A Clockwork Orange
discussion
What did you think of the book?
message 1:
by
Catharine
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jul 14, 2012 10:16AM
My brother has been pushing me to watch the Kubrick movie for some time, but I kept holding off, because I hate watching movies based on book before I have a chance to read the book. I finally finished it a few weeks ago, though, and had a hard time deciding if I liked it or not. The 21st chapter didn't help much, either!
reply
|
flag
Hmm. I saw the movie then read the book. I liked the 21st chapter. Because it adds meaning. In the movie it ends as the state has no power to change a person. In the book the moral is the state has no power to change a person; a person must and will mature. I was in high school when I watched/read this and feel like that perspective was important. The movie is well worth a watch. Hideously brilliant.
I think both versions are wonderful. I would always opt for a book over the film however. For Burgess to have invented a whole sub-culture right down to its slang language I found remarkable and his story of a society living in fear of teenage gangs seems quite prescient today. That he had Alex the chief thug possess a love of Classical Music is just inspired and uplifting, suggestive that even in the most violent beings, their souls can still be reached.
For years we had no chance to see the film. I remember when it came out, in the middle of the suede-head era, seeing young men in Lime Street, Liverpool, dressed up in tribute white boiler suits and bowler hats. But Kubrick got cold feet and withdrew the film before I had a chance to see it for myself.A few weeks after the UK withdrawal, a friend of a friend watched it in Paris. We could only buy the soundtrack. Ludwig Van on Moog synthesiser! Eat your hearts out, ELP!
When I finally got to buy the DVD, I was a tad disappointed. I mean, the effects looked pretty dated.
But the book is sublimely penned. Burgess was a genius of sorts..
I think that my big problem with it was that the 21st chapter insinuated that the reason they were hoodlums in the first place was due to being teenagers. I disagree with that so much! I do, however, love the fact that he made it a point to state that everyone has Free Will, and that a man is no longer a man when his Free Will is taken away.
Yes, Marc, the linguistics aspect of this book is amazing. You know Burgess said that he hated this book?
I saw this movie a very long time ago and it was a weird for my taste. I still remember the eye opener scence.
Heather wrote: "Yes, Marc, the linguistics aspect of this book is amazing. You know Burgess said that he hated this book?"No I didn't realise that!
Catharine wrote: "I think that my big problem with it was that the 21st chapter insinuated that the reason they were hoodlums in the first place was due to being teenagers. I disagree with that so much! I do, howe..."Can you elaborate why that doesn't work for you? Did you see the riots in the UK last Summer? That said a lot to me about the mindset and world view of many of Britain's teenagers. Not all of them clearly, but a clearly delineated strata of them.
Marc wrote: "Did you see the riots in the UK last Summer? That said a lot to me about the mindset and world view of many of Britain's teenagers."
What did the riots in the UK last year say to you about the mindset and world view of many of Britain's teenagers?
What did the riots in the UK last year say to you about the mindset and world view of many of Britain's teenagers?
As far as I remember, Burgess said the 21st chapter was deleted by his US publisher. He also said, it was an integral part of the book; and that he had set out to write 21 chapters from the outset. His decision to accept the publisher's cut was a purely commercial one. Since A Clockwork Orange became an overnight cult success, and he made a great deal of money out of it, I think we should accept his later disavowal of the work with more than a pinch of salt. The novella was a triumph of linguistics and Burgess, as an accomplished speaker of many languages, knew it. He loved controversy and often made outspoken remarks in order to court it. He even disparaged his Enderby novels, which also enjoyed great success and earned him much treasure.The inspiration for the violence of the teenage droogs was from personal experience; I think his wife was attacked by young US conscript soldiers stationed in England. He was a right-winger and no friend of liberal attitudes towards criminals. Alex's brainwashing and aversion therapy are attempts to lampoon anything other than good old fashioned punishment.
Regarding the violence in the film, I remember when it was being made, Burgess was interviewed by the Daily Mirror. The filming was already attracting attention for its ultra-violent content. When he visited the set, though, he complained that the violence was neither realistic nor extreme enough! He wanted it to be truly shocking. But Kubrick was not making "Straw Dogs" or "Get Carter"; rather, he was trying to choreograph the fight scenes and make them almost balletic. Kubrick's ideas were quite different from Burgess's and I think the two men actually disagreed very strongly about the role of the violence in the film. Again Burgess gave in, not wanting to have to repay his author's fee. As I said in my first post on this subject; Kubrick then realised in horror that youth groups were already taking up his creation and imitating the dress and behaviour of droogs. Unlike Burgess, though, the filmmaker was prepared to stomach the financial loss, which says something about him.
His film wasn't put on release in the UK until decades later, and in fact a stage version was produced by the National Youth Theatre (circa 1990) before it was shown in public cinemas.
Regarding what happened in the UK last summer... Many of those who took part were not themselves deprived. Yes, they were young, angry and frustrated. They wanted to cock a snook at the system. There was also a strong echo of the riots that happened in 1981. I think by taking part in this collective action, young people were sending a message to the establishment that they did want to become part of another lost generation - as so many of their parents did three decades ago. It's a great shame, and an indictment of the justice system, that so many otherwise good citizens were summarily sentenced to long gaol terms - and many of those merely for incitement rather than actual looting or causing criminal damage. It's also a shame that this same coalition government is now considering speeding up some trials - quoting the kangaroo courts that followed last summer's riots as an example of their successful policy-making!
Horrorshow wrote: "Marc wrote: "Did you see the riots in the UK last Summer? That said a lot to me about the mindset and world view of many of Britain's teenagers."What did the riots in the UK last year say to you ..."
That they are completely detached from the rest of society and its values. That they see themselves as having no stake in our society. I agree with a fair bit of what Philip posted in his last paragraph. There are deep-seated causes behind the riots that stretch way back, These are the second and third generation children of the 1981 rioters. And yes it is not about material deprivation, but other types of neglect. Stealing Blackberrys to organise riots in order to steal Blackberrys...
If you want a fuller treatment of the subject, then I blogged on it at the time: http://sulcicollective.blogspot.co.uk...
I read the book after I saw the movie because I had never heard of Burgess before then. Though I think it is a brilliant book and I eventually read other novels by Burgess, this is one of the few cases where I felt the movie was better, if for no other reason than it was easier to understand and bears up under repeated viewings (as opposed to repeated readings). Still a great book though.
Marc wrote: "Horrorshow wrote: "Marc wrote: "Did you see the riots in the UK last Summer? That said a lot to me about the mindset and world view of many of Britain's teenagers."What did the riots in the UK la..."
Enjoyed your blog post, Marc. Many good points there. I have no solutions to offer. It seems all societies have those who are or feel they are unneeded; that they have no place to go and nothing to contribute.
But how to you remake entire enclaves? How do you change the ideas and attitudes of generations? We certainly haven't been able to accomplish that here in the US. Small wonder that the UK with far fewer resources hasn't been any more successful.
I lived very happily in England for three years. Even now I miss parts of that experience. All I can do is hope for the best, for both our countries.
BTW - Great book and great movie - a very rare combination. As I graduated High School in 1965, I'm close enough in age to the droogs to have felt the impact strongly.
Thanks Victoria, yes I don't feel too hopeful about the prospects, but I can't but feel as societies we are offering the wrong sorts of dreams and aspirations when they are alloyed to material possession and accumulation.
Marc wrote: "Catharine wrote: "I think that my big problem with it was that the 21st chapter insinuated that the reason they were hoodlums in the first place was due to being teenagers. I disagree with that so..."I explain my problems with it in my second comment in the post.
@Marc
Thanks for responding to the question I posed.
Thanks for responding to the question I posed.
I think to try and translate this book into a movie is a herculean task. Kubrick was able to get the tone of the book even if the final product diverged a bit from what was in the book. I think that was important as to do a literal translation would be impossible.PS: I loved this book. It took a little effort but it was incredibly smart and well written
I loved the book then I loved the movie and the use of Beethoven was inspired. This was the first movie to use Dolby Sound System so the MOOG Synthesiser was shown to its best advantage. I actually bought the sound-track LP!
Jim wrote: "I loved the book then I loved the movie and the use of Beethoven was inspired. This was the first movie to use Dolby Sound System so the MOOG Synthesiser was shown to its best advantage. I actually..."Respect!
Hi Jim and MarcBack in 71-2 my friends and I played the soundtracks to Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" and "2001 - A Space Odyssey" till the vinyl wore thin.
It wasn't ALL Wishbone/Tull/Purple/ELP!
Philip wrote: "Hi Jim and MarcBack in 71-2 my friends and I played the soundtracks to Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" and "2001 - A Space Odyssey" till the vinyl wore thin.
It wasn't ALL Wishbone/Tull/Purple/ELP!"
or Oxy-bloody-gene
Oxygene - now there's a name from the past. For me Clockwork Orange was the first foray into Rock-Classical crossover. I didn't realise that the new Dolby sound system was having such an effect on me.
I reread the book a few years ago and I've got a DVD of the film, I think it still stands up. When you think about the full-frontals and the sex it was a pretty groundbreaking movie for it's time.
As for the violence? I'd grown up in an area that would have eaten Alex and his droogies for breakfast, there was nothing new there. The book wasn't prescient it was a reflection of youths down the ages.
Just read the book on iBook, The Absent One also out as Disgrace by Jussi Adler-Olsen .....Clockwork Orange spurned the killers on in it. Surprised me!The film was good and we were planning to watch it again one day...never got to it yet.....you comments inspire me to get the DVD out. You may enjoy the book referred to, info below Jim. They really follow each other though....
Jussi Adler-Olsen (Denmark)
MERCY, same as The Keeper of Lost Causes Department Q 1
The Absent One also called Disgrace.. Department Q2
Redemption. Spring 2013 Department Q3
It really depends on whether you've read the FIRST version that was published in America (without the 21st chapter) or the one Burgess WANTED to publish in America but which American publishers edited to be more palatable. That 21st chapter changes EVERYTHING. The movie didn't have it, although based on the American version, it was one terrific film. I saw it when it was X rated in the early 70's. I saw it four times. I bought the soundtrack. I read everything I could get my hands on about Burgess and tried to get other books he'd written as well. He is a fantastic writer and a superb thinker. Overall, I think you should probably get the complete version of the book and watch the film--and it won't matter if you read the book first or watch the film first (for a change!)
Thanks Sharon - I'll get a copy of those. I do like a literary trail of events.Christin - you've got me wondering now if my copy of the book had the 21st chapter. I'll go and buy a new copy (if it has the 21st chapter in it)
Jim wrote: "Thanks Sharon - I'll get a copy of those. I do like a literary trail of events.Christin - you've got me wondering now if my copy of the book had the 21st chapter. I'll go and buy a new copy (if i..."
Jim wrote: "Thanks Sharon - I'll get a copy of those. I do like a literary trail of events.
Christin - you've got me wondering now if my copy of the book had the 21st chapter. I'll go and buy a new copy (if i..."
Jim, characters are hard to follow in JAO books unless read in order. Mercy was a good read and sets up the second IMO....
The narrator is unreliable. He sees the world from his own perspective. If they were hoodlums because they were teens, then that is how he sees the world.I loved the book, written during the McCarthy Era, during the communist scare. The Slang is perverted Russian. I had the privilege of seeing the movie, after reading the book, in its original X-rated version, so I saw Stanley Kubrik's true genius.
I didn't really take the last chapter as saying that they were violent just because they were teens. I saw it as throughout life we see world in different ways and keep on making decisions about how to live it. The main character just happened to be a teenager. he could have continued with violence like his old droog Dim did after his teenage years (the fact that he wore a police uniform didn't make him less violent)
Sharon wrote: "Jim wrote: "Thanks Sharon - I'll get a copy of those. I do like a literary trail of events.Christin - you've got me wondering now if my copy of the book had the 21st chapter. I'll go and buy a ne..."
If you'd read the "21st chapter," you'd know it. It was eventually published in Rolling Stone, and then editions came out in America. Burgess himself stated that the book is weaker with it than without it.
Michael - not all of us were entirely 'compus mentis' when we read the book back then. lol
I love this book but then I don't think that Alex is a very nice person. It is an amazing voice, and it is mesmerizing, the Nadsat language that Burgess invented. I hear the lines as Malcolm McDowell said them, and he was perfect for the role. The book is a great work of literature, and the movie is also a classic, even if they are about a sociopath and seem to glorify violence.
Glorify ... sort of. The funny thing about the book and the movie is it's not about violence but rather pointing out how public media glorifies violence. This point was lost to the general public but I think Burgess and Kubrick were silently laughing every time some newspaper would refer to the book/movie as such.Controversial point: do you think there would be as many mass shootings by disgruntled teens if the media didn't cover it ad-infinitum?
Clockwork Orange only reflected society, it did not glorify violence. Although.....I've seen real violence up close and personal and I've never seen anything in celluloid or print that even came close to describing it. Most depictions (including the scenes in C.O.) are laughable.
Real violence is stomach churning, eye averting stuff. Madness that lasts no more than three of four seconds. You never forget it.
That's true, the fleeting quickness of violence is almost impossible to portray in words which are leaden and plodding along in sentences, and even hard in movies, because it's so quick, the viewer probably wouldn't catch it and Hollywood can't have that. Many years ago I had a friend stabbed (before it got to epidemic proportions here in London) and he reported that he didn't see the knife, didn't even realised he had been stabbed, didn't 'feel' the knife, until the blood started gushing.
I think that Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers may have been about how media glorifies violence, but fell into the trap of doing just that. There were copy cat couples who went on crime sprees because of it. I think that Clockwork Orange was mostly about society or the government trying to cure hooligans of criminal behavior with drastic measures. Burgess' wife was a victim, much like the writer in CO, yet he still came down against the drastic measures described in the book.
Once I got the hang of the slang the book proceeded along nicely.The movie was good and Rob Zombie's music video Never Gonna Stop (The Red Red Kroovy) adds a pleasant touch to the memory of both the book and movie.
...somehow or another I seem to have found in a second hand store a copy of the book WITHOUT A GLOSSARY!!!???!!! How in the world could someone figure out what Burgess meant with his invention of language? Mind boggling but perhaps I got a bootlegged version or something...strange...
Rey wrote: "...somehow or another I seem to have found in a second hand store a copy of the book WITHOUT A GLOSSARY!!!???!!! How in the world could someone figure out what Burgess meant with his invention of ..."Context clues, oh my dear brother.
Actually, many publishing companies do not include a glossary for it. I have a Norton edition, and it does not have one.
...well, of course "context clues" is an easy answer...however, if you had never read a copy with the glossary there is absolutely no way you could understand some of his made up vocabulary...after the fact, sure...I even remember many of the words but find it specious for anyone to think reading this without some language clues is even do-able...in my mind it would certainly lessen the enjoyment of the read, to say nothing of understanding dialogue...EVERY copy I have even owned (at least double figures) has had a glossary...oh my brothers and sisters...
Rey wrote: "...somehow or another I seem to have found in a second hand store a copy of the book WITHOUT A GLOSSARY!!!???!!! How in the world could someone figure out what Burgess meant with his invention of ..."The way the rest of us did who read it many years ago, by figuring it out. There was no glossary in the edition I read (pre-movie, if you can imagine back that far:) I didn't have too much trouble working out what was meant.
Victoria wrote: "Rey wrote: "...somehow or another I seem to have found in a second hand store a copy of the book WITHOUT A GLOSSARY!!!???!!! How in the world could someone figure out what Burgess meant with his i..."then, obviously, you are a genius to be able to figure out hundreds of words Burgess concocted from thin air, including the word for "teeth"...I stand by my previous position...a book like this without a glossary is STUPID...
Rey wrote: "...well, of course "context clues" is an easy answer...however, if you had never read a copy with the glossary there is absolutely no way you could understand some of his made up vocabulary...after..."I've never seen a copy with a glossary. When did you buy all these pablum editions? The book came out in 1963. I don't remember when I read it, but probably within 10 years of original publication. I know I read the American edition without the famous 21st chapter, because it wasn't available here until the late '80s.
Ah, I just discovered it online. Interesting. If Alex was "just gone 18" in 1963, I am only 2 years younger, so he would indeed by now be the old man he foresaw in that last chapter. It does make quite a difference.
I still have my Copy. It was published by Ballantine Books in 1981. There is a complete glossary in the back of the book.
I enjoyed the book and the movie, they matched nicely for me, but I have to say the song Singing in the Rain has never been the same for me.
Heather wrote: "Yes, Marc, the linguistics aspect of this book is amazing. You know Burgess said that he hated this book?"I don't think he hated the book but I do believe he hated the movie. He had said that the film seemed to glorify sex and violence causing readers to misunderstand what the book was about. He wrote a stage play of the book after the films release in order to restore his ending.
Luigi wrote: "I enjoyed the book and the movie, they matched nicely for me, but I have to say the song Singing in the Rain has never been the same for me."I would have to agree with that myself, along with Beethoven's Ninth.
I read the book when I was 16. My mom was going back to school and had a lit course. She told me she had to read this "awful, weird, violent book" and she was so offended she couldn't get past the first chapter. So, of course I was intrigued, so when she put it down, I picked it up. I have to say, I was never confounded by the language. I didn't know there was a glossary at the end of the book until I had finished it. I imagined how awful it would have been to flip back and forth interrupting the flow of the story to read definitions. It isn't meant to have a glossary. You are meant to pick up the language of the book the same way you would if you moved to another country where they have a very different dialect. You would understand most of the words, but the rest of the meanings would be derived from context. I became aware later that people had trouble reading this book and I came to wonder if they were encouraged to read with a dictionary, or if they approached reading in some other different way than I. I think the joy of words is seeing how they are used by different authors in different ways and getting the nuances of meaning from the context of their stories. There are still words I have only read and never used, and if I go to use them when I write, I am sure to look them up to ensure I use (or misuse) them with full knowledge, but I have always experienced language as used in all its colorful and technically incorrect shades. Maybe it helps that I was an anglophile from an early age, and relished learning new words and expressions from British TV shows, that sounded fresh and fun to my american ears. There were always people who when watching with me needed to know what every word meant as we watched, instead of just filing it in their mind to find out later if it didn't become apparent in context. Not my favorite people.
I saw the movie a few years after reading the book and fell in love. I watched it again just now. Kubrick's 70's futurism, beautiful style and visual artistry and irony blow me away every time. The relentless coupling of the ugly and beautiful (violence and classical music), and adding questions of pop culture to the mix - when we are all concerned about flash and fashion over substance and respect, can we expect our children to know the difference between sex that sells and sex you steal? If everything seems cheap and impermant, why pay for anything if you can take it with a quick burst of violence? Burgess had no shortage of questions of conscience in the book, but the moral void of pop culture was the cup Kubrick held it all in in the movie.
I think the movie and/or book are ideal for young people. Some critics have said the book is a bit to simplistic to be a real examination of mores, but I think that makes it a perfect book for high school age kids to introduce them to questions of what it means to be human, how important is freedom of choice, the hypocrises inherent in extremism and politics in general. It is a love letter to reasonableness, an appeal to carefully consider consequences before acting, and an open-ended query to readers wondering if our modern life contains enough meaning to sustain us. What could be better for young people who are easily swept up in idealism, and awash in pop culture? It gives them permission to start analyzing who they are and the world they live in instead of just drifting along in it. It was an important gateway to critical thinking for me, and I highly recommend it to young people, especially avid readers who love new vocabulary.
The book also gave me a strange boost of confidence, knowing that at 16, I was already more worldly than my mother and well served by my rejection of my parents' religious blinders. I saw that suspicions about the unfairness and inconsitencies inherent in people were true, and though I could see these traits would continue throughout time, I was heartened to know it was a global and human predicament, not just teen angst. I knew that a lot of people didn't bother to ponder philisophical questions of what it means to be alive, and maybe it's the wrong reason, but it gave me confidence knowing I was a little better than those people. Being someone with little to have confidence about in any other area, I let myself be a little conceited about my mind. Once in college, I saw I was nothing special, but in high school, I needed some kind of confidence to get through. So, definitely recommended for teens with social difficulties.
Don't use the glossary.
Try this re Teddy Boyshttp://edwardianteddyboy.com/page2.htm
Bit before my time although they underwent a renaissance in the late 1970s around the time of the Queen's Silver Jubilee (50 years on the throne) and were in a constant war with the newly emerged punk rockers who were of course anti-establishment and definitely anti-monarchy.
BTW I thought your comment was really rather beautifully written.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
