Reviews

I liked The Time Machine and loved The Invisible Man! The Time Machine is fascinating to read, especially since it was written so long ago, however I started getting a bit antsy toward the end. The Invisible Man however kept my attention fervently! It made me thirst to read more H.G. Wells! I highly recommend them both!

rxh05d's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

The Time Machine is a quick read but fascinating speculation into the future. My only quibble with it is that I get really tired of the conceit in so many novels of this time that the author of the book is listening to someone tell a story.

The Invisible Man reminded me of Frankenstein in the idea of a young ambitious scientist with a tragic flaw. In this the flaw is that he's a jerk. Ironically if he had been polite to the people in the inn, and pretended to be a sympathetic disfigured man, he would possibly have gotten the space he needed to accomplish his work.

I wish the introduction had recommended more books of Wells to read instead of just complaining that people only know him for sci fi.

js_warren's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

Obviously, Wells is a sci-fi legend, and rightfully so. His writing can be a bit clinical at times, but his imaginative prowess more than makes up for some stiff prose. While I was obviously familiar with both stories, I'd never actually read them, so many of the details were new to me. He spins an interesting yarn.

The foot- and endnotes for this edition were a bit of a "highlight" for me, simply because they were generally absurdly unnecessary. First, the man responsible for them appears to be unaware that there are things called dictionaries, and many notes are simple definitions, many of words and phrases that aren't the least bit unusual, or are utterly understandable via context. Skimming through, he felt it necessary to explain "sleight-of-hand," "blind" (as in a window blind, which his footnote helpfully explains is a "shade," which, while not inaccurate, seems like a less precise definition), and "taters," a definition that'd help Gollum and just about no one else. His endnotes are much the same, often literally just repeating the information Wells had already given, and a couple of which actually seemed incorrect.

There were, of course, helpful notes, most of them providing context that a modern reader would lack (as a foot- or endnote so often does). But the seemingly random subjects of his notes (occasionally even ignoring things that could have used an explanation) was a constant source of amusement. Are Barnes & Noble Classics for kids? That might explain some of it, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, this was well worth the time I spent reading it. These are classics for a reason.

tishtashtosh's review

Go to review page

adventurous mysterious slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.0

'It is a law of nature we overlook, that intellectual versatility is the compensation for change, danger, and trouble. An animal perfectly in harmony with its environment is a perfect mechanism. Nature never appeals to intelligence until habit and instinct are useless. There is no intelligence where there is no change and no need of change.'

bosermoki's review

Go to review page

adventurous slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

5.0

More...