Reader Response to Wells’ The Time Machine :: Time Machine

Reader Response to Wells’ The Time Machine As a Christian, I don't personally believe in evolution in general; I don't think humans evolved from a lower life form and I don't think we will be here for another 800,000 years to evolve into anything else. But the logical scientist in me is nonetheless intrigued at the possibilities presented in The Time Machine. So what would happen to the human race a few hundred millennia from now? Would it divide into two distinct races that live separately from one another as Wells describes? I personally don't think this would happen. The human race seems to have a stubborn quality about it -- anytime there is a challenge or obstacle to face, we tend to try to overcome it in one way or another. I remember reading somewhere recently (I can't remember where) that humans have a natural tendency to resist captivity or oppression. This is why slavery is never permenent, and the history of man is littered with uprisings and revolts. This line of thinking begs the question: if indeed the Morlocks were forced underground at one point or another, why did they stay there? Even if they accepted their new environment without question, they were going to run out of food eventually -- no sun means no plants or vegetables, correct? This is where the Time Traveler presumes that the Morlocks began to feed on the Eloi out of necessity. But wouldn't the Morlocks just return to the surface at this point? Why would they stay underground if their only food was on the surface? It doesn't seem to make sense. Nevertheless, the year 802,701 as envisioned by Wells is fascinating. I have always loved good stories, especially imaginative ones, and I must admit that The Time Machine has become one of my favorite works of literature. Along these same lines, I have to agree with what Michael wrote in the first part of his journal entry. I, too, am not a fan of overanalyzing works of literature. For me good stories are just that -- stories. Don't get me wrong, there are many cases where looking past the surface of a book is appropriate -- for example Animal Farm is obviously allegory, and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is not so obviously a book promoting socialism. But sometimes I think that critics are digging too deep into literature and finding things that just aren't there, nor did the author intend for them to be there.