The novel follows the fortunes and mis-fortunes of a reluctant Medieval History lecturer, Jim Dixon. Much of the action revolves around his relationship with two women: Margaret Peel and Christine Callaghen.
Fellow-lecturer, Margaret, is an emotional blackmailer who plays on Dixon's sense of duty and pity in order to keep him tied-up in a deeply unsatisfying relationship with her. Christine is an attractive young women, who is dating the son of Dixon's boss, Professor Welch.
At one point, Dixon muses upon what it is that has made these two very different women the people they are. He reaches the conclusion that it is largely down to luck.
Many of Margaret's problems and her most unappealing character traits have arisen as a consequence of her sexual unattractiveness. Similarly, much of what is appealing and nice about Christine has come about because of her sexual attractiveness. Neither women are ultimately responsible for their level of attractiveness. Therefore, Margaret's nastyness and Christine's niceness are really just a matter of luck.
But here's the kicker. We might be tempted to think that these considerations somehow diminish the importance of Christine's niceness and Margaret's nastyness. But not so.
Here's how Jim Dixon puts it: "To write things down as luck wasn't the same as writing them off as non-existent or in some way beneath consideration. Christine was nicer and prettier than Margaret, and all the deductions that could be drawn from that fact should be drawn: there was no end to the ways in which nice things are nicer than nasty ones."
I think this is a wonderful and perceptive quote. I've been turning it over in my mind a lot since re-reading Lucky Jim, and it seems to me to be very much tied up with the philosophical concept of moral luck.
I'll explore the topic of moral luck in my next blog update.
