About A Clockwork Orange and Its Ending

[Scott]

(Be warned, spoilers abound. Proceed cautiously.)

As you know, A Clockwork Orange is divided into three parts with seven chapters each. The film, of course, came out at a time when the American version of the novel left out the twenty-first chapter, so most who have only seen the film don’t realize that Alex eventually turned his back on a life of violence. Kubrick himself did not realize Alex’s change of character because he’d only read the American version of the novel at the time he filmed, which would only stand to reason.

However, Anthony Burgess, the author, demanded in later American editions that the twenty-first chapter be included, and so now there’s a stark contrast between those who have read the book and those who have only seen the movie. Some would argue that there are two Alex’s out there – one who revels in his return to violence and another who ultimately opts for a life of peace.

Most believe that Burgess is delivering a message that even the worst of us can reform by choice. Most argue that the theme of the novel is that even the worst of deviants can achieve civility if given enough time. They say this, of course, because Alex supposedly chooses to turn his back on his wayward activities as he ages and matures.

I, on the other hand, would like to introduce an alternate perspective. I’m sure I’m not the first to make this argument, but I would dispute Alex’s reform. It is widely believed that Alex grows out of his criminal mindset and consciously wants to be good. But, the book actually suggests that he grew bored with his illegal activities, that they no longer thrill him. Alex choosing to become a law-abiding citizen due to sheer boredom is not quite the same as choosing to be good because of a change in heart.

Understandably so, most would contend that he chose to be good, what matters the motivation? I believe it to be an important distinction. In my mind, motivation is everything. Choosing to be good because one realizes the depravity of past iniquities and desiring redemption is one thing; choosing to be good simply because one’s previous lifestyle no longer entertains is quite another.

Alex will always be the criminal. He may live a guiltless life for a few years, but if he could alter his lifestyle so nonchalantly on a whim, it would only stand to reason that a relapse could occur just as suddenly. Remember, this was a boy who, at only fifteen, beat people, stole, raped, and even killed. Unless the government didn’t truly reverse their tinkering with him and his reconditioning still persists somewhere within the recesses of his mind, I believe a return to crime is inevitable in Alex’s future.

[Daniel]

Inevitable only if a new life of crime offers more than the life of crime he used to have. Of course motivation is everything or, if not, at least the most part. Many people live a law-abiding life not because they believe in it but because they fear any other possibility more than they desire whatever it could give them, or, i think more commonly, because of inertia which is not in itself a motivation but a commodity.
A passage from Lovecraft comes to my mind regarding the prospect of Alex returning to a "savage" life, in which Lovecraft writes about the future of humanity in general: «...The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom...» Which to me fits perfectly with the way Alex used to think about his life and the way of living it; Alex will always be a criminal because that's just who he is, not because of what he does which is the same to say that a bird is a bird not because it flies but because it thinks, feels, and exists as a bird. But to what extent is someone/something what it is? I don't know that.

[One]

I consider it more to be more a case of 'growing out of' such behaviour, as the saying goes. Most of us go through a rebellious phase when we are younger, but as we get older we begin to understand (or at least most of us) the consequences of our actions. For most people I don't think it is so much a choice to become good as it is a slow process of maturing.

Also, I don't think Kubrick's masterpiece would have been quite as good if he did include Burgess' original ending. To end on the note of Alex still being an utter depraved bastard works better from a story telling sense I thought.

[Lindsay]

I agree with Scott, that Alex grew out of his affinity with violence and crime but will remain a criminal. I think this is well illustrated with Dim and George, who are meant to be law enforcers but are still infact violent criminals.

Burgess does not delve into how or why he got this way, nature vs nurture. I suspect that the way he "cures" Alex in the novel, both times, once with treatment and then again by outgrowing it his aim was to portray this as part of Alex's nature.If this is the case then it will always be part of him and he will never be truly free from this.

[Scott]

Zetha wrote: "Inevitable only if a new life of crime offers more than the life of crime he used to have. Of course motivation is everything or, if not, at least the most part. Many people live a law-abiding life..."

Zetha, I love your first line. I think that's a perfect way to look at it.

[Scott]

One wrote: "I consider it more to be more a case of 'growing out of' such behaviour, as the saying goes. Most of us go through a rebellious phase when we are younger, but as we get older we begin to understan..."

I completely agree with you about Kubrick's version. Kubrick has actually gone on record as saying he later read the twenty-first chapter and would have left it off anyway.

However, I'm still not certain Alex "grew up." I just can't equate becoming bored and changing his lifestyle with growing up, especially in light of his previous heinous actions.

I completely agree with you that most of us go through a slow process of maturing. For me, it happened sometime in my early thirties :) I just don't see Alex being capable of maturing like the rest of us, because he clearly doesn't feel remorse for his past actions.

[Scott]

Lindsay wrote: "I agree with Scott, that Alex grew out of his affinity with violence and crime but will remain a criminal. I think this is well illustrated with Dim and George, who are meant to be law enforcers bu..."

Great point about Dim and George, Lindsay! I also like that you addressed the "nature vs. nurture" aspect. His parents seemed nice enough, don't you think? They didn't do well with setting boundaries, though.

[Micah]

It's been a long time since I read it, but I seem to remember that in the final chapter Alex has not yet given up his old life. He's still trying to recapture the old times but it's not working for him. He becomes introspective and moody, carrying around a picture of a baby in his wallet and pretending to himself tha the child is his. All the other kids he's with seem young and stupid (him at the ripe old age of, what, 19?). To me that signified he was both growing old and growing tired of his old life...but more so, feeling disconnected from the youths he was trying to run with. To me he seemed not to want to grow up or change, but life was taking him there anyway. It wasn't so much a choice as it was just the tide of time, wearying and eroding what youth embraced.

I also agree that the Kubrick version made far better cinema. It ends on a high note (for Alex), a high, cynical, darkly comedic note that the last chapter of the novel completely destroyed.

I remember reading or hearing somewhere that Burgess said without the final chapter, A Clockwork Orange becomes nothing more than a morality play. When I heard that, I was like, "Yeah. That's what's so great about the movie!" It's like a twisted morality play where the protagonist ends up giving the finger to all those who had tempted him with the good life: he wins, as much as we really don't want him too (while simultaneously and secretly we root for him all the way!).

[Jess Livo]

I think he will definitely have that evil rebellious side inside of him throughout his life because if you remember, he decides he wants to have a child who will act as he does, so I think he still believes in that side. Though I do think a part of his change is due to seeing his Droog Pete which influences him to start a family and likes the look of his life.

I also think he may miss his previous Droogs as well which could obviously be another factor adding to why he changes.

I personally love the book and the film, I could watch or read it whenever. Though I do think the main reason for his change in heart was due to slight boredom however being influenced by Pete and the idea of a child of his being like him when it grows up.

However, I do enjoy the idea of Alex just becoming evil again in the film, that ending scene and what he says at the end "I was cured, all right" I mean that is just brilliant. I loved it. Watching that ending makes me want to watch it all over again. It's just perfect for cinema. But I think the 21st chapter suited well to the book and as Burgess had also said that he thought that U.S audiences would never go for the final chapter. But I do think the final chapter is important for the book as Burgess had also stated that the total of 21 chapters was an intentional nod to the age of 21 being recognised as a milestone in human maturation.

[E.D.]

I picture Alex becoming an investment banker with a large London firm, and enjoying a position of socially acceptable criminality. Perhaps one day stepping up to the Exchequer.

[John]

I watched a TV documentary recently which used clips of the Clockwork Orange aversion therapy scenes to pose the idea that evidence suggests that it doesn't work and may even have an opposite effect; soldiers who have seen active service tend to show no measurable reaction to violent images.

[Duane]

E.D. wrote: "I picture Alex becoming an investment banker with a large London firm, and enjoying a position of socially acceptable criminality. Perhaps one day stepping up to the Exchequer."

Dude you totally rule...

There's an interview with Burgess out there somewhere (I read it in print decades ago so don't ask for a URL) in which he dicsucses in detail his arguments with the American publishers, and reveals his motives for writing the last chapter, and (IIRC) essentially admits that it was added as an afterthought because he was ashamed of having writtten something so bottomlessly cynical about "Humanity"... etc. etc....

But I think the American publishers were right... the way he *portrays* Alex, the little bastard is a *total* psychopath, and *they* do NOT change (although they *do* put on suits and get jobs in the Exchequer...). (And probably still slash up women when they can get away with it.)

I thought better of Burgess than for him to whine the way he did in the interview... (But that's what I get for thinking, anyway)

[Tom]

I thought the last chapter was the method used to illustrate the overall point of the entire book. It helped me make sense of Alex's and his Droogs' 'deviant and criminal' (anti-social) behaviors.

Statistically most crimes are committed by younger people (something like the ages between 14 and 24) and as those individuals grow older they are less likely to commit crimes. It does not really matter if they want to/still think/talk about committing crimes because they don't do them as much...be it out of fear, maturity, experience.

(Classic conditioning(?).... How many times does someone have to touch a fire and get hurt before they figure out its not a good idea regardless if they still feel compelled/want to touch it?)

I help manage an in school suspension room at an inner city high school. The room is filled daily with students who share the same mentality as Alex and his buddies.

The three main topics both boys and girls talk about are sex, fighting and getting high. They feel little or no stigma for most punishments they are assigned, let alone their inappropriate behaviors. Being suspended, put in in school suspension or even going to jail/juvenile detention is no big deal to most of them initially....after getting caught and punished numerous times the majority gradually grow weary of being so anti-social because they don't like being restricted from their three favorite behaviors....with time they figure out that fighting in school and skipping classes is not a good idea...not because they feel remorse but because if they get caught again they won't be allowed to do what they want to do....9th grade girls and boys are the worst but by the time they are in 11th and 12th grade a large portion of those kids usually have a better handle on things and are easier to manage/work with.

I imagine those that don't mature/learn to control their anti-social behaviors by the time they graduate or drop out of high school will go through a similar process with the criminal justice system....

[Carolina]

Scott wrote: "(Be warned, spoilers abound. Proceed cautiously.)


I strongly agree. Alex is beyond morality, he's amoral. At some point, he grew tired of violence as a child gets bored of his favoutite plaything. Even if he chose to step out of a life of crimes on his own free will, once Ludovico effects had been previously reversed, he did so based on boredom, not godly salvation or kindness of his own heart. He does not repent and does not regret his earlier acts.

[Papaphilly]

Interesting discussion. Here is my two cents worth. Alex has not changed yet, but he will change. The book says as much. Not from the therapy because that failed and in many ways it was worse then what was going on because society condoned it. Alex changes not from boredom, but from what the book hints at, the mundane. The everyday aspects of life. When Alex runs across Pete, Pete reacts with looking at Alex like a child and remembering when... That is what catches Alex's attention. Pete moved on to a life and that shows Alex another way. The boredom is nothing more than it is not working for Alex any longer and he is looking for something different, much like the rest of us growing up.

Dim and George represent thugs as cops, but to me it was more about payback to Alex than actually being bad guys. Yes they beat him badly, but he had it coming and the other shoe dropped; it was his turn to be on the wrong end.

I disagree with Alex being amoral. The last chapter presents a changing Alex with questions about life. Even with all of the trouble and pain Alex causes, he has a set of values. With all of the mayhem he has caused, he is not happy with the life any longer and his chance encounter with Pete starts him thinking.

The movie does a brilliant job of showing what happens if he doesn't change as some people do not. The book though does show the change. The book comments even someone as far down the line as Alex can come back. I see the book as more a statement of society and the baby boomer generation than about one individual although it is told through his eyes. Society will generally be fine and most of the youth will grow up and become productive even if an individual chooses the hard road. That is the real message of A Clockwork Orange.

[[deleted user]]

I picked up my edition of the novel in London, and the final chapter has not been expunged. This edition also includes a foreword from Burgess in which he describes the artistic balance achieved by including a certain number of chapters within the novel. I thought it a little strange, but I appreciated the artistic motivation.

I'm a bit of a purist, so I was happy to be reading the "true" version of the narrative. Upon completion of the story, however, my first thought was, "Cop out." Instead of a bang, the novel ended with a whimper. The U.S. editors who decided the novel was better without the final chapter knew what they were doing.