The difference between H. G. Wells and C. S. Lewis is enormous. They both write science fiction novels way ahead of their time, but their ethical beliefs are astronomically different. C. S. Lewis is an avid Christian writer, whereas H. G. Wells is not. The two books I have decided to base my essay on, Out of the Silent Planet, and The War of the Worlds, both have two very different messages.
The first said book is about a man named Ransom. This man is very aptly named because he is kidnapped and sent to Mars with two rough men. They put him down on the surface and wait for a group of aliens they call monsters. However, he escapes and is befriended by a creature who tells him that Malacandra, the Martian name for Mars, is perfect. After much evidence is presented, he must believe. He is told that earth, where he is from, is called the silent planet. This is because all of the other planets have perfect and righteous lifestyles, and earth is ruled by something evil and cannot talk to the other planets.
The other book is about aliens from Mars that try to take over Earth. These aliens are evil and regard humans just as ants until we destroy one of their machines. Then they decide to kill all humans. If it were not for viruses we would all have died in that book. The theme from this book can show us that we will all ultimately die, and we are weak and insignificant in this world.
These are both powerful stories, and they can show us many things about life. I personally prefer reading H. G. Wells because his books are more science minded. But given the choice of whose ethics are better, I choose C. S. Lewis one hundred percent. His viewpoints are more hopeful, and he has more justification for his arguments than H. G. Wells. He uses more than just a story to illustrate his point, he will have a section or something to describe what he actually believes. H. G. Wells leaves you without a clear reference as to what he actually believes. C. S. Lewis and H. G. Wells both are wonderful authors, but they believe in almost exact opposite things.
Monday, May 5, 2008
The War of the Worlds Book v. Movie
I recently had the opportunity to read the book War of the Worlds. This novel, by H. G. Wells has been made into a movie with the same basic ideas. However, it is quite different from the book. I actually saw the movie before I read the book, a major error in many reader’s minds. However, the skill of the director of the movie, Steven Spielberg, did a wonderful job of modernizing the quickly aging text.
The book is set in the late 1800’s. The location is naturally in England, as H. G. Wells lived and grew up there. The movie does a wonderful job of transitioning it to modern USA. Any director less than Steven Spielberg would have completely botched the attempt, but true to his reputation he produced a book that is arguably the best movie based on a book with major changes in time and setting.
There is a problem with the movie, however. Beyond all of the special effects and glamour, it does not have that much of a meaning like the book did. The book’s theme was something like, “Stay to things that have been given to you and hesitate to take from someone else.” You may also put it, “When your time to live is over, do not try to steal another’s life.” This is shown when the aliens try to capture earth they are turned back by viruses. The narrator speculates that as mars was further from the sun than Earth, it had become barren and cold like Pluto. We now know this to be impossible, so the director came up with a different idea. However, with the old idea went the ethical message of the first book.
The book is set in the late 1800’s. The location is naturally in England, as H. G. Wells lived and grew up there. The movie does a wonderful job of transitioning it to modern USA. Any director less than Steven Spielberg would have completely botched the attempt, but true to his reputation he produced a book that is arguably the best movie based on a book with major changes in time and setting.
There is a problem with the movie, however. Beyond all of the special effects and glamour, it does not have that much of a meaning like the book did. The book’s theme was something like, “Stay to things that have been given to you and hesitate to take from someone else.” You may also put it, “When your time to live is over, do not try to steal another’s life.” This is shown when the aliens try to capture earth they are turned back by viruses. The narrator speculates that as mars was further from the sun than Earth, it had become barren and cold like Pluto. We now know this to be impossible, so the director came up with a different idea. However, with the old idea went the ethical message of the first book.
I Will Now Diverge into a Critique of the Movie War of the World and how it relates to the Book, also Entitled War of the Worlds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Personal Interview with an Old Friend of Griffin
Me: Hello, Dr. Kemp.
Dr. Kemp: Hello.
Me: I understand you had a friendship with Griffin.
Dr. Kemp: Yes, I did. We went to school together.
Me: How had he changed since the last time you two met when you found him wounded in your house?
Dr. Kemp: Well, of course he was invisible. But I find it hard to say even that he was the same man. I would not have thought of it unless he had said so himself. Something inside him was terribly broken and wrong.
Me: Interesting… do you think that he was good at heart when he started the project?
Dr. Kemp: Well, that’s a very hard question. He may have been just after the pursuit of knowledge, which is my opinion, but he made this bad by making himself the only benefiter from his project. Also, my personal conviction is that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is bad.
Me: Did he start out bad? Did he end up bad?
Dr. Kemp: I think he was good at the beginning of his life. But the desire for knowledge and domination got a hold of him and ruined him.
Me: Do you think that he may have had any chance at changing back to good?
Dr. Kemp: Perhaps if he really wanted to. But even if he were given the chance he would have refused. He was wretched, but the pursuit of power was too great on his mind.
Me: Ok, thank you for your time.
Dr. Kemp: My pleasure.
Dr. Kemp: Hello.
Me: I understand you had a friendship with Griffin.
Dr. Kemp: Yes, I did. We went to school together.
Me: How had he changed since the last time you two met when you found him wounded in your house?
Dr. Kemp: Well, of course he was invisible. But I find it hard to say even that he was the same man. I would not have thought of it unless he had said so himself. Something inside him was terribly broken and wrong.
Me: Interesting… do you think that he was good at heart when he started the project?
Dr. Kemp: Well, that’s a very hard question. He may have been just after the pursuit of knowledge, which is my opinion, but he made this bad by making himself the only benefiter from his project. Also, my personal conviction is that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is bad.
Me: Did he start out bad? Did he end up bad?
Dr. Kemp: I think he was good at the beginning of his life. But the desire for knowledge and domination got a hold of him and ruined him.
Me: Do you think that he may have had any chance at changing back to good?
Dr. Kemp: Perhaps if he really wanted to. But even if he were given the chance he would have refused. He was wretched, but the pursuit of power was too great on his mind.
Me: Ok, thank you for your time.
Dr. Kemp: My pleasure.
Hey you CIA agents and people that may someday check this out.
Well, yes this blog belongs to a student doing a project. But don't let that fool you. I'm awesome and cool. And i'm not a terrorist. Okee Dokee? Glad that's all straight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
