Author Topic: War of the Worlds  (Read 1035 times)

Offline Simaril

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
War of the Worlds
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2005, 03:46:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
For me - the main idea of the book was to evaulate a society and it's reaction to facing an irresistable, inhuman, but absolutely rational (in it's behaviour) force.

Welles foresaw the nazis.



In context of late Victorian Britain, i think of the book as a pointed allegory about colonialism -- a comparison that couldnt help but occur to Wells' audience.


Just consider -- change the martians into British colonial forces, change the Londoners into indigenous peoples, leave the tecnological disparity the same, and convert the generic microbes into malaria or yellow fever.

The message of humilty even when powerful must have been obvious.

Cross refernce the attitude in Kipling's poem "Recessional" -- in that sense the themes are similar.

And Boroda, that sentence you struggled with is a tough one. It uses imagery that seems artificial and stretched now. During the 1800s, writer's styles tended to be far less direct than is the modern norm. It's aproblem you'll run into if you try reading jsut about anyone before Hemingway... If you want a real taste of flowery, overdone prose (by modern tastes), check out Nathianiel Hawthorne.

Makes Abraham Lincoln stand out all the more. Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugeral speech are masterpieces of sentiment and language....
Maturity is knowing that I've been an idiot in the past.
Wisdom is realizing I will be an idiot in the future.
Common sense is trying to not be an idiot right now

"Social Fads are for sheeple." - Meatwad

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8804
War of the Worlds
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2005, 07:20:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Steve
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/warworlds/warw.html


Boroda, this looks promising. check it out.


You can also read the original text here.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Seeker

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
War of the Worlds
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2005, 07:32:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
I never thought that changes were so visible, and I thought Wells is more like a "modern" author.

Russian language didn't change that much. When you read Dostoyevskiy or Tolstoy - you can see difference in style and some lexics, but no such figures of speech as I quoted :


Well; English has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Advantage: There are no indiscipherable English dialects. A strange claim; but a true one. Linguistically, if you can speak Danish; then you can speak Swedish and Norwegian; only..you (they) can't. The same is true for Dutch and Flemish. They're only dialects; but a Dutchman will claim that a Belgian is incomprehensible; while an Australian and a Scotsman can talk comfortably together (how does that work with Russian; can a Muscovite talk with some one from the Gobi?)

Disadvantage: You "think" you understand it. English does change. While most people think they understand Shakespeare; they'd be better off making the effort to sit down and translate it. The written language doesn't change much; but the meaning changes all the time through the years.

A case in point: The oldest text generally regarded as "English" are Geoffrey Chaucer's "Canterbury tales". It's very old English; but most modern speakers would"think" they understand it (they don't). I showed some to my Danish wife (who does speak good English); and to my surprise her reaction was "why are you interested in old Norsk; and where did you get it from? (she thought I was showing her an old scandanavian text which she didn't recognise).

Rather in the same way that Chinese and Japanese use the same writing; but insist they speak separate languages even though they can read the same newspaper.