H.G. WELLS

Name:
Tutor’s name:
Course number:
Date:
Annotated Bibliography
Begiebing, Robert J. “The Mythic Hero in Wells, Hg The’time Machine’.” Essays In Literature 11.2 (1984): 201-210. The author depicts HG wells as a literary genius; well-endowed with the ability to breathe life into mythical characters in his works. Notably, the author focuses Wells’ novel ‘The Time Machine’ and its lead characters while addressing both adherents and critics alike; by clearly outlining instances of genius in Wells’ works and notable commentators who recognize Wells with accolades such as Evgeny Zamyatin and Jorge Luis Borges. The author goes ahead to outline the various characteristics of the mythical creatures as listed by Wells and the predictions brought forward by Wells on the possible destruction of the human race owing to its ‘selfishness’. However, the author fails to recognize any shortcomings occasioned by Well’s mundane state and possible misinformation on the mythical creatures, and approaches the literary works as though it were a scientific study.
Partington, John S. “HG Wells’s Eugenic Thinking of the 1930s and 1940s.” Utopian Studies 14.1 (2003): 74-81.The author highlights the drastic shift in ideology from social policy to class relations and attempts to rationalize this change. He asserts Wells’ view that man is the ultimate product of evolution and indeed gives evolution purpose. The author emphasizes Wells’ inclination towards negative eugenics, and that in fact, he urged the sterilization of slum populations; inferring that they were largely responsible for societal vices.

However, the author conspicuously fails to account for his abandonment of these ideas and inaccurately attributes this to ‘enlightenment’.
Wells, Herbert George. “The War of the Worlds. 1898.” The Complete Science Fiction Treasury of HG Wells (2005): 265-388. The author tells of an invasion of the city of London by Martians, worm-like monsters who soon overrun the planet. The Martians however, contract an earth bacteria which is the cause of their ultimate demise. The author tries to depict the Victorian culture of conquering and predicts that it will be brought to its knees by the most negligible of threats. This was somewhat inaccurate as the end of the conquering by the Victorian empire was more of voluntary than as a result of destruction.
Williams, Rhys. “Utopia’s the Thing: An Analysis of Utopian Programme and Impulse in HG Wells’s The Island of Doctor Moreau.” Utopias and Dystopias in the Fiction of HG Wells and William Morris. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016. 107-121. The author, in what is considered a pioneering work of science fiction, follows the escapades of an English sailor, Edward Prendick who is marooned off the South Pacific coast. He is saved by a man named Montgomery and his benefactor, one Dr. Moreau who take him in and offer him medical attention. Eventually, Prendrick escapes into the jungle, unable to bear the suffering of the animals undergoing experiments at Dr. Moreau’s. He encounters various unearthly and seemingly mutated creatures including Dog-man and Hyena-swine. Finally, he is taken back to London where he loathes human interaction henceforth. The author attempts to put forward an idea that the machinations contained therein are possible through vivisection experiments. This has however since been disputed by scientific findings.
Withers, Jeremy. “Joseph Conrad and HG Wells: The Fin-de-Siècle Literary Scene by Linda Dryden.” Studies in the Novel47.4 (2015): 570-571. The author traces the literary engagements between HG Wells and Joseph Conrad, their political and temperamental differences, and ultimately their fallout. This includes the accolades in favor of each other from the two authors which are also highlighted. The author clearly depicts the love-hate relationship that gradually brewed between the two friends and the ills perpetrated by Wells against his peers. The author, however, seems biased in favor of Wells and often depicts him as the father of science fiction in a matter-of-fact manner. This may be thought by some as an inaccurate inference.