Better with or without the brother?

[Wastedyuthe]

I know I am going to get a lot of funny looks here
But some of the movie adaptations got me thinking about the original novel. Spielberg once said that he followed the novel in the way that his story follows one character through the invasion, rather than the whole country or world, as that is how we as individuals would see the invasion in real life. I thought this was a fantastic idea, and his film was the begining of my interest in all things WotW- including the novel of course. When I read the novel, I was a little surprised to find that half of the story followed his brother too. In one way it was a good thing as we get to see what is happening elsewhere, and we get more experiences like the exodus and ferry etc. But in another way, I can't help thinking that if Wells had kept to following one character, as in Waynes, Asylums, and Spielbergs versions, it would have been better. Like I said, if an invasion really did happen and all communication was lost, we would all only see things from our own perspective- no one elses. I know the brother had some great chapters, but they could have easily been written in as the journalists experiences. Opinions please.

[Thunder Child]

Like I said, if an invasion really did happen and all communication was lost, we would all only see things from our own perspective- no one elses.

Of course in The War of the Worlds the writer looks back and recalls events that happened 6 years before. It's not a, how do I say, a realtime event... Obviously the writer and his brother discussed the Invasion and the writer includes the things his brother experienced to give the public a better view of the Invasion itself. And he does a great job with it ;D

[stewymartian]

I have to say that I like the use of two different perspectives. In fact Wells' approach of writing the whole thing from a point in the future enables the story to stay tight and focused. It also allows the story to include lots of little details that would have been unknown to the narrator when they actually happened but which help to keep the story moving in a clear concise and uncluttered way.

Having multiple perspectives works in a book. It adds 'colour' to the story and allows you to jump between groups of characters without having to recount the tedious bits inbetween. (eg. when one group of characters is travelling from one point to another and nothing is happening you can change perspective to another group). This keeps a story moving and is used to good effect in the first half of the book where we get chapters like 'the exodus from London' alternating with the likes of 'what happened in Surrey'.

In a film it doesn't always work so well. A film has to keep moving smoothly. A book can be put down between chapters, a film cannot really be watched one scene at a time. Thus you often find that characters are amalgamated in film adaptations (for example in SS WOTW, Ogilvy, the curate and the artilleryman are amalgamated into one character, and in JW's album the narrator and the brother are combined into one character).

Also in TWOTW, Wells gave himself quite a tight timeline (the whole story takes place in no more than 3 weeks), and considering that the narrator is trapped in the ruined house for 14 days, the use of different perspectives is needed to get the whole story across. Remember that the thunderchild battle actually happens after the narrator is imprisoned in the house.

You could miss out a lot of the details and some of the scenes and still hace a good film, but it would make for a very 'flat' and textureless book, and it is in the book that the real genius of the story lies.

[Wastedyuthe]

Some very good arguments there Stewymartian. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, your point of the Thunder Child battle's position in the story being after the ruined house section is kind of what I touched on- that if he had ideas like the ferry being in danger and a war ship coming to the rescue, then as in other incarnations (including also the Dark Horse comic), the journalist character could have encountered this earlier in the story before being trapped in the house. Wells could have written this however he wanted, and had all the encounters from one characters point of view rather than two if he so wished.
Perhaps this would work better in film, music, and comics rather than books. I think it would have been interesting to read a novel version that does this though and compare.

[Lensman]

To quote from
www.wsu.edu/~brians/science_fiction/warofworlds.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~
War of the Worlds was written in response to several historical events. The most important was the unification and militarization of Germany, which led to a series of novels predicting war in Europe, beginning with George Chesney's The Battle of Dorking (1871). Most of these were written in a semi-documentary fashion; and Wells borrowed their technique to tie his interplanetary war tale to specific places in England familiar to his readers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think this "semi-documentary" style of realism is one reason this book is still so popular today. Telling the story from two different viewpoints, in my opinion, made it more realistic than if Wells had asked the reader to believe everything in the story happened to one person. And actually it's three points of view-- the Artilleryman relates some important events, including the chilling story of the party-goers who were picked up at dawn by a tripod.

One of the reasons the atmosphere of horror in the story works so well, in my opinion, is because of the *gradual* change in society, a gradual descent into chaos. For that to work, someone needs to be in London for the days leading up to when London itself was so threatened that panic ensued. The Narrator was off observing the opening of the first cylinder at that time; I don't see how both viewpoints could have been shown from a single person.

I don't see why a film version would need to eliminate the Brother. What it probably *would* need to do is cut back and forth between the Narrator and his brother more often-- more frequent back-and-forth cutting is one major change Peter Jackson did with the LOTR trilogy. That helps maintain suspense in a film.

For instance, showing the Narrator being trapped in the collapsed house, then cutting away to the Thunder Child scene, then back to the collapsed house, would IMHO be an improvement. The trapped-in-the-house sequence goes on awfully long in the book.

More frequent cutting back and forth between the Narrator and the Brother is one reason in an old thread I recommended bringing the Brother into an early scene in the story, perhaps the stargazing scene. Anyway, if the Brother is to be a major character in a film adaptation he should be brought into the story as soon as possible.

All just my opinion, of course.

[Wastedyuthe]

All very good points, as usual Lensman. Thank you.

[killraven]

wastedyuthe said:

Some very good arguments there Stewymartian. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, your point of the Thunder Child battle's position in the story being after the ruined house section is kind of what I touched on- that if he had ideas like the ferry being in danger and a war ship coming to the rescue, then as in other incarnations (including also the Dark Horse comic), the journalist character could have encountered this earlier in the story before being trapped in the house. Wells could have written this however he wanted, and had all the encounters from one characters point of view rather than two if he so wished.
Perhaps this would work better in film, music, and comics rather than books. I think it would have been interesting to read a novel version that does this though and compare.

Wastedyuthe, as Stewy and Lensman have said, I don't think the full story that Wells was attempting to tell could have been relayed in the experiences of only the journalist given the timeframe in which the invasion occurred. For a start, it would not be physically possible for the journalist to cover the geographical area, especially bearing in mind he spent most of his journey moving about on foot.

I personally like the two perspectives anyway - it gives the story a sense of greater scale. I have had the opportunity to listen to more than one audio adaptation of the book (including the modernised BBC version) which are fairly heavily abridged so that they follow only the one protagonist, and in each I felt there was something missing. It all seemed too linear...if that makes any sense?

KR

KR

[Wastedyuthe]

Yes it does Kilraven, I know what you mean. Do you think losing the brother in the original novel would have made any impact on the popularity of the book (bare in mind I am not sure how the story would have unfolded in that case of course)?

[McTodd]

lensman said:

I don't see why a film version would need to eliminate the Brother. What it probably *would* need to do is cut back and forth between the Narrator and his brother more often-- more frequent back-and-forth cutting is one major change Peter Jackson did with the LOTR trilogy. That helps maintain suspense in a film.

Which IIRC is something Hines tried to do in his film.

wastedyuthe said:

Do you think losing the brother in the original novel would have made any impact on the popularity of the book (bare in mind I am not sure how the story would have unfolded in that case of course)?

Impossible to say as we don't know how Wells would have tackled the structure of the story. As others have written, the brother adds to the story as it allows Wells to expand the narrative. As Lensman states, Wells deliberately chose to write it as the Narrator's memoir to enhance the documentary feel of the story. Apart from thus being able to incorporate multiple viewpoints, it also gave him the chance to include his brilliant chapter on the physiology of the Martians, which would have been impossible had it been written in a 'real time' style.

[Wastedyuthe]

Yes it's funny how certain things work for certain media. I also like the detail the book goes into regarding the martians. But I also like Spielbergs, Asylums, Wayne's, and Dark Horses way of NOT showing us any more than what the main character experiences. As in real life, they didn't have a clue what was happening in the real world, or indeed what the martians were invading for and what was going on in those big bulging brains of theirs.

[bittersound]

wastedyuthe said:

I know I am going to get a lot of funny looks here

Well take that dress off, then.

[Wastedyuthe]

How dare you!! I don't wear dresses!

I draw the line at wearing fish-net stockings under my trousers

[nervouspete]

Good question Wastedyuthe!

Wasn't Wells writing it in parts for a serial in Pearson's Magazine, hence the snarky comment referring to Gobble's (sp?) art work on one of the early covers? He might have realised that he'd written himself into a corner in wanting to depict the London invasion, but having his character slog across country behind the martian front lines. Hence he introduces the brother.

There's pro's and con's to Well's work. Being in the narrative past tense there isn't really much suspense, and it lacks a truly immersive emotional depth for his characters. (Has a good depth though, don't get me wrong!) Also, it is prone to asides and debates that break up the flow. But the strengths outweigh the weaknesses in the end.

Due to this, I don't think much coherency was lost with the brother being introduced. Film couldn't really hope to pull it off in a conventional sense, because they naturally work on a more immediate and emotional plane. But in seeing Babel now, and with some of the great actors we have now, I think it could be pulled off.

[Wastedyuthe]

You are right- it was a serial to begin with. I wonder what it was like reading it as such. As a novel the chapters are over fairly quickly, and it is quite fast paced I feel. As a serial (what was is, one chapter per week or something?) I wonder if people lost interest when Wells was just babbling on about Mars for the whole chapter without much happening story wise.
And yes there is little emotional depth with the characters. The style reminded me much of Bram Stoker's original novel of Dracula- better than any version of it on film, yet also lacking in emotion. But, as with WotW, made up for it in other details and descriptions that could only be carried over well enough in a book.
With the journalist and his brother lacking in character, are we also to believe that they can also be interpreted as symbols of humanity, rather than mere individuals?

[malfunkshun]

well... in reply to the original post, the fact is the original novel uses two perspectives. one from the narrator, one from the brother. that is in fact the way the story is told, and its the way i prefer it personally because i read the book before i saw any movie or even knew about the Jeff Wayne musical.

so, when people try to 'improve' on the original story, i will always be dissatisfied with the result to different degrees, according to the quality of the reproduction.