What do you think?
Rate this book
韦慰 魏慰蠀蟻未喂蟽蟿蠈 蟺慰蟻蟿慰魏维位喂
芦螒蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 纬蠀蟻蔚蠉伪渭蔚 萎蟿伪谓 渭喂伪 蟺伪位喂维, 魏伪位萎 蔚蟺委蟽魏蔚蠄畏-苇魏蟺位畏尉畏... 渭蔚 渭蟺蠈位喂魏畏 蠀蟺蔚蟻尾委伪.禄
螣 未蔚魏伪蟺蔚谓蟿维蠂蟻慰谓慰蟼 A位蔚尉 伪蟺慰位伪渭尾维谓蔚喂 蟿慰蠀蟼 尾喂伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼, 蟿伪 谓伪蟻魏蠅蟿喂魏维 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 螘谓维蟿畏 危蠀渭蠁蠅谓委伪 蟿慰蠀 螠蟺蔚蟿蠈尾蔚谓. 惟蟼 伪蟻蠂畏纬蠈蟼 渭喂伪蟼 蟽蠀渭渭慰蟻委伪蟼 蔚蠁萎尾蠅谓, 蟺蔚蟻喂蟺位伪谓喂苇蟿伪喂 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 未蟻蠈渭慰蠀蟼 蔚谓蠈蟼 未蠀蟽蟿慰蟺喂魏慰蠉 渭苇位位慰谓蟿慰蟼 伪谓伪味畏蟿蠋谓蟿伪蟼 蠁蟻喂魏蟿苇蟼 蟽蠀纬魏喂谓萎蟽蔚喂蟼. 螌蟿伪谓 慰 A位蔚尉 蟽蠀位位伪渭尾维谓蔚蟿伪喂 魏伪喂 蠁蠀位伪魏委味蔚蟿伪喂 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰魏位委谓慰蠀蟽伪 蟽蠀渭蟺蔚蟻喂蠁慰蟻维 蟿慰蠀, 蟿慰 螝蟻维蟿慰蟼 伪谓伪位伪渭尾维谓蔚喂 谓伪 蟿慰谓 伪谓伪渭慰蟻蠁蠋蟽蔚喂... 伪位位维 渭蔚 蟺慰喂慰 魏蠈蟽蟿慰蟼;
韦慰 伪蟺伪蟻维渭喂位位慰 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏蠈 蔚蟺委蟿蔚蠀纬渭伪 蟺慰蠀 蔚谓苇蟺谓蔚蠀蟽蔚 蟿畏谓 慰渭蠈蟿喂蟿位畏 蟿伪喂谓委伪 蟿慰蠀 危蟿维谓位蔚蠆 螝喂慰蠉渭蟺蟻喂魏 魏伪喂 蟽蠀渭蟺蔚蟻喂位萎蠁胃畏魏蔚 蟽蟿畏 位委蟽蟿伪 蟿慰蠀 蟺蔚蟻喂慰未喂魏慰蠉 TIME 渭蔚 蟿伪 100 魏慰蟻蠀蠁伪委伪 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿慰蟻萎渭伪蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 伪纬纬位喂魏萎蟼 纬位蠋蟽蟽伪蟼 蟺慰蠀 纬蟻维蠁蟿畏魏伪谓 蟿慰谓 20蠈 伪喂蠋谓伪.
芦螖蔚谓 尉苇蟻蠅 魏伪谓苇谓伪谓 维位位慰 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪 蟺慰蠀 谓伪 苇蠂蔚喂 魏伪蟿伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟿蠈蟽伪 渭蔚 蟿畏 纬位蠋蟽蟽伪... 蟿慰 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟼 蠈蟿喂 蔚委谓伪喂 蔚蟺委蟽畏蟼 苇谓伪 蟺慰位蠉 伪蟽蟿蔚委慰 尾喂尾位委慰 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蟺蔚蟻维蟽蔚喂 伪蟺伪蟻伪蟿萎蟻畏蟿慰.禄
- William S. Burroughs
芦螆谓伪 蔚魏蟺位畏魏蟿喂魏蠈 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪... 渭喂伪 维纬蟻喂伪 蟽维蟿喂蟻伪 蟿畏蟼 未喂伪蟽蟿蟻苇尾位蠅蟽畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 伪蟿慰渭喂魏慰蠉 魏伪喂 蟽蠀位位慰纬喂魏慰蠉 谓慰蠀.禄
- New York Times
芦韦慰 尾喂尾位委慰 蟿慰蠀 Anthony Burgess 蠁伪委谓蔚蟿伪喂 蟽伪谓 苇谓伪 维纬蟻喂慰, 蟽慰魏伪蟻喂蟽蟿喂魏蠈 蠂蟿蠉蟺畏渭伪, 伪位位维 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蔚委谓伪喂 魏维蟿喂 蟺慰位蠉 蟽蟺维谓喂慰 蟽蟿畏 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪: 苇谓伪 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁喂魏蠈 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪.禄
- Time
螣 未蔚魏伪蟺蔚谓蟿维蠂蟻慰谓慰蟼 A位蔚尉 伪蟺慰位伪渭尾维谓蔚喂 蟿慰蠀蟼 尾喂伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼, 蟿伪 谓伪蟻魏蠅蟿喂魏维 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 螘谓维蟿畏 危蠀渭蠁蠅谓委伪 蟿慰蠀 螠蟺蔚蟿蠈尾蔚谓. 惟蟼 伪蟻蠂畏纬蠈蟼 渭喂伪蟼 蟽蠀渭渭慰蟻委伪蟼 蔚蠁萎尾蠅谓, 蟺蔚蟻喂蟺位伪谓喂苇蟿伪喂 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 未蟻蠈渭慰蠀蟼 蔚谓蠈蟼 未蠀蟽蟿慰蟺喂魏慰蠉 渭苇位位慰谓蟿慰蟼 伪谓伪味畏蟿蠋谓蟿伪蟼 蠁蟻喂魏蟿苇蟼 蟽蠀纬魏喂谓萎蟽蔚喂蟼. 螌蟿伪谓 慰 A位蔚尉 蟽蠀位位伪渭尾维谓蔚蟿伪喂 魏伪喂 蠁蠀位伪魏委味蔚蟿伪喂 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰魏位委谓慰蠀蟽伪 蟽蠀渭蟺蔚蟻喂蠁慰蟻维 蟿慰蠀, 蟿慰 螝蟻维蟿慰蟼 伪谓伪位伪渭尾维谓蔚喂 谓伪 蟿慰谓 伪谓伪渭慰蟻蠁蠋蟽蔚喂... 伪位位维 渭蔚 蟺慰喂慰 魏蠈蟽蟿慰蟼;
韦慰 伪蟺伪蟻维渭喂位位慰 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏蠈 蔚蟺委蟿蔚蠀纬渭伪 蟺慰蠀 蔚谓苇蟺谓蔚蠀蟽蔚 蟿畏谓 慰渭蠈蟿喂蟿位畏 蟿伪喂谓委伪 蟿慰蠀 危蟿维谓位蔚蠆 螝喂慰蠉渭蟺蟻喂魏 魏伪喂 蟽蠀渭蟺蔚蟻喂位萎蠁胃畏魏蔚 蟽蟿畏 位委蟽蟿伪 蟿慰蠀 蟺蔚蟻喂慰未喂魏慰蠉 TIME 渭蔚 蟿伪 100 魏慰蟻蠀蠁伪委伪 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿慰蟻萎渭伪蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 伪纬纬位喂魏萎蟼 纬位蠋蟽蟽伪蟼 蟺慰蠀 纬蟻维蠁蟿畏魏伪谓 蟿慰谓 20蠈 伪喂蠋谓伪.
芦螖蔚谓 尉苇蟻蠅 魏伪谓苇谓伪谓 维位位慰 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪 蟺慰蠀 谓伪 苇蠂蔚喂 魏伪蟿伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟿蠈蟽伪 渭蔚 蟿畏 纬位蠋蟽蟽伪... 蟿慰 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟼 蠈蟿喂 蔚委谓伪喂 蔚蟺委蟽畏蟼 苇谓伪 蟺慰位蠉 伪蟽蟿蔚委慰 尾喂尾位委慰 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蟺蔚蟻维蟽蔚喂 伪蟺伪蟻伪蟿萎蟻畏蟿慰.禄
- William S. Burroughs
芦螆谓伪 蔚魏蟺位畏魏蟿喂魏蠈 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪... 渭喂伪 维纬蟻喂伪 蟽维蟿喂蟻伪 蟿畏蟼 未喂伪蟽蟿蟻苇尾位蠅蟽畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 伪蟿慰渭喂魏慰蠉 魏伪喂 蟽蠀位位慰纬喂魏慰蠉 谓慰蠀.禄
- New York Times
芦韦慰 尾喂尾位委慰 蟿慰蠀 Anthony Burgess 蠁伪委谓蔚蟿伪喂 蟽伪谓 苇谓伪 维纬蟻喂慰, 蟽慰魏伪蟻喂蟽蟿喂魏蠈 蠂蟿蠉蟺畏渭伪, 伪位位维 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蔚委谓伪喂 魏维蟿喂 蟺慰位蠉 蟽蟺维谓喂慰 蟽蟿畏 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪: 苇谓伪 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁喂魏蠈 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪.禄
- Time
245 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1962
13.6k people are currently reading
774k people want to read
About the author
Anthony Burgess
299听books4,101听followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the 欧宝娱乐 database with this name.
Seriocomic novels of noted British writer and critic Anthony Burgess, pen name of John Burgess Wilson, include the futuristic classic A Clockwork Orange (1962).
He composed also a librettos, poems, plays, screens, and essays and traveled, broadcast, translated, linguist and educationalist. He lived for long periods in southeastern Asia, the United States of America, and Europe along Mediterranean Sea as well as England. His fiction embraces the Malayan trilogy ( The Long Day Wanes ) on the dying days of empire in the east. The Enderby quartet concerns a poet and his muse. Nothing like the Sun re-creates love life of William Shakespeare. He explores the nature of evil with Earthly Powers , a panoramic saga of the 20th century. He published studies of James Joyce, Ernest Miller Hemingway, Shakespeare, and David Herbert Lawrence. He produced the treatises Language Made Plain and A Mouthful of Air . His journalism proliferated in several languages. He translated and adapted Cyrano de Bergerac , Oedipus the King , and Carmen for the stage. He scripted Jesus of Nazareth and Moses the Lawgiver for the screen. He invented the prehistoric language, spoken in Quest for Fire . He composed the Sinfoni Melayu , the Symphony (No. 3) in C , and the opera Blooms of Dublin .
Seriocomic novels of noted British writer and critic Anthony Burgess, pen name of John Burgess Wilson, include the futuristic classic A Clockwork Orange (1962).
He composed also a librettos, poems, plays, screens, and essays and traveled, broadcast, translated, linguist and educationalist. He lived for long periods in southeastern Asia, the United States of America, and Europe along Mediterranean Sea as well as England. His fiction embraces the Malayan trilogy ( The Long Day Wanes ) on the dying days of empire in the east. The Enderby quartet concerns a poet and his muse. Nothing like the Sun re-creates love life of William Shakespeare. He explores the nature of evil with Earthly Powers , a panoramic saga of the 20th century. He published studies of James Joyce, Ernest Miller Hemingway, Shakespeare, and David Herbert Lawrence. He produced the treatises Language Made Plain and A Mouthful of Air . His journalism proliferated in several languages. He translated and adapted Cyrano de Bergerac , Oedipus the King , and Carmen for the stage. He scripted Jesus of Nazareth and Moses the Lawgiver for the screen. He invented the prehistoric language, spoken in Quest for Fire . He composed the Sinfoni Melayu , the Symphony (No. 3) in C , and the opera Blooms of Dublin .
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 23,498 reviews
May 10, 2018
How to review an infamous book about which so much has already been said? By avoiding reading others鈥� thoughts until I鈥檝e written mine.
There are horrors in this book, but there is beauty too, and so much to think about. The ends of the book justify the means of its execution, even if the same is not true of what happens in the story.
Book vs Film, and Omission of Final Chapter
I saw the film first, and read the book shortly afterwards. Usually a bad idea, but in this case, being familiar with the plot and the Nadsat slang made it easier to relax (if that's an appropriate word, given some of the horrors to come) into the book. The film is less hypnotic and far more shocking than the book, because it is more visual and because, like the US version of the book, it omits the more optimistic final chapter.
The British censors originally passed the film - uncut. But a year later, it was cited as possibly inspiring a couple of murders, leading to threats against Kubrick's family. The year after that, Kubrick asked for it to be withdrawn, and it was, even though he said
"To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around."
See
and
Plot and Structure
It is a short novel, comprising three sections of seven chapters, told by 鈥測our humble narrator鈥�, Alex. In the first section, Alex and his teenage gang indulge in 鈥渦ltra-violence鈥� (including sexual assault of young girls); in the middle section, Alex is in prison and then undergoes a horrific new treatment (a sort of aversion therapy); the final section follows him back in the real world, rejected by his parents, now the puppet of opposing political factions. The whole thing is set in a slightly dystopian, very near future and explores issues of original sin, punishment and revenge, free will, and the nature of evil.
One awful incident involves breaking in to a writer鈥檚 house and gang raping his wife, who later dies. A similar incident happened to Burgess鈥� first wife (though he wasn鈥檛 there at the time). Writing a fictionalised account from the point of view of the perpetrator is extraordinary: charitable, cathartic, or a more complex mixture?
Themes
Why is Alex as he is?
鈥淲hat I do I do because I like to do鈥�, and perhaps there is no more that can be said. As Alex ponders, 鈥渢his biting of their toe-nails over what is the CAUSE of badness is what turns me into a fine laughing malchick. They don鈥檛 go into the cause of GOODNESS鈥� badness is of the self鈥� and that self is made by old Bog or God and is his great pride and radosty鈥�.
Can people like Alex be cured, and if so, how?
Imprisonment, police brutality, fire and brimstone don鈥檛 work. Enter the Ludovico Technique, whereby Alex is injected with emetics before being strapped, with his eyelids held open, to watch videos of extreme physical and sexual violence. He becomes conditioned to be unable to commit such acts, or even to watch or think about them. This raises more questions than it solves. The prison governor prefers the old 鈥渆ye for an eye鈥�, but has to give in to the new idea of making bad people good. 鈥淭he question is whether such a technique can really make a man good. Goodness comes from within鈥� Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.鈥� The chaplain has doubts, too, 鈥淚s a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?鈥� On the other hand, by consenting to the treatment, Alex is, in an indirect way, choosing to be good.
The technique (or torture) is promoted as making Alex 鈥渟ane鈥� and 鈥渉ealthy鈥� so that he can be 鈥渁 free man鈥�, but although he is released from prison, he remains imprisoned by the power of the technique, even to the extent that the music he loves now makes him sick (because it was playing in the background) and his inability to defend himself means he becomes a victim.
Do the ends justify the means?
Dr Brodsky thinks so: 鈥淲e are not concerned with motive, with the higher ethics. We are only concerned with cutting down crime.鈥� However, if it wears off, it will all have been for nothing.
Redemption?
The possibility of redemption is a common thread, reaching its peak in this final chapter. Burgess was raised as a Catholic, educated in Catholic schools, but lost his faith aged sixteen. He continued to have profound interest in religious ideas, though, as explained .
The final chapter (omitted from US editions of the book until 1986, and also the film) feels incongruously optimistic in some ways, but by suggesting the true answer as to what will cure delinquency is鈥� maturity, it might be thought the most pessimistic chapter. Is teen violence an inevitable cycle: something people grow into, and then out of when they start to see their place in the bigger picture? And if so, is that acceptable to society?
Language - Nadsat Slang
A distinctive feature of the book is the Nadsat slang that Alex and his droogs use (鈥渘adsat鈥� is the Russian suffix for 鈥渢een鈥� 鈥� see ). Burgess invented it from Russian with a bit of Cockney rhyming slang and Malay, because real teen slang is so ephemeral, the book would quickly seem dated otherwise. He wanted the book published without a glossary, and it is written so carefully, that the meaning is usually clear, and becomes progressively so, as you become accustomed to it: 鈥渁 bottle of beer frothing its gulliver off and a horrorshow rookerful of like plum cake鈥� and 鈥淭here鈥檚 only one veshch I require鈥� having my malenky bit of fun with real droogs鈥�. Where an English word is used literally and metaphorically, the Nadsat one is too; for example, 鈥渧iddy鈥� is used to see with one鈥檚 eyes and to understand someone鈥檚 point.
The skill of carefully used context makes Russian-based Nadsat much easier to follow than the dialect of Riddley Walker (see my review ), even though the latter is based on mishearings of English. (To be fair, the whole of Riddley Walker is written in dialect, whereas in Clockwork Orange, it's conventional English with a generous smattering of slang.)
Where the meaning isn't immediately obvious or is merely vague, you go with the flow until it seeps into your consciousness (much as would happen if you were dropped into an environment where you had no language in common with anyone else). It's another way of sucking the reader into Alex's world and his gang.
Nadsat lends a mesmerising and poetic aspect to the text that is in sharp contrast to the revulsion invoked by some of the things Alex does: tolchocking a starry veck doesn鈥檛 sound nearly as bad as beating an old man into a pulp - Nadsat acts as a protective veil. In the film, this effect is somewhat diluted because you SEE these acts.
The book was like published in 1962 and Alex frequently uses 鈥渓ike鈥� as an interjection as I did earlier in this sentence 鈥� something that has become quite a common feature of youth speak in recent times. What happened in between, I wonder?
Other than that, much of what Alex says has echoes of Shakespeare and the King James Bible: 鈥淐ome, gloopy bastard thou art. Think thou not on them鈥� and 鈥淚f fear thou hast in thy heart, o brother, pray banish it forthwith鈥� and 鈥淔ear not. He canst taketh care of himself, verily鈥�. There is always the painful contrast of beautiful language describing unpleasant and horrific things.
Similarly, the repetition of a few phrases is almost liturgical. Alex addresses his readers as 鈥渙h my brothers鈥�, which is unsettling: if I鈥檓 one of his brothers, am I in some way complicit, or at least condoning, what he does? Another recurring phrase is, 鈥淲hat鈥檚 it going to be then, eh?鈥� It is the opening phrase of each section and used several times in the first chapter of each section.
Music
Burgess was a composer, as well as a writer, and Alex has a passion for classical music, especially 鈥淟udwig van鈥�. This may be partly a ploy to make the book more ageless than if he loved, for example, Buddy Holly, but more importantly, it鈥檚 another way of creating dissonance: a deep appreciation of great art is not 鈥渟upposed鈥� to coexist with mindless delinquency.
Alex has lots of small speakers around his room, so 鈥淚 was like netted and meshed in the orchestra鈥�, and the music is his deepest joy: 鈥淥h bliss, bliss and heaven. I lay all nagoy to the ceiling鈥� sloshing the sluice of lovely sounds. Oh it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh.鈥� The treatment destroys this pleasure- with dramatic results.
Horror and Beauty, Sympathy for a Villain
Ultimately, I think Alex is sympathetic villain: he has a seductive exuberance and charm and although he does horrific things, when awful things are done to him, sympathy flows.
Yes, there are horrors in this book, but there is beauty too, and so much to think about. The ends of the book justify the means of its execution, even if the same is not true of what happens in the story. Brilliant.
Jabberwock in Nadsat
Thanks to Forrest for finding this brilliant hybrid:
There are horrors in this book, but there is beauty too, and so much to think about. The ends of the book justify the means of its execution, even if the same is not true of what happens in the story.
Book vs Film, and Omission of Final Chapter
I saw the film first, and read the book shortly afterwards. Usually a bad idea, but in this case, being familiar with the plot and the Nadsat slang made it easier to relax (if that's an appropriate word, given some of the horrors to come) into the book. The film is less hypnotic and far more shocking than the book, because it is more visual and because, like the US version of the book, it omits the more optimistic final chapter.
The British censors originally passed the film - uncut. But a year later, it was cited as possibly inspiring a couple of murders, leading to threats against Kubrick's family. The year after that, Kubrick asked for it to be withdrawn, and it was, even though he said
"To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around."
See
and
Plot and Structure
It is a short novel, comprising three sections of seven chapters, told by 鈥測our humble narrator鈥�, Alex. In the first section, Alex and his teenage gang indulge in 鈥渦ltra-violence鈥� (including sexual assault of young girls); in the middle section, Alex is in prison and then undergoes a horrific new treatment (a sort of aversion therapy); the final section follows him back in the real world, rejected by his parents, now the puppet of opposing political factions. The whole thing is set in a slightly dystopian, very near future and explores issues of original sin, punishment and revenge, free will, and the nature of evil.
One awful incident involves breaking in to a writer鈥檚 house and gang raping his wife, who later dies. A similar incident happened to Burgess鈥� first wife (though he wasn鈥檛 there at the time). Writing a fictionalised account from the point of view of the perpetrator is extraordinary: charitable, cathartic, or a more complex mixture?
Themes
Why is Alex as he is?
鈥淲hat I do I do because I like to do鈥�, and perhaps there is no more that can be said. As Alex ponders, 鈥渢his biting of their toe-nails over what is the CAUSE of badness is what turns me into a fine laughing malchick. They don鈥檛 go into the cause of GOODNESS鈥� badness is of the self鈥� and that self is made by old Bog or God and is his great pride and radosty鈥�.
Can people like Alex be cured, and if so, how?
Imprisonment, police brutality, fire and brimstone don鈥檛 work. Enter the Ludovico Technique, whereby Alex is injected with emetics before being strapped, with his eyelids held open, to watch videos of extreme physical and sexual violence. He becomes conditioned to be unable to commit such acts, or even to watch or think about them. This raises more questions than it solves. The prison governor prefers the old 鈥渆ye for an eye鈥�, but has to give in to the new idea of making bad people good. 鈥淭he question is whether such a technique can really make a man good. Goodness comes from within鈥� Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.鈥� The chaplain has doubts, too, 鈥淚s a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?鈥� On the other hand, by consenting to the treatment, Alex is, in an indirect way, choosing to be good.
The technique (or torture) is promoted as making Alex 鈥渟ane鈥� and 鈥渉ealthy鈥� so that he can be 鈥渁 free man鈥�, but although he is released from prison, he remains imprisoned by the power of the technique, even to the extent that the music he loves now makes him sick (because it was playing in the background) and his inability to defend himself means he becomes a victim.
Do the ends justify the means?
Dr Brodsky thinks so: 鈥淲e are not concerned with motive, with the higher ethics. We are only concerned with cutting down crime.鈥� However, if it wears off, it will all have been for nothing.
Redemption?
The possibility of redemption is a common thread, reaching its peak in this final chapter. Burgess was raised as a Catholic, educated in Catholic schools, but lost his faith aged sixteen. He continued to have profound interest in religious ideas, though, as explained .
The final chapter (omitted from US editions of the book until 1986, and also the film) feels incongruously optimistic in some ways, but by suggesting the true answer as to what will cure delinquency is鈥� maturity, it might be thought the most pessimistic chapter. Is teen violence an inevitable cycle: something people grow into, and then out of when they start to see their place in the bigger picture? And if so, is that acceptable to society?
Language - Nadsat Slang
A distinctive feature of the book is the Nadsat slang that Alex and his droogs use (鈥渘adsat鈥� is the Russian suffix for 鈥渢een鈥� 鈥� see ). Burgess invented it from Russian with a bit of Cockney rhyming slang and Malay, because real teen slang is so ephemeral, the book would quickly seem dated otherwise. He wanted the book published without a glossary, and it is written so carefully, that the meaning is usually clear, and becomes progressively so, as you become accustomed to it: 鈥渁 bottle of beer frothing its gulliver off and a horrorshow rookerful of like plum cake鈥� and 鈥淭here鈥檚 only one veshch I require鈥� having my malenky bit of fun with real droogs鈥�. Where an English word is used literally and metaphorically, the Nadsat one is too; for example, 鈥渧iddy鈥� is used to see with one鈥檚 eyes and to understand someone鈥檚 point.
The skill of carefully used context makes Russian-based Nadsat much easier to follow than the dialect of Riddley Walker (see my review ), even though the latter is based on mishearings of English. (To be fair, the whole of Riddley Walker is written in dialect, whereas in Clockwork Orange, it's conventional English with a generous smattering of slang.)
Where the meaning isn't immediately obvious or is merely vague, you go with the flow until it seeps into your consciousness (much as would happen if you were dropped into an environment where you had no language in common with anyone else). It's another way of sucking the reader into Alex's world and his gang.
Nadsat lends a mesmerising and poetic aspect to the text that is in sharp contrast to the revulsion invoked by some of the things Alex does: tolchocking a starry veck doesn鈥檛 sound nearly as bad as beating an old man into a pulp - Nadsat acts as a protective veil. In the film, this effect is somewhat diluted because you SEE these acts.
The book was like published in 1962 and Alex frequently uses 鈥渓ike鈥� as an interjection as I did earlier in this sentence 鈥� something that has become quite a common feature of youth speak in recent times. What happened in between, I wonder?
Other than that, much of what Alex says has echoes of Shakespeare and the King James Bible: 鈥淐ome, gloopy bastard thou art. Think thou not on them鈥� and 鈥淚f fear thou hast in thy heart, o brother, pray banish it forthwith鈥� and 鈥淔ear not. He canst taketh care of himself, verily鈥�. There is always the painful contrast of beautiful language describing unpleasant and horrific things.
Similarly, the repetition of a few phrases is almost liturgical. Alex addresses his readers as 鈥渙h my brothers鈥�, which is unsettling: if I鈥檓 one of his brothers, am I in some way complicit, or at least condoning, what he does? Another recurring phrase is, 鈥淲hat鈥檚 it going to be then, eh?鈥� It is the opening phrase of each section and used several times in the first chapter of each section.
Music
Burgess was a composer, as well as a writer, and Alex has a passion for classical music, especially 鈥淟udwig van鈥�. This may be partly a ploy to make the book more ageless than if he loved, for example, Buddy Holly, but more importantly, it鈥檚 another way of creating dissonance: a deep appreciation of great art is not 鈥渟upposed鈥� to coexist with mindless delinquency.
Alex has lots of small speakers around his room, so 鈥淚 was like netted and meshed in the orchestra鈥�, and the music is his deepest joy: 鈥淥h bliss, bliss and heaven. I lay all nagoy to the ceiling鈥� sloshing the sluice of lovely sounds. Oh it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh.鈥� The treatment destroys this pleasure- with dramatic results.
Horror and Beauty, Sympathy for a Villain
Ultimately, I think Alex is sympathetic villain: he has a seductive exuberance and charm and although he does horrific things, when awful things are done to him, sympathy flows.
Yes, there are horrors in this book, but there is beauty too, and so much to think about. The ends of the book justify the means of its execution, even if the same is not true of what happens in the story. Brilliant.
Jabberwock in Nadsat
Thanks to Forrest for finding this brilliant hybrid:
March 22, 2008
A Clockwork Orange is one of those books which everyone has heard of but which few people have actually read 鈥�- mostly, I think, because it is preceded by a reputation of shocking ultra-violence. I鈥檓 not going to deny here that the book contains violence. It features lengthy descriptions of heinous crimes, and they鈥檙e vivid descriptions, full of excitement. (Burgess later wrote in his autobiography: 鈥業 was sickened by my own excitement at setting it down.鈥�) Yet it does not glorify violence, nor is it a book about violence per se. Rather it鈥檚 an exploration of the morality of free will. Of whether it is better to choose to be bad than to be conditioned to be good. Of alienation and how to deal with the excesses to which such alienation may lead. And ultimately, of one man鈥檚 decision to say goodbye to all that. (At least in the UK version. The American version, on which Stanley Kubrick鈥檚 film adaptation was based, ends on a less optimistic note.) In short, it鈥檚 a novella of ideas which just happens to contain a fair bit of violence.
It is also quite an artistic and linguistic achievement. Those who have seen the film will know that Alex (the anti-hero) and his droogs (friends) speak a made-up language full of Russian loanwords, Shakespearean and Biblical influences and Cockney rhyming slang. Initially this nadsat language was nearly incomprehensible to me, and my first response to it was bad. I found myself cursing Burgess, telling him that it wasn鈥檛 fair to put his readers through something like that. (If I want to read an incomprehensible book, I鈥檒l read Finnegans Wake, thank you very much.) However, Burgess takes great care to introduce his new words in an understandable way, so after a few pages I got the hang of the nadsat lingo, and after a few more pages I actually began to enjoy it, because I鈥檓 enough of a linguist to go in for that sort of thing. I found myself loving the Russian loanwords, rejoicing when I recognised a German loanword among them and enjoying the Shakespearean quality of Alex鈥� dialogues. I finished the book with an urgent wish to learn Russian and read more Shakespeare. I doubt many readers will respond to the book in that way (not everyone shares my enthusiasm for languages and classical stuff), but my point is: you鈥檒l get used to the lingo, and at some point you鈥檒l begin to admire it, because for one thing, Burgess is awfully consistent about it, and for another, it just sounds so damned good. I mean, if you鈥檙e going to come up with a new word for 鈥榗razy鈥�, you might as well choose bezoomny, right? Because it actually sounds mad. Doesn鈥檛 it?
Anyhow, there鈥檚 more to A Clockwork Orange than just philosophical ideas and linguistic pyrotechnics. The writing itself is unexpectedly lyrical, and not just when it deals with violence. Some of the most beautiful passages in the book deal with music. More specifically, classical music, because for all his wicked ways, Alex has a passion for classical music. He particularly adores Beethoven, an adoration I happen to share. I came away from the book thinking I might consent to becoming Alex鈥� devotchka (woman, wife) simply because he is capable of getting carried away by Beethoven鈥檚 Ninth and hates having it spoilt for him. He鈥檚 cultured, is Alex, and while his culturedness obviously does not equal civilisation and goodness (a point he himself is quick to make), it does put him a notch above the average hooligan. It鈥檚 the apparent dichotomy between Alex鈥� tastes in art and his taste for violence which makes him such an interesting protagonist and which keeps you following his exploits to their not entirely believable (but good) conclusion.
In short, then, A Clockwork Orange is an excellent book 鈥�- a bit challenging at first, but gripping and interesting and full of style and ideas. Not many books can claim as much.
It is also quite an artistic and linguistic achievement. Those who have seen the film will know that Alex (the anti-hero) and his droogs (friends) speak a made-up language full of Russian loanwords, Shakespearean and Biblical influences and Cockney rhyming slang. Initially this nadsat language was nearly incomprehensible to me, and my first response to it was bad. I found myself cursing Burgess, telling him that it wasn鈥檛 fair to put his readers through something like that. (If I want to read an incomprehensible book, I鈥檒l read Finnegans Wake, thank you very much.) However, Burgess takes great care to introduce his new words in an understandable way, so after a few pages I got the hang of the nadsat lingo, and after a few more pages I actually began to enjoy it, because I鈥檓 enough of a linguist to go in for that sort of thing. I found myself loving the Russian loanwords, rejoicing when I recognised a German loanword among them and enjoying the Shakespearean quality of Alex鈥� dialogues. I finished the book with an urgent wish to learn Russian and read more Shakespeare. I doubt many readers will respond to the book in that way (not everyone shares my enthusiasm for languages and classical stuff), but my point is: you鈥檒l get used to the lingo, and at some point you鈥檒l begin to admire it, because for one thing, Burgess is awfully consistent about it, and for another, it just sounds so damned good. I mean, if you鈥檙e going to come up with a new word for 鈥榗razy鈥�, you might as well choose bezoomny, right? Because it actually sounds mad. Doesn鈥檛 it?
Anyhow, there鈥檚 more to A Clockwork Orange than just philosophical ideas and linguistic pyrotechnics. The writing itself is unexpectedly lyrical, and not just when it deals with violence. Some of the most beautiful passages in the book deal with music. More specifically, classical music, because for all his wicked ways, Alex has a passion for classical music. He particularly adores Beethoven, an adoration I happen to share. I came away from the book thinking I might consent to becoming Alex鈥� devotchka (woman, wife) simply because he is capable of getting carried away by Beethoven鈥檚 Ninth and hates having it spoilt for him. He鈥檚 cultured, is Alex, and while his culturedness obviously does not equal civilisation and goodness (a point he himself is quick to make), it does put him a notch above the average hooligan. It鈥檚 the apparent dichotomy between Alex鈥� tastes in art and his taste for violence which makes him such an interesting protagonist and which keeps you following his exploits to their not entirely believable (but good) conclusion.
In short, then, A Clockwork Orange is an excellent book 鈥�- a bit challenging at first, but gripping and interesting and full of style and ideas. Not many books can claim as much.
July 7, 2023
Just leave the Milk Bar to go bonkers
Not as awesome as expected
A classic, probably a bit overrated book, and one of the rare cases in which I would say that the movie is better than the book. The most unnecessary thing was to add an extra chapter at the end that took the flow, logic, and atmosphere out of the whole thing. Nice development of an own language, but also not as cool as other examples. The whole dystopic brainwashing idea is one of the best elements.
It reminds me of many overrated classics that form 3 stages or categories of boredom.
Books that for no understandable reason have to be read in school, depending on the country's culture, and are mainly focused on the bad, outdated, old, very long time dead, writers of each country, so that there are individual purgatories for young readers in each state.
Nobel prize, nothing to add, the same with peace and economics, it麓s just a bad joke. But many don麓t seem to get it and take it seriously.
Be creative without caring about conventions
Clockwork Orange is in the third category: Books that use complex, not absolutely logical or even not for the author understandable, unstable plots and inconsistent ideas to be progressive, provocative, and sell more by activating the bite reflexes of conservatives, bigots, and philistines and give nothing on the thousands of years old conventions of writing for the pleasure of the reader. I麓ve read much of all 3 categories and must say that it麓s the same as with modern art: If there is no recognizable concept, many others could do the same, and if it麓s not universally acclaimed a masterpiece, it麓s probably average or completely inexplicably overhyped trash.
One hit wonder if average ratings of the author麓s other works aren麓t that thrilling
Clockwork Orange is one of the better ones, but it would be nothing without Kubricks麓adaption, and looking at the general ratings and popularity of all of Burgess麓other works, one can see the picture of a one hit wonder.
Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
Not as awesome as expected
A classic, probably a bit overrated book, and one of the rare cases in which I would say that the movie is better than the book. The most unnecessary thing was to add an extra chapter at the end that took the flow, logic, and atmosphere out of the whole thing. Nice development of an own language, but also not as cool as other examples. The whole dystopic brainwashing idea is one of the best elements.
It reminds me of many overrated classics that form 3 stages or categories of boredom.
Books that for no understandable reason have to be read in school, depending on the country's culture, and are mainly focused on the bad, outdated, old, very long time dead, writers of each country, so that there are individual purgatories for young readers in each state.
Nobel prize, nothing to add, the same with peace and economics, it麓s just a bad joke. But many don麓t seem to get it and take it seriously.
Be creative without caring about conventions
Clockwork Orange is in the third category: Books that use complex, not absolutely logical or even not for the author understandable, unstable plots and inconsistent ideas to be progressive, provocative, and sell more by activating the bite reflexes of conservatives, bigots, and philistines and give nothing on the thousands of years old conventions of writing for the pleasure of the reader. I麓ve read much of all 3 categories and must say that it麓s the same as with modern art: If there is no recognizable concept, many others could do the same, and if it麓s not universally acclaimed a masterpiece, it麓s probably average or completely inexplicably overhyped trash.
One hit wonder if average ratings of the author麓s other works aren麓t that thrilling
Clockwork Orange is one of the better ones, but it would be nothing without Kubricks麓adaption, and looking at the general ratings and popularity of all of Burgess麓other works, one can see the picture of a one hit wonder.
Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
December 8, 2023
i've owned this book for 7 years and it wasn't even on my to read list. which gives an indication of how excited i am to read it
update: even anthony burgess doesn't get the appeal of this one.
this is one of those books that i can see why it'd be great to assign as school required reading, but...pretty meh in adult life!
bottom line: the nicest thing i can say about this is that i'm pretty sure i would have liked it more if i was discussing it at 7:45 am with 20 miserable adolescents.
update: even anthony burgess doesn't get the appeal of this one.
this is one of those books that i can see why it'd be great to assign as school required reading, but...pretty meh in adult life!
bottom line: the nicest thing i can say about this is that i'm pretty sure i would have liked it more if i was discussing it at 7:45 am with 20 miserable adolescents.
January 5, 2020
"What's it going to be then, eh?" A linguistic adventure, O my brothers.
I had seen the Kubrick film and so reading the novella was on the list. I very much enjoyed it, was surprised to learn that American publishers and Kubrick had omitted the crucial last chapter that provides some moral denouement to the ultra-violence.
As disturbingly good as this is, one aspect that always comes back to me is Burgess' creation of and use of the Nadsat language. This provides color and mystery to the narrative and it is noteworthy that Burgess' intent was to soften the blow of the violent themes of the book.
** 2018 addendum - it is a testament to great literature that a reader recalls the work years later and this is a book about which I frequently think. This is a book that, for me at least, is connected to the Stanley Kubrick film. I don't always watch a movie after I've read the book, and when I do I usually draw a distinction between the two, but these two works remain indelibly connected in my mind and recollection. The most noteworthy contrast is the omission of the last chapter from the film. Burgess' ending provides a settling of accounts while Kubrick's vision leaves the viewer edgy and uncomfortable.
I had seen the Kubrick film and so reading the novella was on the list. I very much enjoyed it, was surprised to learn that American publishers and Kubrick had omitted the crucial last chapter that provides some moral denouement to the ultra-violence.
As disturbingly good as this is, one aspect that always comes back to me is Burgess' creation of and use of the Nadsat language. This provides color and mystery to the narrative and it is noteworthy that Burgess' intent was to soften the blow of the violent themes of the book.
** 2018 addendum - it is a testament to great literature that a reader recalls the work years later and this is a book about which I frequently think. This is a book that, for me at least, is connected to the Stanley Kubrick film. I don't always watch a movie after I've read the book, and when I do I usually draw a distinction between the two, but these two works remain indelibly connected in my mind and recollection. The most noteworthy contrast is the omission of the last chapter from the film. Burgess' ending provides a settling of accounts while Kubrick's vision leaves the viewer edgy and uncomfortable.
May 16, 2010
In 1960 Anthony Burgess was 43 and had written 4 novels and had a proper job teaching in the British Colonial Service in Malaya and Brunei. Then he had a collapse and the story gets complicated. But I like the first cool version AB told, which was that he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour and given a year to live. Since as you know he lived a further 33 years, we may conclude the doctors were not entirely correct. However - the doctor tells you you have a year to live - what do you do?* Lapse into a major depression? Get drunk and stay drunk? Buy a Harley davidson? Not if you were Anthony Burgess. Uxorious regard for his wife's future security bade him to place his arse on a chair in the unpleasing English seaside town of Hove and type out five and a half novels in the one year left to him, which, he later pointed out, was approximately equivalent to E M Forster's entire lifetime output. And the last of these five completed novels was A Clockwork Orange.
No mean feat.
So, this little novel should be on everyone who hasn't read it's must read list. It's a real hoot, and it's absolutely eerie in its predictions about youth culture and recreational drug use. It's also very famous for its hilarious language, all those malenky droogs, horrorshow devotchkas and gullivers and lashings of the old in-out in-out - the reader must be warned that it's very catching and you will for sure begin boring all your friends and family about tolchocking the millicents and creeching on your platties and suchlike. They'll give you frosty looks and begin avoiding you at the breakfast table, but you won't be able to help it. In extreme cases they might smeck your grazhny yarbles and that will definately shut you up.
* Reminds me of the old joke where the doctor says to the guy "I'm sorry to say you only have three minutes to live." Guy says "Isn't there anything you can do for me?" Doctor says "I could boil you an egg."
No mean feat.
So, this little novel should be on everyone who hasn't read it's must read list. It's a real hoot, and it's absolutely eerie in its predictions about youth culture and recreational drug use. It's also very famous for its hilarious language, all those malenky droogs, horrorshow devotchkas and gullivers and lashings of the old in-out in-out - the reader must be warned that it's very catching and you will for sure begin boring all your friends and family about tolchocking the millicents and creeching on your platties and suchlike. They'll give you frosty looks and begin avoiding you at the breakfast table, but you won't be able to help it. In extreme cases they might smeck your grazhny yarbles and that will definately shut you up.
* Reminds me of the old joke where the doctor says to the guy "I'm sorry to say you only have three minutes to live." Guy says "Isn't there anything you can do for me?" Doctor says "I could boil you an egg."
February 8, 2025
Youth is an age of rebellion鈥�
鈥溾€or there is nothing but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting鈥︹€�
William Shakespeare 鈥� The Winter鈥檚 Tale
And Anthony Burgess鈥檚 task was to illustrate this concept鈥�
Youth rebels in reality鈥� Youth rebels in dystopia鈥� Youth rebels in black comedy鈥�
The young want to do their own thing鈥� They need their own culture鈥� Or rather counterculture鈥�
And milk isn鈥檛 as innocent as it may seem鈥� There is always some addition of chemical elation鈥� So four comrades in arms have a lot of criminal fun鈥� But there is such thing as pedagogy鈥� Is it of any use?
However there is also a final pedagogical institution 鈥� gaol鈥� But even prison may turn out to be not pedagogical enough鈥�
The shepherd in The Winter鈥檚 Tale tells that hibernation is the best way to render youth innocuous鈥� So Alex鈥檚 free will is put to sleep鈥� He becomes as obedient as a wind-up toy鈥� He turns into a clockwork orange鈥� Will an orange manage to survive amongst pigs?
He who can鈥檛 wield his free will duly doesn鈥檛 deserve it.
鈥溾€or there is nothing but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting鈥︹€�
William Shakespeare 鈥� The Winter鈥檚 Tale
And Anthony Burgess鈥檚 task was to illustrate this concept鈥�
Youth rebels in reality鈥� Youth rebels in dystopia鈥� Youth rebels in black comedy鈥�
There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry.
The young want to do their own thing鈥� They need their own culture鈥� Or rather counterculture鈥�
And milk isn鈥檛 as innocent as it may seem鈥� There is always some addition of chemical elation鈥� So four comrades in arms have a lot of criminal fun鈥� But there is such thing as pedagogy鈥� Is it of any use?
Modern Youth would be better off if A Lively Appreciation Of The Arts could be like encouraged. Great Music, it said, and Great Poetry would like quieten Modern Youth down and make Modern Youth more Civilised. Civilised my syphilised yarbles. Music always sort of sharpened me up鈥�
However there is also a final pedagogical institution 鈥� gaol鈥� But even prison may turn out to be not pedagogical enough鈥�
The shepherd in The Winter鈥檚 Tale tells that hibernation is the best way to render youth innocuous鈥� So Alex鈥檚 free will is put to sleep鈥� He becomes as obedient as a wind-up toy鈥� He turns into a clockwork orange鈥� Will an orange manage to survive amongst pigs?
He who can鈥檛 wield his free will duly doesn鈥檛 deserve it.
April 28, 2025
In the near future in an Utopian socialist country, England where everyone has to work ( except the ill or old) whether the job makes any sense or not, a group of teenagers like to party without limits at night. Alex the leader, George 2nd in command, Pete the most sane and the big dim Dim, he's good with his boots, fun loving kids. Your humble narrator Alex, will tell this story my brothers ...First they see an ancient man leaving the library carrying books, very suspicious nobody goes there now, inspecting these filthy things and ripping them to pieces, not forgetting a few punches on the offender to stop this evil habit, next entering a shop and borrowing some needed money, the owner and wife have to be persuaded with just a little force for this honor, then teaching a scummy drunk in the street the evil of his ways, pounding some sense into his addled brain. Meeting old friends Billyboy and company, in a dark alley, they exchange love taps but boys sometimes play too hard, drops of blood fall lovingly to the ground. When so many noisy sirens go off these peaceful youths, leave this unhealthy place. Getting tired of walking the gang goes on a joy ride, after spotting the empty car not being used! The friends decide to travel to the countryside, leaving dirty London behind for fresh air, the beauty of the land, the woods, tiny critters to watch and the slow ones on the road to be put out of their misery with a merciful crunch. Viewing a mailbox with the name of Home on it how delightful, this cottage's welcoming couple lets the group in for a spot of tea, they're wearing masks to enliven the carnival atmosphere, even though the man is a creepy writer... ugh. Would you read something called A Clockwork Orange? What a silly title for the good of the world, these pages are scattered everywhere, flying high to the ceiling and floating down below to be properly trashed on the floor by the good doers. Exchanging warm greetings with the wife, Alex your humble narrator my brothers and associates, go back to the city it's getting late, school tomorrow... ultra- violent fun must end ... His frightened parents don't ask too many questions at his small , but dumpy apartment a place they share. His room full of records of classical music, Ludwig Van a favorite to inspire him, which he plays very loud and his parents don't dare to complain anymore. Later Alex is sent to prisoner for a long term murder they say, framed what rot, he is 15. His cell he shares with five other men, nasty criminals all unlike Alex, one will have to sleep on the floor, his fists will not let him be the one ...Doctors Branom and Brodsky ignorant fellows they don't understand his slang, have a new technique to cure his violent behavior, as some people call it two weeks and a free man, let the torture begin...A magnificent fable of what might be...
August 10, 2021
(Book 437 from 1001 books) - A Clockwork Orange 鈥� Anthony Burgess
A Clockwork Orange is a dystopian novel by English writer Anthony Burgess, published in 1962.
Set in a near future English society featuring a subculture of extreme youth violence, the teenage protagonist, Alex, narrates his violent exploits and his experiences with state authorities intent on reforming him. The book is partially written in a Russian-influenced argot called "Nadsat".
Part 1: Alex's world Alex is a 15-year-old living in a near-future dystopian city who leads his gang on a night of opportunistic, random "ultra-violence".
Alex's friends ("droogs" in the novel's Anglo-Russian slang, "Nadsat") are Dim, a slow-witted bruiser, who is the gang's muscle; Georgie, an ambitious second-in-command; and Pete, who mostly plays along as the droogs indulge their taste for ultra-violence.
Characterised as a sociopath and hardened juvenile delinquent, Alex is also intelligent, quick-witted, and enjoys classical music; he is particularly fond of Beethoven, whom he calls "Lovely Ludwig Van". ...
Part 2: The Ludovico Technique Alex is convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years in Wandsworth Prison. His parents visit one day to inform him that Georgie has been killed in a botched robbery. Two years into his term, he has obtained a job in one of the prison chapels, playing music on the stereo to accompany the Sunday Christian services. The chaplain mistakes Alex's Bible studies for stirrings of faith; in reality, Alex is only reading Scripture for the violent or sexual passages. ...
Part 3: After prison Alex returns to his parents' flat, only to find that they are letting his room to a lodger. Now homeless, he wanders the streets and enters a public library, hoping to learn of a painless method for committing suicide. The old scholar whom Alex had assaulted in Part 1 finds him and beats him, with the help of several friends. Two policemen come to Alex's rescue, but they turn out to be Dim and Billyboy, a former rival gang leader. They take Alex outside of town, brutalise him, and abandon him there. ...
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 蹖丕夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱 2002 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 倬乇鬲賯丕賱 讴賵讴蹖貨 賳賵卮鬲賴: 丌賳鬲賵賳蹖 亘乇噩爻貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 倬乇蹖乇禺 賴丕卮賲蹖貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 鬲賲賳丿乇貙 1381貙 丿乇 211氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9649040633貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 倬乇鬲賯丕賱 讴賵讴蹖貨 賳賵卮鬲賴: 丌賳鬲賵賳蹖 亘乇噩爻貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 亘賴賳丕賲 亘丕賯乇蹖貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲蹖賱讴丕賳貙 1394貙 丿乇 180氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9786007845264貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 倬乇鬲賯丕賱 讴賵讴蹖貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 賵 丕賯鬲亘丕爻 丕爻鬲賳賱蹖 讴賵亘乇蹖讴貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲丿賲賴丿蹖 賮蹖丕囟蹖 讴蹖丕貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賮乇丕夭貙 1389貙 丿乇 135 氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9649789642432257貨
乇賲丕賳蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 賳丕賮乇賲丕賳蹖 诏乇賵賴讴蹖 丕夭 噩賵丕賳丕賳 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賯丕賳賵賳 賵 噩丕賲毓賴貙 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥� 蹖 讴丕亘賵爻鈥屬堌ж� 丕爻鬲貨 芦丕賱讴爻禄貙 蹖讴 賳賵噩賵丕賳 倬丕賳夭丿賴 鈥屫池з勝囏� 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 诏賵蹖卮 丕亘丿丕毓蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦賳丿爻鬲禄 亘丕夭诏賵 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 芦丕爻鬲賳賱蹖 讴賵亘乇蹖讴禄 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 賮蹖賱賲賳丕賲賴 丕蹖 亘丕 賴賲蹖賳 毓賳賵丕賳 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴貙 賵 亘賳诏丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿貙 倬爻 賴賲蹖賳 毓賳賵丕賳 賮丕乇爻蹖 丕夭 丌賳賽貙 丌賳 賮蹖賱賲賳丕賲賴貙 賵 賴賲丕賳 丕賯鬲亘丕爻 賳蹖夭 賴爻鬲貙 賮蹖賱賲賳丕賲賴 蹖 芦丕爻锟斤拷賳賱蹖 讴賵亘乇蹖讴禄 亘丕 鬲乇噩賲賴 噩賳丕亘 丌賯丕蹖 芦賲丨賲丿賲賴丿蹖 賮蹖丕囟蹖 讴蹖丕禄貙 乇丕 賳卮乇 丕賮乇丕夭貙 丿乇 爻丕賱 1389賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 讴乇丿賴貙 噩賳丕亘 芦賮乇亘丿 丌匕爻賳禄 賴賲 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丿乇 172氐 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿貨
倬乇鬲賯丕賱 讴賵讴蹖 讴賲丿蹖 爻蹖丕賴 賴噩賵丌賲蹖夭 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏臂屫� 丕夭 芦丌賳鬲賵賳蹖 亘乇噩爻禄 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 蹖 丕賴賱 芦亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 亘丕乇 丿乇 爻丕賱 1962賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿貨 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥屫й� 賳夭丿蹖讴 乇禺 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丿乇 夭賲丕賳賴鈥� 丕蹖 讴賴 禺乇丿賴鈥� 賮乇賴賳诏 禺卮賵賳鬲 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 賳爻賱 噩賵丕賳 噩丕賲毓賴 乇賵丕噩 丿丕乇丿貨 芦丕賱讴爻禄貙 賯賴乇賲丕賳 賳賵噩賵丕賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳貙 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖 禺卮賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 乇賵丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲賮乇蹖丨 丕賵 賵 丿丕爻鬲丕賳卮 丌夭丕乇 賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 賵 噩賳爻蹖 卮賴乇賵賳丿丕賳 亘蹖鈥屭嗀з� 丕爻鬲貨 胤蹖 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲丕噩乇丕賴丕貙 芦丕賱讴爻禄 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇 賵 亘賴 夭賳丿丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫з佖� 丿賵賱鬲 賲丿毓蹖 丕爻鬲 乇賵卮 賳賵蹖賳蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕氐賱丕丨 賲噩乇賲丕賳 蹖丕賮鬲賴 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 夭賳丿丕賳 卮賵丿貨 芦丕賱讴爻禄 丿丕賵胤賱亘丕賳賴 鬲賳 亘賴 丿乇賲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕賲丕 丿乇賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� 讴賴 丌賳 乇賵卮 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賲鬲乇 丕夭 卮讴賳噩賴 賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 丿賵賱鬲蹖 賳蹖爻鬲貨 讴鬲丕亘 鬲丕 丨丿蹖 亘賴 夭亘丕賳 賲禺賮蹖 芦丌乇诏賵禄 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦賳丿爻鬲禄 賳诏丕卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 讴賴 賲鬲兀孬乇 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 芦乇賵爻蹖賴禄 丕爻鬲貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 08/06/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 17/05/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
A Clockwork Orange is a dystopian novel by English writer Anthony Burgess, published in 1962.
Set in a near future English society featuring a subculture of extreme youth violence, the teenage protagonist, Alex, narrates his violent exploits and his experiences with state authorities intent on reforming him. The book is partially written in a Russian-influenced argot called "Nadsat".
Part 1: Alex's world Alex is a 15-year-old living in a near-future dystopian city who leads his gang on a night of opportunistic, random "ultra-violence".
Alex's friends ("droogs" in the novel's Anglo-Russian slang, "Nadsat") are Dim, a slow-witted bruiser, who is the gang's muscle; Georgie, an ambitious second-in-command; and Pete, who mostly plays along as the droogs indulge their taste for ultra-violence.
Characterised as a sociopath and hardened juvenile delinquent, Alex is also intelligent, quick-witted, and enjoys classical music; he is particularly fond of Beethoven, whom he calls "Lovely Ludwig Van". ...
Part 2: The Ludovico Technique Alex is convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years in Wandsworth Prison. His parents visit one day to inform him that Georgie has been killed in a botched robbery. Two years into his term, he has obtained a job in one of the prison chapels, playing music on the stereo to accompany the Sunday Christian services. The chaplain mistakes Alex's Bible studies for stirrings of faith; in reality, Alex is only reading Scripture for the violent or sexual passages. ...
Part 3: After prison Alex returns to his parents' flat, only to find that they are letting his room to a lodger. Now homeless, he wanders the streets and enters a public library, hoping to learn of a painless method for committing suicide. The old scholar whom Alex had assaulted in Part 1 finds him and beats him, with the help of several friends. Two policemen come to Alex's rescue, but they turn out to be Dim and Billyboy, a former rival gang leader. They take Alex outside of town, brutalise him, and abandon him there. ...
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 蹖丕夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱 2002 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 倬乇鬲賯丕賱 讴賵讴蹖貨 賳賵卮鬲賴: 丌賳鬲賵賳蹖 亘乇噩爻貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 倬乇蹖乇禺 賴丕卮賲蹖貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 鬲賲賳丿乇貙 1381貙 丿乇 211氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9649040633貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 倬乇鬲賯丕賱 讴賵讴蹖貨 賳賵卮鬲賴: 丌賳鬲賵賳蹖 亘乇噩爻貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 亘賴賳丕賲 亘丕賯乇蹖貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲蹖賱讴丕賳貙 1394貙 丿乇 180氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9786007845264貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 倬乇鬲賯丕賱 讴賵讴蹖貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 賵 丕賯鬲亘丕爻 丕爻鬲賳賱蹖 讴賵亘乇蹖讴貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲丿賲賴丿蹖 賮蹖丕囟蹖 讴蹖丕貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賮乇丕夭貙 1389貙 丿乇 135 氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9649789642432257貨
乇賲丕賳蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 賳丕賮乇賲丕賳蹖 诏乇賵賴讴蹖 丕夭 噩賵丕賳丕賳 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賯丕賳賵賳 賵 噩丕賲毓賴貙 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥� 蹖 讴丕亘賵爻鈥屬堌ж� 丕爻鬲貨 芦丕賱讴爻禄貙 蹖讴 賳賵噩賵丕賳 倬丕賳夭丿賴 鈥屫池з勝囏� 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 诏賵蹖卮 丕亘丿丕毓蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦賳丿爻鬲禄 亘丕夭诏賵 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 芦丕爻鬲賳賱蹖 讴賵亘乇蹖讴禄 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 賮蹖賱賲賳丕賲賴 丕蹖 亘丕 賴賲蹖賳 毓賳賵丕賳 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴貙 賵 亘賳诏丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿貙 倬爻 賴賲蹖賳 毓賳賵丕賳 賮丕乇爻蹖 丕夭 丌賳賽貙 丌賳 賮蹖賱賲賳丕賲賴貙 賵 賴賲丕賳 丕賯鬲亘丕爻 賳蹖夭 賴爻鬲貙 賮蹖賱賲賳丕賲賴 蹖 芦丕爻锟斤拷賳賱蹖 讴賵亘乇蹖讴禄 亘丕 鬲乇噩賲賴 噩賳丕亘 丌賯丕蹖 芦賲丨賲丿賲賴丿蹖 賮蹖丕囟蹖 讴蹖丕禄貙 乇丕 賳卮乇 丕賮乇丕夭貙 丿乇 爻丕賱 1389賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 讴乇丿賴貙 噩賳丕亘 芦賮乇亘丿 丌匕爻賳禄 賴賲 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丿乇 172氐 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿貨
倬乇鬲賯丕賱 讴賵讴蹖 讴賲丿蹖 爻蹖丕賴 賴噩賵丌賲蹖夭 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏臂屫� 丕夭 芦丌賳鬲賵賳蹖 亘乇噩爻禄 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 蹖 丕賴賱 芦亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 亘丕乇 丿乇 爻丕賱 1962賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿貨 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥屫й� 賳夭丿蹖讴 乇禺 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丿乇 夭賲丕賳賴鈥� 丕蹖 讴賴 禺乇丿賴鈥� 賮乇賴賳诏 禺卮賵賳鬲 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 賳爻賱 噩賵丕賳 噩丕賲毓賴 乇賵丕噩 丿丕乇丿貨 芦丕賱讴爻禄貙 賯賴乇賲丕賳 賳賵噩賵丕賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳貙 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖 禺卮賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 乇賵丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲賮乇蹖丨 丕賵 賵 丿丕爻鬲丕賳卮 丌夭丕乇 賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 賵 噩賳爻蹖 卮賴乇賵賳丿丕賳 亘蹖鈥屭嗀з� 丕爻鬲貨 胤蹖 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲丕噩乇丕賴丕貙 芦丕賱讴爻禄 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇 賵 亘賴 夭賳丿丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫з佖� 丿賵賱鬲 賲丿毓蹖 丕爻鬲 乇賵卮 賳賵蹖賳蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕氐賱丕丨 賲噩乇賲丕賳 蹖丕賮鬲賴 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 夭賳丿丕賳 卮賵丿貨 芦丕賱讴爻禄 丿丕賵胤賱亘丕賳賴 鬲賳 亘賴 丿乇賲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕賲丕 丿乇賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� 讴賴 丌賳 乇賵卮 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賲鬲乇 丕夭 卮讴賳噩賴 賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 丿賵賱鬲蹖 賳蹖爻鬲貨 讴鬲丕亘 鬲丕 丨丿蹖 亘賴 夭亘丕賳 賲禺賮蹖 芦丌乇诏賵禄 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦賳丿爻鬲禄 賳诏丕卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 讴賴 賲鬲兀孬乇 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 芦乇賵爻蹖賴禄 丕爻鬲貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 08/06/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 17/05/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
August 17, 2024
If you look up 鈥渂itter鈥� in the dictionary, you will find a picture of Anthony Burgess.
Between the US and UK, there are different versions of this book (not just a different cover). In the UK, there is an extra chapter, Chapter 21. In 1961, according to the author, he only agreed to cut the last chapter of the book in the US version because he needed money.
He is still quite salty about this censoring.
The UK ending is superior鈥攖he US ending is abrupt as it was never intended to be the final conclusion of the book.
At the heart of this novel is a dystopia where in the future bad guy/ultra-violent criminal element Alex is reconditioned by the State to be good.
This gloomy, little novel is also written in a futuristic (aka made-up language). Although the chapters are deceptively short, usually 4-6 pages, it took forever to get through because I kept looking up all of the new words. For example, in the first chapter, I wrote down 87 鈥渕ade-up鈥� words. There is an on Wikipedia which is most helpful!
A Clockwork Orange focuses a great deal on the idea is someone good if they are forced to be good. If you park your car at the store, when you return, do you want your car to still be there? Do you care why no one has stolen it so long as your car isn鈥檛 stolen?
As interesting as this idea is, the preliminary question is do we really have choice to begin with.
No. No. No. Hear me out.
鈥淐hoice is an illusion.鈥� - Blake Crouch in Summer Frost
Let鈥檚 go in our way back machines to 600 years ago. Most people believed that the world was flat with the Earth at the center of the universe.
Now in 2024, most people believe that the world is round and orbits the sun.
Isn鈥檛 everyone A Clockwork Orange to a certain extent, a product of religion, government policies, social norms, parenting, Big Tech (algorithms), education and whittled down by economic pressures?
While I enjoyed the philosophical musings, this dystopian wasn鈥檛 my favorite when compared against others from this genre (1984, The Handmaid鈥檚 Tale).
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Softcover Text - 拢8.99 at Waterstones
2025 Reading Schedule
Jan A Town Like Alice
Feb Birdsong
Mar Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
Apr War and Peace
May The Woman in White
Jun Atonement
Jul The Shadow of the Wind
Aug Jude the Obscure
Sep Ulysses
Oct Vanity Fair
Nov A Fine Balance
Dec Germinal
Connect With Me!
Between the US and UK, there are different versions of this book (not just a different cover). In the UK, there is an extra chapter, Chapter 21. In 1961, according to the author, he only agreed to cut the last chapter of the book in the US version because he needed money.
He is still quite salty about this censoring.
The UK ending is superior鈥攖he US ending is abrupt as it was never intended to be the final conclusion of the book.
At the heart of this novel is a dystopia where in the future bad guy/ultra-violent criminal element Alex is reconditioned by the State to be good.
This gloomy, little novel is also written in a futuristic (aka made-up language). Although the chapters are deceptively short, usually 4-6 pages, it took forever to get through because I kept looking up all of the new words. For example, in the first chapter, I wrote down 87 鈥渕ade-up鈥� words. There is an on Wikipedia which is most helpful!
A Clockwork Orange focuses a great deal on the idea is someone good if they are forced to be good. If you park your car at the store, when you return, do you want your car to still be there? Do you care why no one has stolen it so long as your car isn鈥檛 stolen?
As interesting as this idea is, the preliminary question is do we really have choice to begin with.
No. No. No. Hear me out.
鈥淐hoice is an illusion.鈥� - Blake Crouch in Summer Frost
Let鈥檚 go in our way back machines to 600 years ago. Most people believed that the world was flat with the Earth at the center of the universe.
Now in 2024, most people believe that the world is round and orbits the sun.
Isn鈥檛 everyone A Clockwork Orange to a certain extent, a product of religion, government policies, social norms, parenting, Big Tech (algorithms), education and whittled down by economic pressures?
While I enjoyed the philosophical musings, this dystopian wasn鈥檛 my favorite when compared against others from this genre (1984, The Handmaid鈥檚 Tale).
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Softcover Text - 拢8.99 at Waterstones
2025 Reading Schedule
Jan A Town Like Alice
Feb Birdsong
Mar Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
Apr War and Peace
May The Woman in White
Jun Atonement
Jul The Shadow of the Wind
Aug Jude the Obscure
Sep Ulysses
Oct Vanity Fair
Nov A Fine Balance
Dec Germinal
Connect With Me!
Read
May 28, 2024Nope, sorry, I cannot go on. DNF after the 1st chapter. I read and enjoyed books in Patois and with different accents but I give up trying to understand this book. The invented words were so annoying that I wanted to throw my Kindle out of the window.
April 28, 2018
Rebellion can take on many forms and in A Clockwork Orange it takes on the form of language: the spoken word.
All societies have their constraints, though breaking through them is often difficult. What the 鈥減oor鈥� disaffected youth do here is create their own system of communication that is so utterly theirs. Every word carries history, and by destroying such words the youngster are proposing a break from tradition: they are proposing something new. This idea is captured when they attack the 鈥渂ourgeoisie鈥� professor in the opening scene; they beat him, tear his books apart and strip him naked in the streets. It is an act of aggression and power; it is an act that is infused with jealousy and rage. The lower classes are sick of the elites, and the poor are sick of the rich. And they want to stand on their own two feet.
鈥淚s it better for a man to have chosen evil than to have good imposed upon him?鈥�
However, despite the symbolic nature of the scene, it also demonstrates the rash nature of such youths. In their actions they perpetuate such divisions and class divides. They never stop to consider that perhaps the professor could be sympathetic to their cause. They just don't care; they enjoy violence too much. Instead they just see and object of power, knowledge and wealth, so they attempt to destroy it. Having passion and a strong will are vital for social change, but using such things sensibly and at the right time is also of equal importance. I'm not an advocate of violence, but they could have used that better and more productively too.
Society fears them; it fears these boys that represent dissatisfaction and anger. How far can they go? How powerful could they become? What will the future hold? Burgress shows us a speculative future, a 鈥渨hat if鈥� situation that is not implausible. The novel is advisory; it suggests that something needs to be done to society in order to avoid the pitfall the gang fell into here. Like all significant literature, the work has a universal quality: it is as relevant today as it was when it was first published in the 1970s because it shows us what unbridled and misguided temper can achieve.
Alex (the gang leader) is thrown into jail after committing a particularly nasty crime. The doctors then attempt to rehabilitate him through psychological treatment based on schema theory and the rules of conditioning and association. Afterwards, the thought of violence sickens him physically and he is thrown out into a world that hates him and one he can no longer survive him. He is completely failed by society, but it is near impossible to have sympathy with such a reckless anarchist. He is violent and spiteful.
A Clockwork Orange is a postmodern masterpiece because of its experimental style, language and allegorical content. However, it is also an extremely difficult book to read and an even harder one to enjoy. The slang frustrated me; it was understandable but very dense at times. It鈥檚 a clever device, but an agenising one. I disliked this element for the same reason I will never attempt to read Finnegan鈥檚 Wake by James Joyce. I liked to get lost. I don鈥檛 like to have to put effort in when I read; perhaps I鈥檓 a lazy reader. Regardless though, it was a huge relief to actually finish. I鈥檓 still going to watch the film, and I do think I may enjoy it a little more than this.
All societies have their constraints, though breaking through them is often difficult. What the 鈥減oor鈥� disaffected youth do here is create their own system of communication that is so utterly theirs. Every word carries history, and by destroying such words the youngster are proposing a break from tradition: they are proposing something new. This idea is captured when they attack the 鈥渂ourgeoisie鈥� professor in the opening scene; they beat him, tear his books apart and strip him naked in the streets. It is an act of aggression and power; it is an act that is infused with jealousy and rage. The lower classes are sick of the elites, and the poor are sick of the rich. And they want to stand on their own two feet.
鈥淚s it better for a man to have chosen evil than to have good imposed upon him?鈥�
However, despite the symbolic nature of the scene, it also demonstrates the rash nature of such youths. In their actions they perpetuate such divisions and class divides. They never stop to consider that perhaps the professor could be sympathetic to their cause. They just don't care; they enjoy violence too much. Instead they just see and object of power, knowledge and wealth, so they attempt to destroy it. Having passion and a strong will are vital for social change, but using such things sensibly and at the right time is also of equal importance. I'm not an advocate of violence, but they could have used that better and more productively too.
Society fears them; it fears these boys that represent dissatisfaction and anger. How far can they go? How powerful could they become? What will the future hold? Burgress shows us a speculative future, a 鈥渨hat if鈥� situation that is not implausible. The novel is advisory; it suggests that something needs to be done to society in order to avoid the pitfall the gang fell into here. Like all significant literature, the work has a universal quality: it is as relevant today as it was when it was first published in the 1970s because it shows us what unbridled and misguided temper can achieve.
Alex (the gang leader) is thrown into jail after committing a particularly nasty crime. The doctors then attempt to rehabilitate him through psychological treatment based on schema theory and the rules of conditioning and association. Afterwards, the thought of violence sickens him physically and he is thrown out into a world that hates him and one he can no longer survive him. He is completely failed by society, but it is near impossible to have sympathy with such a reckless anarchist. He is violent and spiteful.
A Clockwork Orange is a postmodern masterpiece because of its experimental style, language and allegorical content. However, it is also an extremely difficult book to read and an even harder one to enjoy. The slang frustrated me; it was understandable but very dense at times. It鈥檚 a clever device, but an agenising one. I disliked this element for the same reason I will never attempt to read Finnegan鈥檚 Wake by James Joyce. I liked to get lost. I don鈥檛 like to have to put effort in when I read; perhaps I鈥檓 a lazy reader. Regardless though, it was a huge relief to actually finish. I鈥檓 still going to watch the film, and I do think I may enjoy it a little more than this.
May 5, 2025
Alex and his gang are the product of a generation where violence is habitual and trivialized. For them, it is not a question of unease or the sign of a revolt but quite simply a distraction. The paradox in the story is that Alex is passionate about classical music, music meant to soften souls and not lead them to depravity.
So, their favorite pastime is terrorizing poor people. Physical violence, verbal violence, nothing omitted. Alex is, in a way, the 鈥済uru鈥� of his gang since he addresses them by qualifying them as 鈥渂rothers.鈥�
Alex鈥檚 mother, ignorant at the beginning of her son鈥檚 actions, eventually surrenders to reality and accepts that a new experience has been performed on her son. The doctors in charge of practicing this therapy on Alex will make him listen to classical music (the one that is, in a way, his hymn) while forcing him to watch the worst images of violence and torture on the big screen. Thus, they could sensitize him and make him realize what violence means.
The book is a little tricky to access since Anthony Burgess invented a language Alex and his acolytes used. Still, it is undoubtedly one of the most outstanding of his time, just like the film directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1971.
So, their favorite pastime is terrorizing poor people. Physical violence, verbal violence, nothing omitted. Alex is, in a way, the 鈥済uru鈥� of his gang since he addresses them by qualifying them as 鈥渂rothers.鈥�
Alex鈥檚 mother, ignorant at the beginning of her son鈥檚 actions, eventually surrenders to reality and accepts that a new experience has been performed on her son. The doctors in charge of practicing this therapy on Alex will make him listen to classical music (the one that is, in a way, his hymn) while forcing him to watch the worst images of violence and torture on the big screen. Thus, they could sensitize him and make him realize what violence means.
The book is a little tricky to access since Anthony Burgess invented a language Alex and his acolytes used. Still, it is undoubtedly one of the most outstanding of his time, just like the film directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1971.
June 9, 2022
Like many I suppose, I saw Kubrick's film long ago without having read the book until now. Part punk rock version of Finnegans Wake, part scalding criticism of UK society in the 50s, Burgess' dystopian Center is a real "horrorshow" (in a non-ACO interpretation of the word) of violence. Alex is a terrifying character - every bit as evil as the Joker or Anton Chigurh whose state-sponsored brainwashing is equally disturbing. The prison chaplain's pleas for free choice tend to exemplify the theme of the book.
In any case, the Wakesque language that Alex employs, while not entirely opaque, takes a little getting used to, but I found it did not take away from the powerful emotions that the text invokes.
I also suppose that many of us who are anti-Trump fear this kind of proto-fascist dystopian state (which in some ways is a cousin to that of Atwood's Handmaid's Tale) and this is what will make reading this book really resonate.
Read at your own risk O my brothers.
In any case, the Wakesque language that Alex employs, while not entirely opaque, takes a little getting used to, but I found it did not take away from the powerful emotions that the text invokes.
I also suppose that many of us who are anti-Trump fear this kind of proto-fascist dystopian state (which in some ways is a cousin to that of Atwood's Handmaid's Tale) and this is what will make reading this book really resonate.
Read at your own risk O my brothers.
March 9, 2017
I once had a truly lovely roommate. In my mind, I now think of her as the Yoga Bunny: yes, because she was a yoga instructor, but also because she was the kind of adorable hippy who wants to believe that deep down, everyone is nice and that if you love one another enough, the world鈥檚 problems will eventually solve themselves. She was kind, generous and polite to a fault and I do not mean to make fun of her: I really love her very much, but her world view always seemed terribly na茂ve and somewhat delusional to me. I may be a cynic, but it really struck me like a ton of bricks one evening, when she was looking at my bookcase after asking if she could borrow something to read. She pulled 鈥淎 Clockwork Orange鈥� off the shelf and asked me what it was about.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a futuristic dystopian tale about whether it鈥檚 better to have the free will to be a bad person or to be forced to be a good person鈥� I replied after a moment鈥檚 pause. It was really the best way I could think of summarizing Burgess鈥� novella.
鈥淲hy would anyone want to write鈥� or read anything so horrible?!鈥� she cried, her big eyes suddenly filled with tears. She put the book back on the shelf, grabbed my copy of 鈥淓at, Pray and Love鈥� and promptly retreated to her room to read, and presumably to scrub her ears clean of the terribly offensive idea I had just uttered.
Again, I don鈥檛 want to make fun of Yoga Bunny. Her wildly optimistic worldview made the entire idea of Burgess鈥� masterpiece disgusting. She couldn鈥檛 see why people would choose to be bad, hurtful and violent. I did not bother trying to explain that the concept of free will is about much more than just the violent acts committed by the anti-hero Alex: we use free will every day and the point of the book is to get us to think about what it would mean if that capacity to choose was taken away.
And I must say, it is not as violent as some people make it sound: most horror novels contain much more disgusting violence than what is in the pages of this book. And furthermore, Burgess never condones any of the acts committed by Alex and his droogs. That being said, few horror novels manage to be as disturbing as this tiny novella; not because of the violence, but because of the ideas.
Some spoilers ahead.
Alex is clearly a sociopath, who doesn鈥檛 feel anything about other people. Their pain, their suffering, their feelings, none of that matters to him. He wants his thrills, whether those are sexual or from getting into a good fight. The Ludovico Technique gives him physical pain when he tries to act on his violent urges, but it doesn鈥檛 take his urges away. He still wants to hurt and rape, even if he can鈥檛. Because goodness cannot be imposed on anyone, it always remains a choice. Conditioning him would never 鈥渇ix鈥� him: therapy and education might, but that鈥檚 not the method he is subjected to. Because ultimately, Dr. Brodsky doesn鈥檛 care about Alex any more than Alex cared about his victims. He wants to cut down crime, not make people better.
When Alex is freed again, attacked and incapable of defending himself, some readers would probably cheer because he finally gets what he deserves. But I see a more subtle point being made. The point that sometimes, one has to do things that would, under other circumstances, be considered 鈥渂ad鈥�, for good reasons. Hitting someone is bad; but hitting someone to defend yourself because someone is trying to hurt or kill you isn鈥檛.
When it was originally published in the United-States, the final chapter, where Alex outgrows his sociopathy and becomes 鈥渘ormal鈥�, was removed to give the book a darker tone and ending. Kubrick used that version for his brilliant adaptation (which I watch at least once a year 鈥� it鈥檚 one of my all-time favorite movies), which concludes with the realization Ludovico Technique has stopped affecting Alex: his favorite music and thoughts of violence no longer hurt him and he is鈥� 鈥渃ured鈥�. I find both endings equally fascinating. In either case he is cured, but what exactly is he cured of? I love this ambiguity. The book鈥檚 original ending suggests that there is a possibility of redemption for everyone (see Yoga Bunny, there are some optimistic passages in this book!), it hints that maturity will eventually smooth out people鈥檚 character. I don鈥檛 know how much I believe that鈥� but I get the point.
The linguistic tour de force accomplished by Burgess 鈥� while irritating at first, until your brain begins to recognize the patterns and cadence 鈥� is impressive enough to make it worth the read, regardless of how you feel about the moral dilemma contained within the pages. Russian, Shakespearean turns of phrase and Cockney slang actually blend beautifully, and the Nadsat words are used perfunctorily enough that when you read a sentence in context, you can quickly figure out what every word means. The first 10 pages will be a struggle, and that is why in this specific case, I鈥檇 recommend watching the movie before reading the book, just to get familiar with the language. But once you get past the Nadsat hurdle, so to speak, you start understanding the genius of its use: it gives such a rich texture to the text, it puts words on images and feelings that are impossible to associate to a regular English word.
鈥淎 Clockwork Orange鈥� is disturbing, gorgeous and horrible all at once. It scares me but I also enjoy it very much. I really think it鈥檚 worth the read, unpleasant as it may be at times. And obviously, I also strongly recommend the wonderful Kubrick movie. The music and sets are haunting, and I will always picture Alex as Malcolm McDowell. I鈥檇 love to watch it with Yoga Bunny someday, and hopefully seeing this terrible person get tortured in the name of 鈥済oodness鈥� will help her think about free will a bit differently.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a futuristic dystopian tale about whether it鈥檚 better to have the free will to be a bad person or to be forced to be a good person鈥� I replied after a moment鈥檚 pause. It was really the best way I could think of summarizing Burgess鈥� novella.
鈥淲hy would anyone want to write鈥� or read anything so horrible?!鈥� she cried, her big eyes suddenly filled with tears. She put the book back on the shelf, grabbed my copy of 鈥淓at, Pray and Love鈥� and promptly retreated to her room to read, and presumably to scrub her ears clean of the terribly offensive idea I had just uttered.
Again, I don鈥檛 want to make fun of Yoga Bunny. Her wildly optimistic worldview made the entire idea of Burgess鈥� masterpiece disgusting. She couldn鈥檛 see why people would choose to be bad, hurtful and violent. I did not bother trying to explain that the concept of free will is about much more than just the violent acts committed by the anti-hero Alex: we use free will every day and the point of the book is to get us to think about what it would mean if that capacity to choose was taken away.
And I must say, it is not as violent as some people make it sound: most horror novels contain much more disgusting violence than what is in the pages of this book. And furthermore, Burgess never condones any of the acts committed by Alex and his droogs. That being said, few horror novels manage to be as disturbing as this tiny novella; not because of the violence, but because of the ideas.
Some spoilers ahead.
Alex is clearly a sociopath, who doesn鈥檛 feel anything about other people. Their pain, their suffering, their feelings, none of that matters to him. He wants his thrills, whether those are sexual or from getting into a good fight. The Ludovico Technique gives him physical pain when he tries to act on his violent urges, but it doesn鈥檛 take his urges away. He still wants to hurt and rape, even if he can鈥檛. Because goodness cannot be imposed on anyone, it always remains a choice. Conditioning him would never 鈥渇ix鈥� him: therapy and education might, but that鈥檚 not the method he is subjected to. Because ultimately, Dr. Brodsky doesn鈥檛 care about Alex any more than Alex cared about his victims. He wants to cut down crime, not make people better.
When Alex is freed again, attacked and incapable of defending himself, some readers would probably cheer because he finally gets what he deserves. But I see a more subtle point being made. The point that sometimes, one has to do things that would, under other circumstances, be considered 鈥渂ad鈥�, for good reasons. Hitting someone is bad; but hitting someone to defend yourself because someone is trying to hurt or kill you isn鈥檛.
When it was originally published in the United-States, the final chapter, where Alex outgrows his sociopathy and becomes 鈥渘ormal鈥�, was removed to give the book a darker tone and ending. Kubrick used that version for his brilliant adaptation (which I watch at least once a year 鈥� it鈥檚 one of my all-time favorite movies), which concludes with the realization Ludovico Technique has stopped affecting Alex: his favorite music and thoughts of violence no longer hurt him and he is鈥� 鈥渃ured鈥�. I find both endings equally fascinating. In either case he is cured, but what exactly is he cured of? I love this ambiguity. The book鈥檚 original ending suggests that there is a possibility of redemption for everyone (see Yoga Bunny, there are some optimistic passages in this book!), it hints that maturity will eventually smooth out people鈥檚 character. I don鈥檛 know how much I believe that鈥� but I get the point.
The linguistic tour de force accomplished by Burgess 鈥� while irritating at first, until your brain begins to recognize the patterns and cadence 鈥� is impressive enough to make it worth the read, regardless of how you feel about the moral dilemma contained within the pages. Russian, Shakespearean turns of phrase and Cockney slang actually blend beautifully, and the Nadsat words are used perfunctorily enough that when you read a sentence in context, you can quickly figure out what every word means. The first 10 pages will be a struggle, and that is why in this specific case, I鈥檇 recommend watching the movie before reading the book, just to get familiar with the language. But once you get past the Nadsat hurdle, so to speak, you start understanding the genius of its use: it gives such a rich texture to the text, it puts words on images and feelings that are impossible to associate to a regular English word.
鈥淎 Clockwork Orange鈥� is disturbing, gorgeous and horrible all at once. It scares me but I also enjoy it very much. I really think it鈥檚 worth the read, unpleasant as it may be at times. And obviously, I also strongly recommend the wonderful Kubrick movie. The music and sets are haunting, and I will always picture Alex as Malcolm McDowell. I鈥檇 love to watch it with Yoga Bunny someday, and hopefully seeing this terrible person get tortured in the name of 鈥済oodness鈥� will help her think about free will a bit differently.
December 3, 2022
Hmmm.
As far as an enjoyable reading experience goes, I'd say this one is the bottom of the barrel. It's hard to be inside the head of someone who is, for no apparent reason, just an absolutely evil piece of shit.
Now, that's not to say this isn't a worthwhile read.
However, I'm trying really hard to figure out what the point of this book was and coming up with a blank. Like, was there a moral to this story? I don't think so.
The concept was an interesting one, though.
A young psychopath volunteers to get rehabilitated to reduce his jail sentence, never for a moment thinking that it might work.
And it doesn't. Not really. He's still a terrible person, but now when he contemplates anything violent, he gets physically ill.
And the question we are left with is whether or not it would be right to force someone who enjoys raping women and brutalizing the elderly, or really anyone weaker than him, to undergo a form of torture therapy that would make him unable to commit violent acts in the future.
I'm sure there are some people who will disagree with me, but I would say the answer to that is a fairly obvious duh.
If you're not going to kill someone like this outright, which I am also fine with, then I see no problem with castrating their instincts to hurt other people. How is this a problem?
It's not my problem for damn sure.
Does it save their soul? Doubtful. But I don't care about that sort of thing, as I feel everyone is responsible for their own soul or lack thereof. If there is an afterlife, I highly doubt there will be some sort of reckoning or punishment for evildoers. After all, they're only acting this way because of past trauma or some sort of chemical imbalance, right? So if something comes after this, it only makes sense that they'll probably get a second chance to be a decent person.
And now I'm wandering into some kind of philosophical/religious territory better left alone.
In the end, the powers that be feel that what they'd done to him wasn't right, as he had no free will and eventually wanted to kill himself. Everyone felt sorry for him and he was allowed to go back into society with his free will reinstated.
Wow.
This edition includes the controversial last chapter not published in the first edition and Burgess's introduction "A Clockwork Orange Resucked." <--was what mine said.
Apparently, the US version was missing a part of the story.
Burgess' originally wanted to show that people change as they get older, and that our young heathen is no different. You see in the final chapter that he doesn't find rape and murder as much fun as he used to and is now contemplating settling down with a nice girl and staying in on Friday nights.
Oh. Um. What?
If we're supposed to take that literally, it just makes zero sense.
Most of us got into a bit of mischief when we were teenagers. But I can honestly say that I never found attacking people for the hell of it part of my good times. And I don't think most people do. Something is desperately wrong with you if that's the way you spend your Saturday afternoon, and getting older isn't magically going to fix it.
Now, if this is simply a metaphor for growing up, growing older, and becoming more responsible? It's maybe the worst one I've ever heard.
This was a weird-ass book, and I'm not sure it was actually very good.
There's no real plot as you're just following along for a fairly graphic ride of torture, rape, and brutalization that ends with a very weak conclusion. The fact that you need to learn an entirely new set of slang to translate this book is only a small annoyance in the grand scheme of things, but it was still an epic irritation to me while I was listening to it.
On the flip side, I can see why this is such a cult classic. There's a lot of shock value to almost every page that holds up even now. The gleeful way he describes drugging and raping the tween girls is something that will stick with me for a while.
Tom Hollander - Narrator
Publisher: HarperAudio
Edition: Unabridged
Awards: Amazing Audiobooks for Young Adults
Audie Award Nominee
Listen Up Award
As far as an enjoyable reading experience goes, I'd say this one is the bottom of the barrel. It's hard to be inside the head of someone who is, for no apparent reason, just an absolutely evil piece of shit.
Now, that's not to say this isn't a worthwhile read.
However, I'm trying really hard to figure out what the point of this book was and coming up with a blank. Like, was there a moral to this story? I don't think so.
The concept was an interesting one, though.
A young psychopath volunteers to get rehabilitated to reduce his jail sentence, never for a moment thinking that it might work.
And it doesn't. Not really. He's still a terrible person, but now when he contemplates anything violent, he gets physically ill.
And the question we are left with is whether or not it would be right to force someone who enjoys raping women and brutalizing the elderly, or really anyone weaker than him, to undergo a form of torture therapy that would make him unable to commit violent acts in the future.
I'm sure there are some people who will disagree with me, but I would say the answer to that is a fairly obvious duh.
If you're not going to kill someone like this outright, which I am also fine with, then I see no problem with castrating their instincts to hurt other people. How is this a problem?
It's not my problem for damn sure.
Does it save their soul? Doubtful. But I don't care about that sort of thing, as I feel everyone is responsible for their own soul or lack thereof. If there is an afterlife, I highly doubt there will be some sort of reckoning or punishment for evildoers. After all, they're only acting this way because of past trauma or some sort of chemical imbalance, right? So if something comes after this, it only makes sense that they'll probably get a second chance to be a decent person.
And now I'm wandering into some kind of philosophical/religious territory better left alone.
In the end, the powers that be feel that what they'd done to him wasn't right, as he had no free will and eventually wanted to kill himself. Everyone felt sorry for him and he was allowed to go back into society with his free will reinstated.
Wow.
This edition includes the controversial last chapter not published in the first edition and Burgess's introduction "A Clockwork Orange Resucked." <--was what mine said.
Apparently, the US version was missing a part of the story.
Burgess' originally wanted to show that people change as they get older, and that our young heathen is no different. You see in the final chapter that he doesn't find rape and murder as much fun as he used to and is now contemplating settling down with a nice girl and staying in on Friday nights.
Oh. Um. What?
If we're supposed to take that literally, it just makes zero sense.
Most of us got into a bit of mischief when we were teenagers. But I can honestly say that I never found attacking people for the hell of it part of my good times. And I don't think most people do. Something is desperately wrong with you if that's the way you spend your Saturday afternoon, and getting older isn't magically going to fix it.
Now, if this is simply a metaphor for growing up, growing older, and becoming more responsible? It's maybe the worst one I've ever heard.
This was a weird-ass book, and I'm not sure it was actually very good.
There's no real plot as you're just following along for a fairly graphic ride of torture, rape, and brutalization that ends with a very weak conclusion. The fact that you need to learn an entirely new set of slang to translate this book is only a small annoyance in the grand scheme of things, but it was still an epic irritation to me while I was listening to it.
On the flip side, I can see why this is such a cult classic. There's a lot of shock value to almost every page that holds up even now. The gleeful way he describes drugging and raping the tween girls is something that will stick with me for a while.
Tom Hollander - Narrator
Publisher: HarperAudio
Edition: Unabridged
Awards: Amazing Audiobooks for Young Adults
Audie Award Nominee
Listen Up Award
June 28, 2020
Tan buena como la pel铆cula que es una adaptaci贸n fidel铆sima de la novela... si exceptuamos el famoso cap铆tulo 21 que tan necesario le era al autor como prescindible nos parece a Kubrick y a m铆.
November 12, 2016
This book was sweet. The way russian was used to show the distopian future was one of the coolest literary devices I have seen. Because I was so enthralled by it, I often read parts more than once to make sure I was getting the meaning right. Everyone should read this book, and then read it again to make sure they got it.
March 19, 2024
鈥業f he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange鈥攎eaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil.鈥欌€�
Anthony Burgess's groundbreaking novel, A Clockwork Orange, is a haunting and unforgettable exploration of morality, free will, and the nature of violence.
Set in a dystopian future, the story follows Alex, a charismatic but deeply disturbed young man who leads a gang of thugs in a campaign of senseless violence and chaos. Burgess's writing is both brilliant and disturbing, vividly conveying the horrors of Alex's world. The novel's unique and unsettling language, "Nadsat," adds to its unsettling atmosphere, further alienating the reader from the familiar and creating a sense of uneasy detachment.
鈥楾hen, brothers, it came. Oh, bliss, bliss and heaven. I lay all nagoy to the ceiling, my gulliver on my rookers on the pillow, glazzies closed, rot open in bliss, slooshying the sluice of lovely sounds. Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh.鈥�
After Alex is captured, he undergoes a controversial experimental treatment called aversion therapy, which aims to cure him of his violent impulses. However, this treatment raises profound ethical questions about whether it is right to force someone to become good. Burgess explores these themes with unflinching honesty, challenging the reader to confront the darkness that lurks within us all.
Alex's journey becomes a chilling tale about the dangers of totalitarianism and the importance of preserving our own humanity, even in the most extreme of circumstances.
Yes, a Clockwork Orange is a difficult read and at times deeply disturbing, but it is also an undeniable masterpiece that forces us to confront our own prejudices and fears.
I Highly Recommend.
Anthony Burgess's groundbreaking novel, A Clockwork Orange, is a haunting and unforgettable exploration of morality, free will, and the nature of violence.
Set in a dystopian future, the story follows Alex, a charismatic but deeply disturbed young man who leads a gang of thugs in a campaign of senseless violence and chaos. Burgess's writing is both brilliant and disturbing, vividly conveying the horrors of Alex's world. The novel's unique and unsettling language, "Nadsat," adds to its unsettling atmosphere, further alienating the reader from the familiar and creating a sense of uneasy detachment.
鈥楾hen, brothers, it came. Oh, bliss, bliss and heaven. I lay all nagoy to the ceiling, my gulliver on my rookers on the pillow, glazzies closed, rot open in bliss, slooshying the sluice of lovely sounds. Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh.鈥�
After Alex is captured, he undergoes a controversial experimental treatment called aversion therapy, which aims to cure him of his violent impulses. However, this treatment raises profound ethical questions about whether it is right to force someone to become good. Burgess explores these themes with unflinching honesty, challenging the reader to confront the darkness that lurks within us all.
Alex's journey becomes a chilling tale about the dangers of totalitarianism and the importance of preserving our own humanity, even in the most extreme of circumstances.
Yes, a Clockwork Orange is a difficult read and at times deeply disturbing, but it is also an undeniable masterpiece that forces us to confront our own prejudices and fears.
I Highly Recommend.
August 31, 2024
The Clockwork Wars!
I read this book a long time ago, but I still remember the chaos and horror of the game.
Being able to play the game without a script gets you out of danger of getting squashed like a bug. The problem with the script is that the characters are all very similar in their predilection for violence.
Thanks for reading.
Four stars. 馃挮馃挮馃挮馃挮
I read this book a long time ago, but I still remember the chaos and horror of the game.
Being able to play the game without a script gets you out of danger of getting squashed like a bug. The problem with the script is that the characters are all very similar in their predilection for violence.
Thanks for reading.
Four stars. 馃挮馃挮馃挮馃挮
October 11, 2024
One of my favorite books of all time...but be warned that the ending is different than the ending of Stanley Kubrick's movie (also a classic). Truth be told I prefer the movie ending...but the overall message is the same: when a generation of vipers slithers free who provided the nest they were spawned in? To me this book is the perfect example of how the SA (Sturmabteilung) probably formed: groups of disassociated young men forming 'packs' to roam the city.
April 7, 2024
I read this a great deal of time ago. Before a fair number of those reading this review were born. And the book itself was written before I was born - though not by very many years.
The intervening decades mean that this will be a somewhat vague accounting of the book's merits (in my eyes). It certainly made an impression on me, and the main character, Alex DeLarge, was the inspiration (at least in terms of a number of traits) for the main character in my debut novel, - both Alex and Jorg are very young, amoral, violent, and possessed of a certain degree of charm and intelligence.
A Clockwork Orange is, in my estimation, an observation (rather than study) of a phenomenon that is complicated in some ways and simple in others, and mispresented in a whole variety of manners by two-dimensional takes on it. Namely the nature of teenage rebellion (at the sharpest end where it shades into what we would commonly call 'evil') and how society interacts with it, seeking both to curb and cure it, and looks at that interaction both in terms of the damage wrought (in this case violent attacks including rape), the punitive measures taken (prison), the 'treatment' (in this futuristic world (from a 1960s perspective) this comes through both religion and a rather harrowing aversion therapy), the politics, and the final outcome.
The book's delivered in the first person through Alex's point of view with heavy doses of an invented street slang, an argot cobbled together with east European words IIRC. Alex is honest about his dishonesty, almost comical in his semi-tongue in cheek self-pity, and an engaging voice despite his many vile crimes.
One of the book's most interesting (to me) conclusions (I'll call it a conclusion because it's the final note, it's not delivered as a sermon) - is that what mellows our Alex into someone who might eventually be a reasonable person and might live up to the promise of his obvious intelligence and verbal skills, is simply time. He grows up. He casts his wickedness as belonging to the half-child, half-man that he was. The attempts to punish him, cure him, and rehabilitate him weren't significant.
And that's an interesting question at least - at what age does the stain of a person's deeds start to become permanent? We would probably not condemn a 40 year old man because when he was 2 he pushed his 1 year old brother into a fire to see what would happen. If we move that 40 down, and that 2 up ... where does it change. Is there an age at which Alex's crimes should not dog the rest of his life, and if so what is it?
And by making his crimes so terrible, Burgess ups the stakes on that question.
..
The intervening decades mean that this will be a somewhat vague accounting of the book's merits (in my eyes). It certainly made an impression on me, and the main character, Alex DeLarge, was the inspiration (at least in terms of a number of traits) for the main character in my debut novel, - both Alex and Jorg are very young, amoral, violent, and possessed of a certain degree of charm and intelligence.
A Clockwork Orange is, in my estimation, an observation (rather than study) of a phenomenon that is complicated in some ways and simple in others, and mispresented in a whole variety of manners by two-dimensional takes on it. Namely the nature of teenage rebellion (at the sharpest end where it shades into what we would commonly call 'evil') and how society interacts with it, seeking both to curb and cure it, and looks at that interaction both in terms of the damage wrought (in this case violent attacks including rape), the punitive measures taken (prison), the 'treatment' (in this futuristic world (from a 1960s perspective) this comes through both religion and a rather harrowing aversion therapy), the politics, and the final outcome.
The book's delivered in the first person through Alex's point of view with heavy doses of an invented street slang, an argot cobbled together with east European words IIRC. Alex is honest about his dishonesty, almost comical in his semi-tongue in cheek self-pity, and an engaging voice despite his many vile crimes.
One of the book's most interesting (to me) conclusions (I'll call it a conclusion because it's the final note, it's not delivered as a sermon) - is that what mellows our Alex into someone who might eventually be a reasonable person and might live up to the promise of his obvious intelligence and verbal skills, is simply time. He grows up. He casts his wickedness as belonging to the half-child, half-man that he was. The attempts to punish him, cure him, and rehabilitate him weren't significant.
And that's an interesting question at least - at what age does the stain of a person's deeds start to become permanent? We would probably not condemn a 40 year old man because when he was 2 he pushed his 1 year old brother into a fire to see what would happen. If we move that 40 down, and that 2 up ... where does it change. Is there an age at which Alex's crimes should not dog the rest of his life, and if so what is it?
And by making his crimes so terrible, Burgess ups the stakes on that question.
..
September 24, 2024
-驴Y ahora qu茅 pasa, eh?
Est谩bamos yo, Alex y mis tres drugos, Pete, Georgie y el Lerdo sentados en el bar l谩cteo Korova exprimi茅ndonos los rasudoques y decidiendo qu茅 podr铆amos hacer esa noche, en un invierno oscuro, helado y bastardo aunque seco."
El 2017 ha sido el a帽o que dediqu茅 en parte a leer varios cl谩sicos y novelas contempor谩neas que me faltaban, como 鈥淓l guardi谩n entre el centeno鈥� de J.D. Salinger, 鈥淩obinson Crusoe鈥� de Daniel Defoe, 鈥淓l inspector鈥� de Nik贸lai G贸gol, 鈥淐r贸nica del p谩jaro que da cuerda al mundo鈥� de Haruki Murakami, 鈥淟a ca铆da鈥� de Albert Camus, 鈥淩esurrecci贸n鈥� de Lev Tolst贸i, 鈥淟os viajes de Gulliver鈥� de Jonathan Swift, 鈥淟a piedra lunar鈥� de Wilkie Collins y muy especialmente 鈥淒on Quijote de la Mancha鈥� de Miguel de Cervantes y el 鈥淔innegans Wake鈥� de James Joyce.
Ahora agrego esta ic贸nica novela de Anthony Burgess.
Debo confesar que me ha gustado mucho leerla. Ha sido un interesante viaje el de Alex por su agitados d铆as de adolescencia. Me imagino lo que debe haber sido leer 鈥淟a naranja mec谩nica鈥� en 1962, un libro que anticip贸 el mundo violento de hoy en el 2017, de la explosi贸n del punk nihilista que generaron bandas como 鈥淪ex Pistols鈥� o 鈥淭he Clash鈥� en 1977 y toda la debacle de clases sociales que se vivi贸 en Argentina a partir de finales de la d茅cada del 鈥�70.
Es que la estrella del libro no es Alex ni las andanzas con sus amigos ni el sistema contra el que quieren luchar. Es la violencia. Esa violencia que es parte inherente de todos los seres humanos, de la eterna lucha entre el bien y el mal, de los valores trastocados, perdidos, rechazados y tambi茅n de aquellos individuos que no encajan en la sociedad, que son marginales, tal vez sin propon茅rselo y de c贸mo el sistema (ll谩mese gobierno, sistema de educaci贸n o aparato jur铆dico) trata de convertir lo malo en bueno fallando en gran medida por no entender nunca el asunto.
Pero la violencia alcanza no s贸lo a Alex, sino a todos los 贸rdenes sociales y a toda escala. A sus amigos, que lo secundan en sus fechor铆as, a sus padres que no lo comprenden y terminan enemist谩ndose con 茅l, a los directivos de ese 鈥淐entro de recuperaci贸n鈥� bastante dudoso y clandestino en el que cae y en donde desde el Estado pretenden recuperarlo y supuestamente transformarlo en un ciudadano reformado con el prop贸sito de reinsertarlo en la sociedad.
Claro que los m茅todos utilizados son tan violentos como los h谩bitos o naturaleza de Alex y los resultados llegan a ser desastrosos. El aparato de estado quiere arreglar a un individuo que seg煤n ellos est谩 descarriado de la manera m谩s inadecuada y cruel. Es como combatir fuego con fuego.
Los cap铆tulos en donde le proyectan las famosas pel铆culas y en el que 茅l describe todas las palizas que le propinan, desde que lo detiene la polic铆a y durante su paso por la c谩rcel me recuerda a las que sufre Winston, el personaje principal de 鈥�1984鈥�, la m铆tica novela de George Orwell.
Todo est谩 impregnado de violencia. Los medios period铆sticos y el accionar oportunista de ciertos pol铆ticos, que intentan utilizarlo como ejemplo para derrocar al gobierno. Todos quieren sacar r茅dito de Alex. Es m谩s, las v铆ctimas de sus ataques anteriores intentar谩n aplicar la misma violencia que recibieron, como buscando reparar lo que ya no pueden.
Hay que destacar la manera en la que Alex (Burgess) narra lo que sucede en esta historia, pero lo que m谩s asombra es la pasmosa naturalidad con la que describe los distintos actos de vandalismo, caos y destrucci贸n en las calles de una semi dist贸pica Inglaterra, donde este personaje tan especial se divierte a sus anchas con sus amigos.
Est谩n fuera de la ley, asaltan, roban, golpean, violan y matan y todo eso est谩 dentro de la normalidad que viven; luego vuelven a sus casas e intentan hacer una vida normal.
En el caso de Alex es por dem谩s parad贸jico, puesto que su pasi贸n es la m煤sica cl谩sica. Escucha a su querido Ludwig van Beethoven o a Mozart o Bach. Esa m煤sica inmortal es su cable a tierra, conexi贸n con el mundo real, aunque es l贸gico que algo no est谩 bien. Podemos entender el estado de efervescencia que los a帽os de adolescente producen en las personas pero en el caso de Alex eso va mucho m谩s all谩.
脡l es uno de esos personajes tan especiales en la literatura. Personajes que no encajan en ning煤n molde.
Se puede citar algunos: Holden Cauldfield en 鈥淓l guardi谩n entre el centeno鈥�, Mersault de 鈥淓l extranjero鈥� o Ignatius Reilly en 鈥淟a conjura de los necios鈥�. En Argentina podr铆amos incluir dos de Ernesto S谩bato: Fernando Vidal Olmos, ese oscuro y lun谩tico personaje de 鈥淚nforme sobre ciegos鈥� o Juan Pablo Castel, el asesino dostoievskiano de la novela 鈥淓l t煤nel鈥�.
Esta novela choca tambi茅n al lector desde el plano ling眉铆stico, dado que Burgess crea el famoso vocabulario adolescente 鈥渘adsat鈥�, una jerga o lunfardo en el que Alex y sus amigos reemplazas determinadas palabras o acciones por t茅rminos tomados del idioma ruso y aggiornados a su lenguaje. De esta manera, por dar algunos de ejemplos, "驳辞濒辞惫谩" significa cabeza, "tolchoco", golpe, "litso" significa rostro y as铆 sucesivamente para muchas otras palabras m谩s.
Confieso que al principio me cost贸 un poco de esfuerzo retener todos estos t茅rminos (parec铆a un 诲别箩谩-惫煤 del Finnegans Wake cuando comenc茅 a leer las primeras p谩ginas), pero una vez que uno se acostumbra al vocabulario, la lectura se torna muy fluida.
Desde el punto de vista del lenguaje es m谩s que interesante, puesto que significa un desaf铆o para el traductor llevar estos t茅rminos a su propio idioma.
Para aquellos que a煤n no hayan le铆do esta novela, vaya una peque帽a muestra de c贸mo es el lenguaje nadsat: "Tienes que comprender el tolchoco en la rota, Lerdo. Era la m煤sica. Me pongo besu帽o cuando un veco interfiere en el canto de una ptitsa. Ya entiendes."
Cambiando los t茅rminos nadsat, la frase quedar铆a as铆: "Tienes que comprender el golpe en la boca, Lerdo. Era la m煤sica. Me pongo loco cuando un tipo interfiere en el canto de una chica. Ya entiendes."
En el pr贸logo del libro y bajo recomendaci贸n de un lector de goodreads al cual le agradezco, porque dice que hay que leerlo al final ya que sin quererlo, Burgess genera el spoiler, el autor se queja en cierta medida en c贸mo le cambi贸 cierto sentido a la lectura del libro en todo aquel que haya visto primero la pel铆cula de Stanley Kubrick.
Burgess nunca estuvo muy de acuerdo con eso, ya que 茅l sostiene que escribi贸 la novela dividi茅ndola exactamente en tres partes de 7 cap铆tulos cada uno, o sea 21 (y explica que el sentido era que la suma diera 21, puesto que ese n煤mero corresponde a la mayor铆a de edad), pero los editores de la versi贸n norteamericana, quitaron ese 煤ltimo cap铆tulo ya que ese final es totalmente opuesto al del cap铆tulo 6 de la edici贸n brit谩nica.
Aqu铆 entramos en el gusto de cada lector, puesto que a unos les agradar谩 m谩s la primera forma y otros elegir谩n la segunda opci贸n, la del famoso cap铆tulo 21.
Burgess escribi贸 y eligi贸 el suyo y le sobran los motivos para dicha elecci贸n. Kubrick, como era de esperar, termina la pel铆cula exactamente igual a la versi贸n americana. Yo me quedo con el cap铆tulo 21, el de la edici贸n original, entonces, cuando comencemos a discutir acerca de cu谩l es el mejor final, parodiaremos la primera frase de esta novela:
"Y ahora qu茅 pasa, 驴eh?"
Est谩bamos yo, Alex y mis tres drugos, Pete, Georgie y el Lerdo sentados en el bar l谩cteo Korova exprimi茅ndonos los rasudoques y decidiendo qu茅 podr铆amos hacer esa noche, en un invierno oscuro, helado y bastardo aunque seco."
El 2017 ha sido el a帽o que dediqu茅 en parte a leer varios cl谩sicos y novelas contempor谩neas que me faltaban, como 鈥淓l guardi谩n entre el centeno鈥� de J.D. Salinger, 鈥淩obinson Crusoe鈥� de Daniel Defoe, 鈥淓l inspector鈥� de Nik贸lai G贸gol, 鈥淐r贸nica del p谩jaro que da cuerda al mundo鈥� de Haruki Murakami, 鈥淟a ca铆da鈥� de Albert Camus, 鈥淩esurrecci贸n鈥� de Lev Tolst贸i, 鈥淟os viajes de Gulliver鈥� de Jonathan Swift, 鈥淟a piedra lunar鈥� de Wilkie Collins y muy especialmente 鈥淒on Quijote de la Mancha鈥� de Miguel de Cervantes y el 鈥淔innegans Wake鈥� de James Joyce.
Ahora agrego esta ic贸nica novela de Anthony Burgess.
Debo confesar que me ha gustado mucho leerla. Ha sido un interesante viaje el de Alex por su agitados d铆as de adolescencia. Me imagino lo que debe haber sido leer 鈥淟a naranja mec谩nica鈥� en 1962, un libro que anticip贸 el mundo violento de hoy en el 2017, de la explosi贸n del punk nihilista que generaron bandas como 鈥淪ex Pistols鈥� o 鈥淭he Clash鈥� en 1977 y toda la debacle de clases sociales que se vivi贸 en Argentina a partir de finales de la d茅cada del 鈥�70.
Es que la estrella del libro no es Alex ni las andanzas con sus amigos ni el sistema contra el que quieren luchar. Es la violencia. Esa violencia que es parte inherente de todos los seres humanos, de la eterna lucha entre el bien y el mal, de los valores trastocados, perdidos, rechazados y tambi茅n de aquellos individuos que no encajan en la sociedad, que son marginales, tal vez sin propon茅rselo y de c贸mo el sistema (ll谩mese gobierno, sistema de educaci贸n o aparato jur铆dico) trata de convertir lo malo en bueno fallando en gran medida por no entender nunca el asunto.
Pero la violencia alcanza no s贸lo a Alex, sino a todos los 贸rdenes sociales y a toda escala. A sus amigos, que lo secundan en sus fechor铆as, a sus padres que no lo comprenden y terminan enemist谩ndose con 茅l, a los directivos de ese 鈥淐entro de recuperaci贸n鈥� bastante dudoso y clandestino en el que cae y en donde desde el Estado pretenden recuperarlo y supuestamente transformarlo en un ciudadano reformado con el prop贸sito de reinsertarlo en la sociedad.
Claro que los m茅todos utilizados son tan violentos como los h谩bitos o naturaleza de Alex y los resultados llegan a ser desastrosos. El aparato de estado quiere arreglar a un individuo que seg煤n ellos est谩 descarriado de la manera m谩s inadecuada y cruel. Es como combatir fuego con fuego.
Los cap铆tulos en donde le proyectan las famosas pel铆culas y en el que 茅l describe todas las palizas que le propinan, desde que lo detiene la polic铆a y durante su paso por la c谩rcel me recuerda a las que sufre Winston, el personaje principal de 鈥�1984鈥�, la m铆tica novela de George Orwell.
Todo est谩 impregnado de violencia. Los medios period铆sticos y el accionar oportunista de ciertos pol铆ticos, que intentan utilizarlo como ejemplo para derrocar al gobierno. Todos quieren sacar r茅dito de Alex. Es m谩s, las v铆ctimas de sus ataques anteriores intentar谩n aplicar la misma violencia que recibieron, como buscando reparar lo que ya no pueden.
Hay que destacar la manera en la que Alex (Burgess) narra lo que sucede en esta historia, pero lo que m谩s asombra es la pasmosa naturalidad con la que describe los distintos actos de vandalismo, caos y destrucci贸n en las calles de una semi dist贸pica Inglaterra, donde este personaje tan especial se divierte a sus anchas con sus amigos.
Est谩n fuera de la ley, asaltan, roban, golpean, violan y matan y todo eso est谩 dentro de la normalidad que viven; luego vuelven a sus casas e intentan hacer una vida normal.
En el caso de Alex es por dem谩s parad贸jico, puesto que su pasi贸n es la m煤sica cl谩sica. Escucha a su querido Ludwig van Beethoven o a Mozart o Bach. Esa m煤sica inmortal es su cable a tierra, conexi贸n con el mundo real, aunque es l贸gico que algo no est谩 bien. Podemos entender el estado de efervescencia que los a帽os de adolescente producen en las personas pero en el caso de Alex eso va mucho m谩s all谩.
脡l es uno de esos personajes tan especiales en la literatura. Personajes que no encajan en ning煤n molde.
Se puede citar algunos: Holden Cauldfield en 鈥淓l guardi谩n entre el centeno鈥�, Mersault de 鈥淓l extranjero鈥� o Ignatius Reilly en 鈥淟a conjura de los necios鈥�. En Argentina podr铆amos incluir dos de Ernesto S谩bato: Fernando Vidal Olmos, ese oscuro y lun谩tico personaje de 鈥淚nforme sobre ciegos鈥� o Juan Pablo Castel, el asesino dostoievskiano de la novela 鈥淓l t煤nel鈥�.
Esta novela choca tambi茅n al lector desde el plano ling眉铆stico, dado que Burgess crea el famoso vocabulario adolescente 鈥渘adsat鈥�, una jerga o lunfardo en el que Alex y sus amigos reemplazas determinadas palabras o acciones por t茅rminos tomados del idioma ruso y aggiornados a su lenguaje. De esta manera, por dar algunos de ejemplos, "驳辞濒辞惫谩" significa cabeza, "tolchoco", golpe, "litso" significa rostro y as铆 sucesivamente para muchas otras palabras m谩s.
Confieso que al principio me cost贸 un poco de esfuerzo retener todos estos t茅rminos (parec铆a un 诲别箩谩-惫煤 del Finnegans Wake cuando comenc茅 a leer las primeras p谩ginas), pero una vez que uno se acostumbra al vocabulario, la lectura se torna muy fluida.
Desde el punto de vista del lenguaje es m谩s que interesante, puesto que significa un desaf铆o para el traductor llevar estos t茅rminos a su propio idioma.
Para aquellos que a煤n no hayan le铆do esta novela, vaya una peque帽a muestra de c贸mo es el lenguaje nadsat: "Tienes que comprender el tolchoco en la rota, Lerdo. Era la m煤sica. Me pongo besu帽o cuando un veco interfiere en el canto de una ptitsa. Ya entiendes."
Cambiando los t茅rminos nadsat, la frase quedar铆a as铆: "Tienes que comprender el golpe en la boca, Lerdo. Era la m煤sica. Me pongo loco cuando un tipo interfiere en el canto de una chica. Ya entiendes."
En el pr贸logo del libro y bajo recomendaci贸n de un lector de goodreads al cual le agradezco, porque dice que hay que leerlo al final ya que sin quererlo, Burgess genera el spoiler, el autor se queja en cierta medida en c贸mo le cambi贸 cierto sentido a la lectura del libro en todo aquel que haya visto primero la pel铆cula de Stanley Kubrick.
Burgess nunca estuvo muy de acuerdo con eso, ya que 茅l sostiene que escribi贸 la novela dividi茅ndola exactamente en tres partes de 7 cap铆tulos cada uno, o sea 21 (y explica que el sentido era que la suma diera 21, puesto que ese n煤mero corresponde a la mayor铆a de edad), pero los editores de la versi贸n norteamericana, quitaron ese 煤ltimo cap铆tulo ya que ese final es totalmente opuesto al del cap铆tulo 6 de la edici贸n brit谩nica.
Aqu铆 entramos en el gusto de cada lector, puesto que a unos les agradar谩 m谩s la primera forma y otros elegir谩n la segunda opci贸n, la del famoso cap铆tulo 21.
Burgess escribi贸 y eligi贸 el suyo y le sobran los motivos para dicha elecci贸n. Kubrick, como era de esperar, termina la pel铆cula exactamente igual a la versi贸n americana. Yo me quedo con el cap铆tulo 21, el de la edici贸n original, entonces, cuando comencemos a discutir acerca de cu谩l es el mejor final, parodiaremos la primera frase de esta novela:
"Y ahora qu茅 pasa, 驴eh?"
May 21, 2018
Anthony Burgess鈥檚 A Clockwork Orange is a fantastic, thought-provoking and immersive read! Don鈥檛 be put off by the invented slang. It comes very easily once you begin reading, and adds to the experience. Besides recommending this book, I do have a final thought concerning chapter 21, the chapter which was left out of the published American edition of the novel as well as the iconic film by Stanley Kubrick. I understand Burgess鈥檚 desire to show change in his young anti-hero, Alex; however, the transformation in this final chapter defies believability. It鈥檚 not that dramatic change is impossible. Rather, forcing this to happen in one chapter cheapens it and makes it feel like an afterthought. It also falls flat. Otherwise, though, I found A Clockwork Orange an incredibly well-crafted and engaging story. 4.5 Stars.
July 27, 2019
"It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you watch them on a screen."
There are these dystopian visionary books that slowly but steadily move from speculative fiction into the field of painfully realistic portrayals of life as we know and suffer it. Huxley, Orwell and Atwood all saw our ordeal coming, and they created the mood and terror for our era long before we could follow their tracks in the daily news spit out in vicious bits and pieces.
Recently a retired teacher said to me that nobody could have predicted the generation of students we have to deal with today, who float above and beyond the rules that we try to convey to them: be it orthography, vocabulary, democratic processes, newsworthiness of information, priorities for action and life planning or just fundamental rules of polite communication between human beings of equal dignity - they pick and choose what suits them and laugh in our faces if we suggest there is a common agreement on any kind of behaviour. For every example we offer, they find a counterargument within a click-second on the phone, and the question of ethical guidelines morphs into whether or not we have the right to make any choices at all for these adolescents that they don't feel like agreeing to themselves, based on their current predilections.
And I heard myself replying to the older colleague that Anthony Burgess saw it coming in the 60s, and that the question was as hard to answer back then as it is now. Can we actually FORCE students to embrace democracy if they are naturally drawn to charismatic populists? Can we TEACH them critical thinking skills without the imperative and normative value system that turns them into clockwork oranges rather than human beings with a free will and a free choice?
How do human beings compete with their own technological achievements, namely the universal attractiveness of instant internet gratification? How do human beings make choices in a society that offers everything at all hours? That is as difficult to handle as the complete choicelessness that is its opposite - but it is much more time-consuming!
How do we deal with a generation that sets its own rules based on their idea of negotiable values, communicated in a shorthand pigeon language suitable for quick typing on small screens? How do we deal with their participation in the global online reality show that offers 24/7 opening hours for entertainment of all kinds?
Just by the fact that we as teachers are representing a hierarchy we make ourselves impossible in the eyes of a youth whose only wish is to be free, to destroy in order to rise as Phoenix from the ashes. Who does not remember at some point thinking after a lecture of some kind, coming from a place of power:
"And I thought to myself, Hell and blast you all, if all you bastards are on the side of Good then I'm glad I belong to the other shop."
How do we deal with this on a global scale? The answer my friend, is vital to the survival of our species at this point... but blowing in the wind all the same, while the greying droogs are taking over the power in one country after the other, cheered on by a generation of new droogs who believe in the right to destroy what you see if that is what you like to do. "I like, therefore I do", the new credo for a youth that can't be bothered with philosophy.
There are these dystopian visionary books that slowly but steadily move from speculative fiction into the field of painfully realistic portrayals of life as we know and suffer it. Huxley, Orwell and Atwood all saw our ordeal coming, and they created the mood and terror for our era long before we could follow their tracks in the daily news spit out in vicious bits and pieces.
Recently a retired teacher said to me that nobody could have predicted the generation of students we have to deal with today, who float above and beyond the rules that we try to convey to them: be it orthography, vocabulary, democratic processes, newsworthiness of information, priorities for action and life planning or just fundamental rules of polite communication between human beings of equal dignity - they pick and choose what suits them and laugh in our faces if we suggest there is a common agreement on any kind of behaviour. For every example we offer, they find a counterargument within a click-second on the phone, and the question of ethical guidelines morphs into whether or not we have the right to make any choices at all for these adolescents that they don't feel like agreeing to themselves, based on their current predilections.
And I heard myself replying to the older colleague that Anthony Burgess saw it coming in the 60s, and that the question was as hard to answer back then as it is now. Can we actually FORCE students to embrace democracy if they are naturally drawn to charismatic populists? Can we TEACH them critical thinking skills without the imperative and normative value system that turns them into clockwork oranges rather than human beings with a free will and a free choice?
How do human beings compete with their own technological achievements, namely the universal attractiveness of instant internet gratification? How do human beings make choices in a society that offers everything at all hours? That is as difficult to handle as the complete choicelessness that is its opposite - but it is much more time-consuming!
How do we deal with a generation that sets its own rules based on their idea of negotiable values, communicated in a shorthand pigeon language suitable for quick typing on small screens? How do we deal with their participation in the global online reality show that offers 24/7 opening hours for entertainment of all kinds?
Just by the fact that we as teachers are representing a hierarchy we make ourselves impossible in the eyes of a youth whose only wish is to be free, to destroy in order to rise as Phoenix from the ashes. Who does not remember at some point thinking after a lecture of some kind, coming from a place of power:
"And I thought to myself, Hell and blast you all, if all you bastards are on the side of Good then I'm glad I belong to the other shop."
How do we deal with this on a global scale? The answer my friend, is vital to the survival of our species at this point... but blowing in the wind all the same, while the greying droogs are taking over the power in one country after the other, cheered on by a generation of new droogs who believe in the right to destroy what you see if that is what you like to do. "I like, therefore I do", the new credo for a youth that can't be bothered with philosophy.
February 17, 2021
First time round I didn't really think that much of this.
For three main reasons.
1. Despite this being something of an 'essential' read before you hit adulthood I wasn't much of a reader then. Maybe two or three books a year. What did I know?
2. I hadn't seen the film (this time around it made a massive difference having Kubrick's visionary masterpiece swirling around in my head).
3. I read a tatty old 70s copy of the novel that looked like it had crawled through a warzone before hiding in someone's underpants for the next 25 years. Discolored pages. Tiny faded text. Mucky. Smelly. Suspicious stains. Just not very nice. Yuck.
Now this mint condition and ever so striking 50th anniversary edition found it's way to me - and it's the Dog's Bollocks! It really is. It's the sort of book that I want keep on my bookshelf with the cover facing outwards and not the spine. You know, like they sometimes do in the bookshops to draw your attention.
The novel itself is without question a work of staggering originality. Sinister & unsettling. Provocative. Damn right addictive. I even couldn't help but read this with a glass of milk or two. And in Alex we have one of the 20th century's most memorable narrators. That slang language - a masterstoke! Basically a way to stand out from others, which creates a stark contrast between the different speech and mind-set of the adults.
Not going to lie - this isn't the easiest of reads, as there is a lot of horrible and nasty goings on here, but it has to be noted that this isn't violence for just for sake of violence. If I wanted that then I'd watch the latest Rambo or something. In theory, it's not really the violence that seeps into your bones, but rather the apathetic view of Alex & co towards it, including their total lack of giving a toss for the age of their victims. Moreover, it was seriously disturbing to read of how their wickedness was simply born out of the common feelings of teenage boredom. Burgess is no fool, and he raises some very important ethical questions that didn't hit me before, such as whether it is better for a person to decide to be bad than to be forced to be good, and whether forcibly suppressing free will is acceptable. I'd say the conditioning methods (the so called 'Ludovico technique') in trying to cure Alex, was just as shocking to read as the brutal violence he and his droogs dished out.
Looks like there is some great additional material included in this version, but I haven't got to it yet. For the novel alone it's got to be a five for me. Maybe the fact that I'm now fully distanced by nearly three decades from the youth here made it a better book for me?
I don't know. Anyway, I'm just glad it came along again and blew me away.
October 18, 2012
A favourite of my late teens, still a favourite now. The brutality of male blooming and the private patois of our teenhood . . . splattered across this brilliant moral satire, abundant in vibrant, bursting language and a structural perfection: Shakespearean, dammit. Goddamn Shakespearean! nadsat is second only to the language in Riddley Walker for a perfectly rendered invented language that is consistent within the novel鈥檚 own internal logic. This book is musical! This book sings, swings, cries and rages! Oh this book, this book! My first encounter with unbridled creativity, intelligence, elegance, thematic unity, this book made me weep for the future of poor sadistic Alex. Oh, he must grow up, he must! But he doesn鈥檛 Oh Humble Skimmer, he doesn鈥檛! His nadsat is in place up until his story ends, and all that cal, so Alex remains a perpetual teen, like the boring little shit in Salinger鈥檚 unambitious literary haemorrhage (I forget the title). This book, this book! Oh my droogies, oh my Bog . . . nothing hurts so much on your stomachs and your heads and your hearts as this book . . . except maybe having Earthly Powers dropped on your tootsies . . . !!! [collapse into gibberish] !!!
June 26, 2022
Anthony Burgess' debatably modern classic is in my mind overshadowed by the movie - although my recommendation is that you most definitely still read the book. Having seen the movie a number of times before reading this, the book had little impact on me and felt a bit dated, and dare I say boring at times!
The speculative fiction core of this tale is pretty spot on and the issues raises are timeless. The questions in and around crime and punishment still test us all after a millennia of our existence. 4 out of 12
2006 read
The speculative fiction core of this tale is pretty spot on and the issues raises are timeless. The questions in and around crime and punishment still test us all after a millennia of our existence. 4 out of 12
2006 read
September 28, 2013
This book was real horrorshow, O my brothers. I suggest that all vecks should viddy it if they have a chance.
December 1, 2020
The intro to this book made me awfully sad, even more so when I loved the book. The fact that this was perhaps Anthony Burgess' most memorable piece and that he was so ambivalent about it kind of twists my stomach in knots. It's why I felt so guilty giving it a perfect 5 star rating, but I really had no choice. I thought it was brilliant. The entire book had me emotionally attached. I felt angry at the world surrounding Alex and despised almost all he encountered while gnawing at the back of my mind was the unrelenting truth that he himself was a monster. It's an outrageous thought put down on the page, which the intro also touches on, how non-human a being incapable of doing evil is and how it's just as foreign as a being of pure evil.
It's a short read, I finished it in a day and a half and in my opinion a must read. Even without the plot Burgess demonstrates how versatile language is and how much a reader can learn from repetition of specific words/phrases and context.
It's a short read, I finished it in a day and a half and in my opinion a must read. Even without the plot Burgess demonstrates how versatile language is and how much a reader can learn from repetition of specific words/phrases and context.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 23,498 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.