A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess

[Ryduce]

I've never read it,but I was on some movie site today and everyone was talking about how brutal the film was.So I was just wondering if this book is really that bad.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

There are a lot worse. It's hard to get into because of the invented language - I spent the first couple of dozen pages flicking back and forth to the glossary - but you pick it up after a while. I didn't find the violence to be unnecessarily graphic though - the violent events are described in a matter-of-fact way if I recall (it's been a few years since I read it).

I certainly wouldn't let fears about it's content put you off, it's a great book.

[emily655321]

*rubs hands together with joy* My specialty! :D

The book and the movie are different. However, they work better as companion pieces than they do as individual works. The movie gets the feeling and spirit of the book just right, but the book gets the message across much better, and is a lot darker.

Personally, I don't find the film disturbing at all. There are moments in the first half of the book that really make me cringe and squirm, though. The most marked difference to me is the movie's seemingly deliberate separation of sex and violence. It was made in the late '60's, after all, and progressives were trying very hard to persuade people that sex was beautiful and wonderful and natural, and explicit rape in film was understandably not-so-popular. Almost all of the sex in the book involves beating and blood, and the one bit I can think of that doesn't involves children. (In the movie, the girls are far less innocent, and definitely much older.) The movie also eliminates an instance of male rape.

Another point is that the movie has little more gore than a bump on the head and a bloody nose, suffered by the anti-hero himself. The book... well, the blood in the book could fill a swimming pool, frankly.

So, while many people I mention the movie to shudder and say, "Ugh... that was so... disturbing," I fail to see quite why. By contemporary standards, certainly, it seems like a colorful Disney-esque romp with loveable post-apocalyptic scamps.

[emily655321]

I spent the first couple of dozen pages flicking back and forth to the glossary
You had a glossary?? No fair! :p Actually, half the fun for me was slowly picking up the language from context. For a year after I read it, I annoyed everybody within earshot by bouts of speaking in pure Nadsats. The linguistics are so fascinating, you could write a book just on the logical processes by which Burgess arrived at the slang. Half-Anglicized Russian, half-rhyming slang... I think it's brilliant.

[Ryduce]

I'll definitely have to check this one out.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

The penguin edition that I read has a glossary - added by Burgess himself in later editions I believe.

[Isagel]

It was about twelve years since I read this one, but what I remember as disturbing is not the gruesome detailed violence, but the cure for it. Will not say more because that will spoil it.
I also remember the total alienation and lack of any emotion but sheer indulgence in violence or drugs becuase there is nothing else there. There is nothing for them. The world is empty, soulless. I might remember that part wrong, but that is the impression it made.

So yes, this is a disturbing book, in many different ways.

[genoveva]

It has been quite a few years since I have read this book, and of course, snap shots of the movie (a classic as well!) are what are left in my mind. The book is supposed to be disturbing! Of course, compared to today's violence and destruction it may not seem as disturbing. But, if you read this book and aren't disturbed, I think you need to read it again....or ??? maybe some of us are becoming desensitized to violence due to the amount of it in the media, etc. these days???

[Countess]

The violence wasn't gratuitious but I nevertheless found it disturbing. Watching rape and murder like that - it just gave me the shivers.

The interesting thing is SOMEHOW the writer manages to turn Alex into a sympathetic character, albeit like Satan in Paradise Lost if you consider Lucifer a sympathetic character.

I felt the inclination towards sympathy, but fought it back by remembering the brutality of Alex.

BTW- I dressed up like him one Halloween many, many EONS ago. (--:

[Koa]

You had a glossary?? No fair! :p Actually, half the fun for me was slowly picking up the language from context. For a year after I read it, I annoyed everybody within earshot by bouts of speaking in pure Nadsats. The linguistics are so fascinating, you could write a book just on the logical processes by which Burgess arrived at the slang. Half-Anglicized Russian, half-rhyming slang... I think it's brilliant.

If I get to do my MA about English and Russian languages, I intend of find a way of fitting this as the topic of something I'll have to write - there must be a way to make it relevant and make it work.
I would love to read the original (the language was distinctive but not that hard to pick up in the translation I read, if I remember correctly, it's been a few years), though I had a look at it at a bookshop and it seemed quite hard.

[Koa]

Oh Isagel reminded me, in the movie the part I found most 'disgusting' was when they cure him and [SPOILER] what they do to his eyes to make him watch that.. you know.

I don't think its disturbing in the way of 'oh my god this is horrible', even when it is... it's disturbing in the way it makes you think about things, and that's one of its great sides.

[emily655321]

[SPOILER] what they do to his eyes to make him watch that.. you know.It was quite tough not to fall in love with Malcolm MacDowell in that role. The eye thing, plus what must be some kind of record for holding one's breath under water... mmm...

Okay, I'm done. :blush:

[Isagel]

I felt the inclination towards sympathy, but fought it back by remembering the brutality of Alex.



Why fight it? To me one of the disturbing parts that I spoke of was the total lack of sympathy for anyone. We can feel sympathy for someone that hurts becuase he suffers, not becuase he deserves our sympathy.
If we can´t I guess we are getting closer to be like Alex.

Isn´t the sympathy and growing understanding of Alex also one of the main points of the book? I thought the book left alot of questions about the nature of evil. Is Alex evil becuase he is born like that, or are his brutal personality partly an effect of something else? Could we be Alex? Could we be evil? If not, why? If we could then why? Look at how we all are seduced by the costumes, the style, the wit and even interested in all the violence, all the disturbing parts. Nihilism appeals to alot of us.

[Stanislaw]

heh, it is really not bad compared to sin city.

[emily655321]

Isn´t the sympathy and growing understanding of Alex also one of the main points of the book? I thought the book left alot of questions about the nature of evil. Is Alex evil becuase he is born like that, or are his brutal personality partly an effect of something else? Could we be Alex? Could we be evil? If not, why? If we could then why? Look at how we all are seduced by the costumes, the style, the wit and even interested in all the violence, all the disturbing parts. Nihilism appeals to alot of us.A brilliant post, Isagel. I think you've put it perfectly.

[optimisticnad]

I recently went to talk on Burgess by his biographer, he lead the most 'weird' life so now I am more interested in the man than the book! Which isn't good as I have an essay to do clockwork orange...sigh. life.

[Corragiosso85]

A newb here.
I was thinking recently about this book (considered a classic by many) and I wondered if the more notorious film adaption by Stanley Kubrick spoiled your enjoyment of the book due to the rather catastrophic differences in the conclusions. (Book = enlightenment, Film = further descent into vice)
I'm not a great fan of the film but the book itself always mesmerised me in part due to Burgess' descriptive abilities.
Personally the film does taint my enjoyment of the book due to the differences I mentioned. What was essentially the whole point of the book was just discarded by Kubrick.
Would be interested to know others opinions, if any.

Michael.

[JCamilo]

Nope, two different works. Kubrick is a genius, perhaps the greatest in his craft and his vision, different, is rich. That movie is a serious runner up for best movie ever.
The book is very good, but his aesthetical work does not compare to Kubrick, and it is very easy to enjoy both

[ballb]

Never seen the film but agree that the book is amazing. Apparently Burgess wrote it as a catharsis after his first wife was gang raped by GIs during the blitz. A timeless and chilling piece of work.

[rmd]

I'm not wild about films masquerading as cinematic versions of novels that differ significantly from the original.

One of the best translations to film in my opinion is the cinematic version of Kobo Abe's Woman in the Dunes.

[natelie]

I haven't read the book but I am a great Kubrick fan.

The thing about film adaptations is that they aren't necessarily intended to give an accurate representation of the book (which i'm sure you know) -- nor are they intended to supplement the reading as such. I think that a book or a story provides a theme or a basis, and from there the director creates their own story in a visual format, which is much different to the discursive, conceptual qualities that are particular to books. In this way, cinema isn't a secondary medium to the novel.
Also, I think Alfred Hitchcock once said that short stories are best represented by the filmic medium. I think he has a good point, because of the time constraints of films and also, as i said before, the visual (rather than thoroughly discursive) nature of the medium.

[NickAdams]

I enjoy both, but not equally. I'm a huge Kubrick fan, so he gets my vote. I enjoy it when a film is not faithful to the source. As an author, I would enjoy to see my novel differently. After spending so much time with it, if I had to watch a film adaptation, I would like to see some suprises. Kubrick, who read the American edition which is without the final chapter, made the ending without redemption. Which explains the material that was cut; like the second half with Alex a mirrored victim.

[strawberryhead]

The reason why the ending for the film is different is because Kubrick based the film on the "american version" of the book. When the book was published in America, for some reason (i don't know why) the last chapter, in which Alex reaches some kind of realisation, was omitted. However, i think the film is better without a sort of philosophical and enlightened ending - it makes it more ironic, like, no matter what techniques the government employs, there will always be crime and criminals.

It doesn't really matter. I love the film and book both - but they are both entertaining for different reasons.

[JCamilo]

We should not mix the changes because the changes of media and there is changes just because someone wanted. The differences of the book is not a matter of adaptation to a media.

Anyways, once Borges saids :The original is unfaithful to the copy.
We must just accept the possibility that a copy may be superior to the original, which I think it is what happens in this case.

[drunkenKOALA]

Actually, I think I'd rather that films are not true to the originals, because it can't. Films just can't capture the quality and essence of the original writing. I'd rather see something original in the adaptation rather than some failed attempt at imitation.

[JCamilo]

You are not considering the basic: they will create a quality on their own. The myth about movie adaptations always being worst than the original is just a myth. Among the best movies of all time we have a few adaptations (Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange, Apocalypse Now) and in only Heart of Darkness really is a masterwork like the movie.

[ben.!]

Just started reading this.

What are people's thoughts? How did people find this book?

PS. Don't spoil the plot, I'm only onto chapter 3 of part 1! :D

[SirRaustusBear]

I loved the book and the movie. Called everything I liked horrorshow for a couple of weeks after reading though.

Which version are you reading, the American or the English? The English version has 21 chapters to the American's 20.

[ben.!]

I'm reading the Penguin Modern Classics 21 chapter one.

I find the language really interesting, you really need a good glossary to translate all the Nadsat while you're reading.

[Kent Edwins]

Oh wow, this is one book that I really need to read. See, I'm usually skeptical about books that you can find in punk clothing stores, but perhaps I should get over that and pick it up one day. At least now I know to get the English version.

[JBI]

I think a lot of American republications feature the additional chapter. A relatively good novel, but the last chapter wasn't worth keeping in, in my opinion.

[SirRaustusBear]

Yeah I prefer the American version. The extra chapter is interesting but I think the book is more of a statement without it.

[simon]

What there are two versions??? Was the sole purpose of keeping that aforementioned 21st (unbeknownst to me) chapter out, based on it's socalled lesser qualities, it's unecessariness? it's irrelevance?

[SirRaustusBear]

Yes basically the American publisher felt that the last chapter was inferior and

MINOR SPOILER






an attempt to force a happy ending on an otherwise dark novel. Kubric made the movie based on the American version.

[SirRaustusBear]

Don't feel bad the heart thing took me a while too. And whenever I see it I still think butt before I go, oh yeah, it's a heart.

[Drkshadow03]

WARNING: SPOILERS IN MY LINK BELOW! CLICK ON THE LINK AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION!!!!

You might want to check out my blog post I did about a year ago with some thoughts on my re-read of A Clockwork Orange after you finish reading the book: Clockwork Orange Re-visited. (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/re-visiting-a-clockwork-orange/)

I had some rather uncommon takes on the book I think. A great read! One of my favorites!

WARNING: SPOILERS IN THAT POST! CLICK ON THE LINK AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION!!!!

[moose gurl]

I absolutely abhor this movie.
First of all, before anyone jumps down my throat about this, I have legit reason for having issue with the movie.
I have never read the book, but after the movie I have no desire to whatsoever.

My thoughts on this can pretty much be perfectly summarized by this review by Roger Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19720211/REVIEWS/202110301/1023 I have read his reviews for a couple of movies, and he is hit or miss, but for this he is DEAD ON in my opinion.
I hated this movie so much I have been completely unwilling to watch anything by Kubrick or read anything by Burgess even though I've been told both deserve a second chance...especially Kubrick, since I've heard his style is a lot different in movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey (by the way, the author of 2001 (novel) Arthur C. Clark died this past week...did anyone else know that?). Anything A Clockwork Orange tries to accomplish, Brazil accomplishes a thousand times better. The movie is just straight up vulgar.

P.S. I know a lot of people are going to claim that I missed the point of the movie, but honestly, it's just not worth it. Read the article, feel free to disagree, but you aren't going to change my opinion on this. It's a very deep hatred. People have tried to explain to me the complexity of the movie before, but my opinion about Alex is pretty much not going to change.

[Trillian]

Don't feel bad the heart thing took me a while too. And whenever I see it I still think butt before I go, oh yeah, it's a heart.

I thought it was a mouse head at first.:D Try to tell me this<3 doesn't look like a mouse.

I have a kind of love/hate thing with Clockwork, myself. I still recall part of the opening line, more or less: Hello. My name is Alex, and these are my three droogs...

[SirRaustusBear]

Moose girl you are of course free to dislike the movie but I think you should read the book. I read the book before seeing the movie and maybe the book made some things clear that weren't as obvious in the film.

SPOILERS FOR BOOK AND MOVIE






Ebert's review was kind of funny to read because he attributed things to Kubric that weren't his intention. For instance, the audience is not supposed to like Alex. The story is told from his point of view, so it is incredibly biased. When the narrator starts killing people, that is a good clue that he may not be the most reliable storyteller. Alex likes Alex, so the film likes Alex, and the world is portrayed as if all people but Alex are crazy because Alex sees the world that way.

And the point is not to condone violence in a violent world, as Ebert believes. The violence in the film, especially the singing in the rain part, is meant to be appalling. The violence is supposed to be terrible so that we can see the benefits of Alex's mind control treatment. The film asks viewers which is better, a world of violence or a world without free will. It is an important question and the extreme vioence and Alex's insane glorification of this violence is necessary to make a fair argument for both sides.

[Drkshadow03]

Yeah, what SirRaustusBear said! My interpretation of the book that I linked to a few posts above pretty much intersects well with Ebert's reviews and SirRaustusBear's comments.

Alex is an extreme narcassist. He never feels remorse for what he did. I think that is what Burgess is getting at.

[ben.!]

I agree with you Drkshadow03. Alex, so far from what I've read (Part 2 chapter 5 I'm now up to, Alex is introduced to Mr. Brodsky and his films) shows no remorse for his actions. The teenager also seems in love with himself, so a narcissist. He seems to have committed his crimes purely because he saw it as a thrill and a bit of fun.

I'm finding that this novel may be Burgess foretelling what the youth could become if society keeps up all this free will. That they could descend into this...thrill-seeking. Ravaging the streets. I know it sounds a bit extreme, but in this dystopian future, it's not terrorists people are scared of at night, but these young teenagers.

I'm also seeing in the book conflicting ideas about morality and ethical judgement. Where is the line between free will and authority by a higher power over our lives? If we are allowed complete free will, some may descend into Alex's goings-on, whereas too much authority over our lives to prevent this from happening (from the law and that) could cause outrage and totalitarianism. These ideas are also present in 1984, another interesting novel about government control and morality.

So far, A Clockwork Orange is an interesting read, a little difficult due to the lack of glossary for all the teenspeak Nadsat (I think there's a glossary somewhere on Wikipedia for it all, so I got a couple, plus I figured a few of the basic words out from context), but I find I can't take my eyes off it. I've been reading a chapter per night.

[ben.!]

Part 3 now! :)

Dr. Brodsky's experimental therapy on Alex (if you could call it that) was quite strange.

That *SPOILERS* showing Alex violent films of people being beaten up, raped, burned, pillaged can turn Alex against violence and rape.

Dr. Brodsky made the proclamation that 'our subject is...impelled towards the good by, paradoxically, being impelled towards evil'.

How does this work? How can you show someone who enjoys those things more of what they like to the point where they cannot stand it and be scared by it? I would have thought the treatment would have no effect on Alex, him loving ultra-violence and rape.

The moral paradox I find a little hard to understand. However I think Burgess was getting at the point that Alex has lost conscious moral choice, he is almost robotically 'programmed' for good, thus, losing his free will. Would you agree?

[Drkshadow03]

How does this work? How can you show someone who enjoys those things more of what they like to the point where they cannot stand it and be scared by it? I would have thought the treatment would have no effect on Alex, him loving ultra-violence and rape.


I could be wrong, but I thought they are drugging him with special chemicals. It's in the vitamins that they are giving him to make him feel sick when he watches those movies.

[SirRaustusBear]

Yeah shadow's right, it's like those pills they make to quit drinking. When you drink they make you sick until you associate drinking and sickness without even taking the pill. This is the same except for violence.

[ben.!]

Ahh okay, I missed that. I just thought it was the films and the pills were just there to make him sit there and focus on the films.

[bouquin]

I'm currently on chapter 6 and am completely blown away! The nadsat vesch is so clever the lingo is almost Shakespearean sometimes! And the way Alex can shift from it to sweet polite language and "gentlemanly" manners... brilliant!

[Vincent Black]

I found the language to be extremely difficult to get used to at first, but I think that's part of what makes it such a good novel.

[cipherdecoy]

I think a lot of American republications feature the additional chapter. A relatively good novel, but the last chapter wasn't worth keeping in, in my opinion.

I disagree, why do you think so?

"There are twenty-one chapters in all: twenty-one is the age at which children traditionally become adult, and it is in the twenty-first chapter that Alex sees the light and puts the errors of youth behind him Burgess would also have been struck by the aptness, in a novel about growing up, of there being seven chapters in each section: an implicit allusion to Shakespeare's seven ages of man. As all this suggests, A Clockwork Orange is the most carefully constructed of novels"
- Excerpt from Blake Morrison's introduction to the novel

While I think it is presumptuous to claim that it is "the most carefully constructed of novels", I feel that the last chapter is indispensable and crucial to the construction of the novel as a whole.

[bouquin]

I found the language to be extremely difficult to get used to at first, but I think that's part of what makes it such a good novel.




I got the hang of it after a few pages. I started by noting down the strange words and subsequently came up with a horrorshow:cool: glossary.

[Sir Bartholomew]

I got the hang of it after a few pages. I started by noting down the strange words and subsequently came up with a horrorshow:cool: glossary.

:brow: i love how he describes his slippers "comfy wooly toofles" it sounds so good you can almost eat it

[bouquin]

I think a lot of American republications feature the additional chapter. A relatively good novel, but the last chapter wasn't worth keeping in, in my opinion.




It does seem unconvincing to me how, in Chapter 21, Alex <<<SPOILERS>>> at the age of 18 already appears to be mellowing down. I would imagine that folks of the same "persuasion" as he at that age would still be at the "peak of their powers," so to speak. The last chapter lends a sort of B-movie-type ending to the book, I'm afraid. In my opinion, it could have concluded with more of a bang if it had stopped at Chapter 20.

[Aiculík]

It does seem unconvincing to me how, in Chapter 21, Alex <<<SPOILERS>>> at the age of 18 already appears to be mellowing down. I would imagine that folks of the same "persuasion" as he at that age would still be at the "peak of their powers," so to speak. The last chapter lends a sort of B-movie-type ending to the book, I'm afraid. In my opinion, it could have concluded with more of a bang if it had stopped at Chapter 20.

I think without the final chapter, the book would be pointless - interesting story but nothing more. Only with it, the contrast between forced good and natural decision to change one's life is shown.
SPOILERS
Though Alex doesn't decide to change his life because he repents his former crimes, but rather because he's bored. His "droogs" are new, but the places they go to and things they do are the same as he did before; they meet same persons (like those women that are saying how good boys they are because they expect a drink again). There's nothing new or interesting in that, there's no challenge in it any more.
Also, he can see how Pete changed and he's impressed. He realizes how childish he must seem compared to Pete. One thing that 18 years old doesn't want is to seem childish and immature.
I don't think it so unrealistic - I also know few people who were "wild" during their teens, but were forced to become mature and serious when they had earn their own living... perhaps they did not change because of "right" reasons(or rather, reasons that other people would consider "right"), but they did change...
And that's also why I like the book. It does not idealise Alex, he is not "converted" to a saint, he just realizes that he cannot live like crazy droog forever - and at the same time, he's fully aware that next generations will be just as violent (or even more) as he and his droogs...

And one more thing - the 21st chapter is not "additional", or "new". It was always part of the novel, only USA publisher insisted in omitting it, though Burgess did not like it and thought it degrades the novel into simple story about violent teen. Besides, it ruined the structure of the novel - Burgess wanted it to have exactly 21 chapters in 3 sections of 7 chapters - numbers and symbols are very important for him. Even the name of the novel ifself is a symbol.

Here's what Burgess himself said about the novel:
"What I had tried to write was, as well as a novella, a sort of allegory of Christian free will. Man is defined by his capacity to choose courses of moral action. If he chooses good, he must have the possibility of choosing evil instead: evil is a theological necessity. I was also saying that it is more acceptable for us to perform evil acts than to bee conditioned artificially into an ability only to perform what is socially acceptable. The Times Literary Supplement reviewer (anonymous in those days) saw the book only as a 'nasty little shocker', which was rather unfair, while the down-market newspapers thought the Anglo-Russian slang was a silly little joke that didn't come off."
(From: A.B., prefatory note to A Clockwork Orange: A play with music. Century Hutchinson Ltd., 1987)

[bouquin]

Alex is more than just "wild" .... he is a rapist and a homicidal maniac. He is a criminal. I am in no way rejecting the possibility that he would eventually straighten up his act but for him to apparently start thinking about it already at age 18, it seems a bit far-fetched to me. This afternoon I was reading a news magazine article on juvenile delinquency. Among other things, the article said that the most narcissistic, most sociopathic individuals who start commiting horrendous crimes (such as murder) at an early age continue to do so for years, well into their 20s (and some even further than that, needless to say). Interestingly also, the article stated that, according to scientists, juvenile delinquency is very markedly influenced by environment (including upbringing) - which comes as no surprise - and genetics, that is, an apparent malfunction/deficiency of an enzyme called mono-amine oxydase A (MAO-A) or some such name.

[Trystan]

A relatively good novel, but the last chapter wasn't worth keeping in, in my opinion.

Why's that? It would feel incomplete without it. The idea was that Alex out grows his psychopathy naturally, the whole point of the book being that mind-control to meet social/political ends was a bad thing; a dangerous and unnatural thing.

I think that Burgess was trying to make a point against B.F. Skinner and his Ludovico-like ideas.

But I love this book. It's a prophecy of modern Britain.

[Seabird111]

I really need to read this book. Obviously it's pretty, eh, innapropriate, but it IS one of the most harrowing tales of violence in modern literature, sooo...

[Jozanny]

SPOILERS FOR BOOK AND MOVIE






Ebert's review was kind of funny to read because he attributed things to Kubric that weren't his intention. For instance, the audience is not supposed to like Alex. The story is told from his point of view, so it is incredibly biased. When the narrator starts killing people, that is a good clue that he may not be the most reliable storyteller. Alex likes Alex, so the film likes Alex, and the world is portrayed as if all people but Alex are crazy because Alex sees the world that way.

And the point is not to condone violence in a violent world, as Ebert believes. The violence in the film, especially the singing in the rain part, is meant to be appalling. The violence is supposed to be terrible so that we can see the benefits of Alex's mind control treatment. The film asks viewers which is better, a world of violence or a world without free will. It is an important question and the extreme vioence and Alex's insane glorification of this violence is necessary to make a fair argument for both sides.

Agree with this, but, having only recently read the novel, it is a bit quaint, nothing like what goes down in American inner cities, and too schematic for a post-9/11 (and 7/7 with the British trains?) society. It is an allegorical tale similar to the anti-utopian Huxley's Brave New World, and not particularly canon worthy

[TeH]

Hello,

I am doing a research paper on A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. The assignment was to find interesting Correlations to the Real World Today: historical to modern events, songs, articles, current events.

Any one have any idea?

I was thinking of comparing Alex to the Joker from Batman comics.

- thanks

[Kitty88]

i have just started to read that book - i don't understand it!

[TeH]

i have just started to read that book - i don't understand it!

It is a great book. It took time to understand at first, but in the end, you will begin to understand and truly enjoy the novel. :D

[Kitty88]

oo ok thankies!

[ben.!]

I enjoyed reading A Clockwork Orange. Interesting study of cultural morality or lack thereof.

[Dharmabeat]

I guess you could try and correlate Alex and his 'droogs' to the gangs of today? I wouldn't know where to start with correlating music though, maybe someone else can help out there.

I'm also sure because of the popularity of the book there should be a wealth of information like this on Google :) Sorry I can't really be of much help but maybe the 'gangs' correlation could be a starting idea?

[waryan]

Yes I don't know if I could be as of much help but I would agree with dharmabeat concerning the gangs. Perhaps the correctional techniques employed in the book toward Alex might correlate to the psychology that dominates our lives today.

I am constantly studying the book myself. Good luck though.

[Quilp]

Have you thought about the use of language in the text?

It might be an idea to develop an idea around how it compares to the vernacular of the contemporary youth (text messages, email abbreviations...)

Just a thought. There is the obvious aspect of violence in the text and the way in which they attempt to rehabilitate. Is this a viable solution for today's 'out of control' youth - are such things happening already?

Hmmm, lots to think about

Mr Quilp

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, I just read this, and I really liked it. The created slang threw me at first, but I picked up on it--on my own and with some help from the internet.

I'm not going to go real in depth here, just wanted to start a discussion. The forward by Burgess explains how the last chapter was taken out in America when it was first published. Honestly, I think it's a better ending without the last chapter, but I guess I'm just twisted like that.

[jakobmuller]

For the record, i loved the slang. The ending is a bit hazy by now though its been a while.

The created slang is probably my favorite part about it. It makes it very very fun to read, especially when you can tell you are picking up better and better all the meanings.

The actual story is great, too. :-)

I really like the point it makes about good and evil. About how good is worthless when there is no choice to be bad. It really hits the whole yin yang principle, and how there's got to be balance.

One of my favorite books. Need to get on re-reading it soon

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I was wondering . . .

SPOILERS

When Alex is being "reformed" they do so by forcing him to watch violent movies by prying his eyes open. Was this the first time that idea was used, of brainwashing someone through making them watch something with their eyes forced open? Because it is used so much, in movies, cartoons, etc. I have no specific examples, but when reading that part I knew I've seen it before, and I've never seen the movie.

[Apocrypha75]

I read this in my youth and it is a keeper. Great themes and the Nadsat language that you learn throughout (almost subliminally) is one of the genius parts of it. A book that certainly leaves an impression and is worthy of the praise, IMHO.

[PoeticPassions]

a lot of the slang that Burgess uses is based off of Russian or other slavic languages. I picked up on most of the words since I speak a slavic language, so it was not to difficult to jump right in... but it is definitely a unique novel in that respect.

I don't remember now the diffrence between the two versions, or which version I read... with or without the last chapter. Can someone explain? thanks!

[The Atheist]

When Alex is being "reformed" they do so by forcing him to watch violent movies by prying his eyes open. Was this the first time that idea was used, of brainwashing someone through making them watch something with their eyes forced open? Because it is used so much, in movies, cartoons, etc. I have no specific examples, but when reading that part I knew I've seen it before, and I've never seen the movie.

It's called aversion therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversion_therapy)and it's been around a lot longer than ACO.

Tom Sharpe has played around with it as well. Very popular theme.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Again, spoilers.

The last chapter is basically a "happy ending," in that Alex grows up and realizes he really doesn't want to commit these acts of violence anymore, but would like to have a family. He realizes this when he runs in to Pete (I think that's his name), one of the guys he ran around with at the beginning of the story, and finds him with his wife.

The chapter before that ends with Alex getting better after his attempted suicide and realizes the head trauma he suffered released him from the aversion therapy (thanks, Atheist). It ends with him laying in bed, listening to classical music, and a line that was something like, "Alex had been cured." Very, very dark ending.

I didn't like the last chapter so much because it was a happy ending (though that is part of it) but it seemed a bit abrupt and contrived, how he grows up all of a sudden.

P.S. Atheist, that is one of the creepiest avatars ever, though I respect your reasons for using it. Still, pretty disturbing, which I'm sure is the point.

[Don Quixote Jr]

Regarding A Clockwork Orange, I've never read the book, but I have watched the movie several times. I'm curious to hear (well, read actually) comments from anyone out there who has read the book and seen the movie, and I guess this should inspire me to read the book since I'm quite fond of the film version.

[Zee.]

I would like to hear your opinion about A Clockwork Orange

[mayneverhave]

I thoroughly enjoyed the film - have not read the book however.

[IJustMadeThatUp]

I picked up the book about six months ago, I was too lazy to push through with all of the made up words. I plan on reading it at some stage, I just couldn't be bothered then.

[lupe]

I haven't read the book either. I saw the film when I was young and it really had a tremendous impact on me. I still consider it one of the masterpieces of american cinema.