Talk:The War of the Worlds/Archive 1

Atheism and reference to god
In the most recent film version there is a reference to god. I understood that Wells was an atheist. Did the book make any references to god? --90.208.225.244 (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"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)


 * Izno just turned it into a "hidden message" but I think the problem is that as is it qualifies as "original research" rather than "trivia."


 * Unrelated point&mdash;I'm about to revert the description of the Harryhausen footage back to "war machine" from a recent change to "cylinder." The Martian is dying at the story's climax, as the narration on the documentary The Ray Harryhausen Chronicles confirms (this is where I checked the footage). At this point the cylinders, used solely as transportation from Mars to Earth, are long since unheard from. True, what the Martian is coming out of appears somewhat cylindrical in shape (what little can be seen of it), but he is not coming out of one end, which is how the Martians emerged from the cylinders. I will elaborate in my reversion to make the situation clearer. --Ted Watson (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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. &mdash;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...  -- 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."
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * --Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sequence of events
Should this not be "Days Eight through eighteen ..." ? --Bruce1ee 06:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Days Eight through twenty-one was when the narrator was watching the Martians while still trapped.


 * 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)
 * --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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
 * --Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * --Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. vs. Iran would be a war between the Western and Islamic worlds. Earth and Mars, Mars and Earth. Two worlds, one war.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.115.105 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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
 * 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)

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)\

"The War of the Worlds presents a hypothetical scenario of how humans may defeat the Martians in the speculations of a lone artilleryman encountered by the hero, who imagines a world where humanity, recognising that it cannot win through direct conflict, commences a guerrilla war. The Martians would rule Earth for generations to come; most humans (especially the "soft" middle classes towards whom complete contempt is shown) would soon get used to being domestic animals, whereas a nucleus of daring humans would hide out in tunnels and sewers, and would have about the same place in the Martian-dominated ecology as rats in the previous human ecology. After the passage of generations, these defiant humans would learn to duplicate the Martian weapons and destroy the invaders. The artilleryman's ambition is eventually exposed as nothing more than one man's delusion of grandeur (see megalomania) — he has no means to set about the project, and shows a complete lack of determination to complete even the simple and short-term goals that would set the rest of his plans in motion. A number of authors have, however, followed on from that theme."

This substantial paragraph in the Influences section does not seem to relate in any way I have been able to determine with the influences of the novel upon subsequent cultural concepts or fiction. It seems to suggest how the novel might influence thought, rather than how it actually has done. It could perhaps be used elsewhere as summary or commentary if an appropriate citation is available. Have not yet deleted it, but may well do unless anyone can propose a good reason why it should remain or provide a source to support this thesis. Mesmacat (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1970s Marvel comic book version, launched by Roy Thomas, but soon taken over by Don McGregor, went in precisely the direction of the artilleryman's thinking, to name one example. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * --Lensman003 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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))

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)

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

Having played Half Life 2 and its episodic sequels, I believe a reference to this game and the influence of War of the Worlds upon it is highly legitimate, relevant and worth including. Surely some commentary is available from Valve interviews or elsewhere about this. I will look for this, but hopefully someone knows already where it might be found Mesmacat (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems like you might have a strong argument on either side, but regardless I don't think it warrants a link in the See Also section.  I'm going to remove it in a couple days unless someone disputes it and gives a good reason for it to stay.--tdh5609 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * It's common to report a story using its first book publication date rather than magazine appearances. You are correct in that this story was serialized in 1897.  The wiki article mentions Pearson's Magazine but other sources say it was published in Cosmopolitan (magazine) as an eight part serial in 1897. Maybe it appeared in both magazines as both wiki articles mention it.


 * Do you have a copy of the August 1897 edition? It would be cool if at least the The War of the Worlds section could be scanned and uploaded. The copyright has long expired. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy and predictions
The paragraph beginning with the word "Frighteningly" should be struck. Any seconds? 24.18.249.218 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been wondering about that passage myself. Sounds more speculative than anything else. Seconded. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thirded. I logged on to this page specifically to bring up this subject (last paragraph of the Scientific predictions and accuracy section). The claims put forward in this paragraph (particularly the preference of aliens to live in space stations) are pure conjecture and speculation and would be more appropriate in an essay on the subject rather than an encyclopaedia entry (No_original_research). Also, since an encounter with "unfriendly aliens with a superior technology" hasn't actually happened, it can't be verified and definitely shouldn't be in a section titled "Scientific predictions and accuracy". Antoin (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass hysteria?
The Hyped Panic Over 'War of the Worlds'

We need proper citation that there was indeed mass hysteria after the broadcast of the radio play.

There seem to be some doubt on this subject (see link above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.206.78 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Young Chesterton Chronicles, Volume I: The Tripods Attack! - notability?
I thought this had been discussed on the talk page before and the book was determined to be non-notable, but I must have been thinking of another article (or else hallucinating!), because a check back to this talk page tells me I was wrong. I'd like to open a discussion now on the notability of the entry an IP keeps adding that says:

A teenaged HG Wells is one of the heroes with a similarly aged GK Chesterton in The Young Chesterton Chronicles, Volume I: The Tripods Attack!, a science fiction/ alternative history adventure series, written by John McNichol and published by Imagio Catholic Fiction, an imprint of Sophia Institute Press

My take is that this book is non-notable, the press is a small, non-notable publisher, and the author, too, is non-notable. Evidence:
 * A google search on the book title turns up: this WP article, a Facebook page, a blog, and a polish message board. No Amazon, nothing.
 * A google search on the author name turns up a footballer with the same name, but no author near the top of the results
 * A google search on the publisher turns up this page, the publisher's webpage, and catholic blogs
 * IP editor who adds it says, in his edit summaries, that the book has sold "1000s" of copies. That seems like a very low number, and isn't likely to make the book notable by virtue of its (non-)prevalence

My impression is that the IP who keeps adding the blurb is the book's author, but I have no evidence for that. I'd like to get some other editors weighing in on the book's notability in this context, so that I can be sure I'm not alone in thinking the blurb should be removed from the page. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I've added the tags due to the unknown notability of the Weybridge/Shep article, to clear the issue up (look at the BoW/S) edit summeries and to fit the extended WP:MOS and the rules about redirecting/merging as is required. rdunn 12:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the WotW article would need a big section added if they are merged. rdunn  12:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable battle, part of the a highly notable piece of literature and subject of a number of adaptations. Don't see the value of a merge. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  13:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered questions, again
Does this section have prime relevance to a main article on the novel? There may be an argument that is really a trivia section of information and speculation not of central relevance to an encyclopedic overview of Well's novel, its significance and impact. Mesmacat (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yanked. I've blockquote'd it here in case reviewers and such bring up the unanswered questions. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered questions
 * The narrator comments that on the fourth or fifth night of his imprisonment in the rubble of the fifth Martian landing, he heard two sets of six distinct reports - sounding like heavy guns firing. No explanation is ever given for this event, although one might assume that it is the British army or navy attacking the tripods with artillery.
 * There is no description of the aftermath of the Southend battle, it should be noted that this event occurs in the River Blackwater estuary north of Southend-on-Sea (Martians vs HMS Thunder Child), it was not explained if the three supporting ironclads did any damage to the third Martian fighting machine. Though there is a passage that indicates an action at Shoeburyness (a coastal artillery and testing range), just east of Southend (and through which the Martians would have had to have travelled, give their direction of march) it is left undescribed.
 * After the Thunder Child incident, no account of the narrator's brother is given, although it can be inferred that he survived to tell the narrator of the events he witnessed (the original edition, published in Pearson's Magazine, indicates that he married one of his female companions from the London exodus).
 * No information on the landing sites of the eighth, ninth, and tenth Martian invasion ships were given. The only information given is that the site of the seventh landing was "the final and largest" base (which the novel implies was Primrose Hill).
 * The narrator's name and his brother's name are never revealed. Some altered versions say that he was H. G. Wells and that his brother is Wells' brother Frank (this goes hand in hand with The Time Machine, in which the also nameless narrator is often equated with Wells).
 * Although the narrator states that the Martians' "queer hooting invariably preceded feeding" and was "in no sense a signal", suggesting that the Martians can communicate via telepathy, the Martians evidently do also communicate audibly, the Fighting Machines using howling sirens at several points in the narrative. In the scenes of destroyed London, the narrator refers several times to a sound written as "Ulla, ulla, ulla, ulla" which seems to be a cry uttered by a lone Martian.
 * In the final scene of the London Exodus, an object appears in the sky, flying overhead, and "rained down darkness upon the land". The object is usually identified as the flying-machine and the suggestion is made that the "darkness" is the Black Smoke both literally and as a metaphorical darkness of the Martians' power. This is supported during the narrator's second encounter with the Artilleryman, who suggests that the Martians have been experimenting with a flying machine with a view to expanding their operations beyond the UK (the original text, as published in Pearson's Magazine, supports this, by explicitly mentioning that it had been used "to spread their black powder").
 * Also the date, month, or year in which the attack occurs is not mentioned.

Tripod (The War of the Worlds)
There is an extensive article Tripod (The War of the Worlds) which repeats or expands on aspects of the commentary here in relation to the martians' fighting machines and their conceptual descendents. It also lacks references. Not sure quite how to unravel the proper place of this article in relation to the main article here. Would welcome help and suggestions on this. Mesmacat (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge what verifiable content you can here. If you start finding more sources for Tripod, then you can spin it back out again. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Adaptions and Sequels by Other Authors
I would propose that these two sections be moved to another article, either together or seperately, and a summary left in their place of some major examples (radio broadcast being one, given its infamamy). They seem to make the article too long and if removed, would allow more concise focus on commentary directly relating to the novel itself and its impact. Mesmacat (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we could make a nice list out of it, but I'm not sure what we would call said list. "Adaptions and sequels of The War of the Worlds" is a little long, and doesn't have the almighty "List of" prepended to it. Perhaps a quick question to WT:BOOKS? --Izno (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A separate list is a valid option. I'd go with Adaptations of The War of the Worlds and just include "sequels" in that list. The best format, that I've found, to follow is something similar to Adaptations of Anna Karenina. --maclean 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Publication and Serialisation of War of the Worlds
I have hidden the extra details of publication for the serialisation of War of the Worlds for the time being. I have found at least 5 different versions of when it was published in magazine serial form in 1897, and in bootlegged form in both 1897 and 1898 in the states, in either Pearsons (UK) or Cosmopolitan (US), or both, and none of them seem to entirely agree. So much for reliable sources! A couple give the impression it was published in magazine form in the US before it was published in the UK, which I doubt as I have seen direct quotes of HG Wells talking about writing it for Pearsons. It must have been published in the US in magazine form before book publication in 1898, because the bootlegged Edison sequel (which I have found numerous synched references for) was a response to the serialisation of the novel being widely noted in the US. Will try and track down some definative information on this - this might be one of those occassions when it is time to track down an expert in the field. Mesmacat (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mecha
"The idea of mecha also originated in The War of the Worlds. The AT-AT walkers in The Empire Strikes Back were roughly based on the idea of walking war machines. Tripod-like machines called striders employed by the Combine from the computer game Half Life 2. Powered armour as popularised in Starship Troopers can also be traced back to The War of the Worlds; indeed, Heinlein's novel can be seen as a response to Wells'."

I have hidden this text for the time being. I actually agree with the ideas here and I think it is a valuable contribution to the article. However, trying to create a rounded article, adhering to Wikipedia goals, I cannot find any sources to support this - not for the lack of trying - and would proposed that it is integrated back into the article once a contributor can provide these. I am more than happy to be proved wrong here. Mesmacat (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.69.157 (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Work on War of the Worlds
I have now completed the core work I wanted to do on this article. I never intended to create a full academic feature article on the novel. This is far beyond me, to be honest. Rather I wanted to bring the article into a clear, logical, form that might be a useful, reliable basic reference on the background, themes and relevance of The War of the Worlds, for the hundreds of young people and students, who I suspect visit the page as an early port of call when they find themselves having to study the novel. I am also concious of the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, this is not my article, but our article. As many of you know, doing this stuff is pretty addictive, and I could probably keep on expanding for some time to come with more research, but I would rather do simliar foundation work on other articles - The Time Machine is one that attracts me after doing a lot of research of Wells for this piece, among others. I hope other contributors might want to expand it further and hopeful will do so, in a similar spirit of solidly referenced commentary.

Some areas for expansion perhaps:


 * A little more of what scientific romance is and its relationship to science fiction in the genres section
 * The style section could comment more of the prose style of the novel
 * More detail on the sort of everyday world the Martians invade in the cultural settings section, useful for younger readers to appreciate the impact of something like an advanced alien invasion of what was still a society largely without electricity, rapid forms of communication, etc
 * Somewhere perhaps more about Victorian attitudes of complacency being challenged by Wells in the novel
 * The Evolutionary theory section could do with more commentary, setting the scene of scientific materialism and natural selection and Wells exposure and understanding of this. What I have left here does not seem to really explain this context very well
 * Wells commentary on social Darwinism through the novel in the same section could be expanded
 * The Religion and Science section could say more about Wells attitudes to this sort of thing
 * Weapons and Armour does not really trace the development of the tripods as armored fighting vehicles through to reality in the first world war with tanks
 * Following on from this, the Mecha section I took out for the time being begs to be included with appropriate sourcing
 * Might a section on the Martians, and their technology be useful - or is this adequately covered in the Scientific Predictions and Accuracy Section?

I have tried to clean up for consistency, etc, but more work will need to be done. Some sections are very basic, one at least is empty (reception), but suggests a space I felt needed some commentary, but could not easily find material to fill it with. I am new to Wikipedia and still learning, I have certainly not yet mastered the referencing system and code in this medium, so if someone more experienced could help here, that would be great.

I have written to the HG Wells society, asking for their help with the publication section, which presented me with several contradictory references about the various intial publication vehicles and dates of the novel. Will add stuff if this line of enquiry bears fruit.

Mesmacat (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Radio broadcast?
There appears to be no mention at all of the The War of the Worlds (radio) broadcast after the massive changes of the last few days...? Jpatokal (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was moved to Adaptations of The War of the Worlds by maclean after I posted a request for advice on how to handle the structure of the article on WT:BOOKS. I had originally suggested a brief summary section on adaptions with main article link to replace this (the radio broadcast being one I thought should be mentioned because of its infamy), but forgot to actually do this. I am working on something else at the moment Barsoom, but of course can add this summary section if other editors do not do so in the near future. Mesmacat (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be included in the main article, it may very well have been an adaptation, but that episode is still an integral part of the history of HG Wells War of the Worlds. Orson Welles didnt write anything to scare the crap out of americans, all he did was retell the story as current event using local places and people, he didnt change anything else. Also as i mentioned below, its not that it isnt mentioned as part of the article, its just not mentioned full stop, i dont see anything about "For the radio broadcast please see "Adaptations Of" Its just not there which is a shame. 122.108.77.8 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The famously controversial radio broadcast is one of the most salient events concerning the story. To not even mention it is a bizarrely inappropriate omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

War of the Worlds as other literature
Why is there no mention what so ever in here about the fact that Orson Welles actually generated a great panic in the United States early in the 20th century by retelling this exact story as news fact over the radio as a Halloween prank? I was actually trying to find some dates on it and my first thought would be this article, but no mention of it at all? 122.108.77.8 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind ive just seen the answer to it in a reply to the above post. The answer however is slightly silly, more than any other, that re-telling of the story has kept this great piece of literature famous, no one is going to go looking for "Adaptaions of (insert subject here)" to look for something directly related, especially as once again, there is no mention of the information being on another semi-related page at all! It basically says that that important event has nothing to do with this story! 122.108.77.8 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have minded my grammar...
I was the anonymous editor who corrected the possessive forms of Wells's name. I neglected to sign in before beginning my edits. Rest assured they weren't drive-bys. In my education(up to Bachelor of Science) and in several grammatical texts I have in my possession, the possessive form of a proper noun ending in -S is to add "'s". "Saint James's Hospital" for example. Excepting certain entities which choose to have their names in the form of simply adding the apostrophe. To do so implies plurality, which there is obviously not in Wells's case.

"Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.

Here are some examples:

* James's cat * Mrs. Jones's attorney * Dr. Seuss's book "

My edits were grammatically accurate. I am not reverting them simply because I would like discussion rather than an edit war over something so trivial.

Sparf (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to respond to this, so forgive me for undoing your removal. Your texts say these things, I have no doubt. But, we should follow WP:MOS in this, which quite easily/quickly says that either style is appropriate. I added a link in the edit summary. Further, when something is written in one style on Wikipedia (consistently in any one article), it generally remains in that style. Thanks for checking back. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Izno, you reverted one thing he did that you shouldn't have, at least not a straight "undo" of it. He turned a "Well's" into a "Wells's" and you made it "Well's" again. I dare say all three of us agree that that is wrong. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hah. Trudat. --Izno (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I had never been taught any other way in my many many years of education, nor in any of my texts on the subject. I guess I need to get some more texts, eh? Anyway, trying to be more productive to the Wikipedia community, so it's best that I learn these things now. And no worries about undoing my removal. I always favor fruitful discussion.Sparf (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The WP:MOS, in the Grammar (National varieties of English Styles) section, suggests that: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example: Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' (British English)". For more detail on the possessive case, the MOS points to the "Apostrophe" page, where the named authorities seem to lean towards a preference for 's, though the apostrophe alone is considered an alternative. Authorities in British English specifically are overwhelmingly in favour of 's. I agree that one has, ultimately, to follow house rules, but if "Lord of the Rings" is considered to be an exception, should not "The War of the Worlds" also be so? It is, after all, the work of a British Writer, set in the United Kingdom and generally regarded as a commentary on the British Empire.Mabzilla (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The MoS also says that if the article is stable in one version, it should remain in that version unless we take a strong national influence. I don't really feel comfortable debating that... I had a peek into the article history, and it seems that it has always been of mixed variation until the second half of 2008, when it was largely standardized to Wells', which suggests by WP:RETAIN that we should keep it there. I would personally like to see what User:Mesmacat has to say, as he was the main contributor to the current version. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sry, been away from the wiki for a long time. I had a look at the punctuation style used by a number of well-respected scholars who have written on Wells, including Patrick Parrinder, who is a foremost expert in this field and 'Wells's' seems to be the standard usage. My inclination would be to follow their example. Mesmacat (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wells' views and characterization of religion are interesting. He clearly has no time for the rigidly fundamentalist view of things, personified in the Curate, who snapped under the pressure. But it is interesting that in some places, he makes a point of an encounter with 'God' in the quiet, dark silence (after the Curate's death), when he examines his own conscience. He also mentions praying with thanks to God after he realizes the martians have been destroyed. He also refers to bacteria being placed by God on the earth, 'in his wisdom'. But are these references to some kind of faith, or was Wells attempting to make the book more acceptable to the people of the day? I find it interesting that as wells mentions God placing bacteria on earth, he immediately discusses the evolutionary process which led to human resistence to germs. He also makes a point of the value of compassion. My own view is that Wells has room for a God who challenges people into new kinds of thinking. He has no time for a God of the rigid, narrow, fundamentalist type. Whether or not Wells had any kind of belief in a God is another question - CL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.59.60 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cause of World War One
I know this may seem like a minor point, and not relevant to the article as a whole, but it's a bit of an assumption to say that European Empire building was the cause of the First World War, in Colonialism and imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.90.103 (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Motivation for writing?
Can't recall where I read this, but supposedly Wells was fascinated by the Great Opposition of Mars that occurred on or about 1895. One story even has him travelling South, out of England, to observe it (Great Oppositions always occur with Mars being in a constellation South of the Celestial Equator), and then writing the story on his return to England. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Initials
I notice that H.G. Wells's name is consistently being written as "Herbert George Wells". Surely that is very unusual? His name is always given as "H.G. Wells", shouldn't that be the standard? Even his Wikipedia article is called "H. G. Wells", not "Herbert George Wells". I would like to change it. Any objections?Captain Chaos (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have changed the article accordingly.--Mabzilla (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)