HG Wells vs. Jules Verne - who is better (possible spoilers for books by both authors)

[[deleted user]]

Apologies if it's too soon in the month to start threads beyond the "First Impressions", but I've been wanting to put this question out there...

I read The Island of Doctor Moreau along with the group this month. It's the second Wells book I've read, along with The Time Machine. I really like the humanity in his writing and the way he focuses not just on the science, but on the effects that the events have on his protagonists and the implications and consequences of advanced technology for mankind generally. I've only read part of one book by Jules Verne (20,000 Leagues Under The Sea), which I didn't enjoy as much (although to be fair, I did not finish it). It seemed like more of a straight up adventure tale and felt more focused on the plot and on wowing his audience with details about the technology. Unlike Wells, Verne seemed less concerned about telling a timeless story with universal themes, and so the book felt more dated to me.

Verne and Wells were competitors in their time and the battle over which of them is the true "father of science fiction" rages on to this day. Who do you think is a better writer, and who is more worthy of that title?

[MK]

hmmm. I've only read Around The World In 80 Days, by Verne, vs The Time Machine and now, The Island of Dr. Moreau, by Wells. Sidestepping the literary judgement question, I can say, I REALLY enjoyed Around the World in Eighty Days, didn't enjoy The Time Machine, and thought The Island of Dr. Moreau was okay/good.

Based on such a small sample, I'd sooner pick up another Verne than another Wells.

[DavidO]

Andy wrote: "Verne and Wells were competitors in their time and the battle over which of them is the true "father of science fiction" rages on to this day. Who do you think is a better writer, and who is more worthy of that title? "

I think you hit most of the differences. Wells wrote social science fiction that could be called pot boilers. While Verne wrote hard science fiction with a focus on the science and details.

Which is better? I'm not going to touch that, since they are very different in my mind.

[Jim]

I personally enjoy Jules Verne's writing style more than that of H.G. Wells.

Mr. Verne's storylines seem to flow more easily and are often more entertaining than Mr. Wells', which tend to become bogged down occasionally by the insertion of too much detail not directly relevant to the plot.

[Katy]

One also needs to remember that travelogues were quite popular during this time period too. And in that I think Verne is a bit more versed, but Wells was my first favorite author.

I agree with DavidO. They are different, so I suppose it just depends on what you want to read.

[DavidO]

Jim wrote: "Mr. Verne's storylines seem to flow more easily and are often more entertaining than Mr. Wells', which tend to become bogged down occasionally by the insertion of too much detail not directly relevant to the plot. "

I seem to recall a LOT of detail not relevant to the plot while reading the first ~10 chapters of Journey to the Center of the Earth, unless one thinks the plot is about travelling to the volcano.

[Katy]

I do think that Journey to the Center of the Earth is about the journey. The getting there is secondary.

[Jim]

I read a lot of Jules Verne back in the 1980s, getting the books from our public library. I read a couple of HG Wells, but frankly I never persisted with him and enjoyed Jules Verne much more.
Both are very much of their time, their style can take a lot of getting used to

[Jim]

One must also remember that novels were the primary form of personal entertainment during the 19th. century. Movies, TV, and radio did not exist.

This reflects the writing styles of the day which often provided much more descriptive narration aimed at an audience that enjoyed long, drawn-out stories compared to today's rapid get-to-the point writing styles aimed at an audience with many alternative entertainment choices.

[DavidO]

Took me a few seconds to realzie there are 2 Jims

[Jim]

DavidO,

One of us must be an impostor.

[Lara Amber]

We can just start numbering them, Jim 1 and Jim 2.

Considering my deep love of Around the World in 80 Days, I have to say Verne is the winner in my book. The science in both don't stand up well to heavy scrutiny, but the sense of adventure (and quite frankly optimism) of Verne appeals to me over Wells, which is more rooted in the "what have you done!!!" aspect of science.

[Jim]

Jim wrote: "DavidO,

One of us must be an impostor."

Just remember that I'm the other one :-)

But back to the point Jim is right, these books were written when you went to a novel for something some now get from film or TV

[Mhorg]

I prefer Wells to Verne. wells seems more scientific, Verne a little more fantasy.

[Jim]

Regardless of what we may think of Mr. Verne's and Mr. Wells' writing styles, their works are still published and read 150 years after being initially released.

How many of today's authors' works will attain such longevity?

[Katy]

Jim wrote: "Regardless of what we may think of Mr. Verne's and Mr. Wells' writing styles, their works are still published and read 150 years after being initially released.

How many of today's authors' works ..."

Good point, Jim.

[Mhorg]

They were the Beatles of their time. How many bands in the past 50 years have faded from listening. I can easily see The Beatles still being listened to in another 50, then 100 years.

[DavidO]

Jim wrote: "How many of today's authors' works will attain such longevity? "

About as many as are remembered from back then. A handful.

[Jim]

The limited availability of a formal education and the time-consuming, labor-intensive nature of the printing process in the 19th. century, makes an "apples-to-apples" comparison of the hundreds of published authors, whose works were available to the masses then, to the hundreds of thousands of authors published annually in modern times extremely difficult, if not impossible.

[Paul]

I'd go with Wells, in that he deals with more serious issues (time travel, invisibility, alien invasion, bio-engineering) than does Verne (travel around the Earth, under the sea, to the Moon, etc).

[Daniel]

Paul wrote: "I'd go with Wells, in that he deals with more serious issues (time travel, invisibility, alien invasion, bio-engineering) than does Verne (travel around the Earth, under the sea, to the Moon,
etc.

Verne`s stories inspired others to push their own boundaries, like Jacques Cousteau, Admiral Richard E. Byrd, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gaggarin, and so...If that`s not awesome, or meaningful to you, am sorry...Wells was fantastic, dont get me wrong, but at the end he was such a "party pooper", at least the French dude was aware of the limits of technology, and yet he was not afraid to exploit its awesome pottential to achieve the greatest conquests

[Daniel]

Robert wrote: "I prefer Wells to Verne. wells seems more scientific, Verne a little more fantasy."


I dont deny his genius, but what you say is not true...Wells himself used to say that he just made up his stories just to tell social allegories, he didnt take serious the idea of using the hypothetic "Cavorite" for Space travel...Even though Verne`s gigantic gun was wrong, he was right on the use of physics, and the details of using an aluminum Spaceship, and rockets to propell the capsule into Space...Russian astronautics pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1856-1935) claimed that reading FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON was what inspired him to achieve Space travel. BTW, if I remember it was Wells who said in 1901 "My imagination refuse any submarine doing except but floundering at the bottom of the Sea suffocating its crew", how funny; a guy capable to imagine "cranky" stuff like time travel and Martian invaders was not capable to take serious a feasable technology, at least those who read Captain Nemo`s adventures didnt listen to "Bertie"

[Daniel]

Lara Amber wrote: "We can just start numbering them, Jim 1 and Jim 2.

Considering my deep love of Around the World in 80 Days, I have to say Verne is the winner in my book. The science in both don't stand up well t..."


Here, here!

[Cheryl]

Back to the OQ, as I wasn't here then so now's my chance:

As to who is better, nah, they're different. And as to who is the Father of science fiction, well, even there, do we have to narrow it down to one?

Humans see patterns and significances, which is a good thing, but when we take it too far, we're creating superstitions. Why one Father of SF? Why celebrate the 10th anniversary of an event with more hoopla than the 9th? Why buy five cans of soup just because the sale is 5/$10?

And which author was more in touch with the difference between science and superstition, with the scientific method, with science as a verb? Never mind the feasibility of the technology, which sent his Traveller off on an uncalibrated machine with only a box of matches? Which assumes an Adventurer to be also an arrogant, sexist, and racist who values competition over discovery?

[Christopher]

In my opinion, Verne is the better writer, but Wells the better imagination. They both were amazing, to me.

[Philip]

The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas by Jules Verne are two of my favourite works of science fiction. I do not prefer one author to the other. Both of them were great writers. In the same way, sometimes I like a cup of tea, other times a cup of coffee. I like to appreciate things in their own right. H.G. Wells is a good storyteller, so is Jules Verne.

[Nərmin]

I have read three books from Verne (three that İ remember anyway ) : Captain Grant's children, 20.000 leagues under the sea, Mysterious island) and one from Wells, The war of the worlds. I like Verne because his novels are my childhood, and because I have read more from him. Still I have to read more from each of them to judge more accurately.

[Daniel]

Nərmin wrote: "I have read three books from Verne (three that İ remember anyway ) : Captain Grant's children, 20.000 leagues under the sea, Mysterious island) and one from Wells, The war of the worlds. I like Ver..."

I love Captain Grant`s Children , too, I also reccomend you A Captain at Fifteen, and Five Weeks in a Balloon

[[deleted user]]

I prefer Jules Verne because his novels better predicted the types of new technologies that were eventually developped in his future (submarines, space travel, potential of balloons). Verne also wrote novels that I found more entertaining (they encouraged the adventurous streak in the readers).

[Daniel]

Philip wrote: "The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas by Jules Verne are two of my favourite works of science fiction. I do not prefer one author to the other. Both of them..."

I love 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and Wells`The First Men in The Moon (I liked his deppiction of the Selenites, very eerie, indeed)...If we think abouth it Verne did pave the way for such authors like Wells, Conan Doyle, and Edgar Rice Burroughs (whom I love his Martian adventure-themed stories), he is the pioneer

[Daniel]

Kathy wrote: "I do think that Journey to the Center of the Earth is about the journey. The getting there is secondary."
Jules "invented" the "Lost World"-type of story in popular fiction

[Daniel]

Michel wrote: "I prefer Jules Verne because his novels better predicted the types of new technologies that were eventually developped in his future (submarines, space travel, potential of balloons). Verne also wr..."

Indeed! From the Earth to the Moon still mesmerizes me for the idea itself of leaving away this planet

[Daniel]

Jules Verne is a name dear to me, because the ingenuity and humanity of his characters, which bring a sense of realism to their adventures, no matter if they exploring the depths of the Sea, the Center of the Earth, the Artic poles, or even leaving away this planet. H.G. Wells was fantastic, especially for The Invisible Man and The War of the Worlds, but they dont have that true sense of wonder for going abroad, beyond your boundaries. It is like Verne came and says "Dont be afraid, go far off and enjoy the journey with all its harshness and joys", Wells on the other hand comes and like that grumpy cat memes sourly says "You will die"

[Nərmin]

Daniel wrote: "Nərmin wrote: "I have read three books from Verne (three that İ remember anyway ) : Captain Grant's children, 20.000 leagues under the sea, Mysterious island) and one from Wells, The war of the wor..."

Thanks! I'll definetly read them)

[Bruce]

I've read just a few of both Verne and Wells. To me, Verne was the superior engineer but to me Wells had more to say about the philosophy of science. I feel like Wells' work struck deep into the heart of humanity. Whereas Verne's work is largely outdated by technology, I think Wells still has something important to say.

[Christopher]

I agree, Wells was more about the consequences and ideas behind a scientific notion, and Verne was more about the story. Both have their place, but Wells' thoughts and warnings are still valuable today.

[Daniel]

Bruce wrote: "I've read just a few of both Verne and Wells. To me, Verne was the superior engineer but to me Wells had more to say about the philosophy of science. I feel like Wells' work struck deep into the he..."

Jules Verne popularized the idea itself of wonder and excitement for traveling abroad, which is as current as 2 centuries ago among people.Of amazing vehicles for equally amazing journeys, that`s very much part of modern Science-Fiction, not to mention that its characters, their humanity and ingenuity, it is why he is still read, It is an awesome storyteller, as legendary Sci-Fi writer Arthur C. Clarke once said. Sorry, but saying he is outdated is wrong, there is a good reason why the word "classic" applies to certain authors, and is not neccessarily the equivalent of "old". Also, the notion that Science-Fiction is a "genre of ideas", is just a very small part, the legacy from the "New Wave" movement, which sadly some elite appropiated for themselves...What abouth all the matterial from the "Golden Age"? is not less "Science-Fictional" (for a better word to describe it) than the matterial that came from 60's up to this day. If you look this way Verne`s influence is no less bigger than 150 years, especially in literature. he could perffectly be regarded as the forerunner of the "Techno/Science-Thriller", very much like modern best seller authors like Clive Cussler, or the late Michael Crichton

[Silvana]

Verne was a better storyteller and all two or three Wells books I read were a snoozefest (yes, including War of the World and Time Machine). I can't get enough of Verne's Voyages Extraordinaire and Mysterious Island will always have a special place in my heart.

[Albert Elnen]

while Verne did like going towards the adventures. Wells had his science fiction being much deeper. I am sure folks realise that the Eloise were the beautiful people, while the Morlocks were more the poor. And many folks consider them ugly, and should be hidden away from the rich.

[Lars]

Some of Verne's books will always hold a special place in my heart, probably because they in so many ways are linked to my childhood, but there's no way of getting around it, they don't hold up against time.

Verne are very much a echo of his times and his outright racism and acceptance of social classes makes it very hard to take his books seriously today.

Wells however can easily be reread today, which I have done recently, and are still interesting to a broad audience, proofed by several major movies made in this century.

[odedo1]

This is a foolish question, in my second language they have a quote which rhymes I'll try to translate but it won't rhyme and it goes like that " on taste and smell there is no argument " it don't sound right in English but it's meaning is that we are humans and individuals, each different which makes every one special!
Maybe that's answers your question, there is no right or wrong, there is no better or worst only for your on self!

[Adam]

I think Wells has my vote as his body of work is much broader. He wrote some really interesting social commentaries.