# The War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells (1898)



## AE35Unit

We   all are familiar with this story from the movies but how many have    actually read the book? I have to say that no movie thus far produced is  close   to the ideas and story set forth in this book. The aliens  themselves   are described briefly in  passing with little detail yet  are truly alien (no body, just a large round head with a large eyed face  and a single large auditory receptor at the back) but it is the    machines in which they ravage London and its surrounds that take centre    stage. In the book, unlike the movies, they are gargantuan tripods,    setting the earth afire with Heat Rays and black dust, trampling all    underfoot somewhat in the manner of the At-Ats in Star Wars, only much    larger!

At  one point later in the story it almost becomes a last-man-alive story  as our hero makes his way across a ravaged and dead London, all about  him death and decay and the prospect of a lost humanity-quite eerie at  that point! There's also a degree of scientific scrutiny-Wells was not  just a fantasist-he knew his stuff, or at least where to get the latest  scientific  information from, and used it well here. For a novel written  in 1898 the depictions of events and of mars itself are quite relevant  and accurate, given the state of scientific progress at the time! Mars  is no wild frontier as found in Edgar Rice Burrough's adventures, but a  cold, dusty world.
Excellent!


----------



## Vertigo

Yeah I read this a long time ago and have had it on my TBRA (TBR again) list for a long time; must get around to it.

I have to say I disliked the recent film intensely - both because of the way it was made, the totally unnecessary Americanisation and Tom Cruise (I really, really dislike him both as an actor and as a person, sorry but there you go).

However I did like Jeff Wayne's musical version with Richard Burton reading extracts from the book  (that man's voice was just awesome I remember listening to his recording of Under Milk Wood once - blew me away).


----------



## AE35Unit

Oh I like both versions of the film but be warned he or she who hath yet to read the book-they are as chalk and cheese! But that doesn't bother me-i don't expect films to follow faithfully a book or story, I just epect to be entertained and in both cases I was! Less succesful was the modern version of The Time Machine-sorry but you can't beat the original of that movie!


----------



## Rosemary

I also read the book years ago!  I much preferred the original film though, with David Essex in it.


----------



## Ursa major

(Okay, the original book had scenes in Essex. )

The recent remake wasn't as bad as I'd thought it would be (although I wouldn't give it anything like a resounding thumbs up). Various aspects of the story seemed to be based on the brother's activities from the book. I think that the film - a high-octance summer blockbuster, remember - might have suffered if it had kept the activities of the book's brothers as separate narrative strands.


----------



## Vladd67

Vertigo said:


> However I did like Jeff Wayne's musical version with Richard Burton reading extracts from the book  (that man's voice was just awesome I remember listening to his recording of Under Milk Wood once - blew me away).



I got a copy of Under Milk Wood from Woolworths it was meant to be the version read by the author but due to an earlier mix up in the shop the last copy left which I got was the Richard Burton version I wasn't disapointed.

I enjoyed the book, the musical, the original film, the TV series, the computer game, I even enjoyed the latest film even if the inevitable americanisation of a British story annoyed me. I guess I am just an H G Wells nut lol.


----------



## HareBrain

I loved, and love, the Jeff Wayne version, though some of the pictures included in the vinyl album scared the bejeebus out of me as a kid.

It's just occurred to me -- though probably everyone else has known this for decades -- that the melding of 70s music with a Victorian story might have been a major influence on Steampunk.


----------



## Boneman

I hated the Tom Cruise version, but have always loved Jeff Wayne's brilliant take on it - "No one would have believed..." still sends shivers down my spine. Even saw the stage version of the musical and Justin Hayward sounded as good as the recording! 

But now I will seek out a copy of the original - must have read it back in the sixties and, man, those acid flashbacks must have something to do with... Did I just say that out loud??


----------



## clovis-man

The thing about the book that got to me was the fact that (communication being what it was or wasn't at the turn of the last century) the main character had little or no inkling of what was really going on. That made for tremendous suspense, something the film versions simply could not capture.

As far as the movies are concerned, I was a little surprised to see that the Spielberg version was not an adaptation of the book, but rather a complete re-telling of the George Pal movie. I should note that my wife, having seen both, much preferred the 1950s version.


----------



## AE35Unit

clovis-man said:


> The thing about the book that got to me was the fact that (communication being what it was or wasn't at the turn of the last century) the main character had little or no inkling of what was really going on. That made for tremendous suspense, something the film versions simply could not capture.
> 
> As far as the movies are concerned, I was a little surprised to see that the Spielberg version was not an adaptation of the book, but rather a complete re-telling of the George Pal movie. I should note that my wife, having seen both, much preferred the 1950s version.



Yes it becomes a very personal odyssey, a man alive story, one man trying to make sense of all that's going on around him. Tho I've not read it I  imagine that Matheson's I Am Legend to be a little like thr scenes in this book.


----------



## Rodders

I might have to pick this up. I have to agree with HareBrain. As a child of the 70's, Jeff Wayne's version is my version. I also really enjoyed Spielberg's take on war of the worlds too. At least he had the great tripod machines and not those flying martions from the 60's movie. (Not that i didn't enjoy that either.) I very much enjoyed the sequence in which the huge machine breaks free from the ground at the start. Great sound effect too.


----------



## AE35Unit

Rodders said:


> . At least he had the great tripod machines and not those flying martions from the 60's movie. (Not that i didn't enjoy that either.) I very much enjoyed the sequence in which the huge machine breaks free from the ground at the start. Great sound effect too.


Err, you mean the 50s...


----------



## dask

Liked the George Pal movie, loved the book. H.G. Wells is a great writer. Loved your covers. If I ever get Photobucket working with my computer again I'll post the cool Paul Lehr cover from my Fawcett paperback.


----------



## kythe

I just finished this book, being fresh and new to the story since I haven't seen either version of the movie.

War of the Worlds is something of a prototype for alien invasion storylines, being an original idea at the time.  H.G. Wells writes "hard science" too, utilizing the most updated scientific understanding of his time (1898).  If you read it from that perspective, War of the Worlds is rich with ideas and innovations.

For the first part of the book, I found myself reading with a map of England I printed off the internet. This may seem unusual, but I've never traveled across the pond and the geography of Surrey is rather important to the story.  

Certain things struck me about this story that would be quite different if it were told today.  Everyone traveled on foot, even the Martians - no rockets or aircraft enter the story.  News travels very slowly.  The evacuation was a panicked stampede, nothing organized by any authority figures.  Unlike modern "first contact" type of stories, there was little attempt at communication on either side between the Martians and humans.  There is little character development, which is typical for stories at the time which are more theme-oriented.

The biggest strengths of the storytelling are in the descriptions of the Martians and their machines, and the terror they created.  I can picture the horror of the monstrous, looming tripods with their instant-death heat rays and inescapable black smoke.

Evolution and adaptation were themes throughout.  As with "The Island of Dr. Moreau", lines between human and animal became blurred.  Humans quickly turned from the dominant species to being crushed like ants.  Instead of creating "civilization" over animals' territory, humans became the hunted, reduced to foraging for food and hiding from Martians the way many wild animals do from humans.

Isaac Asimov also made the comparison of Martian invasion of England to various European invasions of"native" lands.  Europeans have historically used superior technology and vessels to displace others and take their land, much as the Martians did to us.

I really enjoyed this story, but I don't believe I want to see the movie versions.  I don't want anything to ruin my mental images of the Martians and their tripods, and the happenings of the story.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

I regularly re-read it, it's got so much atmosphere, and has long been a favourite. The album is great too! (the original one from the 'seventies).


----------



## Abernovo

Stephen Palmer said:


> The album is great too! (the original one from the 'seventies).


Ah, yes, Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds. Wonderful album.

I love the book. Won't watch the films because of that. 
Okay, off to listen to Richard Burton, Julie Covington, et al. (The power of suggestion, Mr Palmer)


----------

