This is a first of a kind for me. I am not reading this novella, I'm hearing it. Of course I'd heard of 'audio books' before but never took it seriously. Following the conventional routes I told myself books are meant to be read, not heard. A few weeks ago I convinced my wife to try out one of the satellite radio services available. There's no choice really since XM and Sirius are the same. Wait! There is a difference if you are Indian. XM has one Indian station and this meant I'd subscribe XM, not Sirius. Little did I realize that this might change my lifestyle. It had long been in my mind to have music playing the entire day (wasting energy you say?). It's now true. But I got more than what I bargained for. In addition to BBC Newshour on my runs I have experienced radio plays and am now listening to 'The Time Machine' on XM.
Since this would be my first exercise in listening to a written work I wanted to pick a short story of some kind. 'The Time Machine' is a novella, is quite famous and started quite at a time convenient to me. For twenty-three minutes a day five days a week the book is read on the radio. Having heard three parts I must say it's been quite an experience.
Before the book starts the reader's name is mentioned but I can't remember it now. Now reading a novel is not as small as a feat I'd thought. In fact when I listen to the radiobroadcast I have not once felt a person is merely reading it. The narration is expertly expressive. The direct speech is spoken out with the same emotions as the character would. When a setting is described the voice is bereft of emotions painting a vivid picture in listener's mind. It's almost like listening to my grandmother's tales, my grandmother actually told me tales. That's as good a comparison as I can come up with at the moment.
There is a downside. For me it's not minor enough to ignore. When I read a novel I like to have my dictionary with me. Even if I am 90% sure of a word I still look it up. If it's a book by Salman Rushdie then I peruse the dictionary as much as the novel. With an audio book I can't do that. If it's a new word I can't make out what is said so I end up missing the word. Of course one may argue that missing a word now and then doesn't hamper in the over-all impact of the prose but I like to take the opportunity to add new words to my limited vocabulary.
Moving on to the novella. The only few pages (maybe I should say minutes) are the best I have read for any book. The concept of time being the fourth dimension is not new to anyone. The time traveller poses the question of existence of an object with three spatial dimensions but lacking a temporal description. What a question to fall into a novel! Of course it is a work of sci-fi but I didn't expect it in a novel. In fact the first few minutes provide the most interesting motivation to time travel I have ever come across. No film I have seen on the concept of time travel motivates the subject like it's done by H.G. Wells.
After the initial dialog there is a clear description of the setting for the discussion. The characters, I felt, were not described perhaps saved for later discussion. The fire, the drinks, the lighting, the walk to the cell which has the time machine all so clear in my head when listening. When the time traveller brings out the miniature time machine it's a sight (remember the pictures are in your head) to behold until it disappears. There is a person, if I remember right, who clearly doesn't believe the time traveller. Later we are told it's hard to believe the time traveller. He is a clever man of questionable ethics we are told.
There is some time devoted to the time traveller's description of time travel. For the first time it makes sense to me. Time travel has been shown with the time travellers just disappearing from the present and appearing at the time of their choice. What does the journey actually seem like to the time travellers? In the early part of the book Wells' explains that time travel merely involves travelling faster than time travels. Simple enough. I remember that. Our hero starts off on his journey and his description makes perfect sense with that concept. He actually sees time fly by. It's all happening too fast for him. Sunrise, sunset, changing seasons all happen in a flash. The speed of his time machine makes him uncomfortable just like it should. After all even riding in a Formula-1 car is no joke, even Schumacher wasn't up to it recently. Why should time travel be any easier? I plan on listening to this portion once again. This is how I'd like to show time travel to the world in my film.
Once the time traveler gets involved with the people of the future it gets somewhat contrary to the future as we see it. The future, as the time traveler first speculates, is positive as far as nature is concerned. The land is lush green. That's not the way we see the future. Climate change is supposed to ruin the planet of natural vegetation so much so that we now are headed towards or already in food shortages. In the novella natives thrive on raw fruits, the land has fantastic flowers and brilliant butterflies. Little chance of that being the future. Further, the time traveler's initial assessment is of natives in perfect harmony. He assesses that mankind's urge to play God has changed the earth and beings in such a way that there is constant peace. We are not headed in that direction. This seems a land more from the past than the future. The time traveler feels the natives are of lower intelligence. Art, music, science, etc. are not a part of the culture. The natives have no curiosity, worse than kids, and are so content with life that there is no motivation to strive for better. From the time traveler's first-cut conclusions it looks like a future unlike what we are headed for.
An introduction to life under the beautiful "over-world" adds the much-needed chill to a tale that had lost pace. There is a way in which the life down under is described. Very conveniently the beings are nocturnal and run away from light meaning we don't know much about their appearance. They have big eyes and are hairy. Perfect anatomy for the imagination to run wild when these beings touch the time traveler. Even when in their living environment the setting is too dark for the time traveler to see them clearly or if he does the description is not clear. He gets into their lair and tries to get out. Of course when he tries to get out the fun starts. It's short, I agree but it's fun. The tactic used here is similar to others I have noticed in good horror films. A close example being 'Signs' (not the best of films but there is a sequence unlike any I have seen) where a group of four are in the basement and the lights die. So far we have not seen the alien in the film and for an extended period the film plays sans visual. It's just like that in 'The Time Machine'. The "creature" is deliberately not fully described and during physical contact with the protagonist our imaginations plays games with us (viewer/reader). I am starting to like this ploy. The mind imagines the most horrifying of creatures obviously which is exactly what the writer/director wants. Once the time traveler is out of the well I breathed a sigh of relief just like he did.
Expect literary works to take political turns. H.G. Wells' "Time Machine" is no different. When the under-world is introduced the time traveler has a theory to justify their existence. Man has evolved into two separate beings. A scary thought. But the next sentence or so he says the under-world (Morlocks) evolved from the poor and the over-world (Eloi) from the rich. The thought of two species of man was scary to me while the thought of their origins seemed like, I don't know what to say, baffling, amusing, hackeneyed, interesting. It's baffling that sci-fi must be political, amusing for the same reason, hackeneyed because we've seen it before and interesting because of the presentation (two species of man, my God!).
After this the book didn't really go anywhere for me. There is the usual action towards the end. It was nothing special. Beat up the bad guys save the girl with huge fires in the backdrop. Very very disappointing. The world of the future was not fully explored. There was no characterization, not one from the Eloi, not one from the Morlock. There is no human element. 'The Time Machine' as a title is a misnomer in my opinion. The story could have been amidst aliens for all I cared. I didn't like the way the book concluded, no originality here. But I did like it most of the way and I have explained why.
All in all it was okay-okay. Perhaps my expectations were high. As a first audiobook experience it was very good and is the only reason why I will probably not forget. It will remain as a first-time-listening-to-a-book experience, not as a book I'll ask others to read.
Rating: 3.5/5
Since this would be my first exercise in listening to a written work I wanted to pick a short story of some kind. 'The Time Machine' is a novella, is quite famous and started quite at a time convenient to me. For twenty-three minutes a day five days a week the book is read on the radio. Having heard three parts I must say it's been quite an experience.
Before the book starts the reader's name is mentioned but I can't remember it now. Now reading a novel is not as small as a feat I'd thought. In fact when I listen to the radiobroadcast I have not once felt a person is merely reading it. The narration is expertly expressive. The direct speech is spoken out with the same emotions as the character would. When a setting is described the voice is bereft of emotions painting a vivid picture in listener's mind. It's almost like listening to my grandmother's tales, my grandmother actually told me tales. That's as good a comparison as I can come up with at the moment.
There is a downside. For me it's not minor enough to ignore. When I read a novel I like to have my dictionary with me. Even if I am 90% sure of a word I still look it up. If it's a book by Salman Rushdie then I peruse the dictionary as much as the novel. With an audio book I can't do that. If it's a new word I can't make out what is said so I end up missing the word. Of course one may argue that missing a word now and then doesn't hamper in the over-all impact of the prose but I like to take the opportunity to add new words to my limited vocabulary.
Moving on to the novella. The only few pages (maybe I should say minutes) are the best I have read for any book. The concept of time being the fourth dimension is not new to anyone. The time traveller poses the question of existence of an object with three spatial dimensions but lacking a temporal description. What a question to fall into a novel! Of course it is a work of sci-fi but I didn't expect it in a novel. In fact the first few minutes provide the most interesting motivation to time travel I have ever come across. No film I have seen on the concept of time travel motivates the subject like it's done by H.G. Wells.
After the initial dialog there is a clear description of the setting for the discussion. The characters, I felt, were not described perhaps saved for later discussion. The fire, the drinks, the lighting, the walk to the cell which has the time machine all so clear in my head when listening. When the time traveller brings out the miniature time machine it's a sight (remember the pictures are in your head) to behold until it disappears. There is a person, if I remember right, who clearly doesn't believe the time traveller. Later we are told it's hard to believe the time traveller. He is a clever man of questionable ethics we are told.
There is some time devoted to the time traveller's description of time travel. For the first time it makes sense to me. Time travel has been shown with the time travellers just disappearing from the present and appearing at the time of their choice. What does the journey actually seem like to the time travellers? In the early part of the book Wells' explains that time travel merely involves travelling faster than time travels. Simple enough. I remember that. Our hero starts off on his journey and his description makes perfect sense with that concept. He actually sees time fly by. It's all happening too fast for him. Sunrise, sunset, changing seasons all happen in a flash. The speed of his time machine makes him uncomfortable just like it should. After all even riding in a Formula-1 car is no joke, even Schumacher wasn't up to it recently. Why should time travel be any easier? I plan on listening to this portion once again. This is how I'd like to show time travel to the world in my film.
Once the time traveler gets involved with the people of the future it gets somewhat contrary to the future as we see it. The future, as the time traveler first speculates, is positive as far as nature is concerned. The land is lush green. That's not the way we see the future. Climate change is supposed to ruin the planet of natural vegetation so much so that we now are headed towards or already in food shortages. In the novella natives thrive on raw fruits, the land has fantastic flowers and brilliant butterflies. Little chance of that being the future. Further, the time traveler's initial assessment is of natives in perfect harmony. He assesses that mankind's urge to play God has changed the earth and beings in such a way that there is constant peace. We are not headed in that direction. This seems a land more from the past than the future. The time traveler feels the natives are of lower intelligence. Art, music, science, etc. are not a part of the culture. The natives have no curiosity, worse than kids, and are so content with life that there is no motivation to strive for better. From the time traveler's first-cut conclusions it looks like a future unlike what we are headed for.
An introduction to life under the beautiful "over-world" adds the much-needed chill to a tale that had lost pace. There is a way in which the life down under is described. Very conveniently the beings are nocturnal and run away from light meaning we don't know much about their appearance. They have big eyes and are hairy. Perfect anatomy for the imagination to run wild when these beings touch the time traveler. Even when in their living environment the setting is too dark for the time traveler to see them clearly or if he does the description is not clear. He gets into their lair and tries to get out. Of course when he tries to get out the fun starts. It's short, I agree but it's fun. The tactic used here is similar to others I have noticed in good horror films. A close example being 'Signs' (not the best of films but there is a sequence unlike any I have seen) where a group of four are in the basement and the lights die. So far we have not seen the alien in the film and for an extended period the film plays sans visual. It's just like that in 'The Time Machine'. The "creature" is deliberately not fully described and during physical contact with the protagonist our imaginations plays games with us (viewer/reader). I am starting to like this ploy. The mind imagines the most horrifying of creatures obviously which is exactly what the writer/director wants. Once the time traveler is out of the well I breathed a sigh of relief just like he did.
Expect literary works to take political turns. H.G. Wells' "Time Machine" is no different. When the under-world is introduced the time traveler has a theory to justify their existence. Man has evolved into two separate beings. A scary thought. But the next sentence or so he says the under-world (Morlocks) evolved from the poor and the over-world (Eloi) from the rich. The thought of two species of man was scary to me while the thought of their origins seemed like, I don't know what to say, baffling, amusing, hackeneyed, interesting. It's baffling that sci-fi must be political, amusing for the same reason, hackeneyed because we've seen it before and interesting because of the presentation (two species of man, my God!).
After this the book didn't really go anywhere for me. There is the usual action towards the end. It was nothing special. Beat up the bad guys save the girl with huge fires in the backdrop. Very very disappointing. The world of the future was not fully explored. There was no characterization, not one from the Eloi, not one from the Morlock. There is no human element. 'The Time Machine' as a title is a misnomer in my opinion. The story could have been amidst aliens for all I cared. I didn't like the way the book concluded, no originality here. But I did like it most of the way and I have explained why.
All in all it was okay-okay. Perhaps my expectations were high. As a first audiobook experience it was very good and is the only reason why I will probably not forget. It will remain as a first-time-listening-to-a-book experience, not as a book I'll ask others to read.
Rating: 3.5/5
