The other day in class, we discussed whether H.G Wells’ The Time Machine should be held to a stricter standard of empirical factuality because it is called a “scientific romance” and not a novel. I would argue that while The Time Machine does incorporate scientific elements in its depiction of time travel, it is nevertheless told by an unreliable narrator who is prone to error in his recollections.
Works of literature often ask us to “suspend our disbelief” in order for us to successfully enter into their imagined audience. A reader who cannot put aside his or her disbelief in the idea of a talking cat (or one who drinks vodka for that matter) will not be able to enjoy Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita any more than one who cannot let go of preconceived notions about the impossibility of time travel will enjoy The Time Machine.
This is not to say that works of literature do not often operate according to their own internal logic. However, this logic is sometimes obscured by an unreliable narrator, such as the Time Traveler. Throughout his retelling of his time spent in the future, he often notes how wrong his hypotheses about the Eloi and Morlocks turn out to be. He also complains of the “sickness and confusion that comes with time travelling” (Wells 144). Clearly, this is not a man to be trusted without question. Further complicating the matter is the fact that the Time Traveler is not the only narrator. What we hold in our hands is a retelling of a retelling of “actual” events. Anyone who has played a game of “Telephone” knows that the more something is repeated, the less reliable it is. Thus, it seems to me, there is no reason that The Time Machine cannot be both a “scientific romance” and partially inaccurate.
What does everyone else think? Do you need to trust the Time Traveler and the unnamed narrator in order to enjoy the text? Do the inconsistencies in his tale undermine the text as a whole?
Ps. You should all check out the Master and Margarita, particularly if you're interested in questions of religion, literature, and/or cats.
Claire, the reason I am glad you brought this up is because I do not think that the believability of a story necessarily goes hand-in-hand with the reliability of the narrator. While the events of the Time Machine may have corresponded in some degree to what actually happened, I call bullshit on the Time Traveler's rendition of the events. From the beginning scene with the little "time machine", you know that the Time Traveler is a showman. He even calls someone from the press to listen to him! Immediately, the Time Traveler loses credibility. During the story, the Time Traveler threw in his fair share of theatrics. From laboriously pulling the flowers out of his jacket to his whole "I wanted to bring Weena back with me, oh wait I lost her" spiel, the Time Traveler is clearly an embellisher. I am glad at the end, at least one of the people listening calls him out. Like I said, even though I do not believe the TIme Traveler, I still believe that time travel could have occurred.
ReplyDeleteI was also very interested in the disintegration of the Time Traveler's narrative confidence. The transition from his vivid description of a dying Earth to uncertainty is jarring, and when he challenges his audience to "consider I have been speculating upon the destinies of our race, until I have hatched this fiction... And taking it as a story, what do you think of it?" (p151) sounds almost like a direct statement from Wells to the reader. Coupled with the frequent references to stories and storytelling in the concluding chapter, this seems to serve as a reminder to the readers that they are, in fact, reading a work of speculative fiction. However, rather than discrediting the validity of the Time Traveler's account, I believe that this actually encourages readers to evaluate their society, both present and future, in light of the Time Traveler's lessons. By telling the story of the Time Machine through an imperfect, human lens, Wells allows his readers to reach their own conclusions.
ReplyDelete