What would a satirical British novel be if it didn't take shots at England's snooty upper class and upper-class wannabes?
History lesson alert! (A short one, we promise.) In 1950s Britain, it wasn't so easy to change your social standing. Sure, you could try doing this by getting an education, but unlike us rebels across the pond, who have this crazy idea that we can be anything we aspire to, British society was more fixed, with inherited aristocracy and less social mobility. Things were starting to change in the postwar period, but people of Professor Welch's generation would have grown up in this environment.
When Lucky Jim was written, social class was a very big issue, especially for young people trying to better themselves. In 1951, the Labour Party, which had been in power since 1946 and had liberal policies supporting trade unions and the poor, was replaced by a Conservative Party government more protective of the upper classes. This was the backdrop for Jim and Bertrand's arguments about how much the rich should be taxed.
You can guess where Amis's sympathies lay at the time he wrote the book. But as he got older, he did a 180 and, according to one critic, "became the very sort of person he used to make fun of," extremely conservative, nasty, and intolerant. (Source)
Questions About Society and Class
- Does Gore-Urquhart's wealth make him a member of the upper class or just rich?
- What economic class would you say Jim is in?
- How do you think Jim's outlook on life is affected by the amount of money he makes?
Chew on This
Amis thinks that having money or not is just a matter of being born into the right family.
Gore-Urquhart is able to be a cool guy because it's a luxury he's been given by his wealth. The fact that he doesn't need to worry about money frees him up to say what he thinks.