A Clockwork OrangeAnthony Burgess
This review is a continuation of this post, in which other Weekly Geeks contributed questions about my unreviewed books. Questions and answers are below.
Alessandra asks, How did you like A Clockwork Orange? What did you think of the strange language of the main character?
I actually liked the novel a lot more than I thought I would. The strange language took some getting used to at first, but it was always pretty obvious what was meant. It also made me skim a bit more, which made for quicker reading.
Bybee asks, Did your edition of A Clockwork Orange have a lexicon at the back? Mine did, created by Stanley Edgar Hyman, husband of Shirley Jackson. Fun Lit Factoid. OK, I'll shut up now.
NO, mine DID NOT. And, as you can see, I’m fairly envious.
Bookchronicle asks, Did you struggle with the "new" vocabulary the author introduces? Did you feel the violence was too much or necessary? Was the violence well-written? If you've seen the movie, how does it compare?
Well, regarding the vocabulary, see above. As for the violence, I actually thought it was bearable in the novel, unlike in the movie. In the novel, the language obscures some of what's happening, and a lot of it isn't crystal clear, although one senses the gist of it. I thought the violence was well-written and not overdone, unlike in the movie (which I thought took the violence to extremes, although that was Kubrick's point).
Amanda asks, I've been wanting to read A Clockwork Orange but I remember seeing the movie a while back and wasn't sure if I'd like the book after that. Have you seen the movie as well and how does it compare with the book?
I’ve seen most of the movie, but the rape scenes always turned me off. And that whole eye scene, which is just SO unnecessary, in my opinion, is even worse than the rapes. I shudder to even recall it now. I did, however, appreciate how Kubrick captured the “mod” sensibility of the novel. And Malcolm MacDowell is hot as balls, so that helps too.
There is one important difference between the two, which Burgess was quick to discuss in my version of the novel, which contains an introduction by the author. The novel contains 21 chapters (three parts of seven chapters each). The final chapter is the most important, as it shows clear, positive change in the narrator. Kubrick, however, cut the final chapter from his movie, which totally changes the message of the novel.
I can see the merit in each, but I'm ultimately siding with Burgess.
Book Zombie asks, This was written as a social satire of man's inhumanity to one another, do you feel it is relevant or an over-exaggeration?
Both actually. Burgess exaggerates to make a point, a point which I feel is more relevant than ever. A lot of people find violence to be fun, much like the main character. Also, as our technology improves, we may be faced with the ability to force people to be "good," which raises some interesting questions regarding morality.
Jackie asks, For someone who has never heard all the hype over this novel, how would you describe it? What would you say to convince someone to read it, even though it's obviously outside of their comfort zone? Is there anything in this novel that doesn't feel like someone has seen it on the news lately or that they might possibly see it on the news in the future?
I'd have to say that A Clockwork Orange is unlike anything else I've read. Violence will always be on the news, but Burgess adds quite a few twists that hopefully aren't too common now (or ever will be). First, our narrator is very young and very violent. He's also a participant in experiments aimed to prevent people from doing bad.
As for the novel itself, it's social commentary, it's satire, it's philosophy. Burgess manages to pack a lot of ideas in a novel with a lot of action. He also uses language provocatively. I'd definitely recommend taking a look at this novel even if it's outside your comfort zone. It might not be a favorite, but it will definitely make you think.
JoyRenee asks a bunch of questions, all of which are below:
How was Point-of-View handled? Was there a single POV character or did it alternate among two or more? Was it always clear whose eyes and mind were filtering?
Yes, POV was always clear. Burgess used first-person narration, told through the eyes of Alex, a very violent teenager.
How was language used to set tone and mood?
Burgess uses language to illustrate both the youth and the violence of the lead character. He perfectly captures Alex's personality, and I felt as though Alex were sitting next to me, telling me his story.
Was the prose dense or spare? Were sentences generally simple or complex?
The prose was pretty dense and featured complex sentences, although it felt simple while I was reading it, probably due to the fast-paced nature of the plot.
How was metaphor used? Were associations fresh or did they tend toward cliche? Did they add to your understanding of the theme?
Considering Burgess employed a special dialect of his own invention (although much was taken from other languages, like Russian), I would say the language was fresh.
What was the central or organizing theme?
Some key themes are man's inhumanity man, the nature of man (whether intrinsically good or bad) and if that nature can be changed (and if it should be changed), the nature of morality, and so on.
How does the title relate to the story? Was it fitting?
The idea of a clockwork orange refers to that which is alive (an orange) yet which has been reduced to little more than a machine (a clockwork orange). Burgess ponders whether it's better to be an orange (even if it means you're a bad orange) or if it's better to be a clockwork orange (in which the bad orange is made to be good). I believe Burgess would argue that the orange must choose to be good; clockwork oranges are bad.
Alessandra asks, How did you like A Clockwork Orange? What did you think of the strange language of the main character?
I actually liked the novel a lot more than I thought I would. The strange language took some getting used to at first, but it was always pretty obvious what was meant. It also made me skim a bit more, which made for quicker reading.
Bybee asks, Did your edition of A Clockwork Orange have a lexicon at the back? Mine did, created by Stanley Edgar Hyman, husband of Shirley Jackson. Fun Lit Factoid. OK, I'll shut up now.
NO, mine DID NOT. And, as you can see, I’m fairly envious.
Bookchronicle asks, Did you struggle with the "new" vocabulary the author introduces? Did you feel the violence was too much or necessary? Was the violence well-written? If you've seen the movie, how does it compare?
Well, regarding the vocabulary, see above. As for the violence, I actually thought it was bearable in the novel, unlike in the movie. In the novel, the language obscures some of what's happening, and a lot of it isn't crystal clear, although one senses the gist of it. I thought the violence was well-written and not overdone, unlike in the movie (which I thought took the violence to extremes, although that was Kubrick's point).
Amanda asks, I've been wanting to read A Clockwork Orange but I remember seeing the movie a while back and wasn't sure if I'd like the book after that. Have you seen the movie as well and how does it compare with the book?
I’ve seen most of the movie, but the rape scenes always turned me off. And that whole eye scene, which is just SO unnecessary, in my opinion, is even worse than the rapes. I shudder to even recall it now. I did, however, appreciate how Kubrick captured the “mod” sensibility of the novel. And Malcolm MacDowell is hot as balls, so that helps too.
There is one important difference between the two, which Burgess was quick to discuss in my version of the novel, which contains an introduction by the author. The novel contains 21 chapters (three parts of seven chapters each). The final chapter is the most important, as it shows clear, positive change in the narrator. Kubrick, however, cut the final chapter from his movie, which totally changes the message of the novel.
I can see the merit in each, but I'm ultimately siding with Burgess.
Book Zombie asks, This was written as a social satire of man's inhumanity to one another, do you feel it is relevant or an over-exaggeration?
Both actually. Burgess exaggerates to make a point, a point which I feel is more relevant than ever. A lot of people find violence to be fun, much like the main character. Also, as our technology improves, we may be faced with the ability to force people to be "good," which raises some interesting questions regarding morality.
Jackie asks, For someone who has never heard all the hype over this novel, how would you describe it? What would you say to convince someone to read it, even though it's obviously outside of their comfort zone? Is there anything in this novel that doesn't feel like someone has seen it on the news lately or that they might possibly see it on the news in the future?
I'd have to say that A Clockwork Orange is unlike anything else I've read. Violence will always be on the news, but Burgess adds quite a few twists that hopefully aren't too common now (or ever will be). First, our narrator is very young and very violent. He's also a participant in experiments aimed to prevent people from doing bad.
As for the novel itself, it's social commentary, it's satire, it's philosophy. Burgess manages to pack a lot of ideas in a novel with a lot of action. He also uses language provocatively. I'd definitely recommend taking a look at this novel even if it's outside your comfort zone. It might not be a favorite, but it will definitely make you think.
JoyRenee asks a bunch of questions, all of which are below:
How was Point-of-View handled? Was there a single POV character or did it alternate among two or more? Was it always clear whose eyes and mind were filtering?
Yes, POV was always clear. Burgess used first-person narration, told through the eyes of Alex, a very violent teenager.
How was language used to set tone and mood?
Burgess uses language to illustrate both the youth and the violence of the lead character. He perfectly captures Alex's personality, and I felt as though Alex were sitting next to me, telling me his story.
Was the prose dense or spare? Were sentences generally simple or complex?
The prose was pretty dense and featured complex sentences, although it felt simple while I was reading it, probably due to the fast-paced nature of the plot.
How was metaphor used? Were associations fresh or did they tend toward cliche? Did they add to your understanding of the theme?
Considering Burgess employed a special dialect of his own invention (although much was taken from other languages, like Russian), I would say the language was fresh.
What was the central or organizing theme?
Some key themes are man's inhumanity man, the nature of man (whether intrinsically good or bad) and if that nature can be changed (and if it should be changed), the nature of morality, and so on.
How does the title relate to the story? Was it fitting?
The idea of a clockwork orange refers to that which is alive (an orange) yet which has been reduced to little more than a machine (a clockwork orange). Burgess ponders whether it's better to be an orange (even if it means you're a bad orange) or if it's better to be a clockwork orange (in which the bad orange is made to be good). I believe Burgess would argue that the orange must choose to be good; clockwork oranges are bad.
* * * * *
Thanks to everyone who submitted questions! You helped me review a book that's stumped me for awhile.
In a nutshell: Complex and thought-provoking, but worth the effort.
Bibliolatry Scale: 5 out of 6 stars
In a nutshell: Complex and thought-provoking, but worth the effort.
Bibliolatry Scale: 5 out of 6 stars
1 comment:
Great answers, I've often wondered why Kubrick chose to leave out the last chapter.
Oh and btw I found this nifty website which is a NADSAT glossary. It came in useful for a book club I participated in, where not every member had an edition of Clockwork Orange that included the glossary :)
Post a Comment