Jonathan’s review of A Clockwork Orange > Likes and Comments

10 likes · like
Comments (showing 1-10 of 10) (10 new)    post a comment »
dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Cecily (new)

Cecily How did you find the Nadsat+Shakespearean language?


message 2: by Cecily (new)

Cecily I agree that the book doesn't glorify violence (even though it seems to at first). Judging by the edition you chose, and your concerns about it portraying young people as inherently morally inept (or worse), I presume you read a version with the final (21st) chapter. I think it was meant to put a more positive angle on the story, but your comments demonstrate how debatable that is.


message 3: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan I liked it. While some have compared it to Cormac McCarthy's use of grammar and may challenge me about why I liked the language here but not in McCarthy it's because I could see that the language in this novel followed its set grammatical rules. The language in other books doesn't necessarily. After the first few pages it became easy enough to interpret also.


message 4: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Cecily wrote: "I agree that the book doesn't glorify violence (even though it seems to at first). Judging by the edition you chose, and your concerns about it portraying young people as inherently morally inept (..."

Ah yes I did read the final chapter. I do think it was meant to put a more positive angle on the story but I was trying to suggest that it also insinuates (according to the book's own logic) that age is linked to morality.


message 5: by Cecily (new)

Cecily I've only read a couple of McCarthy's, but in both of those, the notable feature was punctuation, whereas in Clockwork Orange, the notable feature is vocabulary. I think both are very skillfully constructed and consistent in themselves, though.


message 6: by Cecily (new)

Cecily I agree entirely about what the final chapter of Clockwork was insinuating; like you, I have mixed feelings about it (though being a little older, I don't take it as personally).


message 7: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan I just happen to have a personal connection to what he implies. And yes the notable feature of McCarthy is punctuation compared to vocabulary. Still I find that in McCarthy's writing due to the lack of punctuation most of the work is left up to the reader to decide what is occurring. It is skill full but lacks the depth I appreciate.

My overall conclusion of this book though would be that while many may not wish to read about such disturbing ideas it is incredibly deep. Coming from my Christian background there were many ideas which link up with my beliefs and yet I know people who would consider this perhaps an evil book. I don't agree that the book is evil - yes the idea/thought any has to commit a murder or to steal is evil to me but no book is.


message 8: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan But then again in this book the reader has to interpret the writing too. That places them both equally. McCarthy's just personally annoys me as I have an issue with anyone who messes with English grammar simply to make things look better. It doesn't to me.


message 9: by Cecily (new)

Cecily I believe that Burgess was a Christian, too (Roman Catholic, I think), and that was one reason he was incensed that the film and, for many years, US editions of the book, omitted the final chapter.


message 10: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Ah that's interesting, I suspected something of the kind. It would explain why the introduction claimed him as another member who was actually of the devil's camp. The first being John Milton.


back to top