August Group Read: A Clockwork Orange

Have a very busy weekend ahead, so I thought I would put this up. A little early, but it is up as promised. Hope you enjoy the read. I'm looking forward to your thoughts and comments.

Due to the traumatizing experience of seeing the film version of Clockwork Orange as a teen, I have no interest in reading this book. Actually, it's probably more fear than disinterest. However, I'm sure some who will read it have seen the film, and I'm interested in hearing people's comparisons of the two. Even though it was many years ago, I still remember the film quite well (it was seared into my brain, unfortunately). Looking forward to everyone's comments in general . . .

I read the book a few years ago and really liked it. It takes some getting used to (I had a 'dictionary' besides me that I found on-line) but the use of language is awesome. I saw the movie this year and liked it despite being seriously grossed out by it. The violence was quite jarring and I had to turn away at times but despite my hatred for the main character, the actor did a fantastic job at portraying him. And I must say, the weird sped up sex scene made me laugh hysterically (warped mind, I know). The book is different yet similar if that makes any sense. The violence is there (obviously) but its presented in a different way and I wasn't as horrified about it as I was with the movie adaption of it.

I have just read it - and have seen the film before. I hated the film but enjoyed the book. The violence is much less graphic in the book and the nadsat language seems to tone it down a bit further too. If you compare it to something like The girl with the dragon tattoo which has really horrendous scenes of violence it seems tame!

I have to say I didn't like the ending of this - it felt a bit weak compared to the rest of the book. But overall interesting - so don't be put off :)

A Simple act of violence by R.J.Ellory is an essential read.This is an English author who sets his books in the states.He has won numerous awards in his native England also in France and Italy.

#4 -- it's my understanding that there are 2 versions of the book with different endings, one that was the original UK version and one with an additional chapter published in the USA. Which version were you reading?

6 - I didn't know that! I read the Penguin Modern Classics version. I wonder how different it was from the other?

ETA - thank you Wikipedia! The US version had the last chapter omitted prior to 1986. The book is supposed to have 21 chapters in total (7 in each section) so the 21st chapter was readded.

I saw the movie many years ago, and thought it was very very good, but that I never ever wanted to see it again. So there was some trepidation when it came to the book, but the violence is less in-your-face (the plot seemed very similar, though), and the language is fascinating. I loved nadsat.

I won't be re-reading the book, as I only read it last year (or maybe the year before, time all blurs a bit sometimes).

I had twenty one chapters in my version - had a look on wiki it appears I have the same tastes as eighties american audiences.

I just felt that 'out-growing' that level of violence was unrealistic. I understand the commentary on youth and adolesence and the milestone of adulthood - but I don't know if it was satisfactory in terms of the psche behind violence. If thats makes any sense at all???

#9 - I think the point of the book is to use a very extreme example to make people think about the problematising of youth. Youths tend to be treated, at least in our British media, as a problem which needs to be treated, whilst forgetting that every generation has problem youths who most often tend to grow up and change without having radical measures taken. I do understand your point, but I think it is more to be taken as a thought provoking piece as opposed to saying that such an extreme change in that particular case would be likely.

Well, I finished it and didn't think much of it. If you take away the catchy language which just made reading more difficult, there really isn't much of a story there. A much more significant social and political statement was made through the writing of The Jungle without all the gibberish and yet a very interesting story line. If it hadn't been on the list, I never would have gotten past the first few chapters. But that is also what I appreciate about group reads. They act as a quasi-pressure group to read works that I otherwise would never finish.

Haha, I know what you mean about the pressure group feeling! There are plenty of books I wouldn't have read but for the list, I do appreciate it. I actually felt the same about Clockwork when I first read it, but then I was in the play and thought about it for longer, and compared it to the stories in the news at the time. I decided I actually felt he was making a really important statement not just about youth but also about free will and the role of the state, an argument which could be expanded to such things as the censorship debate: should people be "protected" as opposed to being trusted to use their free will to make a choice for themselves? And so forth. I do get what you mean though, I think it's only when looked at from a certain angle that the book doesn't come across as completely overhyped.

I'm really struggling with this one. The violence is way, way beyond anything I would choose to read -- not the violence in itself, but the description of terrorizing the weak and the very old and the very young and the intellectual just for the fun of it.

It's odd because it doesn't make me hate the main character; in fact there is something almost charming about him, which probably comes from the crazy language. At first I found that very very annoying, but I've come to enjoy it. I know enough Russian that I can get the word that's being mangled about 3/4 of the time ("gulliver" is hysterical). The language thing isn't just Russian, it's a take-off on "Teddy Boy" speak from England around this time. I've read another book, The Thuggery Affair, that tries to do Ted-Talk, so I recognize that what seems impossibly arch and pretentious now really is the slang of the times, at least as middle-class writers replicated it.

so, why do you think he included so much seemingly gratuitous violence? I had a similar issue with American Psycho although I thought it was a work of genius... a kind of literary equivalent of A Beautiful Mind. Still, I thought the violence was unnecessarily graphic.

#14 - I think that part of it is that no matter how gratuitous the violence one person uses is, they should still be treated as a human being, because otherwise it creates fundamental problems within society, like denial of free-will. I think he was using such extreme examples so that the reader couldn't really say "Oh but if he did , he should have got that treatment". It's against moral totalitarianism, in a sense. People should be given the opportunity to change instead of being turned into automatons through brainwashing. I'm getting very tired now, so I'm not sure I'm expressing myself very clearly or even getting the full point across...so I may try again tomorrow if I feel I missed something!

Finished the book and, to my great surprise, quite liked it. I liked the narrator's voice and language a lot, it's just brilliant, and the unexpected humor, and the anti-hero's fetish for classical music.

The gratuitous violence I guess was to establish Alex as a completely amoral character, so that the question would be, what is the point of rendering a person "good" (in terms of acceptable behavior) without actually basing that on morality? What is morality, anyway? -- a question raised several times in sections 2 and 3, with the priest and the political group.

The violence also somehow feels less awful in retrospect as you get into the incredibly artificed feel of this book. And the revenge of the old guys in the last section is pretty hilarious. His whole turn to libraries and search for "Home" was neatly done.

The anti-totalitarianism of the book is interestingly problematized by the political guys at the end who deliberately try to drive him crazy in order to make their anti-government point.

Definitely worth its place on the list.

Here's a question for you all: do you think this book belongs on the 1001 list? Why or why not?

I do, I do! I thought it was an awesome book (and movie for that matter). I loved looking at good vs evil and asking the ultimate question: can evil ever really be tamed. But, I was a psych major so these things fascinate me.

I think it belongs on the list because of its great use of language, especially his creation of nadsat. It's a rare achievement to create words that are still resonant today, even if he didn't hit the dizzy heights of Lewis Carroll's "galumph". :)

I absolutely agree that this deserves a place on the 1001 list - I enjoyed it despite myself - not least because of the challenge in accepting the violence while not being able to really dislike the perpetrator. The language is another real positive.

I would have preferred a different ending as I mentioned in earlier posts but I don't think that this detracts from this books place on the list.

What do you reckon my droogs?? ;)

Yep... I second, third, whatever, the recommendation to have it on the list. Patrick Bateman is a great literary creation IMHO.

and what the heck is a droog? and am I really one of yours, chrissybob?

arukiyomi, I think you've gotten A Clockwork Orange and American Psycho muddled. :)

ah... yes droogs! Now I remember! I did indeed think we were back to A. Psycho. Oh... no question that the Orange should be on the list... no question.

#11 - I really couldn't have put it better (and I voted for it, sorry!). While I can see the language is an achievement, to me it does just make it harder to read - especially in the first few chapters, which if it wasn't for the group read "quasi-pressure group" (again, couldn't put it better so hope you don't mind me quoting) I just wouldn't have bothered to carry on beyond.

I did find that after the first third or so I found it much easier to read and enjoyed it a bit more - but I finished it without a feeling of having read something truly profound or even having read much beyond a simple narrative.

I'd like to find more to like about it, but there's the mackerel of the cornflake for you.