A Clockwork Orange

Jan 15, 2013 Cecily rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: dystopian, classics, miscellaneous-fiction, language-related

How to review an infamous book about which so much has already been said? By avoiding reading others’ thoughts until I’ve 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

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...more

56 likes · like · see review

Oct 18, 2012 MJ Nicholls rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: novels, penguin-classics, sassysassenachs, worshipped

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’s own internal logic. This book is musical! This book sings, swings, cries...more

43 likes · like · see review

May 16, 2010 Paul rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: modern-classic, novels

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 d...more

36 likes · like · see review

Mar 22, 2008 Martine rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: people who don't mind a bit of a challenge

Shelves: british, crime, favourites, film, modern-fiction, postmodern, dystopia

A Clockwork Orange is one of those books which everyone has heard of but which few people have actually read –- mostly, I think, because it is preceded by a reputation of shocking ultra-violence. I’m not going to deny here that the book contains violence. It features lengthy descriptions of heinous crimes, and they’re vivid descriptions, full of excitement. (Burgess later wrote in his autobiography: ‘I was sickened by my own excitement at setting it down.’) Yet it does not glorify violence, nor...more A Clockwork Orange is one of those books which everyone has heard of but which few people have actually read –- mostly, I think, because it is preceded by a reputation of shocking ultra-violence. I’m not going to deny here that the book contains violence. It features lengthy descriptions of heinous crimes, and they’re vivid descriptions, full of excitement. (Burgess later wrote in his autobiography: ‘I was sickened by my own excitement at setting it down.’) Yet it does not glorify violence, nor is it a book about violence per se. Rather it’s 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’s decision to say goodbye to all that. (At least in the UK version. The American version, on which Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation was based, ends on a less optimistic note.) In short, it’s 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’t fair to put his readers through something like that. (If I want to read an incomprehensible book, I’ll 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’m 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’ 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’ll get used to the lingo, and at some point you’ll 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’re going to come up with a new word for ‘crazy’, you might as well choose bezoomny, right? Because it actually sounds mad. Doesn’t it?

Anyhow, there’s 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’ devotchka (woman, wife) simply because he is capable of getting carried away by Beethoven’s Ninth and hates having it spoilt for him. He’s 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’s the apparent dichotomy between Alex’ 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 –- a bit challenging at first, but gripping and interesting and full of style and ideas. Not many books can claim as much.
(less)

165 likes · like · see review

May 29, 2012 Lindsay rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: British lit fans, Anthony Burgess fans, people who've seen the movie, scifi fans

Shelves: european-lit

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. I'm updating this after reading Burgess' autobiography, "You've Had Your Time." He did write the book after WWII (he was a pilot). While he was away, his wife claimed that she had been gang-raped by four American GIs who broke into their home. Burgess wavers in his belief of this event taking place; the perpetrators were never found. He also frequently accuses his wife of cheating on him and expresses an intense desire to cheat on her with younger women. He also spends a great deal of time slamm...more I'm updating this after reading Burgess' autobiography, "You've Had Your Time." He did write the book after WWII (he was a pilot). While he was away, his wife claimed that she had been gang-raped by four American GIs who broke into their home. Burgess wavers in his belief of this event taking place; the perpetrators were never found. He also frequently accuses his wife of cheating on him and expresses an intense desire to cheat on her with younger women. He also spends a great deal of time slamming Stanley Kubrick (I'm not a huge Kubrick fan, but I kind of wanted to just slap Burgess and say, "so you didn't like his adaptation of your book, stop whining and deal with it.").
It's believed that Burgess wrote "A Clockwork Orange" as a way of coping with what happened to his wife; he seems to confirm this in his autobiography. However, this further increases my dislike of the book and of Burgess. In "A Clockwork Orange," the writer's wife (who never even gets a name) simply curls up and dies after being gang raped. In reality, Burgess's wife cheated on him. This makes me believe that Burgess wishes that his wife was more like the woman in the book; that, in his view, the "correct" response to being gang raped is to curl up and die.
His autobiography makes him seem kind of like a jerk, which definitely tainted my view of "A Clockwork Orange." So let's try a more objective review...
While "A Clockwork Orange" does raise intellectual and philosophical questions about freedom of thought, speech, and actions, it ultimately lets the main character, Alex, get away with horrible things and punish those who want him to face justice for his actions. Alex spends a good chunk of the book committing violent acts just because he feels like it. He is finally sent to jail, where he is subjected to a radical new experiment that will alter his behavior and make it physically impossible for him to be violent. The treatment works too well, as he's unable to properly defend himself when attacked by former victims. The treatment is somehow undone, and Alex quickly reverts back to his violent ways. However, he grows bored and decides that he wants to get married and have kids. The book ends with him sitting in the Korova (sp?) Milk Bar, reminiscing about his teenage years (he compares all teenagers to wind-up toys who have no real freedom, only a set route which they must follow) and imagining telling this to the son he would like to someday have.
That said, I still hate this book. It's well-written, and I enjoy the Nasdat (slang). However, it's the implication that you don't have to actually work for your happy ending and the idea that anyone can be redeemed simply by changing their ways (Alex never, ever expresses remorse for what he's done, making his desire to change feel like it's come out of the blue) that bothers me. The ending of this book feels lazy and poorly-executed, and I would have liked it better if Alex had had to actually work to earn his redemption instead of saying, "man, violence is boring. I wanna have a baby."
(less)

26 likes · like · see review

Feb 20, 2011 Paquita Maria Sanchez rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: literature

This originally started out as a comment on Michael's awesome review, but then I realized that I have too frequently been writing these overly wordy responses to reviews about books I myself have yet to review, and it made me feel totally silly...as in, I should probably be keeping my rants contained to my own GR page rather than vomiting them all over all of your wonderful review threads. So! Here I am, and here is a review of a book that I read about 15 years ago, based solely on almost half-m...more This originally started out as a comment on Michael's awesome review, but then I realized that I have too frequently been writing these overly wordy responses to reviews about books I myself have yet to review, and it made me feel totally silly...as in, I should probably be keeping my rants contained to my own GR page rather than vomiting them all over all of your wonderful review threads. So! Here I am, and here is a review of a book that I read about 15 years ago, based solely on almost half-my-life-ago memories combined with countless views of the film adaptation (in most ways similar, yet in some VERY VERY important ways, quite different.) Anyway. Ahem, ahem, huuhuummm. Ladies and gentlemen, A Clockwork Orange:

I read this in early high school, and vividly recall how much I loved it. How it opened my eyes to the beauty of not simply being a clever little wordsmith, but flat out inventing your own words and ensuing rhythms to illustrate the scenes and the characters in a new and profound way. How the novel's dark and cynical humor made me feel "understood" and less freakish. How it occurred to me that the flow of the sentence itself (rather than the specific black and white translation of what has been said) could lift a thought or picture off of the page and bounce it around in your head zapping vast numbers of subconscious thought-patterns to life. And finally, I loved how it showed me the way that you could be made to at once DEEPLY despise and sort of root for an absolutely heinous lead character (and what this says about the power of a gifted writer to conduct the reader like he or she is in an orchestra. An even better example of this delightful manipulation is Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita...which Kubrick, of course, also directed a film adaptation of. Sort of a theme, so it seems!)

All the above-mentioned elements combined to make my memory of it worthy of a five out of five star rating, and I always recommend it to anyone my age who has somehow yet to read it. Then again, I did see the movie first, and have a tendency to file anything that was ever associated with Stanley Kubrick* under either brilliant or near-brilliant, lacking only in those final Kubricky sprinkles on top which he would always generously provide in the end. Therefore, I have a bias in favor of the book based on a combination of nostalgic recollections of reading it, and a boundless admiration for the film. I readily admit that I should probably re-read it before I say much more. The most important distinction to draw between the film and the novel, however, is that Kubrick was wise enough (had the balls enough?) to end the story properly and without fear of reprisal by the "romantic comedy endings only" police...which is all I can say without spoiling the book, the movie, or both. The book is (?)awesome(?) and the film is (!)amazing(!)

*One Kubrick-related exception being the film A.I. Did you know that Stanley Kubrick was supposed to direct that and had Chris Cunningham lined up to do all the robotics? DAMN. Coulda-shoulda-woulda really been a thing of great beauty, guys. Unfortunately for Spielberg, this loose association with Kubrick was not enough to mask the fact that that movie was absolute, total, 100%, unquestionable, don't you dare argue this with me, CRAP CRAP CRAP. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. Even after everything that he suffered throughout the course of his story, all the ultra-violence he had unflinchingly inflicted on others, and despite ALL that he should have generally been emotionally deadened to, Alex STILL made this face when he was forced to watch Spielberg's A.I.

(less)

28 likes · like · see review

Jun 21, 2008 Annalisa rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: r rated. be forewarned of violence with a message

Shelves: classics, movies, literary, dystopia, speculative, guy-lit, psychology

Interesting. Disturbing but insightful. Real horrorshow.

For as dark as cynical as the book is, the main point I got out of the book is that freedom of choice is more important than being good. Burgess takes the most atrocious person possible and strips him of his ability to choose until optimal vulnerability makes you agree that choosing evil is better than not choosing at all.

The obligatory warning that vague spoilers follow:

Here we have a futuristic society in which the night is overrun by you...more Interesting. Disturbing but insightful. Real horrorshow.

For as dark as cynical as the book is, the main point I got out of the book is that freedom of choice is more important than being good. Burgess takes the most atrocious person possible and strips him of his ability to choose until optimal vulnerability makes you agree that choosing evil is better than not choosing at all.

The obligatory warning that vague spoilers follow:

Here we have a futuristic society in which the night is overrun by youth gangs written from the perspective of one gang's sociopath leader using their slang which sounds like Shakespeare had he been born in modern-day Russia. You are reading along a third of the words this unknown lingo you must interpret and define to understand the novel. But by the end you not only understand but want to speak nadsat slang yourself. You viddy oh my brothers? Although at times, particularly when describing food, I found it unrealistic to have so many invented words, even if I loved the genius of them and how they defined this group.

For the first few chapters you get the general gist of the action but are a little hazy on the grahzny details, which just adds to your moral distance to this youth. Since the first section of the book is the most violent, it is enough to know that they beat a man to the pulp or raped a woman in front of her husband without the picture of what exactly happened in your head. You get a picture of the antisocial quality of "your humble narrator" as you experience Alex's need for violence and sex, his uncharacteristic obsession of classical music, and his interpretation of those around him only in terms of how they affect him (classic sociopath).

When Alex is caught and imprisoned he is chosen for an experimental technique to change the bad to good with intense aversion therapy. Here Burgess introduces universal questions of free agency and what makes a person human. "A man who cannot choose ceases to be man." I loved the poetic discussion of the clockwork orange.

What gets me is that his aversion was not just to crime, but art that provokes any emotion. Take his intense passion of symphonies and associate it with goodness instead of crippling him with it knowing he will have to hear music as he integrates himself into society. This added perversion to his therapy seems an torturous form of punishment inflicted by a government that doesn't truly care about the human in these monsters only of making them non-thinking zombies of exemplar behavior.

But does the therapy truly change Alex? It is obvious from his criminal days that he cares for nobody but himself and you see the same pattern of self preservation in latter chapters. He is not good to be good, but only to avoid pain and is left victim to the society he once preyed upon. Can't his curers be accused of assault by negligence? Is ripping a person of his will to act, his humanity, good even if it prevents widespread crime. Is crime only toward the reformed criminal worth the price?

This bezoomny government hires gang members to their millicent force because they know how to hurt young criminals. How can they hate one prestoopnik and reward another? Just because you fight for the law doesn't make you more ethical. It only gives violence unholy power making life for the common man even more uncertain. How far can a government's control extend to alleviate the fear of its citizens? And what of the doctors or anti-government cronies who manipulate for their own political gain? Granted they hurt for the greater good, but is that any less ethical than impulsive crime?

Alex states he has paid. I do not agree. His lack of remorse for his crimes and only self-pity at his own victimization shows this. Alex's parents seem to fall through the cracks of culprit too. Praised as loving parents he is unworthy to have, how much is their indulgence without discipline to blame for his youthful crime sprees? And what of Mr. Alexander who paid for intent he never had the opportunity to act upon? Caught in the middle of a political mess he becomes an unfortunate victim. Revenge is hardly a worse offender than political gain, a twisted sense of fun, or any of the other reasons characters maluse each other. His droogs never take accountability for their crimes either, particularly in the controversial last chapter that Burgess' editor smartly exempted from his first edition.

A chapter in which we are to believe that all sorts of misdeeds done by youth are just rites of passage. It dismisses punishment, accountability, and even claims as we grow older we easily shed the terminology of our youth, which anyone who has tried to render "like" obsolete in their language knows is not an easy task. Ending the previous chapter leaves one contemplating good and evil, fixed and broken, the rights of individuals vs community. This chapter tells us we should indulge all heinous crimes brought about by these psychotic youth, even murder, because in time they will outgrow it, get married, and have their own children to shake their heads at as they play with their lives and souls out on lives edge. I get the intent: good must come from within, everyone has a chance to grow up and/or change, but I think the book is better left without it.(less)

22 likes · like · see review

Jan 10, 2013 Sara rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: psychological-horror, 20th-century-fiction

A Clockwork Orange is not a morality play, but it bears enough of a resemblance to one that it seems worthwhile to consider it, provisionally, in those terms. The morality play is a medieval form of drama that utilized allegory to instruct its audience on moral questions. The protagonist in a morality play usually represented humanity as a whole, or a portion of humanity (upper classes, clerics, etc.). All of the characters with whom the protagonist came into contact were equally symbolic figure...more A Clockwork Orange is not a morality play, but it bears enough of a resemblance to one that it seems worthwhile to consider it, provisionally, in those terms. The morality play is a medieval form of drama that utilized allegory to instruct its audience on moral questions. The protagonist in a morality play usually represented humanity as a whole, or a portion of humanity (upper classes, clerics, etc.). All of the characters with whom the protagonist came into contact were equally symbolic figures, often personifications of abstract qualities, virtues or vices. A morality play was supposed to serve as a kind of ethical tool; a set of points on which to meditate for one's own moral good.

First, while not a stand-in for all of mankind, Alex is certainly more representational than he is idiosyncratic. In Burgess' pseudo-communist, authoritarian and lawless future (present? alternate universe?), Alex symbolizes autonomous and unguided male adolescence. We discover that Alex, though self-appointed leader of his small gang of friends/thugs, is not a rare creature in this brave new world. For one thing, bands of violent male gangs ("the teaming up was mostly by fours or fives," we are told) roam all over the city after dark and, for another, a couple of Alex's own gang members covet his power as leader as much as he revels in it. The only thing that sets Alex apart for the reader is that he is our narrator...and that he has a pristine sense of aesthetics, albeit one intimately woven into his appreciation for violence.

The other characters who populate Burgess' novel also seem symbolic and not literal. Our Humble Narrator interacts with types more than with distinct personalities - old drunks, young girls, maniacal prison doctors, disgruntled intellectuals - and with abstract concepts more than with people - authority, obedience, revenge, pain. Few of these characters actually come across as individuals and, accordingly, many of them do not have names but are simply referred to via a relevant characteristic (a physical feature, age, and so forth), for example, "young ptitsas" or "starry prof type". Most characters in the book are interchangeable with any other characters of their type and Burgess (via Alex), in fact, treats them this way. The old man whom Alex and his droogs harass at the novel's outset might be any old man. In fact, once the Ludovico Technique foils Alex's will to destruction, this former victim, along with a host of other irate old people, assault Alex at the public library. The individual victim's anger becomes the group's communal anger, his vengeance becomes their vengeance and, conceptually, they symbolize the weak and helpless seeking vengeance on the cruel and strong.

The most potent characters in the novel (and the ones most likely to bear actual names) are the figures of authority. Yet they are still representational. From prison guards to the Minister of the Inferior Interior, authority is symbolized by relatively flat characters who primarily serve to represent normalizing forces of a repressive society. They pursue the imposition of order at all costs, including the elevation of one-time hooligans to law enforcement officers. Authority, in A Clockwork Orange, exhibits no altruism or interest in ethical subtleties, but instead is bent on perpetuating its own power and enforcing capitulation with that aim. Tellingly, even the would-be revolutionaries, who at first seem so sympathetic to Alex's plight, seek merely to employ him as an instrument in their own quest with no regard for his own wellbeing. And therein is a central theme to A Clockwork Orange in its capacity as a sort of inverted morality play - the narrow margin between the just and the wicked. As hoodlums become authority figures, perpetrators become victims (and likewise victims become perpetrators) with alarming ease.

Then comes the ending. I read the complete version; the one with 21 chapters; the one that was not truncated by the American publishing industry and then preserved forever in film my the esteemed Mr. Kubrick. Without this ending, A Clockwork Orange feels like a bleak, but daring meditation on violence. With the ending, it feels considerably less daring, no longer bleak, and it really takes on this "morality play" aspect I've been toying with. [SPOILER WARNING] In Chapter 21, Alex-as-unguided-youth finds guidance within himself that he did not find in the state's medical manipulation of him. He grows spiritually tired of violence, realizes he's growing up, and decides he wants to stop beating up people and have a child. So the violence in this young man does fizzle as he discovers a desire to release productive rather than destructive energies. After this revelation, characters remain stand-ins for larger groups or ideas and do not grow into people: "But first of all, brothers, there was this veshch of finding some devotchka or other who would be a mother to this son." It is completely irrelevant to Alex who he finds to mother his child, because who would "everyman" want? "[S]ome devotcha or other," naturally.

And what do we learn here? A morality play does not mean supplying a moral, as in a fable, where the lesson you're supposed to have learned is spelled out. Rather the morality play presents a set of situations where abstract concepts interact in personified forms and questions arise regarding the rightness, wrongness, or consequences of a given act. As with a morality play, one gets the feeling that Anthony Burgess wants us to use the piece as an object for consideration more than he seeks to entertain or necessarily enlighten us. We are not supposed to identify emotionally with anyone in this story, but to react mentally to the substance of the story. At least I'm hoping that's the case, because the final resemblance of A Clockwork Orange to a morality play is that it feels so aloof and distant and (ironically for such a violent book) bloodless. It feels didactic.
(less)

10 likes · like · see review

Leo Huang First, I just want to say that I really liked your analysis. It seemed long at first, it's actually quite concise.

I had the impression that the flat...more
Apr 23, 2013 08:10pm

Sara Thanks for your comment! I like your perspective about how Alex would perceive the people around him - as tools or means to his ends, certainly not em...more
Apr 24, 2013 07:46am

Aug 13, 2007 hypothermya rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: linguiphiles, students of human behavior, rights-activists

Shelves: speculativefiction, literature

I had been avoiding this book for several reasons. The first of these was perhaps the weighty reputation this book has for being shocking and controversial. I was slightly afraid that the book wouldn't be as monumental as it had been built up as. The second was my initial exposure to the Kubrik film based on this book. Even the most blase 14 year old will have a strongly negative reaction to the film; the exact response it was intended to elicit, I'm sure. Finally, this book seemed to be a polte...more I had been avoiding this book for several reasons. The first of these was perhaps the weighty reputation this book has for being shocking and controversial. I was slightly afraid that the book wouldn't be as monumental as it had been built up as. The second was my initial exposure to the Kubrik film based on this book. Even the most blase 14 year old will have a strongly negative reaction to the film; the exact response it was intended to elicit, I'm sure. Finally, this book seemed to be a poltergeist that haunted my English teachers --- every time it was mentioned, those same teachers would take on a mask of otherworldly horror and admiration. They would then praise and condemn, in equal parts, its author for his demoniacally confounding use of slang. Several of my friends had even admitted to being unable to read the book. All in all, it wasn't a strongly alluring portrait of a book. It more closely resembled the challenge of a craggy cliff, with signs saying, "Do not climb -- 20,000 dead this year."

I was deeply surprised when I began reading this (during a brief jaunt as a member of the Panic! At The Disco reading club) and found it to be easily digestible and more thought-provoking than shocking. I think that in part this is due to my being a context-based vocabulary learner. I used to loathe putting down a book just to drag out a dictionary, and oddly enough this habit helped me here. However the majority of the thanks I can lay at the author's feet. This book was well paced and well written. It avoided lagging, like so many other literary classics. The central character was surprisingly easy to relate to, despite his inhumanity towards others. And this, paired with an insightful and meaningful plot, drove home the message of the book painfully well. And the final chapter, which was omitted in initial publications of this book, cinched the story shut in a way that the Kubrick film missed entirely.

Not only did I enjoy reading this book, ripping through it in only three nights, but I enjoyed sitting and thinking about it afterwards. I enjoyed discussing it. It stirred my brain in the same way that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep did. It hit its mark where other speculative fiction books aim wide or fall short.

I would recommend this to anyone who likes to be challenged and who likes to ponder their own nature.(less)

28 likes · like · see review

Jun 11, 2007 علی rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: world-literature

Years after watching the film by Stanley Kubrick and reading the book, I read somewhere about the title, that Anthony Burgess chosed a combination of a Cockney expression and the word ”orange" which in Malay means ”person”!(Burgess has been serving in the British Colonial Office in Malaysia, for a while).
The new understanding made me excited as I got the chance to reread it years after, I understood why it’s been divided to 3 parts, what’s the philosophy by passing from one part to another, how...more Years after watching the film by Stanley Kubrick and reading the book, I read somewhere about the title, that Anthony Burgess chosed a combination of a Cockney expression and the word ”orange" which in Malay means ”person”!(Burgess has been serving in the British Colonial Office in Malaysia, for a while).
The new understanding made me excited as I got the chance to reread it years after, I understood why it’s been divided to 3 parts, what’s the philosophy by passing from one part to another, how Alex gets weaker, fearing of lonliness and death, etc.
The experience was frightening, as we all could be a ”clockwork orange” in one or another way! Reactioner? We have no idea whose idea we follow when we feel sincer by heart …
روایت الکس از آنچه به اتفاق دوست روسی اش انجام می دهد، بی هیچ قضاوت شخصی بیان می شود، به گونه ای ترسناک که هر لحظه این توهم به خواننده دست می دهد که یک الکس دیگری ست، در شرایطی دیگر و زمان و مکانی دیگر. کسی که ناخودآگاه به پیروی از این یا آن تفکر، سیاسی یا اجتماعی، حرکتی را پیش می برد بی آن که بداند به چه کسی، چه جناحی و چگونه دارد خدمت می کند. آدمک کوک شده ای که نه تنها دشمنی و کینه بر نمی انگیزد، بلکه گاه علاقه و حتی ترحم دیگران را به خود جلب می کند و با این کشش، گروهی را نادانسته به خدمت خود و تفکری که به آن خدمت می کند، جذب می کند! دریافت این مساله آنقدر می ترساند که دست کم تا مدتی آدم را وادارد به هر عمل خود عمیقن بیاندیشد. آیا آنچه بالاخره و همراه تفکر و تعمق انجام می دهیم، همان است که می خواهیم، یا با این همه تبلیغات که از طریق رسانه ها بر ما تحمیل می شود، در انتها بی آن که خود بخواهیم، به این یا آن تفکر که لزومن به آن اعتقاد نداریم، یاری رسانده ایم؟

یادداشتی کوتاه در مورد کوبریک و فیلم هایش

http://www.ali-ohadi.com/global/index...(less)

9 likes · like · see review

Sep 06, 2008 Sandi rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2008, sci-fi

Well, what can I say about "A Clockwork Orange"? Maybe I should first suggest that anyone who wants to read it should print out this glossary: A Nadsat Glossary. I will be eternally grateful to Matt (Tadpole316) for sending me that link. My printout is looking a little rough.

I had seen the movie about 15 years ago. It was disturbing and many of the images were already so much a part of our cultural consciousness that it was at once familiar, yet disturbing. Many of the images are permanently et...more Well, what can I say about "A Clockwork Orange"? Maybe I should first suggest that anyone who wants to read it should print out this glossary: A Nadsat Glossary. I will be eternally grateful to Matt (Tadpole316) for sending me that link. My printout is looking a little rough.

I had seen the movie about 15 years ago. It was disturbing and many of the images were already so much a part of our cultural consciousness that it was at once familiar, yet disturbing. Many of the images are permanently etched in my brain. I recently realized that I had never read the original novel, so I picked up a copy. As most books written before the age of user-friendly word processors, it's very short, only about 200 pages. But, it's not a quick read. The first of the three parts is rather difficult to get through. The language really slows down reading and there are so many disturbing scenes that I just had to stop when I finished one and go back later. The movie actually changed some of the scenes to make them more palatable. For example, in the movie there is a scene where Alex takes two women back to his room and they have some rather raucous consensual sex to the tune of the William Tell Overture. In the book, Alex takes two ten-year-old girls to his room, gets them drunk, and rapes them. It was horrific, but it illustrated just how amoral Alex and his fellow malchicks were. The real surprise is the last sentence where you find out just how young Alex is for someone who has been doing the things he does for as long as he's been doing them.

The book gets easier to read in part two and part three is very comprehensible. According to the author's introduction, the original American edition of "A Clockwork Orange" left out the last chapter. It was put back in with the 1986 edition. I'm glad the last chapter is included now. I think the book would have been very dissatisfying without it.

The themes of "A Clockwork Orange" are pretty clear. What is the role of society in the morality of youth? How far should government go to rehabilitate criminals? What is the nature of violence and what is its effect on the perpetrators? Can anyone truly be redeemed?

I can't say I'd recommend "A Clockwork Orange" to everyone. It is a tough book to read. It's extremely violent and disturbing. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is that the reader is in Alex's head as he's committing the most atrocious acts and, somehow, Burgess manages to write the scenes in a way that the read feels the adrenaline rush that comes from ultra-violence. It made me feel dirty and voyeuristic. But, I like literature that puts me in someone's head and feel what they feel, even if it's ugly. To me, that's the mark of great writing.(less)

13 likes · like · see review

Aug 10, 2012 Jonathan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 1001-books-to-read-before-you-die, classic-literature, classic-challenge, gritty-reads, science-fiction, quirky-fiction, books-with-films

This is a confronting novel and yet one which ultimately poses an incredibly deep question. It is to me a novel about: morality, free will, government control, human nature and good versus evil. It is an exploration of the human propensity towards evil and challenges whether a man can truly ever be good if he is forced to do so or whether by removing his choice he becomes instead something other than human. However despite this depth the premise itself is so unlikeable that unless a reader can p...more
This is a confronting novel and yet one which ultimately poses an incredibly deep question. It is to me a novel about: morality, free will, government control, human nature and good versus evil. It is an exploration of the human propensity towards evil and challenges whether a man can truly ever be good if he is forced to do so or whether by removing his choice he becomes instead something other than human. However despite this depth the premise itself is so unlikeable that unless a reader can push through the first twenty pages they may never see why this truly is a classic novel.

A Clockwork Orange follows the 'adventure' of its twisted narrator: Alex. He enjoys a life of crime and moral decay including brutally bashing up the weak, raping and stealing whatever he wants. He is to that extent totally unlikeable because not only does he do these things but he appears to find them acceptable and even enjoy participating in them. Eventually he is arrested for his crimes and in an attempt to get out of jail he agrees to participate in a radical treatment. This treatment basically involves brainwashing him through forcing him to associate sickness and disgust with horrific immoral acts so that he no longer wishes to commit them. And so we see that Alex finds that in life there are no get out of jail cards. (view spoiler)

The challenge in A Clockwork Orange was about how morality is linked to our ability to choose between what is good and what is evil. It questioned whether an evil done for good would ultimately result in evil or whether it was just as twisted as a 'purely evil' act. It explored how humans (in their worst state) have a desire to perform evil and asked what the role of governments in quelling immorality should be? A difficult question as where do you draw the line? Do you stop at preventing an individual from infringing on other humans' rights or are their cases where you need to interact for the good of an individual solely? These are ethical and moral dilemmas and the novel curiously never makes a strong stance on these issues. It merely raises them and asks the reader to consider for themselves their stance.

On a personal level I found this novel a challenge to break into. But once I entered the second half of the story I found it very much re-warding in terms of the ideas. Due to my personal beliefs about the nature of humanity I found this a very interesting novel from the perspective of looking at the various issues raised and I'm glad I did read it. No doubt many highly moral people have avoided this due to their concerns over it glorifying violence or immoral living. However I would state that this is a novel that should be read in order for readers to be able to challenge their own views on the book's internal issues. I do not believe it glorifies immorality or violence but rather uses them as devices to challenge how we perceive humanity and our freedom to choose good or evil.

The nature of the writing itself helps to make this a more palatable read. The novel is written in a beautifully unique style with the youth slang and jargon used by Alex making reading the novel an act of interpretation. But this helps to hide many of the true horrors described by Alex. For had the author written in the usual manner the violence and rape described would have been amplified I believe. Yet this style also serves to make it a novel that is at the very start not very accessible to the average reader looking for an interesting relevant read. But then again its target is not to provide entertainment but a challenge.

One major flaw I had with the book. And it mainly irked me personally was how Burgess portrayed youth versus maturity. There were many times when the younger men in the novel were villainous but when they became older stopped their evil ways. Take Peter as an example. It was highly suggestive that by nature younger people are more morally inept. Which annoyed me as a 'responsible' younger person and from the point that I don't think immorality is something you just 'grow out of' like a faze. Which was tempered by the violent actions of some of the mature officials in the novel somewhat. But I couldn't help feeling like Burgess had something against younger people. And as a future secondary teacher and current older teen I disagree with this suggestion. I think morals are something that come through education rather than merely because of age, class or gender and to say or even suggest otherwise is a little ludicrous to me.

Ultimately this is a novel that I cannot like in its entirety or entirely dislike. Merely it stands as a novel with value in the way it challenges various conceptions and pre-existing ideas. The writing is unique, creative and therefore makes the novel more rewarding to read than had it not been written in such a quirky manner. My overall assessment therefore is that this is a novel not to be liked or disliked but it most certainly is one to learn from.

3.5 stars.(less)

8 likes · like · see review

Oct 04, 2007 Maggie rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I am the sort of person who can't watch very violent movies without covering my eyes or burrowing into my husband, who is kind enough to tell me when the gore has ceased.

However, I loved this book, for all the red, red krovvy and in-and-out and the ultraviolence. The dialect of Alex, your Humble Narrator, can be somewhat off-putting at first, which is something that Burgess himself admits in the introduction. But slowly you find yourself understanding the nonsense flowing so easily from his rot...more

22 likes · like · see review

Jan 23, 2009 Charity rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: lovers of dystopias

Shelves: 1001books, brit-lit, ml100, radcliffe, wtf, tunes, faves

If you're worried that you don't have the full edition of this book, let me break down the formula for you. A full-content edition will have:

3 sections, each containing 7 chapters, for a total of 21 chapters.

The 21st chapter was only omitted from American editions published prior to 1990, so if your edition was published after that, you should be golden.

Well, maybe golden is a subjective term because I personally found the 21st (final) chapter to be the weakest one in the book. Frankly, I applau...more

9 likes · like · see review

Jan 11, 2012 Absentminded Scientist rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

That starry chelloveck Anthony Burgess had some sodding guttiwuts to write such a horroshow piece of ultra-violent fiction. And the lingo. My, oh my! All the starry lewdies won't even pony what us molodoys are gavoreeting about, O my brothers and sisters! If only my droogs would join in this bezoomy cal.

I know not all of you would get what I just said. But don't worry, no one does in the beginning. You slowly start to get the hang of it as you progress through the story narrated by the 15 year o...more That starry chelloveck Anthony Burgess had some sodding guttiwuts to write such a horroshow piece of ultra-violent fiction. And the lingo. My, oh my! All the starry lewdies won't even pony what us molodoys are gavoreeting about, O my brothers and sisters! If only my droogs would join in this bezoomy cal.

I know not all of you would get what I just said. But don't worry, no one does in the beginning. You slowly start to get the hang of it as you progress through the story narrated by the 15 year old juvenile delinquent protagonist. Alex is a strange mix of sophistication, charm, violence and sadism. He enjoys classical music and beating helpless people to pulp. The book starts with Alex and his 'droogs' setting out in the night to hit their favorite hangout and do drugs. They go on to mug an old scholar, a convenience store owner and establish a strong alibi by bribing some old ladies with free booze. Later that night, the four steal a vehicle and end up at a little cottage on the outskirts of the city. The cottage belongs to a writer by the name of Alexander and his wife. Alexander seems to be working on a manuscript titled "A Clockwork Orange". Alex and the droogs gain entry into Alexander's cottage by force and beat him up while taking turns to rape his wife. They leave the couple battered and bruised without showing an ounce of remorse. Alex even admits to feeling a little "fagged" after "the old in-out-in-out" and wonders how he might attend school the next day owing to the lateness of the hour and his inability to get enough sleep.

They again make an appearance at the "milk bar" where Alex and one of the droogs named Dim get into an altercation; this is eventually broken up by the other two members of the group - Georgie and Pete. Although being cautious, both Gorgie and Pete show their displeasure at Alex's high-handed behaviour.
The next evening, Alex and the droogs decide to break and enter into an old woman's mansion in the posh part of the city. And though Alex finds this venture a little too fishy, he agrees when the others insist. Unbeknownst to him, Dim, Georgie and Pete set him up and Alex alone is caught by the police who arrive at the crime scene to catch him red-handed. The old lady later dies of her injuries and is tried for murder. He is sentenced to a long term in prison.

While there, Alex beguiles the prison chaplain (who he calls "Charlie" in his slang) into thinking that he has changed for good. He finds a great opportunity to escape early when he gets to know about the Ludovico Technique which can "cure" criminals of their criminal tendency. These ex-criminals are then considered "safe" to go back into normal society and are hence released early from prison. The chaplain does not consider Alex's request until he is blamed for the death of a cell-mate. Alex is then carted off to the building where this technique is put into practice. He is made to watch violent films while being injected with severe nausea-inducing drugs. As a result of this, he develops a profound abhorrence for any form of violence. Also, as a side-effect of it, he becomes unable to listen to his belove classical music as well (which was a soundtrack to one of the films shown to him. He is then let out into the outside world, apparently all "cured" of the criminal illness.What happens next is the crux of the story. But for that, you'll have to read the novel, won't you? ;)

I personally thought the Nadsat slang used by the narrator keeps the characters from sounding dated or obsolete in today's world. Remember, this is supposed to be set in a dystopian future, so the characters need to sound so too. And since the novel was written in the early '60s, that could have been a problem; which was very cleverly solve by Burgess (a multilingual man himself). The way the violence is portrayed could be a tad too much for some people, but maybe it was necessary to be so over-the-top to make us realize the extent of Alex's delinquency. The way he feels no remorse whatsoever after having raped a young woman and beaten her husband within an inch of his life points to a very messed up way of thinking. I personally HATED Alex for all his charm and sadism.

But the Ludovico technique was another extreme altogether. It indicates the extremes that society would go to so as to make an individual conform to the standards generally termed "normal or acceptable" by everyone. A complex teenager like Alex is hard to handle, no doubt about that. But to take away a person's right to free will is a total and complete violation. But then, condemning someone to a life in prison violates their right to free will too, doesn't it? So, faced with a choice like that, what would today's society choose? The lesser of the two evils, obviously. They'd rather lock a man up against his free will than play with his mind and brainwash him to abhor violence. But really, is that any better?

The edition that I read was the one with a different ending than that showed in the film. And in my honest opinion, I liked it better than the film version. It showed Alex in a more human, a more mature light; as a man who was hopeful, as well as worried, about what the future held for him and those around him. That is a much better prospect to imagine than one where there is no hope and no way of knowing whether he really was "curable" in the first place. Overall, I liked the novel, but I can't say I'm in LOVE with it. It is hard for me to identify with situations that seem too extreme or too hopeless. That is just how I am. But as far as the writing goes, Burgess was a GENIUS!

Verdict: Love it or hate it, it's a classic and will remain that way.
Rating: 3/5
************************************************
http://absentmindedscientist.blogspot...(less)

7 likes · like · see review

Dec 29, 2012 midnightfaerie rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess was one of the most disturbing reads I've yet to come across. With a lot of violence and sex, it tries to convey a thought processing of how far is too far with punishment? A young man in a gang, does many an evil deed, only to end up being caught and used by the government in a new experiment that is almost inhumane. I won't spoil the details for you, but the boy goes through much torture, in order to be "cured" of being a derelict. Once released back into...more

7 likes · like · see review

Apr 19, 2012 Amber Tucker rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Anyone who loves 'amoral' reading material, LOL

Recommended to Amber by: Brad, Amanda

Shelves: shelf-of-honour, viewless-wings-of-poesy, 2nd-time-around, des-classiques, has-been-a-movie, recommended-by-brad

Alex, A-lex or the millicents? The malchick or the rozzes? The criminal or the lawful life-breakers? "What's it going to be then, eh?" That last is Burgess's recurring line, and I dare say that it's the theme of the book. And the root of the question, as defined through the course of the book, becomes the scum or the scum? Damnit, this book is about scum. We're all scum. Or are we?

There's no way around it; everything and anything we do is violent. Including opposing violence. Looking at it...more Alex, A-lex or the millicents? The malchick or the rozzes? The criminal or the lawful life-breakers? "What's it going to be then, eh?" That last is Burgess's recurring line, and I dare say that it's the theme of the book. And the root of the question, as defined through the course of the book, becomes the scum or the scum? Damnit, this book is about scum. We're all scum. Or are we?

There's no way around it; everything and anything we do is violent. Including opposing violence. Looking at it objectively – and Burgess forces a reader to do so, through the clear unreliability of his narrator – society and social control is all a play of opposites. Opposing forces, neither entirely good nor bad; it is our judgement of one or the other as deserving-of-life or not that creates many of our 'problems.'

Nobody in the book is really likeable. It's hard, though, not to take A-lex's side: what could possibly be more endearing than the ever-confidential address of "O my brothers"? Yep, it helps to sucker a reader in, all right. Of course, I can't write a review without mentioning the nadsat, which absolutely made me swoon. I agree wholeheartedly with Burroughs, on both counts: few other authors have done so much with language, and this is a very funny book. Why do people find it's hard to read? I didn't think so at all. It's so very clear what he means, so flowing, so easy to get into. Within the first third of the book, I found myself wanting to speak in Alex's idiom. (Yeah, Mum, almost set for the nochy's campfire, I just need a malenky wash for my grahzny litso.) If I'd done an essay on this like I had a chance to in university, darn it, I would have investigated the transformation of Russian to nadsat, and all its implications. Ah well... another day.... back to these comments.

As I turned pages in the second half of the book, I was partly musing over a comparison with Nineteen Eighty-Four , and have decided – though that's not quite fair; I haven't read it in years, need to reread – that I prefer Anthony Burgess's take on things. Are humans malleable but limited, open to manipulation and irreparable change (Orwell) or are they creatures of infinite choice (Burgess)? My impression of Nineteen Eighty-Four was that it despaired of humanity all the way though. Such a work has its place. A Clockwork Orange doesn't despair of people, but laughs at them, and in my current mental order, I like this way best. Anybody who can read this book and feel depressed is mistaking Burgess's "point", I feel. Yes, there are certainly issues here, heavy ones, probably the hardest that exist anywhere in this universe. These being thus, I will not touch them. The painstaking prodding of human nature, it's so mind-bending and yet (to some, like Burgess) so obvious, that it's almost a non-issue. Alex's story succeeds in setting this to one side, for the sake of making us shake our heads, half in laughter, half in disgust, only to realize we're doing so at our own society, and at ourselves. The art of irony, O my brothers. And, Burgess hints, in most trying times this is the wisest thing we can do, either at his story or at the world.

'Good grief,' Burgess seems to say. 'Violence is there. We are violence. Life is violence. Get over it.' Which opinion is Zen and Beat and all things wise. It's a daring stand, but one I'm willing to stand up for. Morality does not exist separately from selfishness, and the sooner we realize it, the less muddled we'll all be about who we are and what we ought to be aiming for here. It's not depressing, no. It's freeing, because it's the rock-bottom truth. And it gives us permission to step outside the traditional bounds of morality, nudges us to raise an eyebrow at the legitimacy of any 'moral' position.

(I could go on... but I won't. I'll go read Mr. Morrison's introduction, which I've saved, and discover some sky-high literary-philosophical insights that make me want to take all this back. But if you've read this far, thank you for respecting my own thoughts so kindly, and all that cal.)(less)

6 likes · like · see review

May 15, 2013 the review man rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: dystopian

A Clockwork Orange is a bit of a disappointment. For all of Anthony Burgess' whining about the importance of the twenty-first chapter, I much prefer the book without it. (Meaning I also prefer Kubrick's version of the novel's conclusion. Let's face it—Kubrick is a bit overrated, but his films are always better than the books they're based on.)

The twenty-chapter-long Orange takes a jaded, darkly hilarious look at government and morality. It's a bit heavy-handed—there's no room for subtlety when t...more

3 likes · like · see review

Mar 09, 2011 Stacie rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 1001books, audio-books

There should be a choice for "currently listening to"...just picked this up to listen to during my commute to work. Second go at an audio book - so far I am enjoying being read to.

DONE READING...Y'all need to excuse my language for a minute.

Holy Fuck! This is the most fucked up coming of age story I have ever read. Fucked up, but fan-fucking-tastic!

I have always figured I was not an audio book kind of girl. I am not an auditory learner, so often have a hard time retaining information that I only...more

7 likes · like · see review

Oct 02, 2007 Brooke rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Old review scrounged from my blog:

I borrowed A Clockwork Orange from Bill. I have been wanting to read this book for years, mainly because I also want to see the movie, but couldn't bear to watch it until I'd read the book. By doing so, I have left myself out of a social loophole, missed many jokes, wondered at costumes, and never knew the cryptic sources of certain band names. But despite all that I've missed in life because of it, I am still glad I read the book before I saw the movie (and sti...more Old review scrounged from my blog:

I borrowed A Clockwork Orange from Bill. I have been wanting to read this book for years, mainly because I also want to see the movie, but couldn't bear to watch it until I'd read the book. By doing so, I have left myself out of a social loophole, missed many jokes, wondered at costumes, and never knew the cryptic sources of certain band names. But despite all that I've missed in life because of it, I am still glad I read the book before I saw the movie (and still haven't even though I finished the book way before Christmas).

What I never knew about the book, except in vague references, was the deeply innovative way in which Anthony Burgess used the evolution of slang and culture to create a language of the youth. It was fascinating that he could create and maintain such a language throughout an entire novel (or novella as I've heard it referred to, but I don't think it's really that short). But was even more fascinating was the way that my brain learned to read this new form of slang and interpret it by inferring from sentences what it must mean. There is no glossary, and the character rarely deferrs to explain words. So the reader is just sort of carried along in this new world of words. It's a whole new vocabulary of slang words for body parts, new swear words, etc. After a few days of reading, I was honestly catching myself thinking in this manner, and even had a dream in which somebody was saying things like "red red krovvy" and "gulliver". I think the whole thing was derived from a mixture of british slang and then some germanic/slavic words. I found myself wondering if somebody who hadn't studied German would have been able to guess at some of the meanings. (Just like I wonder how much harder it would be to read certain novels, especially some of the British classics, without being able to read French).

So, that was a really interesting aspect of the book. Also, there is the ever-controversial bit about "ultra violence." I'll never forget when I was a freshman in college and some guys I knew told me I wouldn't like A Clockwork Orange ( the movie) because it was so violent. I'm still assuming I won't like the violence, but I am much less sensitive to these things than I was then. But, I did notice that reading about violence is so much different that seeing it up on a screen. And the language it is written in also helps to downplay what is really going on (ie. referring to rape as "the old in-out-in-out").

Another aspect of the book I hadn't anticipated was the brainwashing. Yeah, if I knew anything about the movie this probably would have been obvious to anyone, but I was thankfully free from knowing too much about the story ahead of time. So in the end, it was an incredibly innovative and interesting book, and I'm looking forward to the movie.

There was an "extra" chapter in this edition of the book. The "extra" chapter is actually how Burgess wanted it to end, but the American editors cut it out. So it is included in the British version, but not the American version of the book. And the movie was based on the American version. One chapter might not seem like a big deal to some people, but it completely changes the way the book ends!! The American version leaves you thinking that the main character has gone back to his original ways before prison and brainwashing. But the final chapter actually ends with the main character having a spontaneous change of heart, and a believable one at that, occurring as a natural part of growing older and a shift in desires. Not to mention, the author intended to have 21 chapters as a symbol of this acquire maturity. It really bugs me that some stupid American editors thought they could just cut out a chapter without completely changing the novel. I personally think that the artist/author's original intention should be more important than anything else, although it's true that he allowed them to make the cut. (less)

5 likes · like · see review

Mar 10, 2009 Tara rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Wow - a great book. I'm probably pretty lucky that I've never seen the film adaptation, nor even glimpsed pieces of it, but had only 'heard' that the movie was tremendously violent and of course there's the posters and all that. I wanted to read the book before seeing the movie, and I'm super glad I made that decision because a lot of this book came as a surprise to me. The middle part where Alex is conditioned, especially (the psychology classes from college kicked in and made my brain burn wit...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jul 11, 2012 Peter rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

"YARBLES" or "HORRORSHOW"?

Initially I found the slang language that Alex uses very hard to come to terms with but once I managed to work it out I found this a very compelling and disturbing.This is a book that I have been meaning to read for quite some time yet never seemed to get around to it until now but perhaps a bit of maturity is no bad thing.

As a fairly law abiding (speeding tickets not included) citizen who has never felt the need (desire definately need no) to physically attack another...more "YARBLES" or "HORRORSHOW"?

Initially I found the slang language that Alex uses very hard to come to terms with but once I managed to work it out I found this a very compelling and disturbing.This is a book that I have been meaning to read for quite some time yet never seemed to get around to it until now but perhaps a bit of maturity is no bad thing.

As a fairly law abiding (speeding tickets not included) citizen who has never felt the need (desire definately need no) to physically attack another human being I was both fascinated and horrified with the first part of the book as Alex and his "droogs" move about causing mayhem whereever they go, assaulting, robbing and raping. Then the second half of the book deals with how the state should combat this.

The first part seems to come down to the argument of 'nature or nurture' as to just why Alex turns out bad. There are examples of poor parenting (his parents have no idea and little interest about what he does of an evening or where his money comes from) and also of other people turning a blind eye to his gang's actions even, as in the case of the old ladies in the pub, being complicit with them by giving them an alibi. But did this contribute to how he turned up or would he have done these deeds anyway? I also found the author's ploy of using Alex's love of classical as a way of suggesting that he is not merely a mindless thug.

The second part of the book is no less troubling but in a different way. We see a brutality in the Police and the Prison Service once Alex has been caught but then tere is also the more subtle brutality of the State as it tries to convert Alex into a model citizen and the actions of F.Alexander and his friends who then use Alex to further their own political cause. Just how far should the State go in its efforts to curb criminals and their activities? Is brainwashing ever acceptable?

Personally I'm not sure as to whether or not the last chapter (which was origanally omitted in the American publication) adds or detracts from the overall book mainly because I'm not totally convinced that people with thuggish tendancies will ever just grow out of them on their own accord. Overall I really enjoyed this book but the early struggle swith the language marked it down for me. So definately not "Yarbles" for me.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

May 06, 2013 nik rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: real-horrowshow

Whatever drug Anthony Burgess was in when he wrote this, I want some. This book is fucking real real horrowshow, if you viddy what I mean. I apologize for the nadsat language. Hihihi. Up until now, it's so hard for me to understand how the hell I was able to read the book, let alone understand how Anthony Burgess was able to pull off such distorted nightmarish piece of nihilistic literary moral beauty in this writing. Encountering almost a hundred words for the first time had produced such magic...more Whatever drug Anthony Burgess was in when he wrote this, I want some. This book is fucking real real horrowshow, if you viddy what I mean. I apologize for the nadsat language. Hihihi. Up until now, it's so hard for me to understand how the hell I was able to read the book, let alone understand how Anthony Burgess was able to pull off such distorted nightmarish piece of nihilistic literary moral beauty in this writing. Encountering almost a hundred words for the first time had produced such magic in this: viddy, yarbles, tolchock, malchicks, ptitsa, and what else? And with the beautifully broken sentence construction and grammar, I have heard the best narrative and the most unique narrative voice—or, should i say, noise.The book hypnotizes you to into a waking nightmare of a fictitious world that is somehow almost as real as this world we are living in as far as the idea is concerned. Alex (the main character here), undoubtedly, is one of the best anti-heroes ever in literature. He seemingly ignited the ultraviolent fire of youth inside my heart; and it made realize that there's this vicious cycle that we must all go through and we can only hope the world and us can bear with such destructive cycles. But in the middle of that cycle, exists a capacity of making a moral choice: to do good or to do evil. Take away a man's capacity of making a moral choice and you just created a clockwork orange; a thing; a machine. If you don't make choices, the unchosen "choices" creates you. You are left in a world wherein you must choose—alone. Choices are somehow beyond good and evil. Who's to say what's good and what's evil? The Bible? Our Conscience? Our Common Sense? No one except us alone, and we have to discover it as we go through the pains and the fires of growing up. We are individuals and we have our own minds and hearts, and we can only hope that we could make both ends meet... We could, if would only choose to, only if life was that simple. No matter what good things you do, if those did not come from the act of you "making a moral choice," if those didn't come from your own sense of freedom, then what is it worth? What is its value? Quoting from this book, “What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness?”

And yes... I wanna talk about our capacity for change... It's only through making a moral choice that we can create a moral change. The world has been sprinkled with pieces of good and evil, but that is in order for life to work. It's impossible to be to be completely good as it is impossible to be completely evil. The yin and the yang. And we must strive not to fall farther away from the balance... How far are we from that balance now? Hahaha. In the end, it has always been a choice, motherfuckers.

This is one of the best books I have ever read so far. And I have the feeling that this is my favorite book. One of the darkest and twisted and strangest, I must say. And this is not a really review, this is just a freakin' rant, or scream, or spit to your eyes. (less)

3 likes · like · see review

Feb 26, 2013 Ciaran rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: top-ten-favourites

Once you get the hang of “nadsat” slang, this is a cracking and unforgettable read.

What Burgess did here was take an ugly great big stone and paint it in many wonderful colours. Merciless violence, a dystopian setting and compelling but slightly unoriginal political satire and existential angst are the great big ugly stone. Nadsat, Alex’s charm and his appreciation of Classical music are the paint. Concerning this last element: the penultimate paragraph of chapter 3 part 1 – which sees Alex lyin...more Once you get the hang of “nadsat” slang, this is a cracking and unforgettable read.

What Burgess did here was take an ugly great big stone and paint it in many wonderful colours. Merciless violence, a dystopian setting and compelling but slightly unoriginal political satire and existential angst are the great big ugly stone. Nadsat, Alex’s charm and his appreciation of Classical music are the paint. Concerning this last element: the penultimate paragraph of chapter 3 part 1 – which sees Alex lying on his bed listening to a violin concerto in utter ecstasy – is so beautiful and so seducing and so vivid but so in keeping with the work’s chilling style that it stands out as the undeniable highlight of “A Clockwork Orange”. If you read any bit of the book, make sure it’s that one. Even if the rest of it had turned out to be dross, that paragraph alone would have earned five out of five stars for the work as a whole.

Another feature of the book that I loved was the crude code of conduct upheld by Alex and his gang at the beginning of the story because it is so laughable and contradictory. I also think that Dim is a great character for his intermittent flashes of gentle contemplativeness.

The protagonist of this book is one of those that you know you should hate, but love instead. Not only this, but by the time we finish the final page we are persuaded that villainous Alex is entitled to a life of “ultra-violence” if he so chooses. There are at least three reasons for this.

Firstly, Nadsat robs violence of its gravitas. For example, ‘I tolchocked her rot and smecked at her as her zoobies bounced across the pavement’ doesn’t seem as bad as ‘I smacked her mouth and laughed at her as her teeth bounced across the pavement’. In this way we find it easier to warm to him and forget that he is actually a horrible person.

Secondly, the inability of the government to punish Alex properly and then its evilness in annihilating his capacity to experience joy distract our animosity from focussing too much on him.

Lastly, he keeps calling us “brothers” and “friends” and himself “Your Humble Narrator”, which makes us feel like he’s our mate, right?

Great book, read it if you haven’t already, re-read it if you have!
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 22, 2009 Sana rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The first thing that hits out at you is the slang dialect that makes up most of this book. I was put off at the beginning by this nadsat slang, but a few pages later I pretty much got the hang of it. I didn't like the idea of using a guide, as it was a lot more fun to make sense of the slang through context. It wasn't bezoomny, on the contrary quite horrorshow!

A Clockwork Orange is about Alex, the protagonist and our Humble Narrator, and his love for violence and classical music. Dressed in the...more

3 likes · like · see review

Oct 02, 2008 David McCann rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: linguists and philosophers

When I opened up this book and began to read Burgess' narrative, I was completely and utterly lost. When I closed this book, I was completely and utterly amazed.

An early turn-off in "A Clockwork Orange" is the dialect of the narrator, Alex, who uses a set of nadsat slang that any modern reader is likely to find confusing at first. However, readers, don't just put the book down--read on, and soon you'll find yourself understanding the words, and the experience becomes much more rewarding (yes, I...more

8 likes · like · see review

Sep 18, 2008 Sarah rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Sarah by: Adam Page

Shelves: classics, social-commentary

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Before you continue onto the rant portion of this review, please note that I enjoyed reading this book, I thought the language was brilliant and a fun adventure, and I found the plot to be original and insightful.

Having said that...

I feel like there are other books that do what "A Clockwork Orange" tried to do, but better - even other Burgess books.

Most of what was revolutionary about this book came from shock value. There is so much violence, so much sociopathy, that of course this book feels n...more Before you continue onto the rant portion of this review, please note that I enjoyed reading this book, I thought the language was brilliant and a fun adventure, and I found the plot to be original and insightful.

Having said that...

I feel like there are other books that do what "A Clockwork Orange" tried to do, but better - even other Burgess books.

Most of what was revolutionary about this book came from shock value. There is so much violence, so much sociopathy, that of course this book feels new and different. But when it comes down to it, that was all that was really there.

I believed for a while that the theme of the story was important and valuable. But then I read the last chapter - the chapter that Burgess so vehemently defends in the preface to this book. For those of you who have clicked on this link but actually read an earlier edition of the book, Burgess laments throughout his entire preface that in previous American editions, the publishers cropped out the last (21st) chapter.

After reading to the end of the 20th, stopping, and giving a thought to what the book would have said to me had it ended there, I moved on. And by the end of the 21st chapter, I was disgusted. The 21st chapter of this book is a complete cop-out that reduces the entire message of the book to a condescending, parental attitude of "Don't worry, they'll grow out of it."

The implications of this are twofold, the first being that the root of the evil in this book, which was in earlier chapters suggested to be a morally bankrupt society, is actually nothing more than teenage impetuousness. The second is a facet that Burgess completely ignores: even if youth is the root of all evil, how can we be so nonchalant about it? Will there not always be youth? Do we then not have a responsibility to make youth something other than what Burgess asserts that it is - violent, rebellious, and worthless? The moral responsibilities we as a society have to combat this sort of thing are never addressed, and I closed the book feeling like a child who received a pat on the head, an empty reassurance, and an "And they all lived happily ever after" at the end of a bedtime story full of wicked witches and horrible villains.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. I'm sure the modern age must have made me less content with stories written solely for the purpose of a happy ending and I am predisposed to authors who take the risk of ending on an unsatisfactory note. But whatever the reason, I was extremely dissatisfied after finishing the 21st chapter, whereas after finishing the 20th, I was merely nonplussed.(less)

8 likes · like · see review

Mar 13, 2013 Robert rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The last novel I read--and reviewed--was Lionel Asbo: State of England. It was about a sociopath in a dark corner of London. Having finished it, I asked myself about its British precursors, particularly one I had not read, though I’d seen Stanley Kubrick’s movie: A Clockwork Orange.
So I picked up a paperback of the latest edition and was interested to read Anthony Burgess’s introduction, written in 1986 (the novel came out in 1962). Normally I skip introductions. I don’t want to be told what t...more The last novel I read--and reviewed--was Lionel Asbo: State of England. It was about a sociopath in a dark corner of London. Having finished it, I asked myself about its British precursors, particularly one I had not read, though I’d seen Stanley Kubrick’s movie: A Clockwork Orange.
So I picked up a paperback of the latest edition and was interested to read Anthony Burgess’s introduction, written in 1986 (the novel came out in 1962). Normally I skip introductions. I don’t want to be told what to think before I’ve had a chance to think myself, but for some reason, I dipped into this one and am glad I did. Burgess’s complaint was manifold: 1) the novel wasn’t that important but people wouldn’t stop talking to him about it because of the movie; 2) the movie, and the American edition of the book, was all wrong because it left out Burgess’s final chapter; 3) the final chapter was critical to the book because it offered our hero, Alex (between ages 15 and 18), a chance to change, i.e., demonstrate some growth and maturity. Burgess’s argument was that fiction is fiction precisely because it offers--nay, insists upon--change in characters. Otherwise, a longish prose tale is not a novel, it is a fable or some other didactic device.
We come here to a judgment that is debatable but is undeniably the linkage between what is known as narrative arc and character development. Burgess was quite furious that Kubrick, liking the idea that Alex remain a weird sociopath, left him in front of the viewer as the same bad boy who first graced the screen. Likewise, Burgess chastised his American publisher. Both Kubrick and the publisher seemed to think, wrongly in Burgess’ estimation, that the shock of enduring evil was worth sacrificing the possibility--again, nay, the necessity--of moral growth and at least incipient goodness.
Now...to the book. We have to remember it was written a long time ago but still seems perversely fresh and that it was written by a polyglot polymath who was particularly strong on Finnegans Wake. This means that it is narrated in a quasi-imitative Russian-English wherein you puzzle out what the argot signifies (rot, for example, signifies mouth.) It’s not that difficult to pierce this verbal fog or understand why Burgess wrote as he wrote in this case: he wanted to foreground a wildly alienated youth, someone so reckless and violent that it would be difficult to understand him verbally as well as morally. Alex and his mates go about London bashing heads, stealing money, playing awful pranks, and generally amusing themselves at the expense of others. As they do so, they chatter in this weird language. The freshness I alluded to earlier comes from the comic, or satirical, implausible plausibility of such heathen in our midst.
Of course there has to be a major twist and it’s this: Alex finally is jailed and then given early release on the condition that he be reprogrammed according to the latest psychological strategies and theories. Said reprogramming ultimately works, although it takes a step back before the last chapter, and that step back is where Kubrick and the American publisher wanted to leave things. Not Burgess: he wanted Alex to have a vision of life beyond age 18 that entailed some things that were utterly inconsistent with a reversion to his sociopathic state--and that, of course, is what we find in the final chapter: Alex rethinking life itself.
This isn’t a book that’s easy to get into, but once you’re there, it’s much more intelligible than Finnegans Wake and careens along with a Falstaffian playfulness that’s annoyingly appealing.
Burgess himself appears in the book--and is badly handled--as the author of something that eventually emerges as A Clockwork Orange. This undoubtedly led to another one of his complaints in the introduction: hundreds of aspiring academics contacting him about the book’s “meaning.” Did he intend this, that or the other echo, double entendre, allusion, or whatever? Well, the answer is obvious: he did and he didn’t. As I noted above, he was a polyglot polymath. He could effortlessly pick literary references out of his mind all day and drop them into sentences wherever he wanted to, which is what he did--for his own amusement, and ours. But did he want to get at more than a satirical image of London going down not the Tube but the tubes, while offering it a chance to resurface? No, he plainly states not, and he doesn’t seem to be posing and preening in that 1986 introduction. It’s written clearly, solidly, with great candor and evident conviction.
The subsequent American publisher, who put out this version with the last chapter included, adds a note that there may simply have been some aesthetic misunderstanding between Burgess and the original American publisher. That doesn’t cut it. Burgess was notoriously overactive and over-engaged, but as he points out, his missing chapter appeared in every other edition of the book across many, many languages.
To a certain extent, I think A Clockwork Orange is an artifact of the 60s that Kubrick mishandled appropriately for purposes of his film. As literature, no, Kubrick was wrong and Burgess right. How could he not be right? He was the author, after all, and even to this day, the triumphs of film notwithstanding, authors at least get to say what’s on their mind between the covers of their own books.

For more of my writing on contemporary literature, see Tuppence Reviews (Kindle), so named because the reviews therein cost two cents apiece.(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 22, 2012 Nenia Campbell rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: x-1960s, 1001-books

i feel that it's essential to have the basic fundamentals of behavioral psychology under your belt in order to truly grasp the ideas in a clockwork orange, especially since this was written at a time when behaviorism was pretty much considered gospel truth (the mind is a black box, anyone?). psychologists believed that they could pretty much change who you were and what made you you just by giving you a few hefty doses of classical and operant conditioning.

because of this, i'm super super super...more

3 likes · like · see review

Apr 05, 2012 Jennuineglass rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It is a rare thing for me to not like a book, but this classic has fallen solidly into that catagory. I contemplated given it two stars due to the fact that it leaves such a strong imprint on your psyche. A visceral reaction, in theory, should warrant an extra star. But alas I could not.

This book was mandatory reading, else I wouldn't have finished it. The violence in it, particularly the multiple rapes, is just so tough to stomach. Perhaps my gender is influencing my rating, but the front half...more It is a rare thing for me to not like a book, but this classic has fallen solidly into that catagory. I contemplated given it two stars due to the fact that it leaves such a strong imprint on your psyche. A visceral reaction, in theory, should warrant an extra star. But alas I could not.

This book was mandatory reading, else I wouldn't have finished it. The violence in it, particularly the multiple rapes, is just so tough to stomach. Perhaps my gender is influencing my rating, but the front half of the book is extremely tough to get through, even for someone as unsqueamish as myself.

I also resent this book because just as Alex loves classical music (which is turned against him in a large portion of the book) so do I, and often listen to it while I read. I remember distinctly having to go over and turn OFF my music while reading this book because the soundtrack was too inline with the violence. Resulting in my own love of classical music being diminished during and for a short period after reading this book...Beethoven should stir passion, not violence.

Once you make it through the beginning, the violence is easier to bear because its done to make a social statement. Themes of violence in the individual, government, the need for automony rather than being a figurehead for a movement, rehabilition that is actually debilitating, all play throughout this book. It is an interesting commentary...but I personally shut down because it is just so extreme. Another reason I do not like the book overall is because of how it plays out (view spoiler) and that the end is not worth the torment I am put through earlier in the book.

Even though I rate it one star, I almost want to recommend it. Not as an enjoyable experience, but as a litmus test for people. Much in the way we wave spoiled milk under a friend's nose and say, "smell this..I think its bad, what do you think?", would I recommend reading this book. (less)

7 likes · like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
disturbing / freaky books	119	588	May 21, 2013 09:38pm
What is your answer to Burgess' question?	8	152	May 09, 2013 12:49am
Spine Crackers: A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess 4/15 - 5/15	4	7	May 05, 2013 01:21pm
Read-along: A Clockwork Orange \| A Laranja Mecânica	34	21	Apr 17, 2013 04:25pm
Literature & ...: Good vs. Bad - What does God want?	3	8	Mar 13, 2013 04:27pm
Challenge: 50 Books: Joining group	4	23	Feb 09, 2013 03:32pm

title link	preview: A Clockwork Orange
avg rating	preview: A Clockwork Orange Goodreads rating: 3.93 (215832 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13707604-a-clockwork-orange?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1346245989l/13707604.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13707604-a-clockwork-orange?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess[/url]

A Clockwork Orange

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (165)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Anthony Burgess

Books by Anthony Burgess

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About A Clockwork Orange

Quotes from A Clockwork Orange