Scan barcode
A review by forgottensecret
The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells
3.0
'The stranger came early in February, one wintry day, through a biting wind and a driving snow, the last snowfall of the year, over the down, walking from Bramblehurst railway station, and carrying a little black portmanteau in his thickly gloved hand.'
H.G. Wells and Jules Verne are often called 'the father(s) of science fiction'. For his work, Wells was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature four times. He published 'The Invisible Man' in 1897, departing from his use of the first-person narrator as he had done in the earlier 'The Time Machine'.
I quite enjoyed following The Invisible Man. He begins in Iping, a village in East Sussex, and we wonder why he has 1001 bottles and how a person becomes invisible. Soon, we realise that he shares none of the congeniality of Sue Storm from 'The Fantastic Four', and acts more like a rougher Joe Pesci in 'Goodfellas' - quick to anger, and spurning human connection. He is eventually betrayed by a tramp, Thomas Marvel, who steals the three notebooks which contain the experiments and science behind his invisibility.
We learn all about The Invisible Man, née Griffin, after he luckily takes refuge in a home that belongs to an old friend from university, Dr Kemp. It is in the resulting conversations with Dr Kemp that Griffin explains how he used physics to erase the lumber of visibility. He is again betrayed, this time by the doctor who he attempts to enlist in his bid to terrorise the country. By this point, after the experiments on cats and the experiments on himself, Griffin is both lawless and bitter. After promising 'A Reign of Terror' and killing a man and shooting another, he dies at the hand of a mob.
While reading this, I couldn't help but think this would have been a better novel if Dostoyevsky wrote it. Except during the big reveal with Kemp, we don't really get to enter the psychology of The Invisible Man, and a novel from his perspective, much as Dostoyevsky did for Raskolkinov in 'Crime and Punishment' would have been a deeper read. This book has also forced me to seriously reflect before choosing 'invisibility' as my answer in a game of 'Would you rather...?'
H.G. Wells and Jules Verne are often called 'the father(s) of science fiction'. For his work, Wells was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature four times. He published 'The Invisible Man' in 1897, departing from his use of the first-person narrator as he had done in the earlier 'The Time Machine'.
I quite enjoyed following The Invisible Man. He begins in Iping, a village in East Sussex, and we wonder why he has 1001 bottles and how a person becomes invisible. Soon, we realise that he shares none of the congeniality of Sue Storm from 'The Fantastic Four', and acts more like a rougher Joe Pesci in 'Goodfellas' - quick to anger, and spurning human connection. He is eventually betrayed by a tramp, Thomas Marvel, who steals the three notebooks which contain the experiments and science behind his invisibility.
We learn all about The Invisible Man, née Griffin, after he luckily takes refuge in a home that belongs to an old friend from university, Dr Kemp. It is in the resulting conversations with Dr Kemp that Griffin explains how he used physics to erase the lumber of visibility. He is again betrayed, this time by the doctor who he attempts to enlist in his bid to terrorise the country. By this point, after the experiments on cats and the experiments on himself, Griffin is both lawless and bitter. After promising 'A Reign of Terror' and killing a man and shooting another, he dies at the hand of a mob.
While reading this, I couldn't help but think this would have been a better novel if Dostoyevsky wrote it. Except during the big reveal with Kemp, we don't really get to enter the psychology of The Invisible Man, and a novel from his perspective, much as Dostoyevsky did for Raskolkinov in 'Crime and Punishment' would have been a deeper read. This book has also forced me to seriously reflect before choosing 'invisibility' as my answer in a game of 'Would you rather...?'