What do you think?
Rate this book
A Modern Utopia: Free Sampler
Discover one of the best historical novels of our time with this free sample from the famous author H. G. Wells.
H. G. Wells' A Modern Utopia is a fusion of fiction and philosophy. In it Wells' explores his ideas for social change, the creation of a world state and of what would be needed to facilitate increases in overall human happiness. The people of this utopia have to plan for "a flexible common compromise, in which a perpetually novel succession of individualities may converge most effectually upon a comprehensive onward development." This is Wells' distinction from past conceptions of utopia, that its people aim to be Utopian and that they are essentially the same people that would exist in an ordinary society.
As part of our mission to publish great works of literary fiction and nonfiction, Sheba Blake Publishing Corp. is extremely dedicated to bringing to the forefront the amazing works of long dead and truly talented authors.
H. G. Wells' A Modern Utopia is a fusion of fiction and philosophy. In it Wells' explores his ideas for social change, the creation of a world state and of what would be needed to facilitate increases in overall human happiness. The people of this utopia have to plan for "a flexible common compromise, in which a perpetually novel succession of individualities may converge most effectually upon a comprehensive onward development." This is Wells' distinction from past conceptions of utopia, that its people aim to be Utopian and that they are essentially the same people that would exist in an ordinary society.
As part of our mission to publish great works of literary fiction and nonfiction, Sheba Blake Publishing Corp. is extremely dedicated to bringing to the forefront the amazing works of long dead and truly talented authors.
97 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 1, 1905
279 people are currently reading
4701 people want to read
About the author
H.G. Wells
5,084 books11k followersHerbert George Wells was born to a working class family in Kent, England. Young Wells received a spotty education, interrupted by several illnesses and family difficulties, and became a draper's apprentice as a teenager. The headmaster of Midhurst Grammar School, where he had spent a year, arranged for him to return as an "usher," or student teacher. Wells earned a government scholarship in 1884, to study biology under Thomas Henry Huxley at the Normal School of Science. Wells earned his bachelor of science and doctor of science degrees at the University of London. After marrying his cousin, Isabel, Wells began to supplement his teaching salary with short stories and freelance articles, then books, including The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), The Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds (1898).
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of Science Fiction". D. 1946.
More: http://philosopedia.org/index.php/H._...
http://www.online-literature.com/well...
http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of Science Fiction". D. 1946.
More: http://philosopedia.org/index.php/H._...
http://www.online-literature.com/well...
http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
October 28, 2020
Prophetic and horrific, this utopian vision is a warped mixture of samurai castes, mass extinction of inferior races, and totalitarian World States, outlined in a series of turgid intellectual meanderings.
April 14, 2017
This is the most frightening utopia I've ever read. It makes me think that Aldous Huxley and George Orwell must have based their dystopias to some extent on H.G. Well's idea of what a utopia would look like.
The book is written more as non-fiction than fiction. Mostly, Wells outlines what he thinks would make for the best possible society, which is essentially a police-state, with a thin fictional premise of two travelers getting lost in the Alps.
About halfway through the book I started highlighting the sections that were most terrifying. One passage I didn't highlight from the earlier chapters describes how, in the modern utopia, anyone who gambles, cheats, or has other desultory habits, will be placed on an island with others of his/her kind and not allowed to leave.
Here are a few of the other horrifying "utopian" ideals Wells proposes:
"Now what will be the nature of the Utopian contract of matrimony? From the first of the two points of view named above [earlier he states that men needed to be at least 26 and women 21 before getting married], that of parentage, it is obvious that one unavoidable condition will be the chastity of the wife . . . A reciprocal restraint on the part of the husband is clearly of no importance whatever" (94).
"a phase in the world's development is inevitable when a systematic world-wide attempt will be made to destroy for ever a great number of contagious and infectious diseases, and that this will involve, for a time at any rate, a stringent suppression of the free movement of familiar animals [in other words, there are no pets in a modern utopia. All cats and dogs have been killed to prevent humans from contracting diseases from them]" (110)
"Four main classes of mind were distinguished, called, respectively, the Poietic, the Kinetic, the Dull, and the Base" (130)
A group called the samurai are the ruling class, about 4% of the population. They must follow a rigid "Rule" of conduct: "You have forbidden alcohol, drugs, smoking, betting, and usury, games, trade, servants . . . They must sleep alone at least four nights in five" (143, 146)
"Women samurai who are married . . . must bear children" (146).
"Practically all political power vests in the samurai. Not only are they the only administrators, lawyers, practicing doctors, and public officials of almost all kinds, but they are the only voters" (152).
Is this the society you would want?
The book is written more as non-fiction than fiction. Mostly, Wells outlines what he thinks would make for the best possible society, which is essentially a police-state, with a thin fictional premise of two travelers getting lost in the Alps.
About halfway through the book I started highlighting the sections that were most terrifying. One passage I didn't highlight from the earlier chapters describes how, in the modern utopia, anyone who gambles, cheats, or has other desultory habits, will be placed on an island with others of his/her kind and not allowed to leave.
Here are a few of the other horrifying "utopian" ideals Wells proposes:
"Now what will be the nature of the Utopian contract of matrimony? From the first of the two points of view named above [earlier he states that men needed to be at least 26 and women 21 before getting married], that of parentage, it is obvious that one unavoidable condition will be the chastity of the wife . . . A reciprocal restraint on the part of the husband is clearly of no importance whatever" (94).
"a phase in the world's development is inevitable when a systematic world-wide attempt will be made to destroy for ever a great number of contagious and infectious diseases, and that this will involve, for a time at any rate, a stringent suppression of the free movement of familiar animals [in other words, there are no pets in a modern utopia. All cats and dogs have been killed to prevent humans from contracting diseases from them]" (110)
"Four main classes of mind were distinguished, called, respectively, the Poietic, the Kinetic, the Dull, and the Base" (130)
A group called the samurai are the ruling class, about 4% of the population. They must follow a rigid "Rule" of conduct: "You have forbidden alcohol, drugs, smoking, betting, and usury, games, trade, servants . . . They must sleep alone at least four nights in five" (143, 146)
"Women samurai who are married . . . must bear children" (146).
"Practically all political power vests in the samurai. Not only are they the only administrators, lawyers, practicing doctors, and public officials of almost all kinds, but they are the only voters" (152).
Is this the society you would want?
February 20, 2023
A superb piece of exposition. Part essay part story. Can become long winded at certain points. I encountered some contradictions in the earlier part of the book that did not correlate with the ending of the book. In particular his ideas about "Survival of the Fittest" and Evolution.
In the first part of the book he seems to be stating that those are beneficial ideas which lead to a healthy Utopian society.....but at the end of the book he does a complete 180 and explains why "Survival of the Fittest" actually leads to 3 erroneous alternatives to society.
Still, I think it deserves a read through for it's interesting analysis of what a perfect Utopian society should be like. I was actually a bit shocked that much of our modern society is in line with many of his ideas. His ideas about an energy currency were ahead of their time and have not really played out the way he expected them to (although bitcoin is the closest modern invention that comes closest to it).
I was also equally shocked at how some of our modern society is far away from his ideal. I found it hilarious to read his ideas on competitive exhibition sports. Umberto Eco seems to be of the same mind when it comes to the aforementioned topic, although eventually Eco comes to the conclusion that they seem to be harmless considering the other alternative deleterious past times that humans may sometimes engage in.
Overall, the book is definitely worth reading as it is interesting to see him predict Nazism and ideas of a superior race deriving from the biological ideas of "Survival of the Fittest".
In the first part of the book he seems to be stating that those are beneficial ideas which lead to a healthy Utopian society.....but at the end of the book he does a complete 180 and explains why "Survival of the Fittest" actually leads to 3 erroneous alternatives to society.
Still, I think it deserves a read through for it's interesting analysis of what a perfect Utopian society should be like. I was actually a bit shocked that much of our modern society is in line with many of his ideas. His ideas about an energy currency were ahead of their time and have not really played out the way he expected them to (although bitcoin is the closest modern invention that comes closest to it).
I was also equally shocked at how some of our modern society is far away from his ideal. I found it hilarious to read his ideas on competitive exhibition sports. Umberto Eco seems to be of the same mind when it comes to the aforementioned topic, although eventually Eco comes to the conclusion that they seem to be harmless considering the other alternative deleterious past times that humans may sometimes engage in.
Overall, the book is definitely worth reading as it is interesting to see him predict Nazism and ideas of a superior race deriving from the biological ideas of "Survival of the Fittest".
October 30, 2020
This is a somewhat muddled fusion of two types of writing at the same time. On the one hand, it is an exposition of a utopian vision for humanity. On the other hand, it is the adventure of “The Voice” (who is explicitly introduced as not Wells, but seems to be a lot like Wells), as he visits an alternate version of contemporary Earth (1905). The narrator is not transported mysteriously to the utopian world, but rather begins by reasoning what a utopia would have to be like following modern principles. He deliberately differentiates his visions from the fanciful and static utopias of the past. But along the way, this thought experiment becomes a real story, and even his theoretical companion becomes the character “The Botanist”. Amusingly, he gets irritated with his made-up partner “Have I come to Utopia to hear this sort of thing?”
I found the Victorian language and perspective confusing at times, but especially when he is discussing women, family, and sex in extreme circumspect. He merely hints at what he means, makes obscure cultural references, and uses twists of vocabulary that are not the common word definitions of our time. I believe that in his chapter on Women in a Modern Utopia, he is saying that women are to be paid by the state to be mothers, but only if they are good mothers and only for state-desired children. The state has an interest in the reproductive behavior of mothers but not fathers. The state has no interest in sexual behavior that is not reproductive. Marriages may have 2 to 200 members, as in Plato's Republic (375 BCE) or the "complex marriage" of the Oneida Community (New York, 1848).
Another unusual aspect of the Modern Utopia, is that Wells expects that such a complex society would require active guidance by a voluntary special class of citizen – which he calls Samurai. The Samurai live as exemplar humans (men and women), practicing a strict Code of behavior. They are in excellent physical and mental health, are chaste but not celibate, etc… Since women Samurai are required to become mothers and raise children, it is projected that this will lead to the gradual eugenic improvement of the human race, and eventually all will voluntarily join. It gets SFnally interesting when the narrator meets his own alternate Modern Utopia self, who is a Samurai. But that does raise a problem with the frame concept. If this utopian world has experienced a total alteration of human history, why would there be alternates of each currently living individual from our own Earth?
In all, I found this novel a challenge to read, and the vision it contains not nearly so rational as Wells seems to assume. I'm not sure if he is advocating this utopian vision, or showing the foolish consequences of utopianism.
I started reading this with a free public domain edition from amazon.com. After two chapters, I switched to the Dover Thrift edition from my library. It is more pleasantly formatted, Wells’ footnotes are implemented as hyperlinks, and there are a number of reproductions of engravings from the original publication.
I found the Victorian language and perspective confusing at times, but especially when he is discussing women, family, and sex in extreme circumspect. He merely hints at what he means, makes obscure cultural references, and uses twists of vocabulary that are not the common word definitions of our time. I believe that in his chapter on Women in a Modern Utopia, he is saying that women are to be paid by the state to be mothers, but only if they are good mothers and only for state-desired children. The state has an interest in the reproductive behavior of mothers but not fathers. The state has no interest in sexual behavior that is not reproductive. Marriages may have 2 to 200 members, as in Plato's Republic (375 BCE) or the "complex marriage" of the Oneida Community (New York, 1848).
Another unusual aspect of the Modern Utopia, is that Wells expects that such a complex society would require active guidance by a voluntary special class of citizen – which he calls Samurai. The Samurai live as exemplar humans (men and women), practicing a strict Code of behavior. They are in excellent physical and mental health, are chaste but not celibate, etc… Since women Samurai are required to become mothers and raise children, it is projected that this will lead to the gradual eugenic improvement of the human race, and eventually all will voluntarily join. It gets SFnally interesting when the narrator meets his own alternate Modern Utopia self, who is a Samurai. But that does raise a problem with the frame concept. If this utopian world has experienced a total alteration of human history, why would there be alternates of each currently living individual from our own Earth?
In all, I found this novel a challenge to read, and the vision it contains not nearly so rational as Wells seems to assume. I'm not sure if he is advocating this utopian vision, or showing the foolish consequences of utopianism.
I started reading this with a free public domain edition from amazon.com. After two chapters, I switched to the Dover Thrift edition from my library. It is more pleasantly formatted, Wells’ footnotes are implemented as hyperlinks, and there are a number of reproductions of engravings from the original publication.
Read
January 3, 2011Written in 1905, H.G. Wells' unusual fiction/non-fiction hybrid describes his ideal world state.
"Our business here is to be Utopian, to make vivid and credible, if we can, first this facet and then that, of an imaginary whole and happy world...It is no doubt an optimistic enterprise."
A Modern Utopia, has elements of a classic utopia (a stranger visits an ideally structured, considered society, explores, and returns home), but Wells undertakes his visit to Utopia with unapologetic, intentional philosophical discourse.
"It will be evident to the experienced reader that by omitting certain speculative and metaphysical elements and by elaborating incident, this book might have been reduced to a straightforward story. But I did not want to omit as much on this occasion. I do not see why I should always pander to the vulgar appetite for stark stories," said Wells in his introduction to the book.
Wells' Utopia is also not the classic small, isolated enclave, but rather an entire world set in alternate "space." In A Modern Utopia, the Utopia is the reality and the world we live in is the dream; the nightmare we remain in by inaction and feeble will (imagine that after Neo took the pill in The Matrix he awakened into a cleaner, smarter, more humanely ordered society instead of one at war with machines).
"Utopia, where men and women are happy and laws are wise, and where all that is tangled and confused in human affairs has been unraveled and made right."
What makes a society Utopian, in Wells' view, is similar to many other utopian authors: equality, vegetarianism, liberalism, and a more collaborative and less ego-driven society. Attaining Utopia is a collective act of will that requires individuals to care about humanity, work to structure society and see beyond their own ego-driven interests. (Pairs well with: Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life, 2010, in which religious scholar Karen Armstrong makes a similar argument.)
"If we are to have any Utopia at all, we must have a clear common purpose, and a great and steadfast movement of will to override all these incurably egotistical dissidents."
Since Wells' wrote A Modern Utopia society seems to have made strides towards his vision including: longer life spans, reduced inequality by race and sex, a healthier, fairer system of employment, and a more connected global society.
Unique ideas in Wells' Utopia include: a class structure topped by a "samurai" level of enlightened ascetics; the allowance for group marriages of three or more persons; regular pilgrimages made by individuals into the wilderness alone to recharge and reflect; and the absence of pets (they are deemed unsanitary).
Wells uses the foil of a botanist skeptic (see the aforementioned "incurably egotistical dissidents") who follows his protagonist around Utopia and is generally dismissive. The botanist is an ego-driven character interested only in himself and his own passions.
Quotes:
"I do not like your Utopia, if there are to be no dogs," the botanist.
"They have extended the level of years far into the seventies, and age, when it some, comes swiftly and easily. The feverish hurry of our earth, the decay that begins before growth has ceased, is replaced by a ripe prolonged maturity."
"Were the will of the mass of men lit and conscious, I am firmly convinced it would now burn steadily for synthesis and peace."
"I am amazed, I have been amazed as long as I can remember, and I shall die, most certainly in a state of incredulous amazement, at this remarkable world." — a Utopian
"In all the round world of Utopia there is no meat. There used to be. But now we cannot stand the thought of slaughter-houses." — a Utopian
"Our business here is to be Utopian, to make vivid and credible, if we can, first this facet and then that, of an imaginary whole and happy world...It is no doubt an optimistic enterprise."
A Modern Utopia, has elements of a classic utopia (a stranger visits an ideally structured, considered society, explores, and returns home), but Wells undertakes his visit to Utopia with unapologetic, intentional philosophical discourse.
"It will be evident to the experienced reader that by omitting certain speculative and metaphysical elements and by elaborating incident, this book might have been reduced to a straightforward story. But I did not want to omit as much on this occasion. I do not see why I should always pander to the vulgar appetite for stark stories," said Wells in his introduction to the book.
Wells' Utopia is also not the classic small, isolated enclave, but rather an entire world set in alternate "space." In A Modern Utopia, the Utopia is the reality and the world we live in is the dream; the nightmare we remain in by inaction and feeble will (imagine that after Neo took the pill in The Matrix he awakened into a cleaner, smarter, more humanely ordered society instead of one at war with machines).
"Utopia, where men and women are happy and laws are wise, and where all that is tangled and confused in human affairs has been unraveled and made right."
What makes a society Utopian, in Wells' view, is similar to many other utopian authors: equality, vegetarianism, liberalism, and a more collaborative and less ego-driven society. Attaining Utopia is a collective act of will that requires individuals to care about humanity, work to structure society and see beyond their own ego-driven interests. (Pairs well with: Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life, 2010, in which religious scholar Karen Armstrong makes a similar argument.)
"If we are to have any Utopia at all, we must have a clear common purpose, and a great and steadfast movement of will to override all these incurably egotistical dissidents."
Since Wells' wrote A Modern Utopia society seems to have made strides towards his vision including: longer life spans, reduced inequality by race and sex, a healthier, fairer system of employment, and a more connected global society.
Unique ideas in Wells' Utopia include: a class structure topped by a "samurai" level of enlightened ascetics; the allowance for group marriages of three or more persons; regular pilgrimages made by individuals into the wilderness alone to recharge and reflect; and the absence of pets (they are deemed unsanitary).
Wells uses the foil of a botanist skeptic (see the aforementioned "incurably egotistical dissidents") who follows his protagonist around Utopia and is generally dismissive. The botanist is an ego-driven character interested only in himself and his own passions.
Quotes:
"I do not like your Utopia, if there are to be no dogs," the botanist.
"They have extended the level of years far into the seventies, and age, when it some, comes swiftly and easily. The feverish hurry of our earth, the decay that begins before growth has ceased, is replaced by a ripe prolonged maturity."
"Were the will of the mass of men lit and conscious, I am firmly convinced it would now burn steadily for synthesis and peace."
"I am amazed, I have been amazed as long as I can remember, and I shall die, most certainly in a state of incredulous amazement, at this remarkable world." — a Utopian
"In all the round world of Utopia there is no meat. There used to be. But now we cannot stand the thought of slaughter-houses." — a Utopian
Read
September 30, 2020If this book consisted only of the last chapter and perhaps a few excerpts from the ninth, I might have enjoyed it. Unfortunately, it's an awkward, tedious mess of words and dry sociological debate with an adventure into a parallel universe thrown in accidentally amongst the discussions on eugenics and self-cleaning apartments.
Perhaps it was just my mood but right from the beginning, the book and its narrator irritated me. The protagonist is so pompous, you want to club him before you're past the first chapter. His grandiloquence on every subject is a chore to read through and often it is patently ridiculous. A "World State" that knows everything about you (even the places you've checked into), shipping off "undesirables" to isolated islands, deciding who gets to marry and have children and who doesn't - Wells' idea of Utopia often borders on a dystopian police state. When people are classified and graded like apples and eggs, it is impossible to be fair. Who exactly is "undesirable" and "inferior"? How long until these terms are twisted for the benefit of the powerful as they always have been throughout history?
The chapter on women in utopia fails to prove their better treatment under Wells' ideal regime. He grandly states that they are to be equal to men but Wells' idea of equality seems to begin and end at childbearing. Women, whom he considers as possessing "weaker initiative" and "inferior invention and resourcefulness" aren't fit for much else other than continual childbearing. It is also interesting that a certified philanderer like Mr. Wells (an "inveterate womanizer" the introduction calls him) considers female infidelity a public offence while if a woman "does not mind" her husband's transgressions (which after all can have such trifling consequences as "violent perturbations of jealousy") then "nobody minds". The entire chapter is so infuriatingly absurd that I had a half a mind to chuck the book into the nearest bin.
Similarly, Wells' views on racial equality while certainly ahead of his times had an artificiality to it. Maybe "negroes" are handsome, maybe there may be a few good souls among the non-white multitudes. And simply letting an "inferior" race be is not a solution. No, if such a race exists, according to Wells, it must be terminated but humanely of course. Still, he makes a few valid points and recognizes the racial cruelties in world history as well as the unreasonable arguments against racial equality that people tend to harbour.
The only thing that saved the book for me was Wells' idea of the samurai, although it wasn't perfect (Wells considers acting and singing undignified, the husbands of his female samurai have no obligation to follow the Rule while the wives of their male counterparts enjoy no such luxury and devotes an unnecessarily long rant to the vilification of women's fashion).
However, I loved his descriptions of the samurai pilgrimage (although he ignores the idiocy of going off alone into the wild without fire and a tent) and the general idea of a ruling class that has actual responsibilities and virtues instead of the indolent gentry of the time. The last chapter again was moving and vivid in its descriptions of a return to a less perfect world. Unfortunately, Wells fails to make the reader feel any desire to return to his Utopia.
Perhaps it was just my mood but right from the beginning, the book and its narrator irritated me. The protagonist is so pompous, you want to club him before you're past the first chapter. His grandiloquence on every subject is a chore to read through and often it is patently ridiculous. A "World State" that knows everything about you (even the places you've checked into), shipping off "undesirables" to isolated islands, deciding who gets to marry and have children and who doesn't - Wells' idea of Utopia often borders on a dystopian police state. When people are classified and graded like apples and eggs, it is impossible to be fair. Who exactly is "undesirable" and "inferior"? How long until these terms are twisted for the benefit of the powerful as they always have been throughout history?
The chapter on women in utopia fails to prove their better treatment under Wells' ideal regime. He grandly states that they are to be equal to men but Wells' idea of equality seems to begin and end at childbearing. Women, whom he considers as possessing "weaker initiative" and "inferior invention and resourcefulness" aren't fit for much else other than continual childbearing. It is also interesting that a certified philanderer like Mr. Wells (an "inveterate womanizer" the introduction calls him) considers female infidelity a public offence while if a woman "does not mind" her husband's transgressions (which after all can have such trifling consequences as "violent perturbations of jealousy") then "nobody minds". The entire chapter is so infuriatingly absurd that I had a half a mind to chuck the book into the nearest bin.
Similarly, Wells' views on racial equality while certainly ahead of his times had an artificiality to it. Maybe "negroes" are handsome, maybe there may be a few good souls among the non-white multitudes. And simply letting an "inferior" race be is not a solution. No, if such a race exists, according to Wells, it must be terminated but humanely of course. Still, he makes a few valid points and recognizes the racial cruelties in world history as well as the unreasonable arguments against racial equality that people tend to harbour.
The only thing that saved the book for me was Wells' idea of the samurai, although it wasn't perfect (Wells considers acting and singing undignified, the husbands of his female samurai have no obligation to follow the Rule while the wives of their male counterparts enjoy no such luxury and devotes an unnecessarily long rant to the vilification of women's fashion).
However, I loved his descriptions of the samurai pilgrimage (although he ignores the idiocy of going off alone into the wild without fire and a tent) and the general idea of a ruling class that has actual responsibilities and virtues instead of the indolent gentry of the time. The last chapter again was moving and vivid in its descriptions of a return to a less perfect world. Unfortunately, Wells fails to make the reader feel any desire to return to his Utopia.
February 16, 2023
Utopias are usually essays thinly veiled as fiction. This one in no exception. Wells does manage to define, and deconstruct the whole idea of Utopia in the process, and shows the need to be small, isolated communities and a world-wide one would be, well hard to achieve. I'm not sure why anybody would want to be one of his World Government samurais. He also makes interesting predictions about our world . . .
August 22, 2024
I usually like the books of H.G. Wells. "The War of the Worlds," "The Time Machine," and " The Island of Doctor Moreau" were all wonderful reads and "The Invisible Man" was OK. But, reading this book made my head hurt. It is maybe 20% novel and 80% an essay on what the Modern Utopia is or should be. One of his longer books, I really never thought I would finish it. I almost gave up quite a few times. Now that it is over, I must rest my weary brain.
January 11, 2015
Updated 2015-01-07
---
Although I originally read this book two years ago, I wanted to re-read it before I give it away. (I often do that with books I didn't like the first time around. Sometimes my opinion changes.)
I enjoyed the book more, this time around, and I think I learned something from it. The archaic language was less of a problem, and some of Wells' attitudes made more sense to me. In particular, I was somewhat less offended by his attitude toward women than I was when I read it before.
Based on this re-reading, I've added several more Utopian books to my To Read list. I'd like to compare his imagined solutions to the problems of civilization with those of other authors from different backgrounds writing during different centuries.
---
Original review:
Really ambivalent about this book.
I wouldn't recommend the book to most of my friends. Well's writing style would bore most modern readers. the stilted dialog, and his very preachy attitude, are very different from the sort of modern science fiction my friends and I read and discuss.
On the other hand, this book really made me think. Well's vision of an ideal world is so different from mine! He was reacting to the things he disliked about life in 19th c. England, but some of the 'cures' he recommends for those problems would fit right in to my vision of Hell. I had fun teasing out why he proposed some of the stranger features of his utopia. As a result, I learned more about conditions in Victorian England than I ever did in history classes.
---
Although I originally read this book two years ago, I wanted to re-read it before I give it away. (I often do that with books I didn't like the first time around. Sometimes my opinion changes.)
I enjoyed the book more, this time around, and I think I learned something from it. The archaic language was less of a problem, and some of Wells' attitudes made more sense to me. In particular, I was somewhat less offended by his attitude toward women than I was when I read it before.
Based on this re-reading, I've added several more Utopian books to my To Read list. I'd like to compare his imagined solutions to the problems of civilization with those of other authors from different backgrounds writing during different centuries.
---
Original review:
Really ambivalent about this book.
I wouldn't recommend the book to most of my friends. Well's writing style would bore most modern readers. the stilted dialog, and his very preachy attitude, are very different from the sort of modern science fiction my friends and I read and discuss.
On the other hand, this book really made me think. Well's vision of an ideal world is so different from mine! He was reacting to the things he disliked about life in 19th c. England, but some of the 'cures' he recommends for those problems would fit right in to my vision of Hell. I had fun teasing out why he proposed some of the stranger features of his utopia. As a result, I learned more about conditions in Victorian England than I ever did in history classes.
June 2, 2013
Part fever dream, part intellectual proposal, part inter-dimensional adventure, H.G. Well's Utopia is described by an eloquent narrator arguing with his 'naysayer' botanist colleague.
Strangely unlike most such explorations, Wells does not rely overly heavily on technology, (hence the 'modern' Utopia I guess) instead he discusses the culture, politics and legal systems of his ideal world.
To be frank the first few chapters are straight boring aside from a few tidbits. The real meat of the discussion is how Utopia deals with failure. Wells proposes an almost compassionate eugenics program to best service society, although before anyone gets offended I recommend reading all the way through to the 'Samurai' or ruling class of Utopia, and his final chapter on Utopian races.
Despite some rough language, Wells does propose a humane and forward thinking society. I have no idea whether such a system would actually work or be accepted by the masses, but the book stands out to me as a thoughtful and a work before its time.
In concluding I must point out that there really is no enjoyable tale to accompany this discussion. Really we are reading Well's proposed Utopia interspersed with a few intriguing happenings for his narrator and botanist friend. If you're looking for an exiting 1984, of Brave New World tale this isn't it.
Strangely unlike most such explorations, Wells does not rely overly heavily on technology, (hence the 'modern' Utopia I guess) instead he discusses the culture, politics and legal systems of his ideal world.
To be frank the first few chapters are straight boring aside from a few tidbits. The real meat of the discussion is how Utopia deals with failure. Wells proposes an almost compassionate eugenics program to best service society, although before anyone gets offended I recommend reading all the way through to the 'Samurai' or ruling class of Utopia, and his final chapter on Utopian races.
Despite some rough language, Wells does propose a humane and forward thinking society. I have no idea whether such a system would actually work or be accepted by the masses, but the book stands out to me as a thoughtful and a work before its time.
In concluding I must point out that there really is no enjoyable tale to accompany this discussion. Really we are reading Well's proposed Utopia interspersed with a few intriguing happenings for his narrator and botanist friend. If you're looking for an exiting 1984, of Brave New World tale this isn't it.
March 26, 2022
Unlike the Classical and Ancient Utopias, Wells's vision of a Modern Utopia consciously does not consist of a perfect and static society but one where technological innovation means things change and not everyone is satisfied.
The Utopia of Thomas More was just an island. The Modern Utopia is a proto-Keynesian, pristine, technocratic World-State governed by an ascetic caste of vegetarians and teetotalers called the Samurai. The 'quality' of the population is regulated by what is essentially eugenics. Technology provides everyone with a life of relative ease. A vast, benevolent bureaucracy holds information on every subject. I was reminded of Huxley's Brave New World which takes some of the same ideas that underpin Wells's Utopia and mines them for their more dystopian implications.
Like all Utopian literature, it is left somewhat ambiguous whether the author genuinely believes that the society they have imagined is actually a prescription for an ideal society. It seems to me that Wells was mainly concerned with updating the Classical Utopias - which had largely been made redundant by the industrial revolution - in accordance with modern and scientific ideas drawn to their logical conclusion. One of the travellers who lands in this parallel world is clearly impressed, the other - a botanist - cannot stop fawning over a woman who rejected him on Earth. In both cases, neither - even the scientist - actually fit into this world in the way that their Utopian doubles do as if men from the modern world could not actually live in the Modern Utopia.
Often quite bizarre but also surprisingly prophetic.
The Utopia of Thomas More was just an island. The Modern Utopia is a proto-Keynesian, pristine, technocratic World-State governed by an ascetic caste of vegetarians and teetotalers called the Samurai. The 'quality' of the population is regulated by what is essentially eugenics. Technology provides everyone with a life of relative ease. A vast, benevolent bureaucracy holds information on every subject. I was reminded of Huxley's Brave New World which takes some of the same ideas that underpin Wells's Utopia and mines them for their more dystopian implications.
Like all Utopian literature, it is left somewhat ambiguous whether the author genuinely believes that the society they have imagined is actually a prescription for an ideal society. It seems to me that Wells was mainly concerned with updating the Classical Utopias - which had largely been made redundant by the industrial revolution - in accordance with modern and scientific ideas drawn to their logical conclusion. One of the travellers who lands in this parallel world is clearly impressed, the other - a botanist - cannot stop fawning over a woman who rejected him on Earth. In both cases, neither - even the scientist - actually fit into this world in the way that their Utopian doubles do as if men from the modern world could not actually live in the Modern Utopia.
Often quite bizarre but also surprisingly prophetic.
Want to read
July 31, 2025The more I read by and about H.G. Wells, the more I (1) admire his astonishing imagination, and (2) come to believe that if the man had ever attained political power, he would have been a dictator to make Stalin or Mao look like Mother Teresa by comparison. I find this dichotomy disconcerting. It prohibits me from settling into a stable opinion on H.G. Wells. He just creates too much damn cognitive dissonance.
September 14, 2021
Funky! Interesting in form and ideas, well worth considering alongside the other utopian novels (and political tracts since it’s both?). Also, some doubling going on, both narratively and conceptually, with Utopia as a double of Earth or something. Revisits the idea of Utopia as a place, not just a time, hearkening back to some of the older utopian fiction (More and Cavendish for example).
January 5, 2022
More like thoughts
Well, this is a fiction but seems like a thought on the new utopia for men lives. The narrative was so bored, though in the preface the author try to made this fiction interesting.
Well, this is a fiction but seems like a thought on the new utopia for men lives. The narrative was so bored, though in the preface the author try to made this fiction interesting.
December 12, 2021
Always interesting to read ideas from anyone who imagines how the world could be different than it is.
August 26, 2024
His idea of Utopia always falls in line with the NWO.
He argues that any utopia must evolve to remain perfect, as the needs and desires of its inhabitants change over time. This modern utopia is not a perfect world but rather a world continually striving for improvement.
The World State is a meritocratic society where the best and brightest individuals, known as the Samurai, are selected to govern and administer the world. The Samurai are a highly trained and disciplined class who live by a strict code of conduct, similar to the ideals of the Japanese samurai or the Platonic philosopher-kings. They are chosen based on their abilities, intelligence, and moral character, and they are expected to serve society selflessly. The concept of the Samurai reflects Wells’s belief in a meritocratic society where the most capable individuals are selected to lead. This theme explores the idea that good governance requires a combination of intelligence, ability, and moral character.
The Samurai class represents a ruling elite within the utopian society. This class is tasked with maintaining order, governance, and upholding the values of the utopia. The Samurai are essentially the leaders and administrators of this idealized world, and they embody Wells's vision of a rational, disciplined, and moral leadership. Below are the key traits and rules that define the Samurai class:
Intellectual and Moral Superiority: The Samurai are chosen based on their intellectual abilities, ethical conduct, and commitment to public service. They are seen as the most capable and responsible individuals, possessing a combination of intelligence, wisdom, and virtue. They must demonstrate a high level of self-discipline, integrity, and dedication to the common good.
Physical and Mental Fitness: The Samurai are expected to maintain both physical and mental fitness. Wells emphasizes the importance of a sound body and a sound mind, as the Samurai must be able to handle the stresses of leadership and decision-making. Regular exercise, mental discipline, and a healthy lifestyle are essential for members of this class.
Commitment to Duty and Service: The Samurai are dedicated to serving society above all else. They are expected to live selflessly, putting the needs of the community and the greater good above personal interests. This commitment to duty and service is a fundamental aspect of their identity and is reinforced through their training and lifestyle.
High Standards of Conduct: The Samurai are held to the highest standards of conduct, both in their personal lives and in their public duties. They are expected to act with honesty, fairness, and justice, and to avoid any behavior that could undermine their credibility or the trust placed in them by the society they govern.
Voluntary Membership: Unlike some other social structures, membership in the Samurai class is voluntary. Individuals choose to join the Samurai and must be willing to abide by the stringent rules and lifestyle requirements. This voluntary aspect ensures that only those who are genuinely committed to the ideals of the utopian society become its leaders.
Rules of the Samurai Class
1. Code of Conduct: The Samurai live by a strict code of conduct that governs every aspect of their lives. This code includes rules about honesty, integrity, responsibility, and ethical behavior. They are expected to be role models for the rest of society, embodying the ideals of the utopia in their actions and decisions.
2. Lifestyle Restrictions: The Samurai adhere to a lifestyle that emphasizes simplicity, discipline, and self-control. They are required to abstain from certain activities that are considered detrimental to their effectiveness as leaders, such as gambling, excessive drinking, and indulgence in luxury. Their focus is on maintaining a balanced, healthy, and purposeful life.
3. Uniform and Appearance: The Samurai are expected to wear a distinctive uniform that symbolizes their role and status in society. This uniform is simple and practical, reflecting their commitment to service rather than personal vanity. The uniform also serves to identify them as members of the ruling class and to distinguish them from other citizens.
4. Continuous Learning and Improvement: The Samurai are committed to lifelong learning and self-improvement. They are encouraged to constantly expand their knowledge, skills, and understanding of the world. This focus on education and personal development ensures that they remain effective and capable leaders, able to adapt to changing circumstances and challenges.
5. Prohibition of Certain Pleasures and Vices: The Samurai are forbidden from engaging in activities considered morally or socially harmful. This includes not only gambling and excessive drinking but also sexual promiscuity and other behaviors that could distract them from their duties or compromise their moral standing. The goal is to ensure that the Samurai remain focused, disciplined, and virtuous.
6. Dedication to Public Service: As the leaders and administrators of the utopian society, the Samurai are expected to devote their lives to public service. They are responsible for making decisions that affect the entire society, and they must always prioritize the welfare of the community over personal gain or ambition. This dedication to service is what sets the Samurai apart and makes them suitable for their roles.
7. Exclusion from Family Life and Wealth Accumulation: To prevent any conflicts of interest or nepotism, the Samurai are often expected to remain unmarried or, if married, to live separately from their families. They are also prohibited from accumulating wealth or engaging in any business or financial activities that could lead to corruption or favoritism. This rule ensures that the Samurai remain impartial and focused solely on their duties to the state.
The Samurai class in Wells's utopian vision is crucial for maintaining the ideal society he imagines. By embodying the principles of rationality, discipline, and service, the Samurai provide leadership that is both competent and ethical. They are not just rulers but also role models, setting an example for all citizens to follow. Through their commitment to public service and their adherence to strict codes of conduct, the Samurai help ensure that the utopia remains stable, just, and progressive.
Overall, the Samurai represent Wells's belief in the need for enlightened leadership to guide society toward a better future. While some of the ideas associated with the Samurai, such as eugenics and social engineering, are controversial by modern standards, they reflect Wells's desire to create a society that maximizes human potential and minimizes social conflict and inequality.
The utopian world is Earth-like but has been entirely unified under a single World State, which governs all human affairs. There are no separate nations, no borders, and no conflicts between different parts of the world. The population is carefully managed to prevent overcrowding, and people are free to move and live anywhere they wish.
The economy of Utopia is highly organized and efficient, with all resources shared and distributed according to need rather than wealth or status. Private property exists but is limited; land and natural resources are held in common by the World State. Money is still used, but there is no poverty, and everyone has access to basic necessities such as food, shelter, education, and healthcare.
Utopian society places a strong emphasis on education, personal development, and the well-being of its citizens. People are encouraged to pursue knowledge, creativity, and self-improvement. Crime is rare, as the social system is designed to prevent the circumstances that lead to criminal behavior, such as poverty, ignorance, and social inequality.
In this utopia, personal freedom is highly valued, but it is balanced with a strong sense of social responsibility. Individuals are free to choose their careers, partners, and lifestyles, as long as their choices do not harm others or disrupt social harmony. This balance between personal freedom and social duty is a central theme of Wells's utopia, reflecting his belief in the importance of both individual liberty and collective well-being.
He argues that human beings are inherently diverse, with different needs, desires, and temperaments, making it impossible to create a one-size-fits-all utopia.
He argues that any utopia must evolve to remain perfect, as the needs and desires of its inhabitants change over time. This modern utopia is not a perfect world but rather a world continually striving for improvement.
The World State is a meritocratic society where the best and brightest individuals, known as the Samurai, are selected to govern and administer the world. The Samurai are a highly trained and disciplined class who live by a strict code of conduct, similar to the ideals of the Japanese samurai or the Platonic philosopher-kings. They are chosen based on their abilities, intelligence, and moral character, and they are expected to serve society selflessly. The concept of the Samurai reflects Wells’s belief in a meritocratic society where the most capable individuals are selected to lead. This theme explores the idea that good governance requires a combination of intelligence, ability, and moral character.
The Samurai class represents a ruling elite within the utopian society. This class is tasked with maintaining order, governance, and upholding the values of the utopia. The Samurai are essentially the leaders and administrators of this idealized world, and they embody Wells's vision of a rational, disciplined, and moral leadership. Below are the key traits and rules that define the Samurai class:
Intellectual and Moral Superiority: The Samurai are chosen based on their intellectual abilities, ethical conduct, and commitment to public service. They are seen as the most capable and responsible individuals, possessing a combination of intelligence, wisdom, and virtue. They must demonstrate a high level of self-discipline, integrity, and dedication to the common good.
Physical and Mental Fitness: The Samurai are expected to maintain both physical and mental fitness. Wells emphasizes the importance of a sound body and a sound mind, as the Samurai must be able to handle the stresses of leadership and decision-making. Regular exercise, mental discipline, and a healthy lifestyle are essential for members of this class.
Commitment to Duty and Service: The Samurai are dedicated to serving society above all else. They are expected to live selflessly, putting the needs of the community and the greater good above personal interests. This commitment to duty and service is a fundamental aspect of their identity and is reinforced through their training and lifestyle.
High Standards of Conduct: The Samurai are held to the highest standards of conduct, both in their personal lives and in their public duties. They are expected to act with honesty, fairness, and justice, and to avoid any behavior that could undermine their credibility or the trust placed in them by the society they govern.
Voluntary Membership: Unlike some other social structures, membership in the Samurai class is voluntary. Individuals choose to join the Samurai and must be willing to abide by the stringent rules and lifestyle requirements. This voluntary aspect ensures that only those who are genuinely committed to the ideals of the utopian society become its leaders.
Rules of the Samurai Class
1. Code of Conduct: The Samurai live by a strict code of conduct that governs every aspect of their lives. This code includes rules about honesty, integrity, responsibility, and ethical behavior. They are expected to be role models for the rest of society, embodying the ideals of the utopia in their actions and decisions.
2. Lifestyle Restrictions: The Samurai adhere to a lifestyle that emphasizes simplicity, discipline, and self-control. They are required to abstain from certain activities that are considered detrimental to their effectiveness as leaders, such as gambling, excessive drinking, and indulgence in luxury. Their focus is on maintaining a balanced, healthy, and purposeful life.
3. Uniform and Appearance: The Samurai are expected to wear a distinctive uniform that symbolizes their role and status in society. This uniform is simple and practical, reflecting their commitment to service rather than personal vanity. The uniform also serves to identify them as members of the ruling class and to distinguish them from other citizens.
4. Continuous Learning and Improvement: The Samurai are committed to lifelong learning and self-improvement. They are encouraged to constantly expand their knowledge, skills, and understanding of the world. This focus on education and personal development ensures that they remain effective and capable leaders, able to adapt to changing circumstances and challenges.
5. Prohibition of Certain Pleasures and Vices: The Samurai are forbidden from engaging in activities considered morally or socially harmful. This includes not only gambling and excessive drinking but also sexual promiscuity and other behaviors that could distract them from their duties or compromise their moral standing. The goal is to ensure that the Samurai remain focused, disciplined, and virtuous.
6. Dedication to Public Service: As the leaders and administrators of the utopian society, the Samurai are expected to devote their lives to public service. They are responsible for making decisions that affect the entire society, and they must always prioritize the welfare of the community over personal gain or ambition. This dedication to service is what sets the Samurai apart and makes them suitable for their roles.
7. Exclusion from Family Life and Wealth Accumulation: To prevent any conflicts of interest or nepotism, the Samurai are often expected to remain unmarried or, if married, to live separately from their families. They are also prohibited from accumulating wealth or engaging in any business or financial activities that could lead to corruption or favoritism. This rule ensures that the Samurai remain impartial and focused solely on their duties to the state.
The Samurai class in Wells's utopian vision is crucial for maintaining the ideal society he imagines. By embodying the principles of rationality, discipline, and service, the Samurai provide leadership that is both competent and ethical. They are not just rulers but also role models, setting an example for all citizens to follow. Through their commitment to public service and their adherence to strict codes of conduct, the Samurai help ensure that the utopia remains stable, just, and progressive.
Overall, the Samurai represent Wells's belief in the need for enlightened leadership to guide society toward a better future. While some of the ideas associated with the Samurai, such as eugenics and social engineering, are controversial by modern standards, they reflect Wells's desire to create a society that maximizes human potential and minimizes social conflict and inequality.
The utopian world is Earth-like but has been entirely unified under a single World State, which governs all human affairs. There are no separate nations, no borders, and no conflicts between different parts of the world. The population is carefully managed to prevent overcrowding, and people are free to move and live anywhere they wish.
The economy of Utopia is highly organized and efficient, with all resources shared and distributed according to need rather than wealth or status. Private property exists but is limited; land and natural resources are held in common by the World State. Money is still used, but there is no poverty, and everyone has access to basic necessities such as food, shelter, education, and healthcare.
Utopian society places a strong emphasis on education, personal development, and the well-being of its citizens. People are encouraged to pursue knowledge, creativity, and self-improvement. Crime is rare, as the social system is designed to prevent the circumstances that lead to criminal behavior, such as poverty, ignorance, and social inequality.
In this utopia, personal freedom is highly valued, but it is balanced with a strong sense of social responsibility. Individuals are free to choose their careers, partners, and lifestyles, as long as their choices do not harm others or disrupt social harmony. This balance between personal freedom and social duty is a central theme of Wells's utopia, reflecting his belief in the importance of both individual liberty and collective well-being.
He argues that human beings are inherently diverse, with different needs, desires, and temperaments, making it impossible to create a one-size-fits-all utopia.
February 17, 2016
This idea of a utopia had some good aspects, but others involved very dated ways of thinking that most defiantly wouldn't work today.
Some good points were everyone getting a liveable minimum wage and help if they didn't have a job etc. Although if that applied to you, you were discouraged from marriage and having children (possibly forbidden I can't remember). Everyone cycled everywhere or went on really cool sounding trains. Plus people had the freedom to live anywhere in the world easily. The government made sure every child in the world got a great education, were healthy, had enough to eat etc.
H. G. Wells tried quite hard to create equality although it failed a bit as he wrote this in 1903, so his idea of gender equality was women getting paid to have children and being given money throughout he year to support them so they needn't rely on a man for income. Which probably seemed like quite a good, revolutionary idea back then, but now that idea should be changed to women getting paid equally to men for work. He also suggested racial equality somewhat i.e inter racial marriage, and equality in work, education etc. Although he did suggest terminating lesser races that didn't help 'the World State' to prosper, which implied non white races.
This book wasn't so much about his journey through the utopia, but him describing all the functions of it. But I did like the little bits of the story line, especially the nature guy, and the idea that the Samurai had to spend at least a week alone in nature (I think everyone could do with that sometimes). I quite liked the botanist as well (until he was racist), and the Voice's sassy comments about how he couldn't listen to his botanist anymore.
Overall, this book wasn't what I expected it to be, the blurb was a bit misleading, and some aspects of the utopia I didn't agree with. But it still had its merits and was an ok read.
Some good points were everyone getting a liveable minimum wage and help if they didn't have a job etc. Although if that applied to you, you were discouraged from marriage and having children (possibly forbidden I can't remember). Everyone cycled everywhere or went on really cool sounding trains. Plus people had the freedom to live anywhere in the world easily. The government made sure every child in the world got a great education, were healthy, had enough to eat etc.
H. G. Wells tried quite hard to create equality although it failed a bit as he wrote this in 1903, so his idea of gender equality was women getting paid to have children and being given money throughout he year to support them so they needn't rely on a man for income. Which probably seemed like quite a good, revolutionary idea back then, but now that idea should be changed to women getting paid equally to men for work. He also suggested racial equality somewhat i.e inter racial marriage, and equality in work, education etc. Although he did suggest terminating lesser races that didn't help 'the World State' to prosper, which implied non white races.
This book wasn't so much about his journey through the utopia, but him describing all the functions of it. But I did like the little bits of the story line, especially the nature guy, and the idea that the Samurai had to spend at least a week alone in nature (I think everyone could do with that sometimes). I quite liked the botanist as well (until he was racist), and the Voice's sassy comments about how he couldn't listen to his botanist anymore.
Overall, this book wasn't what I expected it to be, the blurb was a bit misleading, and some aspects of the utopia I didn't agree with. But it still had its merits and was an ok read.
May 21, 2018
After reading a couple of chapters, I realised that I have already read this book. What stands out for me regarding this book is, at the time, like now, so many writers and readers alike were/ are fascinated by a “Dystopian Future” the futuristic thought that the world will come to an end in doom and gloom. Amongst these thoughts are that the world must either come to an end violently in splintered city groups, zombies or technology, seeing the fall of civilisation in a melting pot of depravity. OR, you have the wonderful romantic view that the world will come to an end naturally, but, these are seldom, few and far between. It is the common thought that mankind can only end in violence, splintered factions and oddly, the common prevalent theme of ignorance, illiteracy and books are bad.
What we have here, is a “Utopian Future” NOT “Dystopian Future”, however, what is written here could easily be a future hell for many people. To have a Utopian book of bliss is an original idea, is really where all the praise ends. Wells tries to structure everything on the prevalent philosophical thought and logical rational thinking. By doing so, the book falls short of what it potentially could be. The issue with ‘Utopian Books” is that it focuses too much on the ‘Good News Side’ and, by human rational, Good News rarely sells. Humanity is drawn by bad news, because it gives their own lives a sense of purpose, it ensures that an individual’s life is better knowing that someone else’s is worse. As such, you have two men walking through the Swiss Mountains philosophising their own world and trying to give it mean. By default the story line becomes to week to implausible to follow and ultimately a turn off in the eyes of the reader. It is a turn off to think that someone else’s life is better than their own.
What we have here, is a “Utopian Future” NOT “Dystopian Future”, however, what is written here could easily be a future hell for many people. To have a Utopian book of bliss is an original idea, is really where all the praise ends. Wells tries to structure everything on the prevalent philosophical thought and logical rational thinking. By doing so, the book falls short of what it potentially could be. The issue with ‘Utopian Books” is that it focuses too much on the ‘Good News Side’ and, by human rational, Good News rarely sells. Humanity is drawn by bad news, because it gives their own lives a sense of purpose, it ensures that an individual’s life is better knowing that someone else’s is worse. As such, you have two men walking through the Swiss Mountains philosophising their own world and trying to give it mean. By default the story line becomes to week to implausible to follow and ultimately a turn off in the eyes of the reader. It is a turn off to think that someone else’s life is better than their own.
July 8, 2013
It was not easy to stick with this, but it was worth it. Some of Wells' utopian ideas seem to be present in our world, often in some bent form not quite what HG had in mind. The way the writer got his ideas onto the page was just so drawn-out sometimes as to make tedious reading; I guess it's just the 1905 way of putting ideas down on paper. But the ideas are wonderful, albeit hilarious at times in the convoluted way described.
One of the funniest aspects of the story was (Wells was his own protagonist) that he had a companion who was a botanist who did not seem to add anything at all to the story....hmmmm. Also, the first person he and the botanist meet up with while descending from the Swiss Alps of Utopia is a Hippy! A bonafide self-absorbed wandering malcontent disenfranchised with utopia, with long hair and wearing sandals.....LOL!
HGW was the Mac-Daddy of science fiction writing, inventing the genre because no one would believe or publish his ideas in scholarly or scientific magazines. And he was prohetic, as a few to follow would also be, like Arthur Clarke and Phillip Dick. But this book, imagining a fully-realized Utopia (on another planet of course.....Earth is too intrenched in it's NOT-Utopianess to fix), is somewhat of a departure in that it foretells a possible peaceful and sane society for humankind, with the full invention and universal use of as-yet-uninvented technologies.
"Down the mountain we shall go and down the passes, and as the valleys open the world will open, Utopia, where men and women are happy and laws are wise, and where all that is tangled and confused in human affairs has been unravelled and made right."
One of the funniest aspects of the story was (Wells was his own protagonist) that he had a companion who was a botanist who did not seem to add anything at all to the story....hmmmm. Also, the first person he and the botanist meet up with while descending from the Swiss Alps of Utopia is a Hippy! A bonafide self-absorbed wandering malcontent disenfranchised with utopia, with long hair and wearing sandals.....LOL!
HGW was the Mac-Daddy of science fiction writing, inventing the genre because no one would believe or publish his ideas in scholarly or scientific magazines. And he was prohetic, as a few to follow would also be, like Arthur Clarke and Phillip Dick. But this book, imagining a fully-realized Utopia (on another planet of course.....Earth is too intrenched in it's NOT-Utopianess to fix), is somewhat of a departure in that it foretells a possible peaceful and sane society for humankind, with the full invention and universal use of as-yet-uninvented technologies.
"Down the mountain we shall go and down the passes, and as the valleys open the world will open, Utopia, where men and women are happy and laws are wise, and where all that is tangled and confused in human affairs has been unravelled and made right."
Read
August 27, 2014This book it's not what I was expecting from Wells. The writing comes across as holier-than-thou and an excuse to put his extremist ideas of what a utopia should be on paper. I read only 40 pages but couldn't being myself to digest anymore of his pompous, classist opinions.
June 10, 2022
For this week’s book review, we return to the father of science fiction—H.G. Wells. My previous review of his works, The Time Machine, pioneered a once niche literary genre into a mainstay of literary, cinematic, and poetic exploration. First published in 1905, A Modern Utopia is not for the surface-level sci-fi reader. Several points in the story are more laborious than enjoyable.
Nevertheless, it is a welcome challenge for those curious about what is to come of our world. Wells masterfully outlines a postmodern structure of a planet “out beyond Sirius.” The novel comes in at 265 pages, which at times can feel like a short story, and at other times it can feel like a dictionary.
While walking the Swiss Alps, two English travelers fall into a space warp and suddenly find themselves in another world. In many ways, the same as our own—even down to the characters that inhabit it—this new planet is still radically different, for the two walkers are now upon a Utopian Earth controlled by a single World Government. Here, as they soon learn, all share a common language, there is sexual, economic, and racial equality, and society is ruled by socialist ideals enforced by an austere, voluntary elite: the ‘samurai.’ But what will the Utopians make of these new visitors from a less perfect world?
A Modern Utopia is a compelling blend of philosophical discussion and imaginative narrative. The novel is one Wells’s most positive visions of the future. Prophetic and horrific, this utopian vision is a warped mixture of samurai castes, mass extinction of inferior races, and the totalitarian World States, outlined in a series of pompous intellectual meanderings–like I said, positive. A Modern Utopia sometimes would make Huxley and Orwell quiver with fear. The book is written more as non-fiction than fiction. Mainly, Wells outlines what he thinks would make for the best possible society, essentially a police-state, with a thin fictional premise of two travelers getting lost in the Alps.
A group called the samurai is the ruling class. While their power is undisputed, the group of societal elites makes up about 4% of the population. They follow a rigid rule of conduct: no alcohol, drugs, smoking, or betting. They must sleep alone for at least four nights a week. All political power rests in the samurai. They are the only administrators, lawyers, practicing doctors, and public officials of almost all kinds, and they are the only voters.
The novel has elements of a classic utopia: a stranger visits an ideally structured, considered society, explores, and ultimately returns home (see C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy), but Wells undertakes his visit to Utopia with unapologetic, intentional social critiques. Wells opts to write in a somewhat chaotic fusion of two types of writing simultaneously. On the one hand, it is an exposition of a utopian vision for humanity. On the other hand, as he visits an alternate version of contemporary Earth, it is the adventure of “The Voice” (who is explicitly introduced as not Wells but seems to be a lot like Wells).
The narrator is not transported mysteriously to the Utopian world but begins by reasoning about what a Utopia would have to be like following modern understandings of government, society, culture, and religion. Wells accomplishes one of the most critical features of science-fiction: the ability to allow your reader to experience imaginative settings and unique characters with nonfictional problems. A Modern Utopia demands introspection at a crucial level of thought. Well's vision of an ideal world is not romantic or idealistic. Instead, it is one of uniformity and consolidation of power in favor of “equality.” But before picking up this novel to experience it for yourself, remember that parts of it read more like a philosophical essay rather than a straight-up sci-fi adventure. Nevertheless, I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the romantic ideas of the past and is open to philosophical and political discussion. Understanding such issues around civilization is important–never sacrificing the possible for the perfect.
Nevertheless, it is a welcome challenge for those curious about what is to come of our world. Wells masterfully outlines a postmodern structure of a planet “out beyond Sirius.” The novel comes in at 265 pages, which at times can feel like a short story, and at other times it can feel like a dictionary.
While walking the Swiss Alps, two English travelers fall into a space warp and suddenly find themselves in another world. In many ways, the same as our own—even down to the characters that inhabit it—this new planet is still radically different, for the two walkers are now upon a Utopian Earth controlled by a single World Government. Here, as they soon learn, all share a common language, there is sexual, economic, and racial equality, and society is ruled by socialist ideals enforced by an austere, voluntary elite: the ‘samurai.’ But what will the Utopians make of these new visitors from a less perfect world?
A Modern Utopia is a compelling blend of philosophical discussion and imaginative narrative. The novel is one Wells’s most positive visions of the future. Prophetic and horrific, this utopian vision is a warped mixture of samurai castes, mass extinction of inferior races, and the totalitarian World States, outlined in a series of pompous intellectual meanderings–like I said, positive. A Modern Utopia sometimes would make Huxley and Orwell quiver with fear. The book is written more as non-fiction than fiction. Mainly, Wells outlines what he thinks would make for the best possible society, essentially a police-state, with a thin fictional premise of two travelers getting lost in the Alps.
A group called the samurai is the ruling class. While their power is undisputed, the group of societal elites makes up about 4% of the population. They follow a rigid rule of conduct: no alcohol, drugs, smoking, or betting. They must sleep alone for at least four nights a week. All political power rests in the samurai. They are the only administrators, lawyers, practicing doctors, and public officials of almost all kinds, and they are the only voters.
The novel has elements of a classic utopia: a stranger visits an ideally structured, considered society, explores, and ultimately returns home (see C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy), but Wells undertakes his visit to Utopia with unapologetic, intentional social critiques. Wells opts to write in a somewhat chaotic fusion of two types of writing simultaneously. On the one hand, it is an exposition of a utopian vision for humanity. On the other hand, as he visits an alternate version of contemporary Earth, it is the adventure of “The Voice” (who is explicitly introduced as not Wells but seems to be a lot like Wells).
The narrator is not transported mysteriously to the Utopian world but begins by reasoning about what a Utopia would have to be like following modern understandings of government, society, culture, and religion. Wells accomplishes one of the most critical features of science-fiction: the ability to allow your reader to experience imaginative settings and unique characters with nonfictional problems. A Modern Utopia demands introspection at a crucial level of thought. Well's vision of an ideal world is not romantic or idealistic. Instead, it is one of uniformity and consolidation of power in favor of “equality.” But before picking up this novel to experience it for yourself, remember that parts of it read more like a philosophical essay rather than a straight-up sci-fi adventure. Nevertheless, I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the romantic ideas of the past and is open to philosophical and political discussion. Understanding such issues around civilization is important–never sacrificing the possible for the perfect.
Read
December 4, 2021I am reading this for a utopian book review assignment. Let me tell you, H.G Wells is a long-winded, horrific writer. It boggles my mind how this man was ever able to make it as a writer, and I know it was conventional for writers to be wordy in the 20th century, but this is ridiculous. He launches into tangents that make no sense and add nothing to what he's trying to say; they're just there to fill a page.
He's writing from this perspective of a traveller in Switzerland, but he's so vague that you do not learn this outright. He is not forthcoming about what he means, you have to derive it yourself. When he's outlining his economic system, it's so eerily similar to Orwell's 1984 that I have to wonder if Orwell had read A Modern Utopia and invented Big Brother.
He talks about individualism as being this statehood ideal for human beings, but then he contradicts himself when he's relating it to a utopian economy where he outright says that a utopian economy cannot be individualistic because it serves and represents everybody. The World State is what he calls it, more like Big Brother. He describes it as being this pervasive entity that is the landowner of the whole earth. He's got influences from Mills and Locke when he's discussing economics, and he seems to be criticizing Marxism, but I'm not sure about that last one. You'll also love this, he wants to forgo physical currency for a currency measured in force, such as in units of energy, so kinetic currency. What on God's green earth was this man smoking!? Did he mean credit, maybe? I can't be sure.
In chapter four, which is uneventful and makes me wonder why he wrote it, makes no goddamn sense either. Basically, the protagonist and the botanist, (why a botanist?) are having this conversation with a man proclaiming himself a Nazarite (why a Nazarite?). Then it cuts back to the Swiss man who is implicitly described as the ideal, utopian man earlier in chapter one. By the way, I should mention that I am seeing a lot of influences from Nietzsche there. Y'know, the "ubermensch" (supermen)...
So, anyway, he fashions Switzerland as a utopia, for some reason and this Swiss man (the ideal man according to Wells) thinks it's ridiculous that Wells experiences so much adversity back home in London. If a scholar of H.G Wells could tell me what chapter four is talking about, I would appreciate it. He seems to be implying that that environments should not be polluted and that nature will provide for everybody, but that's a naturalist concept.
I am currently pouring through chapter five, but I would not recommend this book to anyone save for the masochist.
He's writing from this perspective of a traveller in Switzerland, but he's so vague that you do not learn this outright. He is not forthcoming about what he means, you have to derive it yourself. When he's outlining his economic system, it's so eerily similar to Orwell's 1984 that I have to wonder if Orwell had read A Modern Utopia and invented Big Brother.
He talks about individualism as being this statehood ideal for human beings, but then he contradicts himself when he's relating it to a utopian economy where he outright says that a utopian economy cannot be individualistic because it serves and represents everybody. The World State is what he calls it, more like Big Brother. He describes it as being this pervasive entity that is the landowner of the whole earth. He's got influences from Mills and Locke when he's discussing economics, and he seems to be criticizing Marxism, but I'm not sure about that last one. You'll also love this, he wants to forgo physical currency for a currency measured in force, such as in units of energy, so kinetic currency. What on God's green earth was this man smoking!? Did he mean credit, maybe? I can't be sure.
In chapter four, which is uneventful and makes me wonder why he wrote it, makes no goddamn sense either. Basically, the protagonist and the botanist, (why a botanist?) are having this conversation with a man proclaiming himself a Nazarite (why a Nazarite?). Then it cuts back to the Swiss man who is implicitly described as the ideal, utopian man earlier in chapter one. By the way, I should mention that I am seeing a lot of influences from Nietzsche there. Y'know, the "ubermensch" (supermen)...
So, anyway, he fashions Switzerland as a utopia, for some reason and this Swiss man (the ideal man according to Wells) thinks it's ridiculous that Wells experiences so much adversity back home in London. If a scholar of H.G Wells could tell me what chapter four is talking about, I would appreciate it. He seems to be implying that that environments should not be polluted and that nature will provide for everybody, but that's a naturalist concept.
I am currently pouring through chapter five, but I would not recommend this book to anyone save for the masochist.
March 28, 2023
Terrible. I really don't know what Wells intended for this dissertation, for it is NOT a novel in my opinion.
At the beginning of the work, there was some talk of somehow traveling to a alternative Earth of a Modern Utopia. That said, this Utopia was not any more technically advanced than early 20th century Earth. In this world, Earth would be exactly the same, everyone on Earth would be on this Utopian Earth but their function might be different. Say the President of the United States might be a busboy.
After this, Wells then drones on about differing topics which are designated chapters, i.e. Topographical, Concerning Freedoms, Utopian Economics, etc. At first, I was interested in what Wells would consider Utopian, i.e. concerning freedom, what is freedom and how much freedom is expected to be sufficient for a Utopian society?
Ultimately, I couldn't hang with this for very long. I didn't understand what the heck Wells was saying and found myself re-reading something just to see if the last several sentences made sense at all. Wells also embeds notes for further study regarding what he is writing about. Its as if Wells intended this work to be some kind of scientific dissertation about Utopian Society. For example:
"The difference between the social and economic sciences as they exist in our world [Footnote: But see Gidding’s Principles of Sociology, a modern and richly suggestive American work, imperfectly appreciated by the British student. See also Walter Bagehot’s Economic Studies.] and in this Utopia deserves perhaps a word or so more."
Here is an example of his ramblings:
"In no region of intellectual activity will our hypothesis of freedom from tradition be of more value in devising a Utopia than here. From its beginning the earthly study of economics has been infertile and unhelpful, because of the mass of unanalysed and scarcely suspected assumptions upon which it rested."
Where is here? Is Wells qualified to state this? And further on:
"Its most typical exponents display a disposition to disavow generalisations altogether, to claim consideration as “experts,” and to make immediate political application of that conceded claim."
One simple statement would be enough to say something like "All technical theories of a perfect economic system are bunk!" Then if he wanted to explain how the system worked, that would be fine.
On to something else!
At the beginning of the work, there was some talk of somehow traveling to a alternative Earth of a Modern Utopia. That said, this Utopia was not any more technically advanced than early 20th century Earth. In this world, Earth would be exactly the same, everyone on Earth would be on this Utopian Earth but their function might be different. Say the President of the United States might be a busboy.
After this, Wells then drones on about differing topics which are designated chapters, i.e. Topographical, Concerning Freedoms, Utopian Economics, etc. At first, I was interested in what Wells would consider Utopian, i.e. concerning freedom, what is freedom and how much freedom is expected to be sufficient for a Utopian society?
Ultimately, I couldn't hang with this for very long. I didn't understand what the heck Wells was saying and found myself re-reading something just to see if the last several sentences made sense at all. Wells also embeds notes for further study regarding what he is writing about. Its as if Wells intended this work to be some kind of scientific dissertation about Utopian Society. For example:
"The difference between the social and economic sciences as they exist in our world [Footnote: But see Gidding’s Principles of Sociology, a modern and richly suggestive American work, imperfectly appreciated by the British student. See also Walter Bagehot’s Economic Studies.] and in this Utopia deserves perhaps a word or so more."
Here is an example of his ramblings:
"In no region of intellectual activity will our hypothesis of freedom from tradition be of more value in devising a Utopia than here. From its beginning the earthly study of economics has been infertile and unhelpful, because of the mass of unanalysed and scarcely suspected assumptions upon which it rested."
Where is here? Is Wells qualified to state this? And further on:
"Its most typical exponents display a disposition to disavow generalisations altogether, to claim consideration as “experts,” and to make immediate political application of that conceded claim."
One simple statement would be enough to say something like "All technical theories of a perfect economic system are bunk!" Then if he wanted to explain how the system worked, that would be fine.
On to something else!
December 24, 2022
So this book was a tad odd in my opinion: it was.both interesting and yet boring at the same time! You might think the two things cannot be in the same book but they actually were...!
So when I started this I was a tad uncertain how "easy" it would be to read because of the date it was written. No fears there. It was actually very easy to read so you do not have to worry about that. But the PLOT... Well... That is another story.
Basically not much happens in the book. It is just these two guys from our world who somehow visit this utopia. And they discuss it. They do a lot of discussing. And they may take a little walk here or there. Maybe they talk to a few locals. But plot wise not much happens at all... Which is very odd for such a fat book. But there is no action or surprises or sword fights or anything really... Just these two guys.
I do believe that this book is the author's thoughts about what a utopia should be like. How would it work? What makes a place utopia?
So in other words this story is actually philosophy I think!
And I did find bits of the details in here interesting. Because for the simple reason I had never thought about it before. And there were several instances where I had exclaimed "Oh! So that is how that would work!"
The book also left me with questions too... Like is this utopia really a utopia and not a dystopian?? Hmmmm....
And I will add I do not agree with everything the author wrote in here about what a utopia would or should be. Like he mentions "coal factories" and I do not see how a world full of awful pollution could BE a utopia? But obviously the author was limited by the era he lived in.
The majority of the book was slow and as I said not much actually happens. The characters are dull as can be.
So when I started this I was a tad uncertain how "easy" it would be to read because of the date it was written. No fears there. It was actually very easy to read so you do not have to worry about that. But the PLOT... Well... That is another story.
Basically not much happens in the book. It is just these two guys from our world who somehow visit this utopia. And they discuss it. They do a lot of discussing. And they may take a little walk here or there. Maybe they talk to a few locals. But plot wise not much happens at all... Which is very odd for such a fat book. But there is no action or surprises or sword fights or anything really... Just these two guys.
I do believe that this book is the author's thoughts about what a utopia should be like. How would it work? What makes a place utopia?
So in other words this story is actually philosophy I think!
And I did find bits of the details in here interesting. Because for the simple reason I had never thought about it before. And there were several instances where I had exclaimed "Oh! So that is how that would work!"
The book also left me with questions too... Like is this utopia really a utopia and not a dystopian?? Hmmmm....
And I will add I do not agree with everything the author wrote in here about what a utopia would or should be. Like he mentions "coal factories" and I do not see how a world full of awful pollution could BE a utopia? But obviously the author was limited by the era he lived in.
The majority of the book was slow and as I said not much actually happens. The characters are dull as can be.
July 23, 2022
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/a-modern-utopia-by-h-g-wells/
I have to admit that I had not really heard of this Wells novel before. Of course, like the original Utopia, the fictional framework is not the point; the books is about the ideal way to run a society, and what it might look like if you were to be transported to that society while on holiday in Switzerland, to discover that everyone you know on Earth has a parallel equivalent in the Utopia, except that of course they are happier.
Utopia is preserved by a caste of self-dubbed samurai who are devoted to keeping society fair. Wells is clear about the evils of racism, and the importance of equality for women; somewhat less convincing on a utopian vision of marriage, and downright weird on animals (no meat-eating, but no household pets either). To be honest, I did not find the ideas awfully interesting, though Beveridge claimed that they had inspired his vision of the welfare state.
The bit that did grab me was where the narrator meets his equivalent on Utopia. Jorge Luis Borges’ story “The Other” has fascinated me for many years – it’s the one where he meets his younger self, but discovers that in fact they don’t have much to say to each other. The interaction between the narrator and his double in A Modern Utopia is similarly awkward. Basically, we need other people for mental stimulation – our own thought processes are not different enough to be interesting.
Anyway, not my favourite Wells novel.
I have to admit that I had not really heard of this Wells novel before. Of course, like the original Utopia, the fictional framework is not the point; the books is about the ideal way to run a society, and what it might look like if you were to be transported to that society while on holiday in Switzerland, to discover that everyone you know on Earth has a parallel equivalent in the Utopia, except that of course they are happier.
Utopia is preserved by a caste of self-dubbed samurai who are devoted to keeping society fair. Wells is clear about the evils of racism, and the importance of equality for women; somewhat less convincing on a utopian vision of marriage, and downright weird on animals (no meat-eating, but no household pets either). To be honest, I did not find the ideas awfully interesting, though Beveridge claimed that they had inspired his vision of the welfare state.
The bit that did grab me was where the narrator meets his equivalent on Utopia. Jorge Luis Borges’ story “The Other” has fascinated me for many years – it’s the one where he meets his younger self, but discovers that in fact they don’t have much to say to each other. The interaction between the narrator and his double in A Modern Utopia is similarly awkward. Basically, we need other people for mental stimulation – our own thought processes are not different enough to be interesting.
Anyway, not my favourite Wells novel.
January 2, 2025
I picked up this book thinking it might have some fascinating perspectives on what HG Wells thought of the future. What does the man who brought us time machines, alien invasions, and invisible men think about modern utopia – from a 1905 perspective.
Not at all what I expected. Here is HG Wells from the social perspective, putting the brakes on science and technology. In the early pages of the book the tone is set, “unchecked, science can do infinitely more harm than good.” That battle has never stopped. It’s at fever pitch today with questions on regulating artificial intelligence.
Wells reminds us of why restrictions to liberty exist, beginning with the basics. “Consider how much liberty we gain by the loss of the common liberty to kill. Thereby, one may go to and fro in all the ordered parts of the earth, unencumbered by arms or armour”. And so today rages the right to bear arms.
Think about these two statements:
“to the modern minded man it can be no sort of Utopia worth desiring that does not give the utmost freedom of going to and fro”.
and then
“Carried to the absolute pitch the right of free movement ceases to be distinguishable from the right of free intrusion”
Of course, I don’t want people walking into my house therefor I must be prohibited from walking into other people’s houses.
The book is an excellent accounting of fundamental principles of freedom vs welfare of the community. Also free for download from Project Gutenberg.
Not at all what I expected. Here is HG Wells from the social perspective, putting the brakes on science and technology. In the early pages of the book the tone is set, “unchecked, science can do infinitely more harm than good.” That battle has never stopped. It’s at fever pitch today with questions on regulating artificial intelligence.
Wells reminds us of why restrictions to liberty exist, beginning with the basics. “Consider how much liberty we gain by the loss of the common liberty to kill. Thereby, one may go to and fro in all the ordered parts of the earth, unencumbered by arms or armour”. And so today rages the right to bear arms.
Think about these two statements:
“to the modern minded man it can be no sort of Utopia worth desiring that does not give the utmost freedom of going to and fro”.
and then
“Carried to the absolute pitch the right of free movement ceases to be distinguishable from the right of free intrusion”
Of course, I don’t want people walking into my house therefor I must be prohibited from walking into other people’s houses.
The book is an excellent accounting of fundamental principles of freedom vs welfare of the community. Also free for download from Project Gutenberg.
November 29, 2023
this book has a very interesting framing device of two men talking about their perfect world-- well, technically it is one guy ( the owner of the voice ) telling his friend ( the botanist ) what he thinks will make a perfect world.
be warned, like any other book before the 1990's there is a lot of questionable stuff in it. mr. h.g. wells was fairly progressive in some ways, speaking on the idea of race and gender not being used against people but being encouraged to be their own people in positions of power, but also, he has some obviously eugenic-based beliefs about people that are neurodivergent and putting all the world's criminals, regardless of severity of crime or culpability, onto islands to kill each other so the rest of society doesn't have to deal with them.
i know, i know, it was a different time. at least he doesn't use the n-slur in this book. he does in others... more than a few times. but fair warning to anyone picking up and reading it through a modern lens.
be warned, like any other book before the 1990's there is a lot of questionable stuff in it. mr. h.g. wells was fairly progressive in some ways, speaking on the idea of race and gender not being used against people but being encouraged to be their own people in positions of power, but also, he has some obviously eugenic-based beliefs about people that are neurodivergent and putting all the world's criminals, regardless of severity of crime or culpability, onto islands to kill each other so the rest of society doesn't have to deal with them.
i know, i know, it was a different time. at least he doesn't use the n-slur in this book. he does in others... more than a few times. but fair warning to anyone picking up and reading it through a modern lens.
September 28, 2023
The Politics of the Future 1880-2080 - #4
A Modern Utopia is a tricky book with a troubled legacy. As much as Wells rowed back on his previous endorsement of Galtonian eugenics, threads of it remain, along with a chapter on race that’s by turns a focused critique of imperialism and white supremacy, and a blood-curdlingly dispassionate speculation on the potential benefits of mass genocide. It’s pretty clear where the dystopias of Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four get their inspiration from.
Most sinister to twenty-first century readers will be the novel’s deceptively authoritarian World-State. Professing to enshrine individual freedoms, it instead exercises an enormous amount of social control over its inhabitants with only a token level of accountability. The concept of the samurai, whilst a fascinating and compelling metaphor, stretches credibility to the limit, at least in terms of their natural benevolence. Did Wells ever read Nietzsche, I wonder? We get an aside that some kind of violent revolution was necessary in order to install this vanguard of human wisdom in a governing position, but the progression from nation-states to World-State is deliberately kept in obscurity. I wouldn’t demand an explanation for this development for the simple sake of narrative verisimilitude, but what I find frustrating is the fact that there’s never any real motivation for us to believe that this enormous state machinery would actually work. Maybe we can forgive Wells a little naivety here, considering the fact that A Modern Utopia, written in 1905, pre-dates the totalitarian bureaucracies of the twentieth century. It is hardly likely that he would have been as optimistic after witnessing the wreckage of post-Soviet Russia or the endemic corruption of the modern Chinese Communist Party.
In other words, the problem is that the social and cultural arrangements of Wells’s utopia are entirely dependent for their implementation on an efficient, benevolent network of state power intentionally separated from representative politics - a benevolent dictator class of ascetic administrators is intended to actively disregard the opinions of those less enlightened than itself. If you don’t buy into the possibility of this ‘voluntary aristocracy’ working towards the greater good, then virtually all the policy-oriented writing - that which comes directly from the Voice - becomes a tedious slog.
I have other gripes, particularly with Wells’s brand of progressivism. As a scientific socialist through-and-through, Wells is particularly disdainful of what he sees as sentimental luddism of his ‘ethical’ or ‘Christian’ counterparts. A particular target of his ire is William Morris, who he devotes an entire chapter to straw-manning. Wells’s outlook on work and technology can be summed up nicely in this short section:
‘The plain message physical science has for the world at large is this, that were our political and social and moral devices only as well contrived to their ends as a linotype machine, an antiseptic operating plant, or an electric tram-car, there need now be no appreciable toil in the world, and only the smallest fraction of the pain, the fear and anxiety that now make human life so doubtful in its value.’ (p.73)
A better definition of technocracy is hard to find. Wells believes that technological progress is the prerequisite of what he calls the ‘civilising process’ (a term later popularised by Nobert Elias’s 1939 work of the same name). Although never specifying the criteria of ‘civilisation’ in as many words, Wells is an ardent believer in the capacity of technology, particularly with regard to labour-saving devices and hygiene, to eradicate social ills from the ground up. Instant communications systems makes governance a trifle and universal language an inevitable reality, high-speed rail networks render humanity a migratory species capable of instant cultural assimilation, factory drudgery - whilst still necessary to make a living - is rendered a pleasantry by developments in mass-manufacturing. For every social problem, human ingenuity supposedly finds a technological solution: a ‘criminal class’ causing you trouble? Pack them off to a deserted island after an American-style ‘third strike’ and make then live in lawless exile! What could go wrong?
Putting all this aside - along with Wells’s ideological schizophrenia on gender equality which I’m too tired to go into - the literary narrative is really good, and is particularly fascinating from a genre perspective. In an avowed ‘experiment in form’, A Modern Utopia uses not one, not two, but three narrative voices to represent Wells. The preface is a radical influence on the rest of the book, as Wells uses the different voices to project himself further into a utopian aspect, to allow himself to be less cautious about his intellectual limitations. One thing this facilitates is Wells’s remarkably astute insight into the fragility of the relationship between individual perspective and collective interest (see his ‘Criticism of the Instrument’ [1903] for the best exposition of this relativism). It’s in these moments of humility and lucidity that Wells admits how personal his utopia is - and, despite himself, confesses his deepest doubts and his wildest hopes. By using the character of the Botanist as a psychological allegory for his own irrationality, Wells can in a moment throw into jeopardy any utopian claims drawing on his optimistic understanding of humanity by using his own narrative voice as a counter-example. The uniquely bitter self-hatred that appears as a result is extremely powerful, and really very moving - for these moments at least, A Modern Utopia is still worth reading.
A Modern Utopia is a tricky book with a troubled legacy. As much as Wells rowed back on his previous endorsement of Galtonian eugenics, threads of it remain, along with a chapter on race that’s by turns a focused critique of imperialism and white supremacy, and a blood-curdlingly dispassionate speculation on the potential benefits of mass genocide. It’s pretty clear where the dystopias of Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four get their inspiration from.
Most sinister to twenty-first century readers will be the novel’s deceptively authoritarian World-State. Professing to enshrine individual freedoms, it instead exercises an enormous amount of social control over its inhabitants with only a token level of accountability. The concept of the samurai, whilst a fascinating and compelling metaphor, stretches credibility to the limit, at least in terms of their natural benevolence. Did Wells ever read Nietzsche, I wonder? We get an aside that some kind of violent revolution was necessary in order to install this vanguard of human wisdom in a governing position, but the progression from nation-states to World-State is deliberately kept in obscurity. I wouldn’t demand an explanation for this development for the simple sake of narrative verisimilitude, but what I find frustrating is the fact that there’s never any real motivation for us to believe that this enormous state machinery would actually work. Maybe we can forgive Wells a little naivety here, considering the fact that A Modern Utopia, written in 1905, pre-dates the totalitarian bureaucracies of the twentieth century. It is hardly likely that he would have been as optimistic after witnessing the wreckage of post-Soviet Russia or the endemic corruption of the modern Chinese Communist Party.
In other words, the problem is that the social and cultural arrangements of Wells’s utopia are entirely dependent for their implementation on an efficient, benevolent network of state power intentionally separated from representative politics - a benevolent dictator class of ascetic administrators is intended to actively disregard the opinions of those less enlightened than itself. If you don’t buy into the possibility of this ‘voluntary aristocracy’ working towards the greater good, then virtually all the policy-oriented writing - that which comes directly from the Voice - becomes a tedious slog.
I have other gripes, particularly with Wells’s brand of progressivism. As a scientific socialist through-and-through, Wells is particularly disdainful of what he sees as sentimental luddism of his ‘ethical’ or ‘Christian’ counterparts. A particular target of his ire is William Morris, who he devotes an entire chapter to straw-manning. Wells’s outlook on work and technology can be summed up nicely in this short section:
‘The plain message physical science has for the world at large is this, that were our political and social and moral devices only as well contrived to their ends as a linotype machine, an antiseptic operating plant, or an electric tram-car, there need now be no appreciable toil in the world, and only the smallest fraction of the pain, the fear and anxiety that now make human life so doubtful in its value.’ (p.73)
A better definition of technocracy is hard to find. Wells believes that technological progress is the prerequisite of what he calls the ‘civilising process’ (a term later popularised by Nobert Elias’s 1939 work of the same name). Although never specifying the criteria of ‘civilisation’ in as many words, Wells is an ardent believer in the capacity of technology, particularly with regard to labour-saving devices and hygiene, to eradicate social ills from the ground up. Instant communications systems makes governance a trifle and universal language an inevitable reality, high-speed rail networks render humanity a migratory species capable of instant cultural assimilation, factory drudgery - whilst still necessary to make a living - is rendered a pleasantry by developments in mass-manufacturing. For every social problem, human ingenuity supposedly finds a technological solution: a ‘criminal class’ causing you trouble? Pack them off to a deserted island after an American-style ‘third strike’ and make then live in lawless exile! What could go wrong?
Putting all this aside - along with Wells’s ideological schizophrenia on gender equality which I’m too tired to go into - the literary narrative is really good, and is particularly fascinating from a genre perspective. In an avowed ‘experiment in form’, A Modern Utopia uses not one, not two, but three narrative voices to represent Wells. The preface is a radical influence on the rest of the book, as Wells uses the different voices to project himself further into a utopian aspect, to allow himself to be less cautious about his intellectual limitations. One thing this facilitates is Wells’s remarkably astute insight into the fragility of the relationship between individual perspective and collective interest (see his ‘Criticism of the Instrument’ [1903] for the best exposition of this relativism). It’s in these moments of humility and lucidity that Wells admits how personal his utopia is - and, despite himself, confesses his deepest doubts and his wildest hopes. By using the character of the Botanist as a psychological allegory for his own irrationality, Wells can in a moment throw into jeopardy any utopian claims drawing on his optimistic understanding of humanity by using his own narrative voice as a counter-example. The uniquely bitter self-hatred that appears as a result is extremely powerful, and really very moving - for these moments at least, A Modern Utopia is still worth reading.
May 3, 2021
Dense, but interesting for its time
An exposition of H.G. Wells's philosophy, presented as a novel with no plot or action. The most important detail to keep in mind while reading this is that it was published in 1905, before WW I, the rise of Nazism, and the eugenics movement, resulting in certain beliefs about human nature and autocratic states that we now know to be incorrect. While some of his ideals were progressive for the time, such as his views on race and gender equality, others are downright dystopian and horrific. Some of what he envisioned has actually come to pass, in different forms, such as houses connected to each other via the copper wires of the internet instead of the pneumatic tubes of his day.
An exposition of H.G. Wells's philosophy, presented as a novel with no plot or action. The most important detail to keep in mind while reading this is that it was published in 1905, before WW I, the rise of Nazism, and the eugenics movement, resulting in certain beliefs about human nature and autocratic states that we now know to be incorrect. While some of his ideals were progressive for the time, such as his views on race and gender equality, others are downright dystopian and horrific. Some of what he envisioned has actually come to pass, in different forms, such as houses connected to each other via the copper wires of the internet instead of the pneumatic tubes of his day.
August 17, 2023
Staggering number of inconsistencies. Will definitely give a pass to living in this dystopia.
The author starts with the declaration that he seeks to shift away from conceiving a static utopia, because change is the source of beauty of this world. He holds More and Plato of this shortcoming. And in order to stitch the idea of "changeable ideal", he goes so far to make it torturous.
"All deformities need to eliminated, but those who survive, state will take care". "There will be no illiterate in this utopia, except the unteachable imbeciles". He seeks to create islands of exile for the delinquents, after mercy killing those with tendency of being deviants.
Possibly, even a hypothetical construct of utopia is not possible.
The author starts with the declaration that he seeks to shift away from conceiving a static utopia, because change is the source of beauty of this world. He holds More and Plato of this shortcoming. And in order to stitch the idea of "changeable ideal", he goes so far to make it torturous.
"All deformities need to eliminated, but those who survive, state will take care". "There will be no illiterate in this utopia, except the unteachable imbeciles". He seeks to create islands of exile for the delinquents, after mercy killing those with tendency of being deviants.
Possibly, even a hypothetical construct of utopia is not possible.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews