Presentation From Like 8 Years Ago

Sorry for the delay, but here's my PowerPoint information from my presentation on HG Wells.

1) Early Life
Herbert George Wells
Born on September 21, 1866 in Kent, England
Parents were Joseph and Sarah, and had an older sister that died before he was born
One of 4 children
Parents called him Bertie
Had much respect for his parents, and although he was poor, he still loved them
Realized his father was rather sexist, and led to his being a little sexist as well

2) Into The Real World
Father suffered a severe injury; HG had to work at father’s store
At time, was introduced to literature by Thomas Paine and Plato
Became interested in socialist readings, such as Jonathan Swift
Had no religious inclinations, as he thought God would not be create the difficult situations in the world
These ideas, along with the “Adam and Eve” belief instilled by John Ball, led to his becoming a socialist believing in equality for all.
Family hit more economic issues, and he was forced out of school to work permanently.
Refused to work, as it was not fair to do “hopeless drudgery”, and taught himself and graduated from University of London in 1890

3) Love Life
Had many affairs with women, stemming from his father’s thoughts of women
His cousin Isabel was one such affair
Married her in 1891, but marriage was short lived, as he did not respect her.
In 1893, fell in love with Amy Robbins while still married to Isabel, and later married Amy
Somewhat of a confused womanizer

4) Beginnings of Writing
Inspiration for writing came from his childhood memories, and the remembrance of injustices he had seen
Wells wanted to write about his love affairs, and wanted to make parents happy
First books were Textbook of Biology and Honours Physiography
First literature under the name H.G. Wells was “The Stolen Bacillus” in 1894
Was not accepted by many publishers, and started his writing career over many times
Socialist ideas of Oscar Wilde helped jumpstart his writing

5) The Time Machine and Other Novels
Published in 1895, it was popular as a “what if” novel against Victorian ideals of conquest and classes
Began writing science fiction, starting with The Time Machine, as it allowed him to express his dislike for inequality in the social system (like Bellamy)
Also wrote:
The Invisible Man (1897)
The First Men in the Moon (1901)
The War in the Air (1908)
Non-fiction books about love
2 autobiographies
A Modern Utopia (1905)
Books mainly tried to set up a new, more fair society of socialist roots

6) Role in WWI
Was for the war in the sense that he thought it would be the last war ever
However, found out that his prediction was wrong and thought that the thing the world needed was “world education”, as it would create a civilized world with less injustice; documented this in Outline of History in 1920
If world was more educated, he believed, the fortunes that he faced as a child would no longer occur.
After war, became very interested in the spotlight, and rather than writing books, became more interested in writing essays on all the things wrong with the world and what needed to be done

7) Late Life
From 1934-1946, he wrote approximately 28 books, dealing mostly with things of non-science fiction nature. Depressingly, his final book was called Mind at the End of its Tether in 1945 which showed quite a bleak look into the following years.
Wrote a humor book called Apropos of Delores
Died on August 13, 1946

8) Sources Used
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/herbert-george-wells/
http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~tdoyle/hgbib.html
Foot, Michael. H.G.: The History of Mr. Wells. Washington, D.C: Counterpoint, 1995. Print.
http://blog.mpl.org/mke_reads/HGWells.jpg

Losing an Arm, or Becoming a Relic of History?!?!?

So after finishing up Kindred, I was really interested in the concept at the end. We are built up to believe for the majority of the novel that everything is going to end up pretty much okay with Dana when she returns back to California (minus the whole arm incident…). Specifically, I was rather horrified with Dana’s loss of her arm. Although I knew that it was going to happen, I still was shocked and curious as to its purpose within the context of the rest of the novel. I want to try and piece the ending together so maybe I can find a real answer as to what the loss of the arm really means.

There are two possible routes I think that the loss of the arm could go, and we discussed them briefly in class today. The first is that it serves as a constant reminder of never losing roots and always having that little part of her in Maryland. While she does eventually escape this horrible past, the loss of her arm serves as a means of never being able to erase what has happened. This is a trope throughout the entire novel, I believe, as I think one of Octavia Butler’s themes in the book is that one cannot escape his or her past, as is the case with Dana, who is sent back to her roots so she can learn about where she came from. In this way, the loss of her arm is like her leaving a momento behind, so that she is always going to be somewhat stuck in this other life of hers. Although losing her arm was obviously unintentional, she will never be able to forget what happened to her.

The other explanation for the loss of her arm could be that it was a sacrifice. As we spoke about in class, the price of freedom is usually very high and impossible to bargain with. Dana, in order to save herself and the rest of the blacks on the plantation, must kill Rufus. While I do not think she knew she was going to lose a limb, I am pretty confident she knew something bad was going to happen by destroying a “relic of the past”. In this sense, Dana knows there will be consequences for doing what she does, but is willing to do whatever it takes to make life better for her and others. She is a martyr of sorts.

The bottom line is that I really am not sure what to make of this ending. There are two very different explanations for a somewhat bizarre conclusion. One involves her not being able to escape the past, while the other involves her sacrificing part of herself for the greater good of mankind. Both are feasible concepts, but I really want to know if there is a right or wrong answer to this question. I assume Butler has a meaning behind everything that goes on within her text, and an ending is no exception. There must be a right answer that she had in mind when writing. I think that I will research it for a little bit when I have free time (which is pretty much never) to see if she ever made any statements of intent. In the meantime, however, I want to know what you all think! We talked about it a little, but I know there is so much to discuss for this ending. Let me know what you all think. Is Dana leaving part of herself behind so she can never forget, or is she sacrificing? Or, is it somehow both? So many questions with so few answers. Please comment and give me a little insight! Lord knows I could use it these days.

I Think I Get This Book Finally!

So after finishing up "Herland" and discussing it in class, I think I finally understand why we read the book in the first place. I was really confused as to why this was read in a “time travel class”, as it does not involve a time machine or any physical movement through time. However, the quotes we discussed on pages 110-111 about the lack of reverence for the past gave me some ideas on the time moving aspect. There is not a physical movement from one time period to another, as there is in the previous books we have read. Rather, it is ideas from different time periods that have created a sense of movement from one era to another.

To further explain, I want to look at the differences in culture and religion that is explored within the text. According to the women in the book, they are unaware of many things we take for granted in our own time period, including marriage and men in general. The fact that they are not aware of certain things in everyday society makes it seem like these people are less advanced, as if the explorers had gone back in time. However, there is a different feeling later in the book, as they seem more advanced in some regards to outside society. For instance the women do not feel jealousy, are good mothers, do not have issues with their power structure, and so on. It reminds me much of Looking Backward, where an advanced society is portrayed as “perfect”, and seemingly is much more advanced than any previous era. In my eyes, this creates somewhat of a paradox: we have the society looking ignorant and oblivious, and yet they are far more advanced than Van, Jeff, and Terry in many regards.

In trying to figure out my thoughts on the above situation, I came to the conclusion that, in essence, time travel takes place without actually moving in time. Going to another land where culture are different and have never meshed creates the idea that traveling to a foreign land can be just like traveling through time in terms of learning cultures. Besides moving forward or backward, all time travel is is the blending of new ideas that are previously unknown to both sides. In Hank Morgan’s tale, he is exposed to a new culture, and consequently shares his knowledge with the people of old times. In Bellamy’s novel about Mr. West, the protagonist learns of what the new time period is like, and subsequently tries his best to accept it and be understanding of it. This is exactly what happens in Gilman’s book. Three characters go to a foreign land, and learn about each other’s habits. This, in turn, makes societies look either complex or prehistoric, depending on how one looks at it. As I said before, the ladies of Herland look ancient because they do not know many of our common cultures, but at the same time look incredibly advanced in their societal ideas because of the notions and lifestyle they enjoy.

So, just to sort of sum things up here: I finally understand why we read this book in the first place. The notion of time travel is more than just physically moving from one time period to another. Its main feature is that it combines different, seemingly incompatible cultures together, and compares and contrasts how “modern”, “ancient”, or “futuristic” they look in comparison to one another. This book has taught me a lot about time travel narratives, and has helped me appreciate "Herland" much more than I thought I would. It is somehow a time travel book without actually travelling in time! It does not seem possible, but because of my logic above, hopefully it makes sense. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know! Write on my blog! Pleaseeeee!!!!