The Shape of Things to Come

Max Sinister · Jul 3, 2006

One of the lesser known books by H. G. Wells. Written in 1933, it's very interesting as FH.

Although he got a few things wrong, those which he got right are astonishingly accurate:

- War starts in Danzig, in 1940
- Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Albania invade Yugoslavia
- Germany unites with Austria
- Soviet Russia invades Lemberg, annexes Bessarabia

And note this: Wiki link
Seeking a more structured way to play war games, H.G. Wells wrote Floor Games (1911) followed by Little Wars (1913). Little Wars is recognised today as the first recreational wargame and Wells is regarded by gamers and hobbyists as "the Father of Miniature Wargaming."

H. G. Wells a wargamer - who'd have thought...

Thande · Jul 3, 2006

I've seen the film of it made in the 1936, called simply "Things to Come", which I understand is considerably different to the original book. Interesting that they didn't think there would be a successful Moon shot until 2036.

Max Sinister · Jul 3, 2006

Well, TTL assumes a ten-year WW2 until 1950 and an almost complete breakdown of civilization. Of course the moon would have to wait.

Prunesquallor · Jul 3, 2006

There's actually a couple of different prints of THINGS TO COME floating around, over a quarter of an hour was cut out. The book is, to be honest, rather boring, the film also has a tendency that way but is saved by the art work and the cast.

Incidentally, if you wanted a literary "father of miniature wargaming", I'd have said Robert Louis Stevenson had primacy.

Thande · Jul 3, 2006

Max Sinister said:
Well, TTL assumes a ten-year WW2 until 1950 and an almost complete breakdown of civilization. Of course the moon would have to wait.

I thought it was a THIRTY year WW2...

Max Sinister · Jul 3, 2006

That probably depends whether you read the book or watch the movie. I only saw a few scenes from the movie, but yes, there they depict it as a thirty-year war.

Ivan Druzhkov · Sep 15, 2009

ULTRA-MEGA-CHAOS-MAGIC-THREAD-NECROMANY-OF-DOOM!!!

I started reading TSOTTC last week after seeing some interesting comments about it from John J. Reilly in his review of Hitler's War. And my reaction?

Well...

To be honest, I'm finding it much harder slogging than I was expecting. The edition I have has a critical introduction by SF critic John Clute, who describes the book as operating under a "Whig theory of history," in the sense that the chroniclers of the book live in an age that is totally perfect in every way, and their aim in writing the book is to show how all of world history is a lead-up to the summit of their shiny brilliance and how everyone who didn't agree was an ignorant fuckhead that was buried by progress, and good riddance. As a result, it comes across as a very condescending book, especially if you believe that Wells' method for making the world a paradise would probably not work. Fortunately, I have George Orwell to calm the blood.

Right now, I'm just at the part in the early 1930s when the world is starting to go to hell. Given how this book was written in 1933, there isn't much space devoted to Hitler, which is expected if a little odd to someone like me who's encountered Der Fuhrer's shadow in every history he reads. The retroactive AH material hasn't started up in earnest yet, so it'll be another few days before I can comment on that.

By the way, Stephen Baxter fans will probably find large parts of this book rather familiar. A lot of the stuff Wells throws in to describe the decaying wartime Europe of the 1940s (a society in uniforms, cities covered by great concrete domes to protect against bombers, hopes for a totalitarian transport ministry to control the world) pop up again in the alternate 1938 sequences of The Time Ships. Rather appropriate, as that book was essentially Baxter's love letter to Wells.

Thande · Sep 15, 2009

Ivan Druzhkov said:
To be honest, I'm finding it much harder slogging than I was expecting. The edition I have has a critical introduction by SF critic John Clute, who describes the book as operating under a "Whig theory of history," in the sense that the chroniclers of the book live in an age that is totally perfect in every way, and their aim in writing the book is to show how all of world history is a lead-up to the summit of their shiny brilliance and how everyone who didn't agree was an ignorant fuckhead that was buried by progress, and good riddance. As a result, it comes across as a very condescending book, especially if you believe that Wells' method for making the world a paradise would probably not work.

The Whig theory of history used to be very prevalent, and indeed is still very common now, it's just that what constitutes the Only True And Perfect Way Of Doing Things has shifted over time, naturally.

It's particularly noticeable if you read material from the early 1950s - both nonfiction and fiction - which is very anvilicious about saying how the United Nations is the end of history, putting us on the proper path to a one world government of peace and universal brotherhood, and any who tried to stand against it are worse than Nazi war criminals. Very odd to contrast that with modern views, esp. in the United States.

Landshark · Sep 15, 2009

Thande said:
Interesting that they didn't think there would be a successful Moon shot until 2036.

Depressing to think that that's probably when we'll actually have another successful Moon shot.

Thande · Sep 15, 2009

Landshark said:
Depressing to think that that's probably when we'll actually have another successful Moon shot.

I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic. Ironically the Victorian vision is coming true: even if national space programmes backslide, it looks like the future will be dominated by one mad inventor with a vision who sets fire to people who criticise him.

Atom · Sep 15, 2009

Thande said:
I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic. Ironically the Victorian vision is coming true: even if national space programmes backslide, it looks like the future will be dominated by one mad inventor with a vision who sets fire to people who criticise him.

I think that by the time the economy of the world starts to recover plans for a moon shot will come back with full force. It seems to be the trendy thing to do with extra money if your an up-and-coming nation.

Landshark · Sep 15, 2009

Thande said:
I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic. Ironically the Victorian vision is coming true: even if national space programmes backslide, it looks like the future will be dominated by one mad inventor with a vision who sets fire to people who criticise him.

Based on past performance you're more likely to set fire to yourself Moriarty.

And I'm comparing you to the count rather than the professor there.

stirlingdraka · Sep 16, 2009

Ivan Druzhkov said:
ULTRA-MEGA-CHAOS-MAGIC-THREAD-NECROMANY-OF-DOOM!!!

I started reading TSOTTC last week after seeing some interesting comments about it from John J. Reilly in his review of Hitler's War. And my reaction?

Well...

To be honest, I'm finding it much harder slogging than I was expecting. The edition I have has a critical introduction by SF critic John Clute, who describes the book as operating under a "Whig theory of history," in the sense that the chroniclers of the book live in an age that is totally perfect in every way, and their aim in writing the book is to show how all of world history is a lead-up to the summit of their shiny brilliance and how everyone who didn't agree was an ignorant fuckhead that was buried by progress, and good riddance. As a result, it comes across as a very condescending book, especially if you believe that Wells' method for making the world a paradise would probably not work. Fortunately, I have George Orwell to calm the blood.

Right now, I'm just at the part in the early 1930s when the world is starting to go to hell. Given how this book was written in 1933, there isn't much space devoted to Hitler, which is expected if a little odd to someone like me who's encountered Der Fuhrer's shadow in every history he reads. The retroactive AH material hasn't started up in earnest yet, so it'll be another few days before I can comment on that.
.

I bought a copy over two months ago and have still only read bits and pieces. It is very hard to read through sometimes. I`ve seen the movie Things to come and thought it was very good.

The Professor · Sep 16, 2009

To be honest I prefer Last & First Men as a Future History despite it being so horribly outdated scientifically

Sovereign12 · Sep 16, 2009

The Professor said:
To be honest I prefer Last & First Men as a Future History despite it being so horribly outdated scientifically

I love Olaf Stapleton.

I agree its dated and the spiritual angle can be a bit much, but the overall design of the life forms he created in both "Last and First Men", Star Maker, Nebula Maker, and others are quite intriguing.