Lost Horizon

James Hilton's classic, Lost Horizon, is an extremely thought-provoking novel. In surprisingly short fashion, it tells the story of four travellers - two English diplomats, Conway and Mallinson, an American capitalist Barnard, and an English missionary Miss Brinklow - as they are led stray to a Tibetan monastery, the legendary utopian society of Shangri-La. As he spins the tale, Hilton raises several profound questions. What is utopia, and for that matter, what is the wisdom that allows us to attain it?

I believe Hilton's conjecture is that utopia comes from taking all things in moderation, and that wisdom is obtained by a reduction, or perhaps I should say 're-scaling' of human passions so that even the subtle joys of life are satisfying. But I also believe he is saying that wisdom comes from a better understanding and appreciation of time. He makes a comment that the Americans and British are always rushing around trying to get things done, and I believe it is true that modern society prioritizes activity, with the end result of sacrificing happiness without a commensurate increase in productivity. But these points are debatable of course, and largely depend on who you are. There are many people who prefer a secure, calm life, and yet many who prefer the extremes of passion. Hilton shows this brilliantly in the contrast between the older Conway, who has already seen his share of things in the world, and the young, impatient Mallinson who still has the rest of his life ahead of him.

(Warning: there are some spoilers coming up, so stop reading if you intend to read the book!)

The question that really got me thinking however is this: why does Conway leave Shangri-La, when it seems he had found there exactly what he was looking for? I understand that Mallinson caused him to doubt that what he had seen and heard was actually real. And this doubt is certainly understandable, because the utopia of Shangri-La is a utopia of the mind, not of the body, so how can it be proven? But the question is, does it really matter if something is not real, if it satisfies something real in your heart? It is this question of accepting deception if the benefits outweigh reality that is the heart of movies like The Matrix, and Open Your Eyes (Vanilla Sky). It also occurs in religion, where you believe in something which you may never be able to really prove, but the belief makes you a better person. And also in unrequited love - if you love someone who does not love you back, is it still love?

But I think what really pushed Conway over the edge, so to speak, was when Mallinson convinced one of the monks to leave. I mean, if the place truly is utopia, why would anyone want to leave it? But I wonder if people also have a hard time accepting paradise. I believe there is a distrust or dissatisfaction with happiness that is innate to the human spirit - it may be one of our greatest strengths, but at the same time can be the cause of great sadness.