Lackluster dystopian tale of mandatory euthanasia
 |
| Anthony Trollope |
The story takes place in the year 1980. Britannula, a former British colony, is an independent republic in the South Pacific populated by settlers from New Zealand. The narrator, John Neverbend, is the nation’s first president. Entrenched within the Constitution of this burgeoning nation is a law known as the “Fixed Period,” which mandates the euthanization of the elderly, under the reasoning that the prolongation of their lives constitutes a wasteful financial burden upon the state. Upon attaining the age of 67.5 years, each citizen of Britannula will be “deposited” with honors into a “college” (i.e. confined to a sort of country club) where they will live out the final year of their lives, after which they will be gently exsanguinated and their remains cremated. President Neverbend is an unwavering proponent of the Fixed Period. He finds difficulty in implementing the policy, however, when the first honoree shows a reluctance to be executed. This proposed first victim happens to be Neverbend’s best friend and a former legislator who helped him draft the Fixed Period law in the first place, only to have a change of heart later in life. As President Neverbend staunchly insists that the law be carried out, he meets with adamant resistance even within his own family.
In an attempt to liven things up, Trollope works a big cricket match into the plot. I am unfamiliar with the rules of the game, but this seems to be a futuristic version of cricket in which the players employ steam-powered machinery. Other than the occasional steam engine, Trollope isn’t much of a futurist; horses and ships are still the primary means of transportation in 1980.
Even in fictional Britannula, the narrator seems to be the only person in favor of the Fixed Period, so how did it ever become law in the first place? Neverbend’s solitary and unilateral advocacy for this death sentence makes him appear tyrannical, which undermines the sympathy the reader is obviously supposed to feel for him. Dystopian novels like Brave New World, 1984, or Fahrenheit 451 succeed because they examine multiple issues and aspects of society. Trollope’s Fixed Period, on the other hand, is strictly a one-issue dystopia, and is there really any need to discuss this particular issue? The narrative has a few mildly humorous moments, but if this is satire, what exactly would it be satirizing? It’s not like there’s a nation out there that’s actually arguing for this policy. There is some stuff in the plot about Britain messing in the affairs of its former colonies, but in this case the affair in question is so ridiculous it could hardly be applicable to Australia, New Zealand, or Canada.
A novel on voluntary euthanasia, rather than mandatory euthanasia, might actually have served a purpose, but this book just seems useless, and even worse, it’s boring. The narrator reveals his fate early on, so the ending is a foregone conclusion. The tone of the novel is lighthearted enough to make it pretty obvious that no one is going to die. The final few chapters are terribly protracted and repetitive as Trollope relentlessly restates the same points, beating the same dead horse. Readers would be better off avoiding this novelty and enjoying the books for which Trollope was famous, like the Chronicles of Barsetshire series.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment