Review: Lost Horizon

Hilton's remote mountain utopia of Shangri-La is a good counterpoint to Huxley's Brave New World. They were both written in the early 1930s, but in many ways could not be more different.

For most, Shangri-La - particularly those of a nostalgic, wistful bent - may be a more appealing utopia in many respects as it offers a longer more contemplative rural life away from the stresses and strains of fast paced urban living. This even extends to the prose - which has a dream like quality at times.

I was fascinated to read afterwards that an earlier name for Camp David was Shangri-La.

The protagonist, Conway, is rather more likeable than anyone in Brave New World too.  He's a thoughtful, well educated, courageous selfless everyman who's character - even across the passage of nearly ninety years - shines through with hardly a dated blemish.

"Laziness in doing stupid things can be a a great virtue".

Lost Horizon 

Both books, however, have a benign authoritarianism - honed over many years - at their core, the rule of an elite and there is no escaping it. They also both have elements of prescience. In Hilton's case, he correctly anticipates another war.

Weaknesses with Lost Horizon? It ends very abruptly almost as if the author suddenly got bored with it.  Conway aside, the characters aren't very well drawn, making the hinted at fate of one of them less impactful than it might have been.  I'd need to watch the film adaptation of Lost Horizon again - but I think it may have made a couple of useful improvements on the book.

Verdict: Engaging utopia masquerading as an adventure mystery.