them. This the connection that I see between these people. I think Twain made a conscience decision (he usually does things for a reason) to make this common thread. It is a pretty interesting bond to create between two characters that do not seem to have anything in common. In fact, without the outside context, we would have no idea about the history of le Fay. This once again proves the importance of learning history before going into a book. While learning about Twain’s history with slaves is key to seeing his message of social justice, finding out the history of King Arthur is just as important. By seeing Mallori’s tale and seeing Arthur’s relationship with his sister turn for the better, I was able to make a connection between two seemingly unrelated characters.
To recap quickly, Hank and Morgan le Fay are related because they redeem themselves to specific people by the end of their tales. While le Fay redeems herself to Arthur, Hank redeems himself to readers who think he is a bad person and selfish. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but this is the link that I see, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Please let me know what you think…unless you disagree…just kidding! Feel free to comment please!
As we learned in class today from Lauren, who discussed some of the history of the King Arthur tales, Morgan and Arthur did not like each other very much. There was a lot of animosity between them. However, she is the one who ends up saving Arthur when he is wounded. She saves his life, and essentially redeems herself to him. The same thing can be said about Hank. He comes into the 6th century as a man who does not know much about what is going on, and seeks to put himself center stage in pretty much every possible way. As the story progresses, though, he becomes the champion for the people in society. He sticks up for them, and fights for them when no one else will. Hank gets to a position of power, and rather than abusing it like many would expect, he fights for justice.
The best example of this is during the knight tournament. After he wins, he makes the statement that, “…all political power has reverted back to its original source, the people of the nation…all men are become exactly equal, they are upon common level, and religion is free…” (389-390). While no one else is willing to make the playing field level, Hank does. In this sense, he redeems himself. However, it is not to the people in the society he is redeeming himself to.
While Hank does his best for the people, he still has to prove himself to one audience: the readers of the novel. As I have seen in class, many people do not trust him, and feel he is selfish and has bad intentions. The end of the book serves as a sort of reconciliation for Hank. He is able to prove himself to readers that he is a good man by helping others. In this sense, he redeems himself to a reader, as there is a lack of trust at first, but then he proves himself as a good person.
The theme of redemption connects le Fay and Hank. They both start off as untrustworthy characters that are not loved. However, at the end, they do something (le Fay saving her brother, and Hank standing up for the people) that redeems them. This the connection that I see between these people. I think Twain made a conscience decision (he usually does things for a reason) to make this common thread. It is a pretty interesting bond to create between two characters that do not seem to have anything in common. In fact, without the outside context, we would have no idea about the history of le Fay. This once again proves the importance of learning history before going into a book. While learning about Twain’s history with slaves is key to seeing his message of social justice, finding out the history of King Arthur is just as important. By seeing Mallori’s tale and seeing Arthur’s relationship with his sister turn for the better, I was able to make a connection between two seemingly unrelated characters.
To recap quickly, Hank and Morgan le Fay are related because they redeem themselves to specific people by the end of their tales. While le Fay redeems herself to Arthur, Hank redeems himself to readers who think he is a bad person and selfish. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but this is the link that I see, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Please let me know what you think…unless you disagree…just kidding! Feel free to comment please!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)