Wells and When Writers Should Shut Up
I went through a phase when I was reading basically only H. G. Wells. I read every single one of his published short stories, The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, In the Days of the Comet, and so on. I remember liking his work, but I actually did find some of it a bit too dry at moments. It may be an unfair criticism since modern readers' taste in style has altered since Wells's days.
I think he is an important writer, regardless, and he had some incredibly potent images of science and the future. Wells is even credited for the invention of the Ironclad or the tank.
Seeing that there is a thread about Wells, gives me a second chance to take part in the discussion over when an author should keep his/her mouth shut. I think it isn't so much that authors dare lace their works with social or political commentary that irritates us, but it is when they do it badly or separate from artistic ventures. No one likes to be lectured to, but people love to be entertained and feel that they have got a better understanding of the world afterwards.
Before, the conversation centered on Bradbury's blatant lecturing on politics. It is unfair to claim that he should stay out of politics. Read his works. Social and political commentary is the backbone of many of his published life. Works such as Fahrenheit 451 directly attacked abuses in censorship and the apathy of society. The said book has received brilliant reviews over the years. Bradbury's views only became unbearable when he didn't even bother writing about it. Instead, he lectured to the public with the arrogance of an armchair spectator, and the public, naturally, rejected it.
H.G. Wells is a perfect example of an author who delivered social commentary with varying success. His work, The Time Machine, is still hailed as an example of excellent literature. The central thesis of the novel is attacking the rigid economic class separation between the "haves" and the "have nots" created by a Capitalist society. Critics loved the book even more for it. His novel, In the Days of the Comet, has not met such supportive criticism, however. The book's thesis is akin to that of The Time Machine, yet critics often site the obvious social message as the fault of the book. Why? I believe it is not the message itself that bothers the critics (for they praised it in The Time Machine), but, rather, the critics are disappointed that the story itself isn't well written or engaging. The novel falls back on lecturing more than it should.
In the end, audiences don't mind hearing social or political ideas from authors as long as they are being entertained in the process.
