Milk Plus (A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess)

Member Name: SlyClone2k

Product:	A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess
Date:	01/05/03 (485 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Clever use of political satire sets the book above pulp

Disadvantages: Language may seem difficult to grasp at first

I seem to have got myself in to a 'reading books that have been made into films season' at the moment. I've recently read the The Two Towers and The Beach, both of which are far better than the films. Somewhat absent minded I picked up 'A Clockwork Orange' a novel by Anthony Burgess and film by Stanley Kubrick.

Perhaps you are on of the few to have never found either, and this would be altogether surprising. Kubricks film, released in 1971, proved to be shockingly explicit in its portrayal of the story on which it is based, so much so that Kubrick decided us Britonians weren't capable of grasping its complexities and it was held from release in Britain until very recently. The book may have escaped your notice as its complex prose and narrative style sometimes make for quite tough work. Let me explain.

One of the first things that people notice about A Clockwork Orange is the language that Alex and his friends use. It doesn't, perhaps, seem surprising that they have developed a slang of their own, what group of teenagers doesn't? But Nadsat, as it is called in the book, is an extremely well developed dialect that Burgess created specifically for the book. The language owes a great deal to Russian (Nadsat itself is a Russian word used to describe the numbers 11 - 19, in case this escapes your notice a reflection on 'teen' numbers) but is also interlaced with gypsy and 'kiddie speak' (skolliwoll; school and eggy-weg; eggs) amongst other influences.

A Clockwork Orange is set in London, somewhere in the not too distant future. The world has changed a great deal. Slipping, as is often the case in science fiction, into a far from utopian future where only the young or foolish roam the streets at night. Burgess not only portrays a wicked future but a socialist one as well. The world Alex lives in smacks of socialist dogma, from the police force to the naming of the buildings; municipal flat block a

nd the prison Stargent number 84-F. But later we understand just how dogmatic the state is in its attempts to control its citizens.

We are introduced to 15 year old Alex, leader of his gang of 'droogs', who's primary concern in life is to get their kicks from the old 'ultra-violence' raping, fighting and stealing wherever, whenever and whatever their hearts desire. All four of his gang enjoy their sordid delinquent activities but Alex is just a little different from the rest. Alex lives in a world where he and his gang have the run of the mill, their youthful enterprise and strength set them forward above the adults. Thought the system is never far behind him, he manages to accomplish staggering acts of 'horrorshow ultraviolence' before he comes unstuck.

Alex proves that he isn't just a mindless yob. While his droogs mindlessly follow whatever idea is set in front of them Alex is coolly calculating the best methods to glean enjoyment from his situations. His appreciation of the classical composers sets him apart from his contemporaries and during a quarrel with one of his party it becomes clear that despite his delinquent attitude he finds manners important in some situations. Soon he has conflict with them. A conflict of interests that leads to a double cross that finds him incarcerated at the hands of the state. At this point Alex enters the world of the system, or more importantly the world of the adults, away from his group he is just a boy at the mercy of the police and prison system who have no problem punishing him in kind.

From here on in we really begin to explore the principle of the story. As we don't get to this point until about halfway through the novella it could have been easy to switch off and think this book or indeed film is ultimately debasing and futile. The fact that we have already been party to several acts of violence, from the roughing up of an old tramp to the rape and bea
ting of a man and his wife, it begins to feel as though it is going nowhere. Oh but it
is my brothers. Burgess has to portray his character unerringly as we need to understand just how corrupt Alex is to appreciate the magnitude of his cure. Be fully aware that Burgess never seeks to justify Alexs actions in anyway other than to reflect on how teenagers are often troublesome, their only form of expression is destruction as they are yet without the maturity to work towards something more creative.

Something the book does a great deal better than the film is capture Alex's early incarceration. His first two years spent in the normal system where he bends the rules and needs of the system to cut him self some slack and obtain easy duties in the prison chapel. Here perhaps Alex explores his psyche with us more in depth. Discussing theology with the prison chaplain, he learns of a miracle cure that allows the worst offending prisoners to be released back in to the free world in a very short time. The chaplain as a man of God has his misgivings though; "Question is, whether or not this technique really makes a man good. Goodness comes from within. Goodness is chosen, when a man cannot chose, he ceases to be a man." But Alex is still young and naïve. Trapped in a prison system where he has to contend with "smelly perverts and hardened crustoodniks", his desire is to escape the system in the shortest time possible is excruciating.

Alex is unaware of the magnitude of the decision that sees him as a willing participant in this new program to cure him. A cure that rids of him not of his desire to commit such terrible acts, but instead conditions him to become convulsively ill at the merest thought, to the extent that the notion of killing a fly even gives him some pause for thought. To his horror he is conditioned to hate Beethoven as well.

Alex is cured, via the Ludovico's treatment and subsequently released back in
to the world. Revenge is nigh, for during the next chapters he encounters many of the people that he harmed during his turbulent and halcyon days (and I'm aware how contradictory those two words are!). Without the ability to defend himself Alex finds himself in deep trouble. The irony is not lost on him and before to long he decides it is time to take his life.

To say too much more would ruin the point of your reading the book at all, but the book goes on to explore several aspects of philosophical debate. The idea that the state "always know what is best" for us is prevalent throughout the second and third parts of the book. Once again it seems important to reiterate the chaplains sentiment, "A man who cannot choose ceases to be man", in its literal form we understand that any removal of freedom of choice is damaging to the spirit. However in its parallels to society we can see Burgess pointing out that any totalitarian state regulations that reduces the freedom of choice for the common man is not acceptable. Removal of free choice reduces us to puppets of the state; automatons, or robots.

Ultimately, both the book and film work on several levels. Even at the shallowest level one can see the obvious irony of Alexs personal descent in to hell without freedom of choice. I'm not particularly good at finding parallels between novels and the real world, but the realisation that no matter how great the crimes a person can commit are it is nothing in comparison to the crimes that the state can execute in the name of control.

Even the title "A Clockwork Orange" works on at different levels, the words themselves are old English slang meaning "queerer than anything else" (the word queer in its original sense not as a reference to homosexuality). The clockwork indicates what Alex becomes, without choice his actions become automated like that of a robot.

It turns out that originally the book
was released in the US without the important last chapter, a chapter which fully exposes the point of the story, to elaborate would create even more of a spoiler. So enough is to say that it touches on how even the most delinquent child can mature into a useful adult. A suggestion, perhaps, on the ideas of execution of young criminals, certainly one of the arguments I have heard regarding the death penalty, is that you can never know what good a person might be able to achieve.

For me the book is better than the film, although the film remains very faithful to the original work it looses something of its political satire in translation. That said I think the book makes extremely heavy work because some of the nadsat language is difficult to pick up, having seen the film it is easier to recall what certain words mean i.e.; Gulliver: Head, Cancer: Cigarette, Baboochkas: Women. The film due to its nature is decidedly more graphic, Kubrick was able to exploit changes in pornography regulations to produce a film that was far more explicit than anything previously seen, yet the violence whilst shocking is never titillating, and often softened by Alex's nadsat narrative.

It's rare for me to pick up a book and be able to analyse it, I was never particularly good at this sort of thing at school and now 13 years on I find that I may have picked up on the ability to understand things to a deeper level. The trouble is with so much 'pulp' fiction about it becomes increasingly difficult to cut the wheat from the chaff. In "A Clockwork Orange" Burgess treats us to a story that is clearly satirical and asking us to explore the principles behind freedom of choice and the part governments play in our lives. To that end I would elevate "Clockwork" to one of the best stories I've ever read, even if Burgess himself didn't consider it to be his best work.

Coming next.. Trainspotting

Summary: