Talk:The War of the Worlds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The War of the Worlds article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] "Unanswered Questions"

As others have suggested, I think that the "Unanswered Questions" section should be completely removed. It doesn't add any substance to the article and seems to qualify under WP:TRIVIA. Does anyone object to deletion? --Junius49 (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Other References" issue

I'm tempted to delete all of the entries listed under the Other References heading. The majority of these are quite vague in description, don't supply any sources, and are forced allusions (especially the video game entries). I don't like to mass delete content though, so does anyone care to provide feedback before I take this on? Tdh5609 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this section, but I completely agree that many of these "references" are too vague (or unproductive). I propose we delete all those that aren't a direct reference to the novel (like Moore's League and other novels that rewrite the events of the novel). For example, I don't think it's a clear reference if the novel or game is just about an alien invasion (like Chicken Little) or if there's just an apparent similarity (like Starcraft and several of the other games) --Junius49 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Da War of Da Woilds

When Tony Danza was the host of an episode of Saturday Night Live,there was a sketch titled "Brooklyn Theater of Fine Arts presents 'Da War of Da Woilds'".Should it be included among the adaptations (as a parody) or not? - R.G. 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

No mention of Orson Welles? egads

This page is for the novel, which was published in 1898 (17 years before Orson W was born); there is a separate page for the 1938 radio production which Orson did have a hand in. CFLeon 03:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"The original science fiction novel?" I think Jules Verne might object. -- Zoe

I read that as just meaning "the science fiction novel, as opposed to the radio play and film later developed from it", rather than meaning "the first science fiction novel". -- John Owens
Indeed. Besides, the original sci fi novel was by Mary Shelley, not Jules Verne. -- Frankenstein fan :)
Now see, when you put the comma after the word "novel", that's totally different then. But without the comma, I don't think it meant "the first science fiction novel" at all. -- John Owens

Who is it who views the book"as an indictment of European colonial actions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas"? Was this a result of something intrinsic in the novel, or a predisposition in the "viewer"? -- Someone else 01:37 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's a bit in the book (right in the first chapter, just after the famous bit about what nobody would have believed) where the narrator explicitly compares the Martians' attempt to colonise Earth and wipe out the natives with similar efforts by European colonists, and suggests that under the circumstances mankind doesn't have much moral high ground from which to complain. —Paul A 04:27 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, that sounds pretty intrinsic.  :-) Here's the quote "... before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?" -- I got the meme from Billion Year Spree by Brian Aldiss (Later expanded as Trillion Year Spree). Ch 5, page 118 in the Shocken paperback: "... Wells is saying, in effect, to his fellow English, 'Look, this is how it feels to be a primitive tribe, and to have a Western nation arriving to civilise you with Maxim guns!' " (Spree is, BTW, a great book. I highly recommend.) 16 October 2003


Sounds pretty much like a throw-away remark excerpted from a huge work and inflated into an "interpretation" to me... Somehow I don't think "War of the Worlds" would stack up very well against, say, "Heart of Darkness" as an indictment of colonialism. But maybe that's just my lack of imagination... <G> -- Someone else 05:40, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Please remember H.G. Wells was a prominent socialist thinker of his time and this is reflected in many of his works. For example, in The Time Machine, upper and lower social classes evolve in the far future into separate species, with the former literally predating on the latter.--Pharos 20:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the death of the Martians is an allusion to malaria but I dont know where or how to fit it in.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WOTW is certainly an analogy of Imperialism, and an exploration of its morality, but I think it's overstating the case to say it's an "indictment". Wells' view of his own British Empire's imperialism was, I think, more ambivalent than that. When researching my FAQ, I raised this very point with the head of the American H.G. Wells society, and he points out that Wells makes an apologia for the Martians' imperialism when he says "before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought... upon its inferior races."
All this is covered in the "Story Analysis" section of my FAQ at: www.freewebs.com/wotwfaq/index.htm
--Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woking isn't a city...

In the line "The narrator's hometown, Woking, is one of the many cities mentioned..."

Woking is not a city, it is a town.

In the UK there is a clear differentiation between towns and cities in that cities usually have a cathedral (this has changed recently with some towns being upgraded to cities by Royal Decree or something!).

It's a small point but important to us Brits.

It changed in 1888 before Wells wrote - see City status in the United Kingdom. There are no cities in Surrey. Timrollpickering 21:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figuring out the dates

A number of readers seem to agree that the invasion was set in 1902 (from the phrase "early in the 20th century came the great disillusionment"). If that is the case, plus that the war was entirely during the month of June and that the first day of the invasion was a friday, then according to a computer-generated calendar of 1902, the only way the entire three weeks could fit into June 1902 was if the first cylinder landed just after midnight of Friday, June 6. That would put the great panic on Monday, June 9, and the narrator's discovery of the dead Martians in London on Friday, June 27. This dateline has been used in the Wikipedia references of the Battle of Weybridge/Shepperton, the Fall of London (War of the Worlds), and Sacrifice of Thunder Child. Expatkiwi 21:10 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the dates becuase neither 1902 or any dates are mentioned in the book. (I left in June even though I don't remember that, where in the book was it mentioned?) This is pointless speculation, the book has plenty of facts there is no need to assume facts. I was also tempted to remove Unanswered questions from the book but decided to mention it here first. This information is not important at all, not having anything to do with the main plot and I think it does not belong. MechBrowman 00:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There is an exhaustive analysis of clues to the dates in WOTW, in my article at: http://www.freewebs.com/wotwfaq/dating.htm
--Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence of events

  • Days Eight through twenty-one was when the narrator was watching the Martians while still trapped.

Should this not be "Days Eight through eighteen ..." ? --Bruce1ee 06:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Narrator spent days 5 thru 18 trapped in the collapsed house, and emerged on the 19th day. See my timeline for a detailed day-by-day summary of the events of WOTW at: http://www.freewebs.com/wotwfaq/timeline.htm
--Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I discovered some errors in the "Sequence of "Events". The battle of the Thunder Child was on day 6, not day 7. It's easy to see why someone might come to this conclusion, since either Wells or the Narrator got mixed up about which cylinders his Brother and Miss Elphinstone saw on days 5 and 6. By day 7, the Brother and the Elphinstones were in France. Also, the Martians were discovered dead on the night of Day 21, the night before the Narrator found them. This is mentioned early in Book II--Chapter 9. The Narrator found them dead in their camp at dawn on day 22. Again, this is covered in the Timeline section of my FAQ.

And I'd like very much to know what evidence there is for what day Leatherhead was destroyed; I can't find any indication of that in the novel. --Lensman003 07:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

If H.G. Wells was as atheistic as described in the article, then why, at the end of the novel, does he credit God for the Martians' succombing to the bacteria and viruses? Scorpionman 19:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

My guess would be partly because it was convention at the time, and partly because, even though Wells was an atheist, his narrator wasn't. Rayray 20:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The use of Christian religious terminalogy is common in English writing of the time, even when the writer is clearly non-religious, agnostic or an atheist. Even Darwin does it in the Origin (and latter regrets using the term, in a letter to a friend). It may relate to the prevalence of a deistic (approx. god = nature) rather than theistic Christian viewpoint among many English intellectuals, pre-Darwin. 86.143.69.157 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] heat-ray

The 1953 film uses disintegrator rays as well as heat rays. Dr. Clayton Forrester says that any object hit with these disintegrator rays will "simply cease to exist". That is impossible! The Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that matter cannot be created or destroyed!except in a nuclear reaction Was Forrester speaking literally, or figuratively as a way to demonstrate the power of the heat rays? Scorpionman 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, not sure. But this article is talking about the book. As far as 50's hollywood science-fiction goes, familiarity with thermodynamics was generally not a strong point. Slac speak up! 10:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I had to put my comment here, since there is no discussion page for the Heat-Ray article. Scorpionman 15:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just create one – click the red "discussion" tab and start typing :) --Bruce1ee 15:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, I've created discussion pages before, and NOBODY pays attention to them. I'll put a question on a discussion page that I just created, and then I'll come back to it months later and it still hasn't been answered. This doesn't only occur on brand-new discussion pages though; it happens lots of times when I put a question on a full discussion page and it still won't get answered for months. I put a question on the Charles Lee Ray talk page a long time ago and it still hasn't been answered. Scorpionman 03:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Familiarity with thermodynamics was generally not a strong point of Holywoodm but still disintegrator rays do not need to contradict these lawas. An object hit with disintegrator rays could cease to exist AS AN OBJECT. i.e. be seperated into a loose mass of individual atoms or molecules. There is nothing inherently mpossible about that, and as a weapon it would certainly be drastic enough. Adam Keller

[edit] Two books

Someone recently added that the story was originally published as two different books. I have never heard anything about this. Yes, the novel is seperated into two different books, but I'm unaware that they were ever published seperately. The closest thing of which I know is that the story was published as a nine-part serial in Pearson's Magazine. Can anyone back this up or is this just a misinterpretation? --Bacteria 01:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just copyedited this addition without first checking its validity! Checking now, I too haven't been able to find any indication that Book 1 and Book 2 were every published seperately. --Bruce1ee 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have the War of the Worlds book and in the introduction it says that when published, it was seperated into two novels under the names The Coming of the Martians and The Earth Under The Martians. - Erebus555 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what does it say exactly? Can you give us some kind of indication about your particular copy, like its year or publisher? It just seems odd that I've heard nothing about this in all the publication information I've read. --Bacteria 09:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It is a relatively new copy which features the same cover design as used on the poster of the 2005 Spielberg film. It was published by Penguin Books under the Penguin Classics category in 2005. "Both books" were combined into one and only seperated by a title page at the places needed. - Erebus555 09:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's also the way my copy (published no later than the mid-90s) is like. If that is the source of this data, than I'm certain that it is misunderstanding unless someone has evidence otherwise. Does it say anything about the two "books" somewhere, like in a foreword? --Bacteria 11:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've done a few searches, and with the exception of this article, the only frequent results I get contain information on the two books Pendragon were supposedly going to publish on their War of the Worlds film and the novel being published along with The Time Machine. It shouldn't be hard to find a source in relation to this. It's been three weeks with nothing that I believe affirms this. I'm going to give it about another week before I remove it for a lack of citation. If you feel otherwise, start your arguments now. --Bacteria 12:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comment as no citation could be found. - Erebus555 16:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animatrix

The influence this had upon the Matrix Trilogy is mentioned a few times, but there is no mention of the episode of the Animatrix - the Second Rennasance Part 2 - where the invading forces of the machines have a striking resemblance to the tripods in War of the Worlds; and they also harvest them in similar fashon. 203.51.28.47 05:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wells' Prequel?

Perhaps a mention of Wells' "The Crystal Egg" would be in order, since it shows the Martians on Mars. (BTW,the only other mention I've ever seen of this, along with the Martians' later landing on Venus, is in the Wellmans' book.)CFLeon 21:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There's been a lot of discussion/argument at the WOTW Online forum about whether or not the Mars and Martians of "The Crystal Egg" is the same as the ones in WOTW. Sherlock Holmes' War of the Worlds by Manly Wade & Wade Wellman makes them out to be the same. I have my doubts; the descriptions of the Martians are quite different. Some forum members suggest that's just the viewpoints of two different writers.
--Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide Invasion?

In spite of the title, it was not a worldwide invasion. Ten flashes were seen upon Mars over ten days, and 10 cylinders landed in England. Even if Wells ignored any others, the numbers still match. (The Wellmans speculate that the Martians used the Crystal Egg to somehow target their landings.) Too bad- the 1953 made the reports from around the world one of its most suspenceful scenes, and the Global Dispatches anthology has some good stories. CFLeon 21:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a war of one world (Mars) against another world (Earth). Hence, "the War of the Worlds". The Martian strategy was evidently to start their conquest by knocking off the most powerful nation on Earth first; the others would have more time to prepare to defend themselves, but less to prepare with. Not a bad plan, really, except for that oopsie about the local microbiology.
—wwoods 09:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There are many different "wars" or conflicts in WOTW, not just the military one. Criticizing the title for the "war" covering only southeastern England is being too literal. I cover this in the "Story Analysis" section of my WOTW FAQ.
--Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating the story

User:Loyh has changed several pages to say the war took place in August, 1898. I don't know where he gets that. The text says,

"No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; ... And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment.
 :
Yet so vain is man, and so blinded by his vanity, that no writer, up to the very end of the nineteenth century, expressed any idea that intelligent life might have developed [on Mars] far, or indeed at all, beyond its earthly level."
Gutenburg text of TWotW

It seems clear that the Wells set the war after "the very end of the nineteenth century", i.e. "early in the twentieth century". The first sign of activity on Mars was observed "During the opposition of 1894" and further observations were made "during the next two oppositions." Mars had oppositions in October 1894, December 1896, January 1899, February 1901, March 1903, May 1905, July 1907, and September 1909. So 1898 is definitely wrong. The launches were observed on 12–21 of an unnamed month "As Mars approached opposition". "The night was warm", which I'd think rules out 1901. Even 1903 implies a voyage of a minimum of three months, which seems to me longer than Wells had envisioned, so I'd vote for 1905.

As for the month, the war took place "that terrible June", though I don't think that necessarily means entirely within that month. The bulk of the story is in the first week, so it could have ended in July. But August is too late.
—wwoods 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. But almost everything outside the book states 1897, 1898, or pre-1900. The League of Extraordainary Gentlemen says August, 1898. If it isn't 1898, I think it's between 1901-1902. -Loyh 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I wondered why you were so precise. On further consideration, the dates of the oppositions are 22 February 1901, 29 March 1903, 08 May 1905, 06 July 1907, and 24 September 1909. So the latest months for launching are February 1901, March 1903, April 1905, May 1907, and May 1909. Not that much to choose between '03 and '05, and you'd think Wells wouldn't have said the next two oppositions (1896 and 1899) if there were two or three more before the attack. But February seems an unlikely month for a "warm" night. All of this is of course assuming that Wells worked out a specific time, rather than simply knew the Mars had had an opposition in 1894 and had a synodic period of 2+ years.
—wwoods 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

I removed this as it is unsourced opinion and stretching the analogy pretty far:

It can also be argued that the Matrix trilogy had some influence from War of the Worlds, especially in the way Morpheus explained to Neo how the Machines used humans trapped in the pods (with their minds imprisoned within the Matrix) to sustain themselves in the first film. Also, the Machine's overall superiority and ease in crushing human resistance, in spite of fanatical defence, can also be influences from H.G. Wells' novel. Like the Martians in War of the Worlds, the Machines were only stopped by an unexpected circumstance when they were on the verge of annihilating Zion, by the peace which Neo bargained with the Machines in exchange for defeating the rogue Agent Smith in the Matrix.

Ashmoo 04:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Isaac Asimov

I'm pretty sure it was Isaac asimov who first argued that the war of the worlds was about european colonialism.does anyone know if his essay his available on the net?--Ruby Tuesday 13:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about Asimov, but found this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/05/INGB4D2I7H1.DTL PeregrineV 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
From the linked article:
Wells recounted the genesis of his story several times: He was walking with his brother Frank in the Surrey countryside when the conversation turned to the Aborigine inhabitants of Tasmania, south of Australia, who were eradicated when the English transformed the island into a prison colony. What if some beings from another planet suddenly dropped from the sky, his brother wondered, and did the same to England?
FWIW, I think I've seen an edition of the novel that includes a quotation from Wells on this very subject in its foreword. I may even have a copy of the book buried, somewhere. Anyway, this puts the Asimov question to rest, I guess: Wells was the first to make the comparison, though obviously not the last. —Eric S. Smith 03:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Considering Wells talks about Imperialism and makes a direct comparison with the Martian invasion right in the first chapter of WOTW, I hardly see how anyone could claim that Asimov was the first to make the connection. It's pretty well established that Wells' immediate inspiration for WOTW was the British invasion and destruction of the Tasmanian culture-- he refers to that directly in the first chapter of WOTW.
--Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

This is rated as of top importance but only as a B grade and we may as well push on the Good Article status. So what is needed? We can pop a to-do list at the top if we can get a consensus on what is needed. One thing I noticed about B articles is that they have a lot of lists and that might be an angle to work on. However, I think lists are a more usable way of laying out information and I don't think the uses are that bad, So anyway thoughts? (Emperor 01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] What killed the Martians?

It says that the Martians are found dead on the morning of the 21st day. I don't understand what killed them. What was it? 209.180.232.189 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the plot summary. It says it right there. Andy120290 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "takes his wife to Leatherhead"

Re, "After the attack, the narrator takes his wife to Leatherhead". I don't think this is correct. I remember that narrator was try to *reach* his wife at one point. I may have remembered wrong though - I'll have to read it again.

[edit] Half-life 2

I'm not saying to add this, but isn't it similar how the Combine from Half-Life 2 conquer/attack the Earth compared to how the Martians do it? They both took a very short period of time, they both struck with force capable of easily resisting resistance, and they both used tri-pods (with very deadly death-rays). 70.69.229.164 03:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Proper

[edit] deux ex machina

Would the destruction of the Martians as a result of the terrestrial microbes count as a deux ex machina? Xcountry99 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's deus ex machina, not "deux". And yes, Wells's ending certainly qualifies. In fact, the Wikipedia article on deus ex machina specifically mentions the Wells version of War of the Worlds. Pat Berry 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the bacterium is clearly said to effect the red weed before it effects the Martians. Also, it is said that the Martians successfully eliminated all bacteria and viruses from Mars long before they arrived on Earth, which would render their immune systems incredibly weak, if not eliminate them completely. So the bacteria didn't just appear out of nowhere, it is a surprising -but not unreasonable- ending.
Oh, and yes I know that this discussion is a few months old, but I just wanted to add my two cents. -- Alpha PrimeTalk||Edits 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reference to story in 1897

I know the article cites that the book was published in 1898 but a The Cosmopolitan an illustrated monthly magazine published at least part of the story in their August 1897 edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredlester (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)