Page E10

  Fair        The Town Voice        First 

 

A Review of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds

By Arlon Staywell
RICHMOND — If you wish to read the original book or see either the 1953 or 2005 movie versions of the story "before you find out the ending," good luck.  The story has been around over a hundred years and widely known all of them.  If you are yet unaware of the ending and want to read the book or see a movie first then stop reading here till you do.  A meticulous analysis required approaching key points rather closely.
    H.G. Wells wrote the classic science fiction story, War of the Worlds, so long ago it has become a challenge to keep in mind the historical context.  The story was first released in 1898.  That was before machine powered flight.  In 1903 he wrote a short story, The Land Ironclads, about what we today would likely call "tanks."  That was not only before the real world wars but very much scientific, religious, social and political upheaval.
    War of the Worlds is a story that challenges and illuminates attitudes on the military and God and science.  It is a story whose changes through the years mark significant changes in those attitudes.  With a somewhat successful air of plausibility the story presents a sort of ultimate conflict where violence proves futile and unnecessary.  The audience cannot help but examine whether and how much they believe in God or guns or neither or both.
    Although it is certainly a curious and disturbing sidenote in history that some people panicked in 1938 when the story was broadcast on radio, far more intriguing are the changes made to the story on its retelling in movies in 1953 and 2005 and what those changes seem to indicate about what people actually believe in the core of their being, whether there are atheists in foxholes, what will be the future nature of war; and perhaps more significantly here, whether science, poetry, politics and religion can balance.  Perhaps also curious is the fact that they are roughly 50 years apart.
Religious Officials
    In the 1898 version the religious official is killed by the main character (Earthling) for making too much noise and possibly endangering their lives by revealing their whereabouts to the aliens.  In the 1953 version a religious official and father of the female leading character seeks peace with the aliens and is openly killed by them which prompts a violent response from Earth's forces.  Later in that same version are numerous religious officials, church scenes and prayers.  There were no "pre-emptive strikes" in those days.  Likewise in the original the killing of the aliens was at first at least "to be avoided if possible."  In the 2005 version there is no religious official at all, or if there was it escaped wide notice, but the aliens did attack first.  A man was silenced, but he was not apparently a religious official.
Church
    In the 1953 movie version the church is significant to the story with a deep meaning for the main characters and an important meeting place.  Church buildings are tangential in the other versions.
Occupation of the Main Character
    In the 1898 version there are few clues about occupation of the main character.  He is mostly described as an "ordinary citizen."  He was married.  He reads much and is associated with people at the observatory.  He "writes" in his "study."  He was perhaps a professional writer or some type of journalist.  In the 1953 version the main character is a "scientist" by occupation, but a religious one.  In the 2005 version the main character is a much less read and less curious divorced equipment operator, teased by his own children for his lack of book knowledge.
Invulnerability of the Aliens
    In the original version a few hits on the aliens were successful, yet the Earth's forces were still by far overwhelmed.  In the 1953 version the "futility" of violence seen as key to the original story's "after all man's weapons had failed" is expressed more strongly by having aliens with "shields" which render all man's weapons totally ineffective including notably the "atomic bomb" delivered by the famous "Flying Wing" of that era.  Perhaps Wells would have written in such shields if it had occured to him.  The 2005 version goes back to the original somewhat in that although there are shields, some hits are effective in that captives get by them and near the end it is remarked that the shields failed altogether at some later point.  To what extent Earth's attack was nuclear is not clear.
Evolution
    In the original version some credit is given to evolution for defeating the aliens "by virtue of this natural selection (emphasis not in the original) of our kind we have developed resisting power."  In the 1953 version that part is toned down, "The Martians had no resistance to the bacteria in our atomosphere to which we have long since become immune."  The 2005 version goes back to "By the toll of a billion deaths man had earned his immunity," from the orginal which was, "By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the Earth." All these versions at least appear to give some credit to "God, in his wisdom."
What Would Wells Think?
    A most worthy question then for many after dinner conversations to come would seem which of the movies more closely follows the intent of the original insofar as that might be more than mere entertainment.
    It has been said that Wells was an "atheist" when he wrote War of the Worlds.  Some years later he wrote prolifically on religious matters; First and Last Things: A Confession of Faith and Rule of Life (1908), God the Invisible King (1917), The Soul of a Bishop (1917), A Year of Prophesying (1924), All Aboard for Ararat (1940) as also voluminously on problems of socialism and the importance of the League of Nations.  It is with some difficulty then that we call the man an "atheist" in 1898.  Granting that a person can believe in God while at odds with organized religion, and granting that a person can believe in God and some type of evolution simultaneously as was, and is, somewhat common, how do you call the man an atheist?  How can you say he wasn't "Christian" for example when there are so many kinds?  Or any of many of the various interpretations and adaptations of religiosity?
    Indeed some will say that the 2005 version of the story, less "churchy" as it is than the 1953 version, still shows what a religious man Wells was even then.
    But that is just what is so intriguing about it all.  That gives us some indication about what religion was and what it became in the wide world, not just the heart and mind of Wells.
    What you should note about the original version of War of the Worlds is that something some experts on these matters sometimes call the "gift of the spirit" is not present though it might well show in the later writings.
    This is to say that Wells would have preferred the 1953 version to the 2005 version in the later, spirit blest part of his life.  The 2005 version forces him to wallow in a sort of pre-spiritual mire.  Such religiosity as might be inferred from the 1898 story is more what Wells might later in life deem that of a "troublesome collaborator."  The phrase is from other writings of Wells in 1930.
    What modern appeal is there in the blatant militarism of the son of the main character in the 2005 version?   Why is his father not considered more intelligent?  And does that mean America is wallowing in unspiritual mire?
    A point to consider should anyone judge Wells is the historical context.  It should be remembered that in those primitive times with low power microscopes and oversimplified views of life how very convincing Darwinism could be and how exciting it was to have so many mysteries of the universe seemingly opened to mortal man.  The only opposition to Darwinism in those simple times were stubborn adherents to a "literal" interpretation of the Bible which has little support, even in the Bible itself.  Wells was by no means the first or only person to rely on less spiritual ideas and yet perhaps imagine himself the defender of all spiritual truth.
    But judging Wells less harshly means judging modern America more so   as it is now awash in the Darwin boggling complexity of life displayed in its high powered microscopes.
    But is either Wells or modern America guilty of blaspheming the spirit?  The unpardonable sin?  Perhaps not by those ideas at least.  Those should be more described as various degrees of an "innocence" of spirit rather than blasphemy.
    What crime is it to hope for a more peaceful world should some means seem to appear?  To believe that the same goal can be achieved better some alternate way?  It is no crime.  They were wrong but not criminally so.
    Furthermore it simply isn't true that Darwinism makes the world more secure against invaders.  At the same time the "Martians" were not evolved to live with Earth's bacteria, Earth's bacteria were not evolved to live with any Martians, so which would win in a fair fight is anybody's guess according to natural selection and Darwinism. So it must indeed be with the help of God in "his" wisdom if we are surely to protect ourselves against such invaders.
    Perhaps the only certainty here is that the more we know about our books and movies the more we know about ourselves.

© MMVII by Arlon Ryan Staywell

The Town Voice Home | Religion Index E1 | E9 | E10 | E11