Observation:

On the Omissions in H. G. Wells’s The Time Machine

After reading H. G. Wells’s The Time Machine, I find that there are many omissions in the
narrative. For example, with respect to the time machine itself, which is one of the most
important elements in the story, we are only given a very brief introduction about of what
materials it is made (such as nickel, ivory and crystal) and based on what theory it came into
being (Time is a fourth dimension of Space. There is no difference between Time and any of
the three dimensions of Space except that consciousness moves along it). Apart from these
two pieces of information, there is almost no other description of the machine available to us
throughout the whole tale. We hardly have any concrete idea about how the machine looks
like and how it works. In fact, as for me, only after watching the clip on the novel provided by
Professor Hamilton during the class could I have a relatively clear idea about the physical
appearance of the Time Traveler’s machine. Besides, isn’t it a bit simple (and even ridiculous)
that only by pressing over the lever could a person travel through time freely?

Regarding this omission, is it given by Wells intentionally or not? What is the effect of this
omission? In my opinion, this omission can first be explained through Wells’s evaluation of
the works of Jules Verne. Wells says, “here is no literary resemblance whatever between my
work and Jules Verne’s. Whereas Verne deals almost always with actual possibilities of
invention and discovery, my own intention is to hold the reader to the end by art and illusion,
and not by proof and argument.” According to this comment, we know that Wells, instead of
focusing on “actual possibilities of invention and discovery”, is particularly interested in
creating an intriguing reading experience for his readers by his novelistic illusion. In The
Time Machine, because of this not fully explained physical machine, we are brought with the
Time Traveler to the year 802,701AD instead of the near future, and immersed in a very
unusual adventure. I doubt whether it is still possible for the Time Traveler and readers to
enter an age far removed from the present and are deeply gripped by the feeling of thrill if the
time machine is fully explained upon actual facts?

More importantly, this omission is closely related to Wells’s ideas about the functions of the
novel. In his essay ‘The Contemporary Novel’, he states that “you see now the scope of the
claim I am making for the novel: it is to be the social mediator, the vehicle of understanding,
the instrument of self-examination, the parade of morals and the exchange of manners, the
factory of customs, the criticism of laws and institutions and of social dogmas and ideas. It is
to be the home confessional, the initiator of knowledge, the seed of fruitful self-questioning”
(11), and “so far as I can see, it is the only medium through which we can discuss the great
majority of the problems which are being raised in such bristling multitude by our
contemporary social development” (8). In short, as a professional novelist, Wells lays great
stress on social, political and ethical functions of the genre of the novel. Moving on to The
Time Machine, by diverting his efforts from giving many details about technological-related
problems to expounding on severe social issues (For instance, in the novel, Wells uses page
after page to illustrate the intense relationship between Eloi and Morlocks, which can be
interpreted as an allegorical way to represent the uneasy relationship between the Capitalist
and the Laborer during the middle and late Victorian time), Wells highlights the role of The
Time Machine as a cautionary tale (or political satire) and avoids letting the accuracy of
technology dilute various social themes contained in his fiction.

Questions:

What is your opinion about Wells’s omission of many details about the time machine itself?
What other parts of the novel are not fully explained? Do these omissions influence your
overall evaluation of The Time Machine?