What do you think?
Rate this book
The Wife of Sir Isaac Harman
1914. English novelist, journalist, sociologist, and historian, famous for his works of science fiction, Wells's best-known books are The Time Machine, The Invisible Man and The War Of The Worlds. The book begins: The motorcar entered a little white gate, came to a porch under a thick wig of jasmine, and stopped. The chauffeur indicated by a movement of the head that this at last was it. A tall young woman with a big soft mouth, great masses of blue-black hair on either side of a broad, low forehead, and eyes of so dark brown you might have thought them black, drooped forward and surveyed the house with a mixture of keen appreciation and that gentle apprehension which is the shadow of desire in unassuming natures. See other titles by this author available from Kessinger Publishing.
465 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1914
5 people are currently reading
163 people want to read
About the author
H.G. Wells
5,357 books11.1k followersHerbert George Wells was born to a working class family in Kent, England. Young Wells received a spotty education, interrupted by several illnesses and family difficulties, and became a draper's apprentice as a teenager. The headmaster of Midhurst Grammar School, where he had spent a year, arranged for him to return as an "usher," or student teacher. Wells earned a government scholarship in 1884, to study biology under Thomas Henry Huxley at the Normal School of Science. Wells earned his bachelor of science and doctor of science degrees at the University of London. After marrying his cousin, Isabel, Wells began to supplement his teaching salary with short stories and freelance articles, then books, including The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), The Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds (1898).
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of Science Fiction". D. 1946.
More: http://philosopedia.org/index.php/H._...
http://www.online-literature.com/well...
http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of Science Fiction". D. 1946.
More: http://philosopedia.org/index.php/H._...
http://www.online-literature.com/well...
http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 26, 2022
Despite sporting one of the blandest titles in the vast savannah of the Wells canon, The Wife of Sir Isaac Harman is an interesting novel in the mould of Ann Veronica, exploring female emancipation and the erosion of conventional marriage expectations, with another mercurial heroine in the form of Ellen Harman. Wells was opposed to the suffragette movement in the 1910s, possibly stymied by his own phallocentric philandering issues, although his understanding of the struggle for freedom and independence in stifling marriages where brutish husbands have absolute power put him squarely on the correct progressive path. Readers used to the pace and concision of his more popular fiction will need a period of recalibration to read these long-winded, Jamesian novels-of-ideas, but the rewards are many for the handful of us Wells-drunk oddballs who persevere.
December 5, 2019
Turn of the (20th) century social satire in which a middle-aged widower becomes infatuated with the beautiful wife of a possessive magnate after she comes to inspect his house, which is up for sale.
Lady Ellen Harmon is the rather uncertain heroine, married at an early age and slowly awakened to a sense of autonomy by some new friends against a background of the burgeoning Suffragette movement:
'life had happened to this woman before she was ready for it, that her mind some years after her body was now coming to womanhood, was teeming with curiosity about all she had hitherto accepted, about Sir Isaac, about her children and all her circumstances...'
Sir Isaac Harmon, self-made to 'a position of Napoleonic predominance in the world of baking, light catering and confectionery', holds what you could euphemistically term 'traditional' views about the role of a wife and doesn't like his getting any 'idees', especially 'littry idees'.
The narrator readily admits to an 'ill-concealed bias in favour of Lady Harman', but even this understates it. Sir Isaac is portrayed completely without sympathy as both a bully and a buffoon, the unpleasant air of anti-semitism underlying his portrayal, for which Wells should have been ashamed.
Names such as Lady Beach-Mandarin, Miss Agatha Alimony, and a newspaper called The London Lion give you a pretty good idea how broad the satire is. There is certain novelty to be had from a writer like Wells trying to bang a drum for female emancipation.
Unfortunately the overall effect was generally underwhelming and decidedly overlong.
Lady Ellen Harmon is the rather uncertain heroine, married at an early age and slowly awakened to a sense of autonomy by some new friends against a background of the burgeoning Suffragette movement:
'life had happened to this woman before she was ready for it, that her mind some years after her body was now coming to womanhood, was teeming with curiosity about all she had hitherto accepted, about Sir Isaac, about her children and all her circumstances...'
Sir Isaac Harmon, self-made to 'a position of Napoleonic predominance in the world of baking, light catering and confectionery', holds what you could euphemistically term 'traditional' views about the role of a wife and doesn't like his getting any 'idees', especially 'littry idees'.
The narrator readily admits to an 'ill-concealed bias in favour of Lady Harman', but even this understates it. Sir Isaac is portrayed completely without sympathy as both a bully and a buffoon, the unpleasant air of anti-semitism underlying his portrayal, for which Wells should have been ashamed.
Names such as Lady Beach-Mandarin, Miss Agatha Alimony, and a newspaper called The London Lion give you a pretty good idea how broad the satire is. There is certain novelty to be had from a writer like Wells trying to bang a drum for female emancipation.
Unfortunately the overall effect was generally underwhelming and decidedly overlong.
October 22, 2024
Hard to believe this was written by H.G. Wells, the sci-fi author. I enjoyed this novel so much more than his sci-fi works.
A humble, likable woman named Ellen lives in England with her uptight, unloving, wealthy husband, Isaac. A widower named Mr. Brumley falls in love with Ellen, but she seems to have no love for anyone (78, 183). She stays with her husband not out of love, but out of duty (74, 123) and responsibility, “which is so much more often a feminine than a masculine habit of thinking” (133).
Ellen: “I have to do my duty as a wife. But it’s so hard to say just where duty leaves off and being a mere slave begins” (74).
Ellen prioritizes making a positive difference in the world, with no thought to her own self. When her maid tells her about her troubles, Ellen wants to help and joins the feminist movement. But her husband Isaac keeps her like a prisoner or a “pampered slave” (96). Isaac didn’t want to allow Ellen to have any friends, go anywhere without his knowledge or permission, or have any money to do with as she pleased. When she rebelled, he only pretended to give her control over a housing development for unmarried women while in reality Ellen had no control over it at all. The story is a good example of how oppressive a husband could be and how powerless a wife is when she has no money of her own.
“It wasn't the particular marriage.... It was any marriage.... All we women are tied. Most of us are willing to be tied perhaps, but only as people are willing to be tied to life-belts in a wreck—from fear from drowning” (195).
Evidence of the lack of love that used to be the norm among married couples: “Never in their lives had [Ellen and Isaac] really talked to each other clearly and honestly about anything. Indeed it is scarcely too much to say that neither had ever talked about anything to anyone. She was too young, her mind was now growing up in her and feeling its way to conscious expression, and he had never before wanted to express himself. He did now want to express himself. For behind his rant and fury Sir Isaac had been thinking very hard indeed during the last three weeks about his life and her life and their relations; he had never thought so much about anything except his business economics. So far he had either joked at her, talked "silly" to her, made, as they say, "remarks," or vociferated. That had been the sum of their mental intercourse, as indeed it is the sum of the intercourse of most married couples” (92).
I think the main characters in this story are good examples of the instinctual variants. Ellen is SO, Isaac is SP, & Mr. Brumely is SX.
“A woman, [Isaac] knew had to be wooed to be won, but when she was won, she was won. He did not understand wooing after that was settled. There was the bargain and her surrender. He on his side had to keep her, dress her, be kind to her, give her the appearances of pride and authority, and in return he had his rights and his privileges and undefined powers of control. That you know, by the existing rules, is the reality of marriage where there are no settlements and no private property of the wife's. That is to say, it is the reality of marriage in ninety-nine cases out of the hundred. And it would have shocked Sir Isaac extremely, and as a matter of fact it did shock him, for any one to suggest the slightest revision of so entirely advantageous an arrangement” (42).
Lady Beach-Mandarin said she was in favor of a wife receiving half her husband’s property and income, paid into her separate banking account (96). I was surprised to see my own idea written of so long ago (1914).
"But," protested Mr. Brumley, "would men marry under those conditions?"
"Men will marry anyhow," said Lady Beach-Mandarin, "under any conditions" (96).
I think it’s amusing that men object to those terms so automatically; when if they really love their wife and want to provide for her, then why wouldn’t they agree to letting her have half of everything he owns and earns? It’s because the men want control over their wives; they don’t want to allow her to buy her own things; the men want to CHOOSE what she gets. And he likely also doesn’t trust her to spend her money wisely. When she has no money of her own, she is entirely dependent on him, and that gives him all the power. And power can be abused, as this novel illustrates.
I was also surprised to see the author mention “The Woman Who Did.” He said it had a wild idea which had been hunted down, killed, and mobbed (111). Aww.
Isaac ‘went on, regardless of her words. "What do you think you can do, Lady Harman? You're going to all these places—how? Not in my motor-car, not with my money. You've not a thing that isn't mine, that I haven't given you. And if you're going to have a lot of friends I haven't got, where're they coming to see you? Not in my house! I'll chuck 'em out if I find 'em. I won't have 'em. I'll turn 'em out. See?"
"I'm not a slave."
"You're a wife—and a wife's got to do what her husband wishes. You can't have two heads on a horse. And in this horse—this house I mean, the head's—me” (72)!
The author’s message with this story seems to be that men want to keep their wives prisoner out of jealousy and fear that their wives will cheat on them if they don’t keep a tight leash on them (93-94, 178).
Mr. Brumley “perceived now with the astonishment of a man newly awakened just how the great obsession of sex had dominated him—for how many years? Since his early undergraduate days. Had he anything to put beside her own fine detachment? Had he ever since his manhood touched philosophy, touched a social question, thought of anything human, thought of art, or literature or belief, without a glancing reference of the whole question to the uses of this eternal hunt? During that time had he ever talked to a girl or woman with an unembarrassed sincerity? He stripped his pretences bare; the answer was no” (130).
“All the tendency is back towards restraints upon increase, to an increasing celibacy, to a fall in the birth-rate and in the average size of families, to—to a release of women from an entire devotion to a numerous offspring, and so at last to the supersession of those little family units that for four centuries have made up the substance of social life and determined nearly all our moral and sentimental attitudes. The autonomy of the family is being steadily destroyed, and it is being replaced by the autonomy of the individual in relation to some syndicated economic effort” (144).
Mr. Brumley “declared that the onset of this new phase in human life, the modern phase, wherein there was apparently to be no more "proliferating," but instead a settling down of population towards a stable equilibrium, became apparent first with the expropriation of the English peasantry and the birth of the factory system and machine production. Since that time one can trace a steady substitution of wholesale and collective methods for household and family methods. It has gone far with us now. Instead of the woman drawing water from a well, the pipes and taps of the water company. Instead of the home-made rushlight, the electric lamp. Instead of home-spun, ready-made clothes. Instead of home-brewed, the brewer's cask. Instead of home-baked, first the little baker and then, clean and punctual, the International Bread and Cake Stores. Instead of the child learning at its mother's knee, the compulsory elementary school. Flats take the place of separate houses. Instead of the little holding, the big farm, and instead of the children working at home, the factory. Everywhere synthesis. Everywhere the little independent proprietor gives place to the company and the company to the trust” (144).
“At the worst this new social life may become a sort of slavery in barracks; at the best—it might become something very wonderful. My mind's been busy now for days thinking just how wonderful the new life might be. Instead of the old bickering, crowded family home, a new home of comrades.... In looking up all these things I came upon a queer little literature of pamphlets and so forth, dealing with the case of the shop assistants. They have a great grievance in what they call the living-in system. The employers herd them in dormitories over the shops, and usually feed them by gaslight in the basements; they fine them and keep an almost intolerable grip upon them; make them go to bed at half-past ten, make them go to church on Sundays,—all sorts of petty tyrannies. The assistants are passionately against this, but they've got no power to strike. Where could they go if they struck? Into the street. Only people who live out and have homes of their own to sulk in can strike. Naturally, therefore, as a preliminary to any other improvement in the shop assistant's life, these young people want to live out. Practically that's an impossible demand at present, because they couldn't get lodgings and live out with any decency at all on what it costs their employers to lodge and feed them in. Well, here you see a curious possibility for your Hostels. You open the prospect of a living-out system for shop assistants. But just in the degree in which you choose to interfere with them, regulate them, bully and deal with them wholesale through their employers, do you make the new living-out method approximate to the living-in. That's a curious side development, isn't it?" (146)
“"One of the most interesting and unsatisfactory aspects of the life of the employee to-day—and you know the employee is now in the majority in the adult population—is this. You see, we hold them celibate. We hold them celibate for a longer and longer period; the average age at marriage rises steadily; and so long as they remain celibate we are prepared with some sort of ideas about the future development of their social life, clubs, hostels, living-in, and so forth. But at present we haven't any ideas at all about the adaptation of the natural pairing instinct to the new state of affairs. Ultimately the employee marries; they hold out as long as they possibly can, but ultimately they have to. They have to, even in the face of an economic system that holds out no prospects of anything but insecurity and an increasing chance of trouble and disaster to the employee's family group. What happens is that they drop back into a distressful, crippled, insecure imitation of the old family life as one had it in what I might call the multiplying periods of history. They start a home,—they dream of a cottage, but they drift to a lodging, and usually it isn't the best sort of lodging, for landladies hate wives and the other lodgers detest babies. Often the young couple doesn't have babies. You see, they are more intelligent than peasants, and intelligence and fecundity vary reciprocally” (146).
“Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo” (114). Not true every time, but definitely true of democrats who keep whining for “the wealthy to pay their fair share.”
“Marriages to begin with were too easy to make and too difficult to break; countless girls—Lady Harman was only a type—were married long before they could know the beginnings of their own minds” (126). Mr. Brumley considered that people should be older when they marry, but even this didn’t eliminate mistakes and deceptions (127).
Nowadays marriages are easy to break. And women are treated to more than they deserve with alimony and child support despite not needing it because they work or get a new man in their lives. I’m all for equality, but the new double standards are still sexist and not equal. Women get awarded custody of the children purely on the basis of her sex, and even if the father is a better parent and wants to have custody; this is not right. Then the man is forced to pay her child support even though he wanted his kids. A woman who has her own job shouldn’t receive alimony, since the purpose of alimony was to help a jobless woman survive. And especially when the person at fault for the divorce is the woman, the woman should not be receiving money from the husband. In many areas, fault is not determined, which is a grave error in my opinion. Why should a cheating woman who neglects her kids get to have custody and collect money from her ex-husband? This is injustice.
I think the person who is at fault for divorce should not be allowed to marry again. Whoever is at fault for the divorce shouldn’t get any alimony, and probably not custody of the kids either. I think most reasons people divorce are dumb. The only good reasons I can think of for divorcing are: abuse, cheating, drug use, criminal activity, and making such terrible financial choices that the family is in risk of losing their home. So whoever is the one doing those things is the one at fault for the divorce. And if the reason is something else, whoever wants/initiates the divorce is the one at fault.
When people get married, they should be asked questions by the preacher like:
“Will you still stay with your partner when they don’t give you what you want?”
“Will you still stay with your partner when they make you unhappy?”
“Will you still stay with your partner when they do things you don’t approve of?”
“Will you still stay with your partner when you see someone more attractive come along?”
“Have you known each other for at least a year before marrying?”
“Will you contribute hard work to support the family?”
Marriage is a commitment that shouldn’t be broken for frivolous reasons. Another good question is “Why are you marrying this person?” If the reason is, “They make me happy,” or “They’re hot” then the next question should be, “Will you still stay with them when that’s no longer the case?” If the answer is no, then they shouldn’t get married. I’m guessing under this system, most people would not get married, because they wouldn’t be able to think of good reasons for marriage, and if they say “yes” to that next question, it’d probably be a lie. Which of course you can’t prevent lying, but at least it’ll be on record that they said yes and then later broke their promise by divorcing.
A humble, likable woman named Ellen lives in England with her uptight, unloving, wealthy husband, Isaac. A widower named Mr. Brumley falls in love with Ellen, but she seems to have no love for anyone (78, 183). She stays with her husband not out of love, but out of duty (74, 123) and responsibility, “which is so much more often a feminine than a masculine habit of thinking” (133).
Ellen: “I have to do my duty as a wife. But it’s so hard to say just where duty leaves off and being a mere slave begins” (74).
Ellen prioritizes making a positive difference in the world, with no thought to her own self. When her maid tells her about her troubles, Ellen wants to help and joins the feminist movement. But her husband Isaac keeps her like a prisoner or a “pampered slave” (96). Isaac didn’t want to allow Ellen to have any friends, go anywhere without his knowledge or permission, or have any money to do with as she pleased. When she rebelled, he only pretended to give her control over a housing development for unmarried women while in reality Ellen had no control over it at all. The story is a good example of how oppressive a husband could be and how powerless a wife is when she has no money of her own.
“It wasn't the particular marriage.... It was any marriage.... All we women are tied. Most of us are willing to be tied perhaps, but only as people are willing to be tied to life-belts in a wreck—from fear from drowning” (195).
Evidence of the lack of love that used to be the norm among married couples: “Never in their lives had [Ellen and Isaac] really talked to each other clearly and honestly about anything. Indeed it is scarcely too much to say that neither had ever talked about anything to anyone. She was too young, her mind was now growing up in her and feeling its way to conscious expression, and he had never before wanted to express himself. He did now want to express himself. For behind his rant and fury Sir Isaac had been thinking very hard indeed during the last three weeks about his life and her life and their relations; he had never thought so much about anything except his business economics. So far he had either joked at her, talked "silly" to her, made, as they say, "remarks," or vociferated. That had been the sum of their mental intercourse, as indeed it is the sum of the intercourse of most married couples” (92).
I think the main characters in this story are good examples of the instinctual variants. Ellen is SO, Isaac is SP, & Mr. Brumely is SX.
“A woman, [Isaac] knew had to be wooed to be won, but when she was won, she was won. He did not understand wooing after that was settled. There was the bargain and her surrender. He on his side had to keep her, dress her, be kind to her, give her the appearances of pride and authority, and in return he had his rights and his privileges and undefined powers of control. That you know, by the existing rules, is the reality of marriage where there are no settlements and no private property of the wife's. That is to say, it is the reality of marriage in ninety-nine cases out of the hundred. And it would have shocked Sir Isaac extremely, and as a matter of fact it did shock him, for any one to suggest the slightest revision of so entirely advantageous an arrangement” (42).
Lady Beach-Mandarin said she was in favor of a wife receiving half her husband’s property and income, paid into her separate banking account (96). I was surprised to see my own idea written of so long ago (1914).
"But," protested Mr. Brumley, "would men marry under those conditions?"
"Men will marry anyhow," said Lady Beach-Mandarin, "under any conditions" (96).
I think it’s amusing that men object to those terms so automatically; when if they really love their wife and want to provide for her, then why wouldn’t they agree to letting her have half of everything he owns and earns? It’s because the men want control over their wives; they don’t want to allow her to buy her own things; the men want to CHOOSE what she gets. And he likely also doesn’t trust her to spend her money wisely. When she has no money of her own, she is entirely dependent on him, and that gives him all the power. And power can be abused, as this novel illustrates.
I was also surprised to see the author mention “The Woman Who Did.” He said it had a wild idea which had been hunted down, killed, and mobbed (111). Aww.
Isaac ‘went on, regardless of her words. "What do you think you can do, Lady Harman? You're going to all these places—how? Not in my motor-car, not with my money. You've not a thing that isn't mine, that I haven't given you. And if you're going to have a lot of friends I haven't got, where're they coming to see you? Not in my house! I'll chuck 'em out if I find 'em. I won't have 'em. I'll turn 'em out. See?"
"I'm not a slave."
"You're a wife—and a wife's got to do what her husband wishes. You can't have two heads on a horse. And in this horse—this house I mean, the head's—me” (72)!
The author’s message with this story seems to be that men want to keep their wives prisoner out of jealousy and fear that their wives will cheat on them if they don’t keep a tight leash on them (93-94, 178).
Mr. Brumley “perceived now with the astonishment of a man newly awakened just how the great obsession of sex had dominated him—for how many years? Since his early undergraduate days. Had he anything to put beside her own fine detachment? Had he ever since his manhood touched philosophy, touched a social question, thought of anything human, thought of art, or literature or belief, without a glancing reference of the whole question to the uses of this eternal hunt? During that time had he ever talked to a girl or woman with an unembarrassed sincerity? He stripped his pretences bare; the answer was no” (130).
“All the tendency is back towards restraints upon increase, to an increasing celibacy, to a fall in the birth-rate and in the average size of families, to—to a release of women from an entire devotion to a numerous offspring, and so at last to the supersession of those little family units that for four centuries have made up the substance of social life and determined nearly all our moral and sentimental attitudes. The autonomy of the family is being steadily destroyed, and it is being replaced by the autonomy of the individual in relation to some syndicated economic effort” (144).
Mr. Brumley “declared that the onset of this new phase in human life, the modern phase, wherein there was apparently to be no more "proliferating," but instead a settling down of population towards a stable equilibrium, became apparent first with the expropriation of the English peasantry and the birth of the factory system and machine production. Since that time one can trace a steady substitution of wholesale and collective methods for household and family methods. It has gone far with us now. Instead of the woman drawing water from a well, the pipes and taps of the water company. Instead of the home-made rushlight, the electric lamp. Instead of home-spun, ready-made clothes. Instead of home-brewed, the brewer's cask. Instead of home-baked, first the little baker and then, clean and punctual, the International Bread and Cake Stores. Instead of the child learning at its mother's knee, the compulsory elementary school. Flats take the place of separate houses. Instead of the little holding, the big farm, and instead of the children working at home, the factory. Everywhere synthesis. Everywhere the little independent proprietor gives place to the company and the company to the trust” (144).
“At the worst this new social life may become a sort of slavery in barracks; at the best—it might become something very wonderful. My mind's been busy now for days thinking just how wonderful the new life might be. Instead of the old bickering, crowded family home, a new home of comrades.... In looking up all these things I came upon a queer little literature of pamphlets and so forth, dealing with the case of the shop assistants. They have a great grievance in what they call the living-in system. The employers herd them in dormitories over the shops, and usually feed them by gaslight in the basements; they fine them and keep an almost intolerable grip upon them; make them go to bed at half-past ten, make them go to church on Sundays,—all sorts of petty tyrannies. The assistants are passionately against this, but they've got no power to strike. Where could they go if they struck? Into the street. Only people who live out and have homes of their own to sulk in can strike. Naturally, therefore, as a preliminary to any other improvement in the shop assistant's life, these young people want to live out. Practically that's an impossible demand at present, because they couldn't get lodgings and live out with any decency at all on what it costs their employers to lodge and feed them in. Well, here you see a curious possibility for your Hostels. You open the prospect of a living-out system for shop assistants. But just in the degree in which you choose to interfere with them, regulate them, bully and deal with them wholesale through their employers, do you make the new living-out method approximate to the living-in. That's a curious side development, isn't it?" (146)
“"One of the most interesting and unsatisfactory aspects of the life of the employee to-day—and you know the employee is now in the majority in the adult population—is this. You see, we hold them celibate. We hold them celibate for a longer and longer period; the average age at marriage rises steadily; and so long as they remain celibate we are prepared with some sort of ideas about the future development of their social life, clubs, hostels, living-in, and so forth. But at present we haven't any ideas at all about the adaptation of the natural pairing instinct to the new state of affairs. Ultimately the employee marries; they hold out as long as they possibly can, but ultimately they have to. They have to, even in the face of an economic system that holds out no prospects of anything but insecurity and an increasing chance of trouble and disaster to the employee's family group. What happens is that they drop back into a distressful, crippled, insecure imitation of the old family life as one had it in what I might call the multiplying periods of history. They start a home,—they dream of a cottage, but they drift to a lodging, and usually it isn't the best sort of lodging, for landladies hate wives and the other lodgers detest babies. Often the young couple doesn't have babies. You see, they are more intelligent than peasants, and intelligence and fecundity vary reciprocally” (146).
“Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo” (114). Not true every time, but definitely true of democrats who keep whining for “the wealthy to pay their fair share.”
“Marriages to begin with were too easy to make and too difficult to break; countless girls—Lady Harman was only a type—were married long before they could know the beginnings of their own minds” (126). Mr. Brumley considered that people should be older when they marry, but even this didn’t eliminate mistakes and deceptions (127).
Nowadays marriages are easy to break. And women are treated to more than they deserve with alimony and child support despite not needing it because they work or get a new man in their lives. I’m all for equality, but the new double standards are still sexist and not equal. Women get awarded custody of the children purely on the basis of her sex, and even if the father is a better parent and wants to have custody; this is not right. Then the man is forced to pay her child support even though he wanted his kids. A woman who has her own job shouldn’t receive alimony, since the purpose of alimony was to help a jobless woman survive. And especially when the person at fault for the divorce is the woman, the woman should not be receiving money from the husband. In many areas, fault is not determined, which is a grave error in my opinion. Why should a cheating woman who neglects her kids get to have custody and collect money from her ex-husband? This is injustice.
I think the person who is at fault for divorce should not be allowed to marry again. Whoever is at fault for the divorce shouldn’t get any alimony, and probably not custody of the kids either. I think most reasons people divorce are dumb. The only good reasons I can think of for divorcing are: abuse, cheating, drug use, criminal activity, and making such terrible financial choices that the family is in risk of losing their home. So whoever is the one doing those things is the one at fault for the divorce. And if the reason is something else, whoever wants/initiates the divorce is the one at fault.
When people get married, they should be asked questions by the preacher like:
“Will you still stay with your partner when they don’t give you what you want?”
“Will you still stay with your partner when they make you unhappy?”
“Will you still stay with your partner when they do things you don’t approve of?”
“Will you still stay with your partner when you see someone more attractive come along?”
“Have you known each other for at least a year before marrying?”
“Will you contribute hard work to support the family?”
Marriage is a commitment that shouldn’t be broken for frivolous reasons. Another good question is “Why are you marrying this person?” If the reason is, “They make me happy,” or “They’re hot” then the next question should be, “Will you still stay with them when that’s no longer the case?” If the answer is no, then they shouldn’t get married. I’m guessing under this system, most people would not get married, because they wouldn’t be able to think of good reasons for marriage, and if they say “yes” to that next question, it’d probably be a lie. Which of course you can’t prevent lying, but at least it’ll be on record that they said yes and then later broke their promise by divorcing.
June 20, 2019
Well, what a wonderful book this was. So typically un H G Wells. Similar to his work on the women’s movement and right to vote, this is set in a similar time period. You would not expect this from Wells.
A strong and independent woman marries an equally strong willed man. They are both at loggerheads about a woman’s role in the home and society. This is perfect for the time period of change in women’s lives. In part, this book can be equally true in many a time period.
In parts, with their move to Black Strand, the House and Gardens, very similar to that of “Rebecca”.
This was a story of a battle of wills, attempted compromise and failed understanding. A woman trying to be independent, stand up for herself and help her fellow person. A great book to read.
A strong and independent woman marries an equally strong willed man. They are both at loggerheads about a woman’s role in the home and society. This is perfect for the time period of change in women’s lives. In part, this book can be equally true in many a time period.
In parts, with their move to Black Strand, the House and Gardens, very similar to that of “Rebecca”.
This was a story of a battle of wills, attempted compromise and failed understanding. A woman trying to be independent, stand up for herself and help her fellow person. A great book to read.
April 28, 2025
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/the-wife-of-sir-isaac-harman-by-h-g-wells/
Ellen Sawbridge, aged 18, marries Isaac Harman, who is rich, twenty years older and receives a knighthood on their wedding day. After bearing him four children, she undergoes an epiphany; she discovers the need to exert her own individuality and do her own things, and also realises that her husband’s wealth is based on ruthless exploitation of the workers in the chain of cafes that he owns. “She began to read more and more in order to learn things… and less and less to pass the time.”
Helping her in this process is George Brumley (a viewpoint character in a novel by a writer whose middle name was George and was born in Bromley), a widower who is deeply in love with Lady Harman and of whom Sir Isaac becomes (justifiably) very jealous. I thought that the personal journeys of the two protagonists were very nicely and credibly done, without too much of the speechifying that many of Wells’ political characters are prone to indulge in.
Unfortunately the novel is colossally spoiled by the casual and systematic anti-semitism in the portrayal of Sir Isaac Harman. The word ‘Jew’ is never directly used, but there is constant insinuation about him; the pointiness of his nose (and of his children’s noses); his unsporting attitude to sports; his obsession with wealth; his accent. Adam Roberts has gone into this at much greater length (also he didn’t like the rest of the book as much as I did).
It would be possible to do a perfectly good dramatisation of this story with the anti-semitism removed; though you would have to change the title.
Ellen Sawbridge, aged 18, marries Isaac Harman, who is rich, twenty years older and receives a knighthood on their wedding day. After bearing him four children, she undergoes an epiphany; she discovers the need to exert her own individuality and do her own things, and also realises that her husband’s wealth is based on ruthless exploitation of the workers in the chain of cafes that he owns. “She began to read more and more in order to learn things… and less and less to pass the time.”
Helping her in this process is George Brumley (a viewpoint character in a novel by a writer whose middle name was George and was born in Bromley), a widower who is deeply in love with Lady Harman and of whom Sir Isaac becomes (justifiably) very jealous. I thought that the personal journeys of the two protagonists were very nicely and credibly done, without too much of the speechifying that many of Wells’ political characters are prone to indulge in.
Unfortunately the novel is colossally spoiled by the casual and systematic anti-semitism in the portrayal of Sir Isaac Harman. The word ‘Jew’ is never directly used, but there is constant insinuation about him; the pointiness of his nose (and of his children’s noses); his unsporting attitude to sports; his obsession with wealth; his accent. Adam Roberts has gone into this at much greater length (also he didn’t like the rest of the book as much as I did).
It would be possible to do a perfectly good dramatisation of this story with the anti-semitism removed; though you would have to change the title.
December 10, 2012
After loving the Passionate Friends so much I found this one to be a bit disappointing. The characters were just too posh, stupid and unlikeable. While there were some very funny and insightful moments on the whole it was a little dull. The central theme of this book was the control that husbands had over wives and how this was a bad thing. But even the romantic writer found himself wanting to own and possess the beautiful woman and I just found him a totally unsympathetic character. The wife was 24, had 4 children and while described as very beautiful seemed to have very little personality. I felt sorry for her, but couldn't quite understand why her opinion on her life and what she should be doing had changed so dramatically, the explanation that she was "growing up" just didn't seem valid. I admired her for realising how great her freedom as a widow was, but then just couldn't accept her romantic interest in the author. While I agree that the standards for married women and young girls were terrible. I felt the characters and the lack of personal insight in this book made it one of Wells' weaker stories.
June 17, 2015
Another really fantastic Wells that I can't believe is not better known.There is so mich that is interesting about this novel, starting with the title - Ellen Harmon fights so long and hard for her own identity, what is Wells saying by always identifying her as somebody's wife? Lots of familiar subjects here - feminism, jealousy, the corporation vs. the little guy. A very very satisfying novel with a wonderfully ambiguous ending.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews