Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Re: From the Earth to the Moon--Does it require a sequel?

From: Garmt de Vries <G.deVries~at~phys.uu.nl>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:52:32 +0100 (CET)
To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>

Brian,

I agree with you on the change in tone between De la Terre a la Lune and
Autour de la Lune. But it seems that Verne really planned a two-part story
from the start. In a letter to Hetzel of 4 Sep, 1863, the first letter in
which De la Terre a la Lune is even mentioned, he writes: "I'm working on
the second volume, but what I'm really anxious about, is to see the first
one in print. Are you giving orders to continue it? I would especially
like to hear your opinion on the end of the first: that's the important
point."

Cheers,
Garmt.

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Brian Taves wrote:

>
> The cartoon image of the lightbulb appearing above a character's head is
> familiar to all of us, and is in fact to my mind a rather amusing but also
> accurate portrayal of how a fresh idea may suddenly illuminate our thinking.
>
> Such occurred to me, a few days ago, and I'd like to share it with the Forum
> for the reactions of others.
>
> I first read a (no doubt watered-down) Scholastic Press version of From the
> Earth to the Moon as my first Verne book, in the fifth grade, age ten, in the
> spring of 1969. I found it singularly unsatisfying; nowhere in the little
> paperback was there any mention of a sequel. Nonetheless, some months later, I
> had entered my own lifelong thrall to Verne and discovered Around the Moon,
> discovering that the story of FEM had a more satisfactory conclusion.
>
> Yet, in subsequently realizing the five year span between the composition
> of the two stories, something has always remained unsatisfactory about the
> relationship between the two works. And it may be linked to that need for
> closure, for "a happy ending" that AM offers. Judged purely as a literary
> achievement, FEM outweighs AM, when the two are measured as separate
> novels.
>
> Much has been written on this Forum about Verne's choice of a cannon, and
> whether he was indeed likely aware that his solution to the problem of lunar
> travel was ultimately no more practical than that of Poe's Hans Pfaal.
>
> That, however, seems to me a matter of secondary interest. More to the
> point, as highlighted in Walter James Miller's Annotated JV translation of
> FEM (the fabulous version I have just been rereading), is the fact that
> the whole background of artillery serves as a perfect launch pad for
> Verne's own ironic commentaries on militarism, nationalism, capitalism,
> and sectionalism. FEM may be best understood as satire, rather than, more
> conventionally, a scientific novel.
>
> And it is with that in mind that it seems to me it is quite possible to
> read FEM, not as the first part of the story of a lunar journey that it
> became, but a stand-alone volume. One which is open-ended, yet seems to
> indicate that nature has intervened and the ambition of man has been
> thwarted. Just as Herr Schultz sought the destruction of Franceville and
> instead launched a satellite, so too did the Gun Club fail in their aim,
> instead creating yet another satellite. The Club has failed, just as they
> will again in the ultimate volume of the trilogy, which returns to the
> tone of FEM. A later team of American astronomers hunting for a
> meteor--whether or not having the help of an interfering French
> scientist--similarly find nature overwhelming their dreams. Thanks to
> modern literary reappraisals of Verne, we can recognize in him a writer of
> much greater depth, and the seemingly sudden, "surprise ending" of FEM is
> indeed inevitable, and the implied death of all the protagonists (despite
> the hopes of Maston, who has been foolish throughout the novel), an
> experiment with a different type of ending. So too were such other early
> Verne novels as Hatteras and Paris au XX Siecle intended to end in the
> death of the protagonist.
>
> Vernian sequels don't always merge together easily Indeed, the addition of
> Around the Moon rather distorts FEM, losing the materialist view of
> American culture that formed the first volume. The futher adventures of
> the Gun Club to change the Earth's axis lacks the lightness of FEM, or
> Around the Moon. Reading FEM and AM together results in emphasizing the
> science, just as making the background of Captain Nemo concrete in L'Ile
> mysterieuse robs 20K of its ambiguity and universality of experience.
> Maitre du monde does not answer the questions raised by Robur le
> conquerant; instead it multiplies them, and if it ends the life of Robur,
> it leaves his true motivations and background never to be known.
>
> Perhaps, then, it is not so unfortunate that at least in English, FEM has
> often appeared separately, far more times than its sequel has, and indeed
> the two are surprisingly rarely published together.
>
> Given the above, I see that my own one-time belief that FEM demanded a
> sequel may have been a result of an incorrect reading, or only one way of
> reading of FEM. Perhaps a sequel was possible, but certainly not
> essential, from a literary standpoint, any more than L'Ile mys. had to
> resolve the open ends of 20K and Les Enfants du Capitaine Grant. My
> assumption has always been that Verne always planned FEM to have a sequel,
> but I open the question to our expert biographers on that more practical
> point. And, I would suggest the notion that FEM is indeed a singular
> volume, able to stand alone.
>
>
> Brian Taves
> Motion Picture/Broadcasting/Recorded Sound Division
> Library of Congress
> 101 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20540-4692
> Telephone: 202-707-9930; 202-707-2371 (fax)
> Email: btav~at~loc.gov
>
>
> Disclaimer--All opinions expressed are my own.
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue 07 Feb 2006 - 08:52:51 IST

JV.Gilead.org.il
Copyright © Zvi Har’El
$Date: 2009/02/01 22:36:11 $$