This review seems to complement the review given by John Gray at the New Statesman[1]. It's interesting to observe what was mentioned and omitted in each of the reviews. Collini writes: "During his lifetime there was also another kind of ‘fuss’ about Wells that is now bound to seem exaggerated. He was pilloried as an advocate of ‘free love’..." Is it really that surprising that in the post-Metoo era, a celebrated celebrity having an affair with an university student half his age continues to raise eyebrows? Also, on Wells' marriage with his second wife Jane, Collini says "he had always appreciated her qualities and had remained committed to her in his way. His way, of course, was not everyone’s way." Gray's judgement on Wells is much harsher: "Wells treated Jane abominably, spending much of his time with lovers. He returned to be with her only when she was dying from cancer, even then leaving regularly to spend a few days in France, where his current lover was living."
It is most illuminating to read from Collini that "Wells was a representative product of an era when the market and opportunities to get published had hugely expanded but before print began to be seriously challenged by other media. A number of other figures who roamed promiscuously and, above all, prolifically across literature, journalism and social criticism (Shaw and Chesterton come most readily to mind) also enjoyed a kind of celebrity in this period that they probably could not have attained before or after." Although he seems to deliberately sidestep the elephant in the room, even when Shaw's name has been mentioned. Gray gives a more detailed account of how Wells was possessed by the "madness of his times", which should give ample reason why no serious attempts are made to revive Wells' reputation today. Reading these two reviews, it is sad to realise that the dirty laundry of past authors can be either displayed in the open or swept under the rug depending on the personal liking of the reviewer.
