A Clockwork Orange
discussion
final chapter- better or not?
date
newest »
newest »
I read the book when I was 14 and it was like looking in a mirror, psychologically at least. When I read the "last chapter" some years later I thought, "You.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding.Me".It just seemed completely out of place; the irony of Alex saying he was "cured" because he could go back to pounding the crap out of people was the most perfect, black, horrific ending anyone could imagine, and I can see exactly why the American publishers insisted on ending it there - and I still think Burgess felt *guilty* about letting the book go out with an ending that dark, and that that is the real reason he was complaining about it. In fact the last chapter does look for all the world like he wrote it as an afterthought in order to salvage his conscience about what he'd created, no matter what he *says* about it.
I think it is a little unfair to compare the two : Burgess and Kubrick. There is a decade that lies between the production of their works. Plus the glasses that they saw the world through was not the same.I think most of us have seen the movie first and then read the book. So we tend to compare Burgess to Kubrick rather than the other way around. Anyhow, I liked the book better than the movie on many accounts. The way Burgess created scenes of violence was not matched by the movie. Alex's self was better expressed in words. But as for the ending, I prefer Kubrick's!
Really thought that the final chapter detracted from the book as a whole. It would suggest that evil is nothing except immaturity and good is nothing but growing up. As such, good and evil are not choices which the human being is faced to deal with but rather an inevitable process. Alex's evil is just a growing pain, he hasn't really chosen it; when he becomes good in the last chapter it isn't a choice its just the natural process.I thought this was inconsistent with the whole question of whether it was better to freely choose to be evil or to be compelled to be good which the book grappled with. The final chapter basically means that none of what the rest of the book looks at has any significance.
I read a version with a foreward by Burgess in which he said that he didn't like that most American audiences didn't know the WHOLE story. I am glad that I read the complete version- I don't mind abrupt endings, but I think that finishing the story with Alex realizing his stupid choices makes for a complete story of personal development.
Fuck no. The added final chapter ruins the whole book. Besides that the book is a masterpiece.
A lot of people are saying things on here with a whole lot of words. I'm gonna agree with a percentage of you and say that the final chapter is the whole point. What's more important, being forced into compliance or maturing of your own accord and growing the fuck up?
The extra chapter is so much better by adding it. first of all, it was what the author wanted. I think of it this way, the American version censored his work. Not good. the one thing the English version as compared to the American version is that the English version gives you hope for society that youth will outgrow their delinquent ways as is the case with reality. I love that ending.
I agree completely that the book is better for including the 21st chapter. I don't think it is "inconsistent with the whole question of whether it was better to freely choose to be evil or to be compelled to be good which the book grappled with" as J. Robert suggested.
What it's saying to me is that even the worst people are capable of freely choosing to do good. Maybe that's too optimistic for some people?
I read a comment by the author about the final chapter. it was, "Eat this sweetish segment or spit it out. You are free."
I saw the movie long before I read the book. The book I read included the 21st chapter. I feel like the last chapter was such a hallow cop out. The themes throughout the book are so dark and twisted. And out of no where the last chapter is a 180 change. Now Alex is reformed out of nowhere? A sociopath like Alex doesn't just wake up one day and not be a sociopath. Burgess is basically saying "boys will be boys," end of story... And that's the message? WeakI much prefer the ending where the question of whether or not a truly evil human being can ever be reformed remains unresolved.
James wrote: "I saw the movie long before I read the book. The book I read included the 21st chapter. I feel like the last chapter was such a hallow cop out. The themes throughout the book are so dark and twiste..."So, for you, the 21st chapter ending doesn't question the narrator's reliability?
In what sense do you mean? That he was really good this whole time and his crime spree was imagined or exaggerated? Or that he really wasn't reformed at the end and lied to the reader like he lied to all the authority figures? I haven't seen anything in the book to suggest he was unreliable so I never considered that.
Well, I've often thought Alex might be exaggerating while recounting his exploits, and there does seem to be a dichotomy between someone fond of both his chucky-egg and seeing the red red kovvy flow. Also - as someone else famously said around the time the novella was written - "He would say that, wouldn't he?" (Christine Keeler during the Profumo Scandal trial.)
I don't want to say that is made the book worse... because I don't think it did... but I also don't necessarily think it made the book better. I think it's sort of one of those take it or leave type things for me.In all honesty, I did feel that it was a bit too optimistic. Not that there's anything wrong with being optimistic... I think it just over does it a bit and from my stand point... with some of the things that I have scene and experienced (particularly where delinquents are concerned) I just found it to be too unrealistic. It's not very often, at least that I have seen, that people like Alex and his friends (whether they are actual sociopaths or simply just criminal dirt bags) actually "mature" so to speak and realize the wrongfulness of their ways and their past actions and show any interest in correcting their lives and taking a better path.... but rather continue their wrongful ways and in some cases go on to commit even more heinous acts all while coming up with some bs to condone their acts and try to get away with it.
Caitlin wrote: "...(particularly where delinquents are concerned) I just found it to be too unrealistic."Yeah, I don't think it was intended as a sociological study -- more like a morality tale.
The structure makes more sense if you read his other dystopian works from the same time period. The Wanting Seed is cyclical, and features a mini-lecture of history being cyclical in nature. A Clockwork Orange is mechanistic, and includes an essay on mechanising humans/society.
Philip wrote: "Regardless of whether the American version is better or worse than the British - it was Burgess' intent to finish the book with Alex looking back on things. There is no extra chapter, tagged on at ..."Phillip, good point bringing up the last chapter of Dicken's 'Great Expectations'. Dickens tacked that last chapter on only after his friend, Wilke Collins (sp?) advised him to do so.
Odd. I just read this a few weeks ago and at the end it was clear that Burgess is saying Alex is Alex, that one can't change one's very nature. I don't know whether there was an extra chapter or not, but I simply assumed Alex was back to his old ways.
Greg wrote: "Odd. I just read this a few weeks ago and at the end it was clear that Burgess is saying Alex is Alex, that one can't change one's very nature. ..."You obviously had the 20-chapter version and not the 21-chapter version. If it ends the same way as Kubrick's film, then it isn't the (complete) novel that Burgess wrote.
Caitlin wrote: "I don't want to say that is made the book worse... because I don't think it did... but I also don't necessarily think it made the book better. I think it's sort of one of those take it or leave typ..."Not knocking what you wrote at all, but most delinquents grow out of their ways and there are plenty of studies to show just that. There are certainly a minor percentage that never grow out of criminality or go on to do much worse.
Anthony Burgess last chapter shows that Alex is bored with his lifestyle and running across his old friend shows that there is another way and gets Alex to thinking about changing. It is a very subtle thing and may be missed.
Papaphilly wrote: "Caitlin wrote: "I don't want to say that is made the book worse... because I don't think it did... but I also don't necessarily think it made the book better. I think it's sort of one of those take..."I think my perspective comes from a lot of the stuff I've seen and things I've experienced. Looking at the general population maybe it is true that most do grow out of their ways. But unfortunately I grew up in and live in a city plagued by criminal activity. Too many kids around here end up involved with gangs and such and the vast majority of them don't ever grow out of it. Of course the fact that so many parents of those teenagers are themselves involved in criminal activity and encourage it or the fact that many simply don't care doesn't exactly help any. Unfortunately, those who get involved with the gangs and such end up either getting themselves killed before they ever get the chance to "grow out of it" (whether it be that they are shot or stabbed during some stupid gang war, or end up getting into drugs and overdosing, or are simply stupid enough to try and victimize the innocent people in the city who are no longer willing to put up with the crap) or they end up getting arrested and spending the rest of their lives behind bars (and in many cases, rightfully so... because in my opinion rapists, murders, violent gang members, etc. have no place being free on our streets endangering the lives of others). Those that don't end up dead or in jail only end up walking further down the path they made the choice to take. Very few around where I live ever realize their mistakes and make and effort to correct their ways and many times when somebody makes an attempt to point out to them that they are on the wrong path or try to help them their response is to get angry and try to find ways to condone actions that there is no true justification for. And I think seeing that on a daily basis is what forms my view that the final chapter is simply too optimistic. Had I grown up elsewhere I have no doubt my view might have been different.
Caitlin, I think bringing personal awareness of violence on the streets and in the community to this discussion is really interesting.Having rated ACO 4 stars, you clearly enjoyed the read, though it deals with characters and actions you deplore.
Could you say what it was about the book that you liked so much; and, in terms of the actual text, if that last chapter had been different, would you have rated it the full 5 stars?
I'm actually working on writing a review for it. I enjoyed the book in the sense that I found the writing style interesting as well as the fact that it managed to invoke strong emotions in me... which almost always gains points with me since it isn't always easy to do. Usually when rating a book I try to look beyond just the context. I can hate the characters and their actions but if the book still manages to interest me and invoke emotions then I'll still give it a decent rating. I guess maybe the best way to summarize my choice in rating for ACO is that I was rating the quality and originality of the writing... not the characters or their actions. As for whether I would have give it the fifth star if the last chapter had been different... probably not. I usually only give 5 star ratings to books that truly blow me away or books that are favorites of mine for more personal reasons that I won't get into here since they aren't relevant to the discussion.
ACO is a first person narrative and though Alex's story may be unreliable, nevertheless we are drawn into his world. As an anti-hero we root for him despite his flaws. I don't think the book works without the reader's sympathy, even as the red red kovvy flows. What is it that makes Alex so appealing? Is it only his use of language?
Philip wrote: "What is it that makes Alex so appealing? Is it only his use of language?"There is something to the narrative voice that is ingratiating -- all that "Oh my brothers" stuff. You can imagine Alex telling the story at a table in the pub.
Where tales of his drug-fueled sex romps with jailbait would have the odd vicar in a fit, should they overhear.
I have little sympathy for Alex in the book. The movie is different because of how they portray his actions, I do have sympathy for the movie Alex. But in the book he drugs and rapes two 10 year olds... Sorry but no sympathy whatsoever for that kind of person.
Mkfs wrote: "Philip wrote: "What is it that makes Alex so appealing? Is it only his use of language?"There is something to the narrative voice that is ingratiating -- all that "Oh my brothers" stuff. You can ..."
It is almost like he is telling war stories and there is something captivating about it. It is not what Alex actually does, but how he describes the situations that is so captivating.
Mkfs wrote: "Greg wrote: "Odd. I just read this a few weeks ago and at the end it was clear that Burgess is saying Alex is Alex, that one can't change one's very nature. ..."You obviously had the 20-chapter v..."
MKFS, the version I read had two parts and ended with chapter seven. So I suppose I haven't read chapter 21, or chapter eight, or whatever.
While I respect what Burgess was doing with the final chapter, and what it represents, I enjoy the book more without it. I think it's more powerful when the reader is left hanging, when they don't know how Alex will turn out. I felt uncertain and almost unsatisfied when I finished the book (I read the american version) but I felt that was kind of a good way to end this book. It should leave you disturbed, it should leave you uncertain. When I did get around to reading the 21st chapter, I felt it kind of ruined the atmosphere of the book, and also took away an aspect where I could make my own assumptions based on the text before it. I still appreciate the symbolism of the 21st chapter. I actually fantasized, rather wistfully, a similar fate for Alex before I even found out there was a 21st chapter. But I liked fantasizing, the element of mystery was fun for me. That's why I prefer the American version of the novel, I feel it's a better conclusion with better atmosphere and more mystery.
I’ve been struggling with the 21st chapter ever since I read the book. When I read Clockwork, I finished the book by reading the 20th chapter, and then I put down the book for the rest of the day and asked myself “How would I feel if this was the end of the book? What would I think of this ending?” Then the next day, I picked up the book again and read the final chapter and asked myself “How do I feel about the ending now?” Then I watched the movie, knowing that the final chapter was omitted.I understand where Burgess was coming from when he wrote that chapter. If you read the preface, you know that he designed the layout of the book such that the book was divided into three sections, each with seven chapters. From our basic math we know that adds up to 21 chapters, which is meant to be symbolic because 21 is considered the age of maturity. I think the symbolism in that is very powerful, and I also believe that the message he was trying to convey would have been very beaitiful. What he was trying to show us is that if people are given the chance to choose to do what is right rather than have that being forced on them, they may eventually come around to choosing to do good. It is a beautiful sentiment. But the way that it was conveyed, in my opinion as a reader, was deeply flawed. Yes, I do see how removing the last chapter skewed the symmetry of the novel. I also see how removing that chapter leaves the book with a much more ominous tone because this sex hungry psychopath has been set loose back on the streets free to do whatever he wants.
The problem I have with the final chapter is that I just don’t see how it is realistic. Do I believe we grow out of stupid immature behaviors and become wiser with age? Absolutely. This, however, is the problem: Alex’s primary issue is not that he is a stupid teenager with a judgment problem. He is a sociopath. His issue is not that he does not think about the consequences of his actions and acts on impulse. His problem is that he has no regard for human life. Everyone makes dumb mistakes in their youth. But people, in Alex’s case, we are talking about rape and murder. These are not “dumb mistakes”. We’re talking about crimes that show complete disregard for the rights of innocent people. Granted, the murder he went to prison for was technically an accident. But his actions that night still showed that he had no regard whatsoever for that woman’s life. When we discuss the mistakes we made from our youth because we weren’t thinking rationally, I should certainly hope that drugging two minors and then taking advantage of them while they’re unconscious is not one of them, or breaking into a couple’s home and cutting off a woman’s clothes and violating her while forcing her husband to watch. That is not immaturity and stupidity. That is pure sadism. That is evil.
It made no sense to me whatsoever that Alex woke up one day and was just done being evil. For one thing, he never felt any remorse about the people he had hurt and the lives he had destroyed. He looked back on the “good old days” with nostalgia and was like “I’m done raping and murdering. I’m gonna go start a family”. Perhaps the last chapter would have had more of an impact on me if he had any kind of insight on how his actions had affected innocent people. Instead, he’s just gonna move on and become a family man? I feel really bad about saying this because it is so pessimistic, but if Alex was a real person (and believe me, there always are and always will be real people like Alex), I wouldn’t see him as being the kind of guy who is going to grow up into a really decent family man living in a nice town with a nice family and a well paying job, living a totally normal life. Sociopathy is not something you grow out of. It’s something you grow into. He wouldn’t grow out of his criminal activities. He would become a better criminal. Not only would he escalate, but he would get better at not being caught. Surely some of us here have watched Criminal Minds or some other serial killer dramas, right? You know those serial rapist/murderer characters who kidnap innocent people and take them to some remote location and brutalize and torture them to death? What would they have been like at 15? What were real life serial killers like when they were teenagers?
I want to believe that people can change for the better. I want to believe that with maturity, we become the best versions of ourselves. We learn from our mistakes and try to be better. However, with the 21st chapter of A Clockwork Orange, I see a scenario that is so far-fetched that it almost felt incongruous with the rest of the book and made me feel disoriented. I appreciate that it gave me a lot to think about, but I have a hard time feeling like it made the book better or gave it any kind of beauty or light at the end of the tunnel. For the book, I actually think it is better with that chapter so it gives you the chance to think about whether or not you believe someone who is that evil can really change just because he reached a certain age.
Beautiful comment. First, a little history. The 21st chapter was removed for the American audience. The publisher did not think it would sell because of a positive ending. The original book was 21 chapters, it was not added later, but removed and then put back at a later date. You make a great argument and it is hard to defend against. The book originally was released during a time of social upheaval. The world turned upside down so to speak. The kids were running wild in the streets or at least that is how it appeared at the time. Rock and roll just started to enter its social prominence and the baby boomers entered their teenage years and there was allot of them.
This was a truly pampered generation and we were spoiled. We were the original me generation and not used to sacrifice. It was also at the very beginning of the divorce generation. Burgess takes this background and looks into his crystal ball...
I agree Alex is callous and lacks empathy. He is wild in the streets. He acts impulsively and childishly. He is having a great time. He hangs out with his droods and creates mayhem and enjoys it. He is representative of his generation. A spoiled generation gone too far.
now I am going to ask you to step back a moment and look again. It is hard to do considering the crimes. Removing the mayhem itself and the pain, what is he doing? He is acting childish. He acts like a boy, not a man. Boys of a certain age will burn ants under a magnifying glass and think nothing of it, except maybe it is fun. It is not fun for the ants. It can be seen as anti social behavior, but it is acceptable behavior from boys of a certain age. Fathers and men may smile remembering their days of doing such and mothers may tisk-tisk and tell their sons that is not nice. At some point, boys grow out of it. That is the point of the 21st chapter. Alex starts to grow up. The friend he so idolized in the beginning of the book has settled down and basically tells Alex he no longer does those things and they are childish. He shows Alex another way, which is timely because he is now bored with all of the mayhem. The novel leaves the reader with the idea that Alex is leaning to growing up, but it never says, so the reader really does not know his choice.
I am not discounting the horror of what he does and you may very well be right, he is a sociopath, but he may also choose to leave it all behind.
Before you decide to think he gets away with it all, he does go to jail and then submits to the treatments and is victimized too. Maybe that teaches him empathy, or not.
To be honest I originally saw film before I even new that there was book. After coming across the book in the library I automatically began reading it. I finished the book in just two days and when I came across the last chapter I sort of felt like it changed whole structure of the book itself. maybe its because of watching the film first, which had the main character (Alex) return to his violent psychotic ways, however the last chapter of the book sort of gives the main character and the reader hope that Alex might change his evil ways. Even though this would be a positive outcome for the character, It changes the emotion you feel about the book and messes with the theme.
J. Robert wrote: "Really thought that the final chapter detracted from the book as a whole. It would suggest that evil is nothing except immaturity and good is nothing but growing up. As such, good and evil are not ..."This pretty much nails my thoughts on the ending. I think the 21st chapter is the darkest chapter in the book.
I honestly prefer the story without the last chapter. The last chapter is just a little too good to be true. It is a poor attempt at a happy ending.
I've never read the American version, but I'd have to say, in the English version, that the last chapter seemed a little off-kilter from the rest of the book. I'm not sure giving that kind of story that kind of ending made sense. It seemed to take some of the impact of the shocking story away from what it could have been. Having said that, I don't know how I would've ended it.
Richard wrote: "I've never read the American version, but I'd have to say, in the English version, that the last chapter seemed a little off-kilter from the rest of the book. I'm not sure giving that kind of story..."If You read the English version, you read the American version. the only difference is the last chapter is removed from the American book.
Yes, I know. But I can see where I may have given the wrong impression that I knew this from my comments. Thank you.
Much better. Kubrick has also preferred the colder side of a book. Stephen King referred to this in regards to the film adaptation of The Shining.
I think the final chapter provided better closure to the story and helped further its message. However I found it to be a complete tonal shift from the story and very out of character of Alex. As a story I think it was better off without the last chapter (like in the movie) but as a work of art/statement the ending gave it a new and more meaningful perspective.
Hmmm... After trying to ignore this dicsucsion for some time, it now occurs to me... Is this another case of Doylist vs. Watsonian?It seems to me that one could argue that from a Doylist POV, since Burgess wanted to throw a milksop cop-out chapter in at the end, well, that's his prerogative, and readers have to basically take it FWIW (And pitch the book across the room, worthless final chapter included).
But from a Watsonian POV, just refusing to accept the final chapter as though it were an illegal immigrant from Uranus, is probably perfectly acceptable, and can be used to justify not reading it (Or buying the American version of the book and just ignoring it) (Or tearing it out of the back of the book if you have the "original" version, and setting fire to the offending pages).
It's been while since Iast read this, but I recall last reading the edition with the "extra" chapter; it included (I think) Burgess's reasons for preferring it. Maybe I'm too influenced by the film, but I thought that using the ending from the "American" edition was superior. It felt much stronger to me; the additional chapter seemed like a cop-out in comparison, an out-of-place "happy" ending.
In the edition of "A Clockwork Orange" that I read, Anthony Burgess had added an afterword not necessarily condemning, but explaining that his book, with the positive ending, made the work complete-- a "novel", as opposed to the film by Stanley Kubrick, which was more of a cautionary tale. He felt that his version had the more satisfying ending and I agree.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
A Clockwork Orange (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Wanting Seed (other topics)A Clockwork Orange (other topics)
Yes I agree. It was a provocative masterpiece that came about in the time of beautiful experimentation with film and music. If released nowadays, I doubt it would have done so well.