Um…he’s not quite got it right, as far as 19th & 20th century reaction to super-weapons. You have only to look at the English public’s reaction to news of what the Maxim gun was doing to see that this disquiet with super-weapons is by no means confined to the 20th century, nor is the glorification of those weapons a 20th century phenomenon. And Wells meant Moreau as a hero gone only slightly mad, not as a villain.
On this subject, Jess, you’re like E.F. Hutton: when you quibble, people listen.
I actually just got a nice email from Peter Smith – he says that the book (unlike the blog post) does go back to the 19th C and earlier. It’s on my list to check out.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Jess Nevins // May 18, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Um…he’s not quite got it right, as far as 19th & 20th century reaction to super-weapons. You have only to look at the English public’s reaction to news of what the Maxim gun was doing to see that this disquiet with super-weapons is by no means confined to the 20th century, nor is the glorification of those weapons a 20th century phenomenon. And Wells meant Moreau as a hero gone only slightly mad, not as a villain.
Oh, sorry: [/quibble]
2 Rob // May 23, 2008 at 3:11 pm
On this subject, Jess, you’re like E.F. Hutton: when you quibble, people listen.
I actually just got a nice email from Peter Smith – he says that the book (unlike the blog post) does go back to the 19th C and earlier. It’s on my list to check out.
Leave a Comment