What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Machiavelli
A successful author and Liberal MP with a loving and benevolent wife, Richard Remington appears to be a man to envy. But underneath his superficial contentment, he is far from happy with either his marriage or the politics of his party. The New Machiavelli describes the disarray into which his life is thrown, when he meets the young and beautiful Isabel Rivers and becomes tormented by desire. At first, he struggles to resist and remain focused upon his familiar political, personal and social life. But as he soon learns, it is harder than he could have imagined to turn his back on love.
495 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1910
About the author
H.G. Wells
6,312 books11.6k 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 34 reviews
September 30, 2019
A long-winded political novel charting a Liberal MP’s rise from the ranks of sexless progressives to a Tory-led aristocratic ruling class with weird notions about eugenics. For those interested in the politics of the period and the slow grinding of progress towards votes for women and a coherent plan to cope with industrialisation, this novel is a fascinating snapshot of the Fabian-era, and a reminder that all politics is cyclical, and today’s tubthumpers are tomorrow’s footnotes. (And not one for fans of the rollicking tales of SF-Herbert). The blurb is misleading, as the autobiographical scandal kicks off around page 330, leaving fans of thwarted romance wanting for long ponderous page after long ponderous page, and when the romance arrives, Wells’s weakness at melodrama provides a priapic misfire. The dense political chronicling is the more interesting and engaging part of this mid-period behemoth in the formidable HG canon.
Read
March 5, 2023The New Machiavelli is in many respects two separate novels. One covers very similar ground to Ann Veronica, outlining the consequences of an affair that leads to the dissolution of the protagonist's marriage. The other covers the protagonist's intellectual development, from his election as a Liberal MP to his journey away from liberalism. The combination of the two plots is perhaps not entirely successful: certainly Trollope and Disraeli both wrote better political novels.
One of the oddities here is that, given the involvement Wells had with the Fabians (he stood as a Labour candidate in the 1922 election, for example) I'd have expected this to consist of his journey towards socialism. The novel is set after the end of Balfour's premiership, midway through a very long period of liberal government that ultimately led to what Dangerfield famously described as the strange death of liberal England. Some of the grounds for that are indeed present in the novel, which describes both the suffragettes and the rise of a Labour party that was beginning to separate from liberalism. What actually happens is that the protagonist instead gravitates towards a rather idiosyncratic idea of Toryism, that largely seems to have had minimal relationship with the real thing. The Tories were, of course, to regain power after Lloyd George but although Ramsay McDonald is mentioned, the idea that he could have ended up as Prime Minister doesn't seem to have occurred to Wells.
In practice, Wells is fairly critical of all three political parties in the novel. The Tories are criticised as representing class interests and being unduly resistant to nationalisation. Labour are similarly criticised for representing class interests and being unduly enthused by nationalisation. It is fair to say that consistency was not a strong point for Wells. Liberalism is decried as having "to voice everything that is left out by these other parties... From its nature it must be a vague and planless association in comparison with its antagonist, neither so constructive on the one hand, nor on the other so competent to hinder the inevitable constructions of the civilized state. Essentially it is the party of criticism, the ‘Anti’ party."
The Wellsian idea of Toryism is largely about an elective aristocracy: alongside the rather cynical depiction of Parliamentary politics here, it's hard not to recall his later support for Stalin's benevolent dictatorship. That also emerges with his advocacy of eugenics in the novel, in the same sort of terms that I expect Mosley would also have used: "The only alternative to this profound reconstruction is a decay in human quality and social collapse. Either this unprecedented rearrangement must be achieved by our civilization, or it must presently come upon a phase of disorder and crumble and perish, as Rome perished, as France declines, as the strain of the Pilgrim Fathers dwindles out of America."
Nonetheless, Wells is nothing if not inconsistent and the novel is also strongly in favour of women's rights, favouring divorce and individual happiness rather than traditionalist collectivism: "We women are trained to be so dependent on a man. I’ve got no life of my own at all. It seems now to me that I wore my clothes even for you and your schemes." If the convergence of the two plots in the novel means anything, it's a rejection of politics as a set of institutions in favour of the individual life beyond it.
The political events are described in rather a lot of detail, ranging from the imperial preference to nationalisation of public houses: I had no idea that this was eventually attempted in Carlisle, only for them to be eventually re-privatised by the Heath government. Some of the references are a little depressing. The discussion of ending dramatic censorship was only to come into effect in the late sixties under Wilson's administration.
Although this is a realist novel rather than the science fiction Wells is best known for, it still does functions rather well as a vehicle for predicting future events. For example, Wells notes the rise of Germany as a competitor power to Britain and predicts the likelihood of a great European war: "I still think a European war, and conceivably a very humiliating war for England, may occur at no very distant date." He further predicts the decline of the Empire and the possibility of Indian independence: "Our functions in India are absurd. We English do not own that country, do not even rule it. We make nothing happen." Somewhat more prosaically, he correctly predicts the decline of the party system: "I doubt if party will ever again be the force it was during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Men are becoming increasingly constructive and selective, less patient under tradition and the bondage of initial circumstances."
One of the oddities here is that, given the involvement Wells had with the Fabians (he stood as a Labour candidate in the 1922 election, for example) I'd have expected this to consist of his journey towards socialism. The novel is set after the end of Balfour's premiership, midway through a very long period of liberal government that ultimately led to what Dangerfield famously described as the strange death of liberal England. Some of the grounds for that are indeed present in the novel, which describes both the suffragettes and the rise of a Labour party that was beginning to separate from liberalism. What actually happens is that the protagonist instead gravitates towards a rather idiosyncratic idea of Toryism, that largely seems to have had minimal relationship with the real thing. The Tories were, of course, to regain power after Lloyd George but although Ramsay McDonald is mentioned, the idea that he could have ended up as Prime Minister doesn't seem to have occurred to Wells.
In practice, Wells is fairly critical of all three political parties in the novel. The Tories are criticised as representing class interests and being unduly resistant to nationalisation. Labour are similarly criticised for representing class interests and being unduly enthused by nationalisation. It is fair to say that consistency was not a strong point for Wells. Liberalism is decried as having "to voice everything that is left out by these other parties... From its nature it must be a vague and planless association in comparison with its antagonist, neither so constructive on the one hand, nor on the other so competent to hinder the inevitable constructions of the civilized state. Essentially it is the party of criticism, the ‘Anti’ party."
The Wellsian idea of Toryism is largely about an elective aristocracy: alongside the rather cynical depiction of Parliamentary politics here, it's hard not to recall his later support for Stalin's benevolent dictatorship. That also emerges with his advocacy of eugenics in the novel, in the same sort of terms that I expect Mosley would also have used: "The only alternative to this profound reconstruction is a decay in human quality and social collapse. Either this unprecedented rearrangement must be achieved by our civilization, or it must presently come upon a phase of disorder and crumble and perish, as Rome perished, as France declines, as the strain of the Pilgrim Fathers dwindles out of America."
Nonetheless, Wells is nothing if not inconsistent and the novel is also strongly in favour of women's rights, favouring divorce and individual happiness rather than traditionalist collectivism: "We women are trained to be so dependent on a man. I’ve got no life of my own at all. It seems now to me that I wore my clothes even for you and your schemes." If the convergence of the two plots in the novel means anything, it's a rejection of politics as a set of institutions in favour of the individual life beyond it.
The political events are described in rather a lot of detail, ranging from the imperial preference to nationalisation of public houses: I had no idea that this was eventually attempted in Carlisle, only for them to be eventually re-privatised by the Heath government. Some of the references are a little depressing. The discussion of ending dramatic censorship was only to come into effect in the late sixties under Wilson's administration.
Although this is a realist novel rather than the science fiction Wells is best known for, it still does functions rather well as a vehicle for predicting future events. For example, Wells notes the rise of Germany as a competitor power to Britain and predicts the likelihood of a great European war: "I still think a European war, and conceivably a very humiliating war for England, may occur at no very distant date." He further predicts the decline of the Empire and the possibility of Indian independence: "Our functions in India are absurd. We English do not own that country, do not even rule it. We make nothing happen." Somewhat more prosaically, he correctly predicts the decline of the party system: "I doubt if party will ever again be the force it was during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Men are becoming increasingly constructive and selective, less patient under tradition and the bondage of initial circumstances."
March 10, 2008
An autobiographical novel, the Bildungsroman as self-defense. Wells defends his politics - rational world state run by a new elite capable of steering human evolution towards happiness - and his new mistress - stupid old Victorians left us no sexual education capable of preparing us for real life. My offhand comment: Its nice to see the roots of fascism in our own culture.
October 4, 2012
I was surprised at how moved I was by this. Part 1 and Part 4 has some of Wells' best writing - about marriage, relationships, and education, both sentimental and political. The middle bit gets kind of wooly in a Wellsian way, but even those chapters had the occasional salient nugget, made more significant by the election tumult going on in real life.
I think some writers craft and others blurt. Wells is a blurter, no doubt, and huge semi-digested chunks of this novel came from his life, not least his relationship with Amber Reeves Blanco (Isabel Rivers in the novel, many years his junior, with whom he had a child).One does sense that Wells was trying to work out whatever he experienced with her in the characters of Remington and Isabel and though he isn't totally sucessful, it's heartening to see him dive right in.
I also found the question- are politics movtivated by love or hate quite provocative, given the current political climate.
I wish I could give this another half star.
I also wish someone would write a biography of Amber Reeves. Maybe I will.
I think some writers craft and others blurt. Wells is a blurter, no doubt, and huge semi-digested chunks of this novel came from his life, not least his relationship with Amber Reeves Blanco (Isabel Rivers in the novel, many years his junior, with whom he had a child).One does sense that Wells was trying to work out whatever he experienced with her in the characters of Remington and Isabel and though he isn't totally sucessful, it's heartening to see him dive right in.
I also found the question- are politics movtivated by love or hate quite provocative, given the current political climate.
I wish I could give this another half star.
I also wish someone would write a biography of Amber Reeves. Maybe I will.
January 10, 2023
het boek wordt gered door het einde (maar op wat voor een manier)
September 23, 2009
I have an ongoing, but ultimately minor, interest in Wells. Being an SF enthusiast he is, of course, important to me as the author of many early SF works. The creation of the Eloi & Morlock characters in "The Time Machine" has provided me w/ archetypes to refer to from time to time. Since he's mainly famous for writing SF, I became reinterested in him when I discovered that he'd written non-SF novels too. I found one called "Mr. Britling Sees It Through" long ago & read that & enjoyed it enuf to keep me still slightly caring. Probably decades later, I found & read "The Research Magnificent" wch did the least for me of all of them but it was still ok. Even though I probably read it w/in the last few yrs I don't really remember it at all - except that it was probably similar to "The New Machiavelli" in some ways.
A slightly odd sidenote here is that when I was young, probably an adolescent, I had a picture of Wells + whoever he was married to at the time? sitting naked on lounge chairs at a nudist camp - wearing only sandals & perhaps reading the newspaper. Where on earth did I get such a thing? Given that I'm a nudist myself, I still find that very endearing.
Additionally, somewhere along the line, I learned that Wells had had socialist utopian inclinations. It all adds up to making a seemingly interesting fellow. This edition of "The New Machiavelli" has some scholarly framing - wch I always enjoy. The introduction by the editor, Norman MacKenzie, was of substantial interest to me. It also created a somewhat strange notion of the bk for me in advance. MacKenzie starts off w/ saying that:
"The New Machiavelli caused H. G. Wells more trouble than any other book he wrote. He was already in difficulties with his publisher, Sir Frederick Macmillan, who had found the recent and similar novel Ann Veronica so 'distasteful' that he had refused to put it in his list, and now rejected the new work on the grounds that it was scandalous and potentially libelous."
Anyway, the bk's presented as being "thinly disguised autobiography" & its main theme was supposedly rejected by Macmillan for being too much about sex instead of about the politics that Wells supposedly claimed it to be about. Wells is presented as a pioneer of using such autobiography "as a vehicle for his social and political ideas". That, too, interests me - since much of my writing is autobiography intended the same way - but w/o the novelistic framing.
So I read it expecting at least a little torrid sex & found it to be.. mostly about politics - or at least about the main character's journey from quasi-socialist liberal to conservative to someone who'd rather leave it all & have a kid w/ the lover that replaces the wife. The "scandalous"ness of it is definitely of a century ago. Still, in a sense, the protaganist comes across as an energetic & driven character who's a maestro at justifying what ultimately amounts to some pretty selfish behavior.
All in all, the politics of it aren't ultimately that interesting to me & I don't really recommend the bk to anyone. I wrote a few notes in the front of my copy to refer me to a few key sections where he outlines his philosophy, predicts war between England & Germany, discusses women & feminism, & promotes "practical eugenics".. but, writing this review, I find that I really don't care that much. Wells, for me, is more like an old acquaintance who I like to catch up on from time to time.
A slightly odd sidenote here is that when I was young, probably an adolescent, I had a picture of Wells + whoever he was married to at the time? sitting naked on lounge chairs at a nudist camp - wearing only sandals & perhaps reading the newspaper. Where on earth did I get such a thing? Given that I'm a nudist myself, I still find that very endearing.
Additionally, somewhere along the line, I learned that Wells had had socialist utopian inclinations. It all adds up to making a seemingly interesting fellow. This edition of "The New Machiavelli" has some scholarly framing - wch I always enjoy. The introduction by the editor, Norman MacKenzie, was of substantial interest to me. It also created a somewhat strange notion of the bk for me in advance. MacKenzie starts off w/ saying that:
"The New Machiavelli caused H. G. Wells more trouble than any other book he wrote. He was already in difficulties with his publisher, Sir Frederick Macmillan, who had found the recent and similar novel Ann Veronica so 'distasteful' that he had refused to put it in his list, and now rejected the new work on the grounds that it was scandalous and potentially libelous."
Anyway, the bk's presented as being "thinly disguised autobiography" & its main theme was supposedly rejected by Macmillan for being too much about sex instead of about the politics that Wells supposedly claimed it to be about. Wells is presented as a pioneer of using such autobiography "as a vehicle for his social and political ideas". That, too, interests me - since much of my writing is autobiography intended the same way - but w/o the novelistic framing.
So I read it expecting at least a little torrid sex & found it to be.. mostly about politics - or at least about the main character's journey from quasi-socialist liberal to conservative to someone who'd rather leave it all & have a kid w/ the lover that replaces the wife. The "scandalous"ness of it is definitely of a century ago. Still, in a sense, the protaganist comes across as an energetic & driven character who's a maestro at justifying what ultimately amounts to some pretty selfish behavior.
All in all, the politics of it aren't ultimately that interesting to me & I don't really recommend the bk to anyone. I wrote a few notes in the front of my copy to refer me to a few key sections where he outlines his philosophy, predicts war between England & Germany, discusses women & feminism, & promotes "practical eugenics".. but, writing this review, I find that I really don't care that much. Wells, for me, is more like an old acquaintance who I like to catch up on from time to time.
October 23, 2026
The state-making dream is a very old dream indeed in the world’s history. It plays too small a part in novels.
I’ve read a lot of Wells, and I’ve found his writing to be very spotty, some very readable, some very stiff. This flows like a real person narrating a real life. It wasn’t until I was on page 108, about a quarter of the way through, that I realized this wasn’t an autobiography.
The strangest thing of all my odd and solitary upbringing seems to me now that swathing up of all the splendours of the flesh, that strange combination of fanatical terrorism and shyness that fenced me about with prohibitions… I knew so little and I felt so much.”
The cover didn’t help. I love these old Penguin minimalist covers, but it also means they don’t have a cover image to telegraph what kind of a book it is, and the word “fiction” is written in light orange on cream along the side, so that I didn’t notice it. (It turns out that the cover did telegraph what kind of a book it is, but I didn’t know the code: orange means fiction.)
If the narrator mentioned his name (Richard Remington) before this I either didn’t notice or thought H. G. Wells might be a pen name. I know very little about Wells’s life.
It ended my youth, and for a time it prevented my manhood.
I still don’t know what it is I’ve actually read. Imagine if the aliens in war of the worlds were a socialist politician about to make the step forward into fascism. And imagine that the earthly microbe was human emotion. That’s The New Machiavelli. I have to assume that the socialism/fascism/national socialism connection was already established in 1908 when Wells wrote this. Remington’s merger of liberal politics and aristocratic patriotism ends up looking frighteningly like Mussolini’s fascism and even somewhat like Hitler’s national socialism.
The people don’t want socialism, but with the right man to inspire them and the right men to govern them they’ll go along, and a new, improved human race will emerge.
But because this was written well before Hitler and Mussolini—even before the Great War—that resemblance may be, and likely is, leading me as a reader after the Second World War to see things in the book that just aren’t there.
Wells’s proto-fascist hero and his mentors describe the modern administrative state as desirable and almost use that term to describe it:
They did not consider, said Altiora, raising her voice and going right over me, that I had allowed sufficiently for the inevitable development of an official administrative class in the modern state.
…
That, they explained in a sort of chorus, was the cardinal idea of their lives, what they were up to, what they stood for. ‘We want to suggest to you… that from the mere necessities of convenience elected bodies must avail themselves more and more of the services of expert officials… these expert officials must necessarily develop into a new class and a very powerful class in the community. We want to organize that. It may be the power of the future. They will necessarily have to have very much of a common training. We consider ourselves as amateur unpaid precursors of such a class.’
He also begins to recognize the importance of something like the Boy Scouts, but government-run, to indoctrinate children on a national scale.
There suddenly appeared in my world… a new sort of little boy… a small boy in a khaki hat, and with bare knees and athletic bearing… the Boy Scout. I liked the Boy Scout, and I find it difficult to express how much it mattered to me, with my growing bias in favour of deliberate national training that Liberalism hadn’t been able to produce, and indeed had never attempted to produce, anything of this kind.
And much of it mirrors the real world transition from potentially good ideas to pure fascism that happened in the world in, as far as I know, the twenties and especially thirties. He almost, such as with his plan for an “Endowment of Motherhood”, always begins reasonably and ends unreasonably.
I confess myself altogether feminist. I have no doubts in the matter. I want this coddling and brow-beating of women to cease. I want to see women come in, free and fearless, to a full participation in the collective purpose of mankind. Women, I am convinced, are as fine as men; they can be as wise as men; they are capable of far greater devotion than men. I want to see them citizens, with a marriage law framed primarily for them and for their protection and the good of the race, and not for men's satisfactions. I want to see them bearing and rearing good children in the State as a generously rewarded public duty and service…
On the previous page, what this “in the State” means was more clear:
The only conceivable way out from our impasse lies in the recognition of parentage, that is to say of adequate mothering, as no longer a chance product of individual passions, but a service rendered to the State.
Tutto nello Stato, niente contro lo Stato, nulla al di fuori dello Stato
By the end he realizes that the expert class must not consist of “amateur unpaid precursors” but of men like himself, commanding the ship of state from the captain’s position, that is, the quarter-deck where the captain made his commands and the navigator his sightings.
‘Build your ship of state as you will; get your men as you will; I concentrate on what is clearly the affair of my sort of man,—I want to ensure the quality of the quarter-deck.
…
‘Muddle isn’t ended by transferring power from the muddle-headed few to the muddle-headed many, and then cheating the many out of it again in the interests of a bureaucracy of sham experts.’
His narrator also talks about other problems that the administrative state must solve, such as the falling birth rate, the “age of small families” (by which he means one child). It’s bad for the state!
In the end, of course, all of these grand dreams fail. This isn’t a spoiler, the narrator mentions his political retirement at “two and forty… I sit here, an unarmed discredited man…”) within the first few pages.
They fail because Remington is afflicted with a disease: the disease of humanity, and of appetite, a classic tragedy. The disease vector is introduced (and obviously so) about halfway through the book, at which point it is only a question of whether Remington’s downfall will occur before or after he achieves the power he craves.
‘Anything may happen, provided only that it is sufficiently absurd.’
November 23, 2019
This book caused a furore when it first came out, and it is not hard to see why. Although written as a novel it is not really one, as it goes nowhere; which flummoxed critics at the time because it certainly didn't conform to the then acceptable novel format. It is instead a very thinly veiled autobiographical account of the author's life. The descriptions of late Victorian and Edwardian English life are superb. In the middle the book gets bogged down in details around the British elections of the late Edwardian and early George V period, which are quite tedious when viewed from the perspective of 100 years later.
But it is in Well's discussion of his private life that this book really sings and must have been deeply shocking and hurtful to all those intimately involved. He doesn't pull any punches when it comes to his wife and mistress, Margaret and Isabel respectively (Jane and Amber Reeves in real life). He also excoriates the socialist Webbs and their circle and takes the so called elite / intellectual class apart. Fascinating and a revealing insight into how the "coming men" and their wives lived their lives
But it is in Well's discussion of his private life that this book really sings and must have been deeply shocking and hurtful to all those intimately involved. He doesn't pull any punches when it comes to his wife and mistress, Margaret and Isabel respectively (Jane and Amber Reeves in real life). He also excoriates the socialist Webbs and their circle and takes the so called elite / intellectual class apart. Fascinating and a revealing insight into how the "coming men" and their wives lived their lives
May 3, 2020
Wells had his own affair and this book was apparently partially based off that - I'm not sure if we're supposed to feel sympathetic as the main character and his mistress have a whole Romeo/Juliet "I can't bear to be parted from you and I might kill myself" moment because the guy is cheating on his wife! No sympathy for you sir!
The book really trudged on too. I don't have any interest in politics and we had to read the character's whole life story of how he got into politics. It only got interesting right at the end where the guy decided to abandon his wife and run away with his lover.
The book really trudged on too. I don't have any interest in politics and we had to read the character's whole life story of how he got into politics. It only got interesting right at the end where the guy decided to abandon his wife and run away with his lover.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 19, 2023
I actually enjoyed this as a novel and human story a great deal more than I was expecting - I don't think Wells was doing himself any favours with the title, although the narrator makes it clear in the opening chapter why he has chosen it. The trouble is that the popular consciousness doesn't actually think of Machiavelli as a failed politician rusticating in frustrated exile, but as a sinister schemer and an infamously ruthless pragmatist...
There is nothing 'machiavellian' about this story, save perhaps for the narrator's decision to jump ships to the Conversative party in the hopes of getting his envisioned policies through. And there is really not all that much politics in it, given that this is the promised subject matter - it is, as also promised, basically the story of the conflict between 'the red passion and the white', between sexual passions and abstract ideals, and how the former betray the latter.
The trouble with this sort of book is that it is always very tempting to read autobiography into it; I know enough sketchy detail about H.G. Wells' private life to guess that some of it (the belief in 'free love- he ended up with more than one illegitimate child by more than one woman as well as going through more than one wife) probably does reflect the author's own beliefs, whereas the University background and rich self-made uncle are indeed vividly imagined fiction rather than scantily disguised memoir, Wells' personal experience having been closer to that of his plebian 'Mr Polly'. I don't know how far the political ideas portrayed here represent an attempt at advocacy by the author, and how far they were chosen instead to serve the narrative arc of the protagonist. (I suspect the proto-feminism at least is Wells' own, and am fairly sure the eugenic panic - we are in danger of becoming extinct, because only the backward and sickly reproduce! - was one of his pet causes as well.)
Either way, the book manages not to be the ideological tract one would assume, but to portray a series of very vivid vignettes of London and England at the turn of the 20th century, and even to win the reader's sympathy for the protagonist's love affair - quite an achievement, since he behaves in the classic manner of all politicians since the modern mandate began by shagging his teenage constituency assistant, a girl who calls him 'Master' in the throes of passion. He even admits to the reader explicitly from the start that his behaviour has been quite unforgivable, and the author allows one of the minor characters to deliver a fairly damning (because fair) indictment towards the end, pointing out among other things that if unavoidable circumstances had forced them apart for twelve months, the whole affair would have perforce blown over - but we do feel for the adulterous couple and do end up believing in their emotions (and perhaps wisely, Wells puts his implied happy ending at the beginning, and concludes the story on turmoil rather than presenting it as a victory over outdated morals).
What the opening at least actually reminded me of strongly was Betjeman's Summoned by Bells, a similarly vivid evocation of late Victorian middle-class upbringing (and, elsewhere in his poetry, squalor and tedium of lower-class London).The author evokes all the worlds and world-views through which his protagonist passes as he grows up, and passages of vivid description of the everyday which I had somehow not associated with the author of "The War of the Worlds", "The Time Machine", and "The Invisible Man". And he succeeds in making all this stuff engaging and interesting, despite the fact that on the face of it there is very little real plot; I read the entire book a lot more quickly than I was expecting.
In its depiction of the intellectual life of the era, the book is also a salutary reminder of the degree to which we are ruled by hindsight in our view of the past, as opposed to how they themselves saw it: I kept finding myself realising with a jolt, for example, that the late great war with its barbed wire and mass troop losses, which England had come so close to losing due to such military incompetence in face of "the modern type of war", was, in fact, what we nowadays know as the Boer War (but Wells at least calls the South African War), and not, at this date, WW1! (And in fact the narrator - and very possibly the author - is all in favour of the idea of a forthcoming "chastening" war with the Continental Powers, which England will inevitably lose and learn the lesson of her delusions of superiority; it was not only the Colonel Blimps of imperial society who welcomed the idea of conflict, or the Rupert Brookes who saw the prospect "to turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping" away from what is here characterised as "the slackness, mental dishonesty, presumption, mercenary respectability and sentimentalized commercialism" of the old order...)
The views of 1911 on eminent Victorians and their architecture, art etc. are of course very different from those of a hundred years later, too; in Wells' day this was all the ugly, outmoded recent past, to be despised with the superiority which every new fashion regards its parents' generation...
There is nothing 'machiavellian' about this story, save perhaps for the narrator's decision to jump ships to the Conversative party in the hopes of getting his envisioned policies through. And there is really not all that much politics in it, given that this is the promised subject matter - it is, as also promised, basically the story of the conflict between 'the red passion and the white', between sexual passions and abstract ideals, and how the former betray the latter.
The trouble with this sort of book is that it is always very tempting to read autobiography into it; I know enough sketchy detail about H.G. Wells' private life to guess that some of it (the belief in 'free love- he ended up with more than one illegitimate child by more than one woman as well as going through more than one wife) probably does reflect the author's own beliefs, whereas the University background and rich self-made uncle are indeed vividly imagined fiction rather than scantily disguised memoir, Wells' personal experience having been closer to that of his plebian 'Mr Polly'. I don't know how far the political ideas portrayed here represent an attempt at advocacy by the author, and how far they were chosen instead to serve the narrative arc of the protagonist. (I suspect the proto-feminism at least is Wells' own, and am fairly sure the eugenic panic - we are in danger of becoming extinct, because only the backward and sickly reproduce! - was one of his pet causes as well.)
Either way, the book manages not to be the ideological tract one would assume, but to portray a series of very vivid vignettes of London and England at the turn of the 20th century, and even to win the reader's sympathy for the protagonist's love affair - quite an achievement, since he behaves in the classic manner of all politicians since the modern mandate began by shagging his teenage constituency assistant, a girl who calls him 'Master' in the throes of passion. He even admits to the reader explicitly from the start that his behaviour has been quite unforgivable, and the author allows one of the minor characters to deliver a fairly damning (because fair) indictment towards the end, pointing out among other things that if unavoidable circumstances had forced them apart for twelve months, the whole affair would have perforce blown over - but we do feel for the adulterous couple and do end up believing in their emotions (and perhaps wisely, Wells puts his implied happy ending at the beginning, and concludes the story on turmoil rather than presenting it as a victory over outdated morals).
What the opening at least actually reminded me of strongly was Betjeman's Summoned by Bells, a similarly vivid evocation of late Victorian middle-class upbringing (and, elsewhere in his poetry, squalor and tedium of lower-class London).The author evokes all the worlds and world-views through which his protagonist passes as he grows up, and passages of vivid description of the everyday which I had somehow not associated with the author of "The War of the Worlds", "The Time Machine", and "The Invisible Man". And he succeeds in making all this stuff engaging and interesting, despite the fact that on the face of it there is very little real plot; I read the entire book a lot more quickly than I was expecting.
In its depiction of the intellectual life of the era, the book is also a salutary reminder of the degree to which we are ruled by hindsight in our view of the past, as opposed to how they themselves saw it: I kept finding myself realising with a jolt, for example, that the late great war with its barbed wire and mass troop losses, which England had come so close to losing due to such military incompetence in face of "the modern type of war", was, in fact, what we nowadays know as the Boer War (but Wells at least calls the South African War), and not, at this date, WW1! (And in fact the narrator - and very possibly the author - is all in favour of the idea of a forthcoming "chastening" war with the Continental Powers, which England will inevitably lose and learn the lesson of her delusions of superiority; it was not only the Colonel Blimps of imperial society who welcomed the idea of conflict, or the Rupert Brookes who saw the prospect "to turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping" away from what is here characterised as "the slackness, mental dishonesty, presumption, mercenary respectability and sentimentalized commercialism" of the old order...)
The views of 1911 on eminent Victorians and their architecture, art etc. are of course very different from those of a hundred years later, too; in Wells' day this was all the ugly, outmoded recent past, to be despised with the superiority which every new fashion regards its parents' generation...
April 17, 2022
D H Lawrance is quoted as saying that this book is “awfully interesting”. I agree that it is interesting in parts but it is also awful In others. Scandalous when published but innocuous to the modern reader this, the most autobiographical of Wells’s books, majors on the themes of politics and sex. To neither activity does Remmington, the first person narrator, appear to indulge with any great energy although his interest in politics does seem the greater. In the modern era when the British Prime Minister can divorce, remarry and continue producing children whilst in office Remmington’s dalliance with Isabel appears commonplace and his decision to throw up his career an overreaction. But that is a perspective from now and not 100 years ago when such matters were seen very differently.
Revealing as they may be of Wells’s own attitudes at the time to sex, women, family, politics, society and so on I find great swathes of this book to have lost their impact. I grew increasingly irritated with the vacillating characters and slow moving pace of the action which in some chapters crawls through seemingly endless paragraphs of self indulgent and sentimental verbosity.
The many bits I did enjoy included the detailed description of the perspectives of the socialist, liberal and conservative philosophies and the observation of how these transcend national political structures in Europe and the USA with some interesting ideas about how these groupings are similar as well as different.
Throughout the work there is an understated sense of Wells’s disdain for democracy and ideas that the world would be better off if the best people were in charge - in this book it’s described as Imperialism - and that they were able to organise society with the greatest possible “efficiency”. Remmington’s shift from an essentially socialist/liberal position to what seems to be control by a ruling elite is reminiscent of the type of society Wells later describes in books such as “The shape of things to come”. Human progress is seen as being about efficiency and technology - other aspects of human development and relationships are seemingly a difficult subject for Wells.
I read this book as it is one of those quoted by Steinhoff as influences on the work of George Orwell, especially 1984, that I am working my way through. There are indeed some echoes of Orwell although perhaps not so direct as in other literature Orwell is known to have read. The place of intellectuals and elites in ruling the world, the need to control the thoughts and actions of the masses, and the idea that the ruling classes need a degree of fanaticism to stay in control are hinted at.
I’ve given 4 stars as although I huffed and puffed about parts of this book and the lengthy style it did make me think and make connections with other things and all in all I enjoyed it!
Revealing as they may be of Wells’s own attitudes at the time to sex, women, family, politics, society and so on I find great swathes of this book to have lost their impact. I grew increasingly irritated with the vacillating characters and slow moving pace of the action which in some chapters crawls through seemingly endless paragraphs of self indulgent and sentimental verbosity.
The many bits I did enjoy included the detailed description of the perspectives of the socialist, liberal and conservative philosophies and the observation of how these transcend national political structures in Europe and the USA with some interesting ideas about how these groupings are similar as well as different.
Throughout the work there is an understated sense of Wells’s disdain for democracy and ideas that the world would be better off if the best people were in charge - in this book it’s described as Imperialism - and that they were able to organise society with the greatest possible “efficiency”. Remmington’s shift from an essentially socialist/liberal position to what seems to be control by a ruling elite is reminiscent of the type of society Wells later describes in books such as “The shape of things to come”. Human progress is seen as being about efficiency and technology - other aspects of human development and relationships are seemingly a difficult subject for Wells.
I read this book as it is one of those quoted by Steinhoff as influences on the work of George Orwell, especially 1984, that I am working my way through. There are indeed some echoes of Orwell although perhaps not so direct as in other literature Orwell is known to have read. The place of intellectuals and elites in ruling the world, the need to control the thoughts and actions of the masses, and the idea that the ruling classes need a degree of fanaticism to stay in control are hinted at.
I’ve given 4 stars as although I huffed and puffed about parts of this book and the lengthy style it did make me think and make connections with other things and all in all I enjoyed it!
November 29, 2012
I normally love Wells, he's one of my favourite author's but I found this terribly hard going. Usually I appreciate his insights into society, culture and the way of the world but this just didn't sit right with me. Unlike his other introspective narrators this one just came across as a total prig, boorish, conceited and totally self centered. There were also no other characters in the book that I felt were redeemable. Later when the book came to focus on Isabel I wanted to like her for she bared a rather striking resemblance to Rebbecca West but the way she was written about was just so abstract it was really hard to get a sense of her. The book outlines the history of the politician Remmington, and his political ideas. There are a few quite interesting bits hidden away in here. I enjoyed the Edwardian man's rather frank discussion on sex. I also was amused by the descriptions of the political parties, how in almost 100 years nothing has changed. I think that may be part of the problem I had with this book, is that for all the ideas and criticisms it had, nothing changes. I also couldn't get behind the ideas of it, which is strange as normally I find I agree with Wells on many points, but the idea of a return to aristocracy, even a new kind, left a bad taste in my mouth. It is a taking a supreme effort to finish this, and honestly the only reason I am is because I have nothing else here to read! The last part of the book was definitely the best. I wish Wells had cut out the first three parts and just written the last part. The affair that destroyed everything was by far the most interesting part of the book. Unfortunately by that point I disliked Remmington so much that it was hard to maintain my interest. Here he claimed to be a feminist and while saw women as the equal of men, still saw their main purpose to providing children (reminding me a lot of a terrible article I read on the BBC lately). He said he had a totally equal relation with Isabel, and yet she called him "Master!". The idea of an affair that didn't end at the end of the book, but one the two people realised was the most important thing and worth everything was a lovely idea to me. I wish the whole book had been like this. Because of that and the other moments of brilliance I can't totally dismiss this, but I think this is my least favourite Wells I've ever read, and if it were by anyone else I never would have bothered to finish it.
February 9, 2020
Mr. Wells has always had his critics. Like other artists, he didn't stick to what others wanted from him but instead branched out to author other types of work. Critical of the way things were but optimistic about the future. Flawed and talented.
August 26, 2020
The copy I have of this novel is one of the reasons I like books. It is from the 1940s, sold in Kuala Lumpur, and has a brief dedication or a greeting on the third page (from 1947) – who has read it, where has it been, and how did it end up on the other side of the world some 70 years later?. The pages have the shade of worn brown, like they were left too long in the sun, and they feel old. And the whole book smells slightly funny. Ah!
While H.G. Wells is typically known for his sci-fi works, it seems he was pretty good at writing ‘normal’ fiction as well. The New Machiavelli goes into the category of biographical novels; aiming to detail the life of a man from his birth till his elder years. As the category is rather filled with entries, one has to ask is the person described interesting enough to warrant a novel. And the answer in this case is Yes.
While the story advances on chronologically, the narrative is divided into four ‘books’, each focusing on its own theme, and it works rather well: instead of becoming dull and perhaps repetitive recollection of things just happening, it gives a nice frame for each of the blocks in the story. Also, as it is told retrospectively by the narrator, there are enough small hooks littered around the book to keep you reading: the omniscient narrator informs the reader of the ‘impending disaster’ almost on the very first pages.
The subject matter, politics, is also dealt with in a satisfactory manner. I have a degree in English Philology, but still, 19th and early 20th century English and British politics are not the most engaging topic. However, the book manages to keep the reader interested, as the personal thoughts of an individual and larger, universal ‘truths’ about politics are discussed enthrallingly, though eventually in a rather superficial manner, as the novel turns out to be a love story, rather than a political discourse.
While H.G. Wells is typically known for his sci-fi works, it seems he was pretty good at writing ‘normal’ fiction as well. The New Machiavelli goes into the category of biographical novels; aiming to detail the life of a man from his birth till his elder years. As the category is rather filled with entries, one has to ask is the person described interesting enough to warrant a novel. And the answer in this case is Yes.
While the story advances on chronologically, the narrative is divided into four ‘books’, each focusing on its own theme, and it works rather well: instead of becoming dull and perhaps repetitive recollection of things just happening, it gives a nice frame for each of the blocks in the story. Also, as it is told retrospectively by the narrator, there are enough small hooks littered around the book to keep you reading: the omniscient narrator informs the reader of the ‘impending disaster’ almost on the very first pages.
The subject matter, politics, is also dealt with in a satisfactory manner. I have a degree in English Philology, but still, 19th and early 20th century English and British politics are not the most engaging topic. However, the book manages to keep the reader interested, as the personal thoughts of an individual and larger, universal ‘truths’ about politics are discussed enthrallingly, though eventually in a rather superficial manner, as the novel turns out to be a love story, rather than a political discourse.
April 28, 2012
A fairly comprehensive introduction to the intellectual climate of fin-de-siecle / pre-WW1 England. One sees how progressivism in England grew out of a recognition by intellectual elite-aspirants of the possibilities made available by the managerial revolution in private affairs (hence the contempt the narrator heaps on his businessman-uncle, which is really about envy that such a inferior person/type of person should have got the jump on him in gaining large-scale power).
The story (autobiography of a disgraced intellectual/politician) is fairly effective, although definitely second-rate when compared to, for instance, Updike's "The Coup." I would cut a hundred or so pages.
And there is something bombastic, vacuous, and ultimately sophomoric in the thought-processes of the fairly intelligent and perceptive narrator, which is most apparent during reported speechifying. In the end, as Wells is about half-aware, his approach to public affairs never moves beyond the opening images of the narrator as a boy, building elaborate dioramas with his toys.
His final political insight, that population quality matters more than any particular policy shift, is fine as far as it goes, but the "eugenic" plan he dreams up of abandoning the patriarchal family and subsidizing independent single mothers to reproduce with State funds has been tried, and the results, as many people could have predicted, were decidedly dysgenic.
The story (autobiography of a disgraced intellectual/politician) is fairly effective, although definitely second-rate when compared to, for instance, Updike's "The Coup." I would cut a hundred or so pages.
And there is something bombastic, vacuous, and ultimately sophomoric in the thought-processes of the fairly intelligent and perceptive narrator, which is most apparent during reported speechifying. In the end, as Wells is about half-aware, his approach to public affairs never moves beyond the opening images of the narrator as a boy, building elaborate dioramas with his toys.
His final political insight, that population quality matters more than any particular policy shift, is fine as far as it goes, but the "eugenic" plan he dreams up of abandoning the patriarchal family and subsidizing independent single mothers to reproduce with State funds has been tried, and the results, as many people could have predicted, were decidedly dysgenic.
November 13, 2012
Wells can be such a good writer. Here he is on silly young women:
"the chief elements of a good time...are a petty eventfulness, laughter, and to feel that you are looking well and attracting attention."
And on the determined-to-understand little wife:
"It was so pitilessly manifest she was resolved to idealise the situation whatever I might say."
But....when he writes about politics, you yawn, and when he writes about sex....well your toes curl, it's dreadful.
So this book has wonderful moments, but you have to persevere to find them. I wouldn't bother, stick to 'The Invisible Man' or 'Mr Polly.'
"the chief elements of a good time...are a petty eventfulness, laughter, and to feel that you are looking well and attracting attention."
And on the determined-to-understand little wife:
"It was so pitilessly manifest she was resolved to idealise the situation whatever I might say."
But....when he writes about politics, you yawn, and when he writes about sex....well your toes curl, it's dreadful.
So this book has wonderful moments, but you have to persevere to find them. I wouldn't bother, stick to 'The Invisible Man' or 'Mr Polly.'
September 10, 2008
I like Wells for his sci-fi and fantastic stories.
Ann Veronica
, another of his attempts to promote his political ideas through novels, was even better than this one. I just couldn't bear it, so I returned it to my bookshelf. Before presenting your high ideals, you must have a good story to tell first...
April 11, 2015
A dissapointingly misleading title for anybody who hoped for something which talked about something of Machiavelli. The plot was far from political, again a disappointment considering the description.
But it was well written apart from the old ramble that wells does.
Particularly enjoyed the first stage about childhood and creating imaginary battles in the hedges when walking home.
But it was well written apart from the old ramble that wells does.
Particularly enjoyed the first stage about childhood and creating imaginary battles in the hedges when walking home.
December 22, 2011
I would have given it a higher rating but it just went on and on.
May 21, 2020
This book is too long winded and not at all what I expected from H.G. Wells.
After reading about i/3 of the book, I started skimming pages.
After reading about i/3 of the book, I started skimming pages.
September 16, 2020
Odd, compulsive, strangely still relevant. Well worth reading.
November 10, 2021
I had high hopes for this when I got hold of my copy, if only because I’ve enjoyed all of the other H. G. Wells books that I’ve read. I guess the problem here is that I like it when he tackles science fiction, but this was much more like the equivalent of what we’d call contemporary fiction, or perhaps literary fiction with a focus on politics, which ain’t no one got time for.
And so while the prose itself was pretty good, the story was pretty meh and I didn’t care too much about the characters just because its’s hard to give too much of a shit about anyone who’s in a position of power.
I did quite like the little nods to Machiavelli’s The Prince, because it’s not been long since I read that, but there weren’t enough for it to carry the book. For the most part, I was just very aware that I was only reading it to be able to tick it off, because Wells is one of those authors who I want to read everything by.
That’s a shame, because there’s a lot to like here if you’re the kind of reader who enjoys this sort of thing. I guess it just didn’t resonate with me, and it was also the wrong book at the wrong time, at least for me. At the same time, I’m working on cutting down my owned but unread TBR pile, and so I couldn’t really live it for later.
Wells was a super interesting and influential author and I’m not trying to take anything away from that. I’m also a general fan of his stuff, it’s just that this one wasn’t for me. I’ll still stick with him, but I just might be a little more cautious and consider switching a few of them out as bedtime books, as I did with this one.
Don’t let that put you off, though. If you’re a Wells fan then you should still check this out, just don’t expect it to be another War of the Worlds or the Time Machine. It’s much drier than that, and much more rooted in the human condition and the desire for power. But at least I’ve ticked it off, eh? Cool.
And so while the prose itself was pretty good, the story was pretty meh and I didn’t care too much about the characters just because its’s hard to give too much of a shit about anyone who’s in a position of power.
I did quite like the little nods to Machiavelli’s The Prince, because it’s not been long since I read that, but there weren’t enough for it to carry the book. For the most part, I was just very aware that I was only reading it to be able to tick it off, because Wells is one of those authors who I want to read everything by.
That’s a shame, because there’s a lot to like here if you’re the kind of reader who enjoys this sort of thing. I guess it just didn’t resonate with me, and it was also the wrong book at the wrong time, at least for me. At the same time, I’m working on cutting down my owned but unread TBR pile, and so I couldn’t really live it for later.
Wells was a super interesting and influential author and I’m not trying to take anything away from that. I’m also a general fan of his stuff, it’s just that this one wasn’t for me. I’ll still stick with him, but I just might be a little more cautious and consider switching a few of them out as bedtime books, as I did with this one.
Don’t let that put you off, though. If you’re a Wells fan then you should still check this out, just don’t expect it to be another War of the Worlds or the Time Machine. It’s much drier than that, and much more rooted in the human condition and the desire for power. But at least I’ve ticked it off, eh? Cool.
February 25, 2024
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/the-new-machiavelli-by-h-g-wells/
This is one of Wells' longer works, whose protagonist emerges from the heart of the middle classes to a Cambridge education, election as a young Liberal MP in the 1906 landslide, and then defects to the Conservatives as a radical new thinker, and also abandons his long-suffering wife for a younger and keener admirer. That last bit, if not the rest, is very clearly drawn from Wells’ own experience, and the emotional passages are poignantly drawn, even if we can’t always sympathise much with the choices made by Wells’ hero.
The political parts, however, are crashingly dull in places; the world has moved on a lot from the hot topics of political debate in 1910, and I can’t believe that Wells’ writing on this was a really attractive feature of the book when it first came out. Of the political issues that we do remember from that time, the suffragette movement is mentioned only as background colour, and Ireland not at all. Wells may perhaps have been hoping to shift the political debate with his fiction, but contemporary reaction seems to have concentrated on the scandalous sex in this novel. (Which as usual is discreetly off-stage.) There’s also a frankly nasty portrait of Beatrice and Sydney Webb, which must have annoyed their many mutual friends.
This is one of Wells' longer works, whose protagonist emerges from the heart of the middle classes to a Cambridge education, election as a young Liberal MP in the 1906 landslide, and then defects to the Conservatives as a radical new thinker, and also abandons his long-suffering wife for a younger and keener admirer. That last bit, if not the rest, is very clearly drawn from Wells’ own experience, and the emotional passages are poignantly drawn, even if we can’t always sympathise much with the choices made by Wells’ hero.
The political parts, however, are crashingly dull in places; the world has moved on a lot from the hot topics of political debate in 1910, and I can’t believe that Wells’ writing on this was a really attractive feature of the book when it first came out. Of the political issues that we do remember from that time, the suffragette movement is mentioned only as background colour, and Ireland not at all. Wells may perhaps have been hoping to shift the political debate with his fiction, but contemporary reaction seems to have concentrated on the scandalous sex in this novel. (Which as usual is discreetly off-stage.) There’s also a frankly nasty portrait of Beatrice and Sydney Webb, which must have annoyed their many mutual friends.
May 28, 2019
An ok book by Wells. It starts off with great promise, following the political beliefs of the main character Richard (Dick) stemming from Childhood to adulthood, marriage and how his political beliefs change when he sees and understands how politics and parliament works. In part, it is a good analogy of how your own political beliefs, no matter where on the spectrum they begin, evolve and change over time.
What lets this book down is that by the end of section 3, Wells suddenly draws a line and says this part of the story is over, I am now going to look at relationships and my love affair. Because of this the continuity was lost and went down hill from there. Stick to one story, not create two and halt part of the way through.
Perhaps it is because I have had a break from a lot of Wells, or, it is because of where I have picked up his later works, he seems to be more stuck on socialism, Fabianism and getting his political beliefs over rather than actual story telling itself.
What lets this book down is that by the end of section 3, Wells suddenly draws a line and says this part of the story is over, I am now going to look at relationships and my love affair. Because of this the continuity was lost and went down hill from there. Stick to one story, not create two and halt part of the way through.
Perhaps it is because I have had a break from a lot of Wells, or, it is because of where I have picked up his later works, he seems to be more stuck on socialism, Fabianism and getting his political beliefs over rather than actual story telling itself.
December 15, 2021
Not my favourite HG read. Tory twit. Too much waffle. None of the fun of Kipps, Mr. Polly etc, The New Machiavelli puts an end to all that & replaces it with mixed-up political diatribe & over-analytical excuses for misdemeanours during puberty & young manhood. My advice to both you & HG would be to "Put it down!" Either that or "Boil it hard!"
October 8, 2020
I am a fan of Machiavelli. I really like HG Wells' science fiction. I figured this would also give some background into an era I have been reading (Virginia Woolf, Sackville-West and others of that group). This read was a slow struggle. I appreciate the intent, but the story did not age well
November 11, 2022
sex and Politics
Gifted student goes into politics and eventually gets caught up in a scandal. Not necessarily an easy read but for Wells fans interesting enough.
Gifted student goes into politics and eventually gets caught up in a scandal. Not necessarily an easy read but for Wells fans interesting enough.
May 18, 2023
Whimsical. Introspective, meandering and dull. I truly have no idea what the author was setting out to achieve with this book.
May 25, 2024
After reading The Time Machine and Island of Dr Moreau I was excited for more. But this book is an absolute slog to get through.
October 11, 2024
Well's greatest book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews