Book Club: June - A Clockwork Orange

[abbey]

Discuss the book here!

Rules:
You don't have to be finished reading the book to comment on it.
Make sure to tag and label your spoilers.
Say what chapter you're talking about even if you don't have spoilers in your post.
CONTRIBUTE. If you just post something like "I'm liking the book so far" and that's all, you're going to get a Time Out. Either comment on something you think should be discussed, or talk about what someone else has said.
All other forum rules apply. Read them if you haven't.

And that's it!

[Scrotemeal]

Chaptersss: One?

My book is on request from the library at the moment, and will be arriving in about 2 years. But i started reading this a while ago, and couldn't get past the first chapter. What do you guys think about the language used? I couldn't understand it and it really frustrated me. Is there a basis to the words (someone said Russian or something before I think?) or are they made-up?

[stfu]

Is there a basis to the words (someone said Russian or something before I think?) or are they made-up?

My book came with an introduction, explaining the basis for the language used in the book (known as 'nadsat').

"Burgess called this language nadsat, a transliteration of the Russian suffix for 'teen', and imagined that at the time and place the events in the novel occur (somewhere in Europe, circa 1972), it had become part of the culture, or sub-culture.

Their language is essentially Anglo-American (Russian readers would be more in need of a translation than, say, English readers) but many of the words are Slavic in origin."

It has a few examples of words as well, and explains that most should be easy to make out just by using the context of the paragraph they were used in.

Anyway, I read Chapter One about three times over, just so I could fully understand what was happening, and I'm about to start on Chapter Two.

The language used is great. Some of the paragraphs may be a little complex and I had to read them over a few times slowly just to understand what they meant. I got stuck with a few of the 'nadsat' words, not being able to comprehend what they were referring to. Does anybody else have trouble with certain sections of the book?

So far it's been pretty enjoyable, even though it's only the beginning of the book. Only 20 more chapters to go.:indiff:

[timbot]

My suggestion would be not to worry too much about the language. Use the context clues, take your time at first, but don't kill yourself trying to figure out an exact definition of every strange word. You'll get more and more used to it as the book goes on.

[tunacake]

My book came with an introduction, explaining the basis for the language used in the book (known as 'nadsat').


Mine too, but I didn't read it when I saw that it said what some of the words meant. I wanted the full experience of the book, as always.

The language is only difficult during the first few pages. Like Timbot said, just figure the word out from the context and you'll be fine. Nadsat is one of my favorite parts of the book.


Book/movie spoiler: What did anyone who has seen the movie and read the book think of the endings? I thought they were both pretty great, but I think I like the movie ending better. Alex was such a strong character throughout the story, and I liked in the movie how he came out victorious over the Ludovico technique in the end, further enhancing the strength of his character. But I also liked the tragic elements of the book ending.

[misc]

All of the common nadsat words become lodged into your memory by the time you're really into the book, occasionally I've come across a word and haven't been able to figure it out but it hasn't really affected my enjoyment of the book. I do think that nadsat adds a lot to the book, it really emphasises the realy dystopian sort of feel, as well as tehe huge difference between youth and adults, which is one of the bigger points the book makes

[tunacake]

All of the common nadsat words become lodged into your memory by the time you're really into the book, s

Heh, the word 'horrorshow' worked its way into my regular vocabulary after reading the book.

[Shmuh]

I started reading it a while ago, but had to stop at chapter 3 because the language was pissing me off. Is it much different from the movie? If so, what are some of the differences between the 2?

[CharlieH]

Wikipedia has a bunch of them. Like 20 or more.

[tunacake]

Duuuudes don't wiki it. That totally ruins it.

I started reading it a while ago, but had to stop at chapter 3 because the language was pissing me off. Is it much different from the movie? If so, what are some of the differences between the 2?

The atmosphere is totally different. Stanley Kubrick and Anthony Burgess had completely different visions, and in my opinion they're both masterpieces. I'm not going to say anymore because I don't want to ruin anything but both are definitely worth the read/watch.

[timbot]

Mine too, but I didn't read it when I saw that it said what some of the words meant. I wanted the full experience of the book, as always.

The language is only difficult during the first few pages. Like Timbot said, just figure the word out from the context and you'll be fine. Nadsat is one of my favorite parts of the book.


Book/movie spoiler: What did anyone who has seen the movie and read the book think of the endings? I thought they were both pretty great, but I think I like the movie ending better. Alex was such a strong character throughout the story, and I liked in the movie how he came out victorious over the Ludovico technique in the end, further enhancing the strength of his character. But I also liked the tragic elements of the book ending.

Book/movie spoiler: I liked the ending of the book quite a bit. The way the movie ended is based on the way the book originally ended in it's American printing. Americans generally having a more rebellious nature, the publishers thought that ending fit better. Later, the final chapter was put back in. I don't think the ending of the book makes Alex weaker. I think it just makes him more...human. He didn't straighten up because of the Ludovico technique, he did simply because he grew up.

[tunacake]

Book/movie spoiler: I liked the ending of the book quite a bit. The way the movie ended is based on the way the book originally ended in it's American printing. Americans generally having a more rebellious nature, the publishers thought that ending fit better. Later, the final chapter was put back in. I don't think the ending of the book makes Alex weaker. I think it just makes him more...human. He didn't straighten up because of the Ludovico technique, he did simply because he grew up.

You just reminded me of something with the "because he grew up" thing. One part of the book that I was a little iffy about was when Alex met up with Pete again. Pete was all normal, with his girlfriend (or wife, I forget); and he was even reminiscing about the old days a little bit. It was as if he just grew out of being a goddamn serial rapist. It's not a "Boys will be boys" type scenario, but that was the atmosphere when they met up again. Maybe Pete just tried to block it all out when he "grew up," I dunno. Thoughts?

[timbot]

You just reminded me of something with the "because he grew up" thing. One part of the book that I was a little iffy about was when Alex met up with Pete again. Pete was all normal, with his girlfriend (or wife, I forget); and he was even reminiscing about the old days a little bit. It was as if he just grew out of being a goddamn serial rapist. It's not a "Boys will be boys" type scenario, but that was the atmosphere when they met up again. Maybe Pete just tried to block it all out when he "grew up," I dunno. Thoughts?

I'd like to share my thoughts, but it's been too long since I've read the book, and I'm really busy currently and probably won't have time to read it again, though I'd like to. I will say this, though, as a more general analysis based on my memory of the book: I definitely got that "boys will be boys" feel from things as the grew up. Which is quite odd considering what they were doing. I mean, this isn't Tom Sawyer playing pranks and running away down the river. But, in a way, maybe that's a broader social commentary. Perhaps Burgess was pointing out the trend toward that kind of behavior being more and more accepted. Sure, serial rape isn't accepted, but think about the way sexual promiscuity is viewed today as opposed to 50 years ago. I'm just kind of musing here, but maybe that's part of what he was driving at.

[ZulieKat]

Chapters 1-3ish
I'm just getting into the book and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the following:

I've watched the movie awhile back in a psych class, as an example of antisocial personality disorder. There were a couple bits I was skeptical about in labeling it as such, although I do think there is plenty of evidence for it. Typically, with antisocial PD, there is a disregard for others/rules of society to benefit oneself.

While Alex definitely meets the requirement of disregard of society, do you think he is doing it for his own benefit? Money does not seem to be an issue, because he does not take it from all of his victims, and the money he does take it seems he spends little of on himself. So basically, very clearly violence for the sake of violence. For example, they do not take any money from the professor, only destroy his books. When they go into the bar, they spend nearly all of their money on the old women, leave to steal more, and then spend it again on the old women, claiming to use it to obtain an aliby. However, if that was their only purpose, would they have spent all of the money? Almost a twisted sort of Robin Hood, in a way.

[Alcoholic]

As far as the book goes....
The book explains that the fall from the window is what "cured" Alex of the Ludovico treatment. The original ending of the book wasn't taken out due to anyones' "rebellious nature", actually. It was changed because the implication Burgess made was felt to be too dark and condemning, concerning Alex's son being destined to be a person with the same inclinations his father had. The "growing up" occurred too, but not as a device to cure the treatment. The maturing came of Alex's free will later in life, having noticed his impact on society. I thought the books ending really brought solidarity to the story, especially when he had quiet times with his old pal Pete and Pete's wife. The movie had a fun little denoument that at gives you that devilish little smile, leaving you thinking, "Hell yes, time for some more ultra-violence".

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/eventlog.php)
Reason: Label your spoilers.

[tunacake]

Chapters 1-3ish
I'm just getting into the book and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the following:

I've watched the movie awhile back in a psych class, as an example of antisocial personality disorder. There were a couple bits I was skeptical about in labeling it as such, although I do think there is plenty of evidence for it. Typically, with antisocial PD, there is a disregard for others/rules of society to benefit oneself.

While Alex definitely meets the requirement of disregard of society, do you think he is doing it for his own benefit? Money does not seem to be an issue, because he does not take it from all of his victims, and the money he does take it seems he spends little of on himself. So basically, very clearly violence for the sake of violence. For example, they do not take any money from the professor, only destroy his books. When they go into the bar, they spend nearly all of their money on the old women, leave to steal more, and then spend it again on the old women, claiming to use it to obtain an aliby. However, if that was their only purpose, would they have spent all of the money? Almost a twisted sort of Robin Hood, in a way.

I don't know much about psychology but Alex is definitely an example of an antisocial personality disorder as you described it. No, he wasn't looking for any money, but he was looking to benefit himself. He did what he did for the satisfaction that he gets from the old 'ultra violence' and causing other people to suffer. And had a disregard for everyone but himself. To Alex his 'droogs' were only there to help him get his fix. I'm sure if he were so inclined he would have disposed of Georgie, Pete, and Dim in a second and found some new friends.

[Fischante]

I must have read it like 6 or 7 times.I've been trying to get a hold of every book by Anthony Burgess since I first read it(The Pianoplayers is a very good one,for example).It totally deserves the credit,and being a foreigner languages student, I think it contains one of the most original made up languages,making the reading experience much more fun.

[Athrogate]

I've read the book once or twice, and seen the movie many times. One interesting thing I noticed, "nadsat" is supposed to be the equivalent to a sort of youth slang language correct? I found it a bit odd when characters who are much older, like Alex's mother, used nadsat. Is this just older people trying to act "hip"? Or have I mis-understood the point of nadsat?

On the subject, I found that you can figure out the meanings of most, if not all of the nadsat simply by the context in which it was used. I don't see anything wrong with using a dictionary though, it's not as if it takes anything away from the novel.

On the way they condition Alex....

Another topic I found interesting was the technique they used to condition Alex. From what I could tell, all they did to him was strap him down, hold his eyelids open, and force him to watch violent film after violent film. How exactly does this cause the association of violence/sex with feeling sick? Is it due to the drugs they gave him? It wasn't very clear on this, so I'd appreciate if someone could give an explanation.

[tunacake]

I've read the book once or twice, and seen the movie many times. One interesting thing I noticed, "nadsat" is supposed to be the equivalent to a sort of youth slang language correct? I found it a bit odd when characters who are much older, like Alex's mother, used nadsat. Is this just older people trying to act "hip"? Or have I mis-understood the point of nadsat?

On the subject, I found that you can figure out the meanings of most, if not all of the nadsat simply by the context in which it was used. I don't see anything wrong with using a dictionary though, it's not as if it takes anything away from the novel.

On the way they condition Alex....

Another topic I found interesting was the technique they used to condition Alex. From what I could tell, all they did to him was strap him down, hold his eyelids open, and force him to watch violent film after violent film. How exactly does this cause the association of violence/sex with feeling sick? Is it due to the drugs they gave him? It wasn't very clear on this, so I'd appreciate if someone could give an explanation.

The films had nothing to do with the sickness. The drugs that they gave him made him sick. The Ludovico method was a type of Pavlovian conditioning. He took the drugs before watching the films, and he would feel sick while watching them, and he began to mentally associated the violence (and music for that matter) with sickness. After a while they stopped giving him the pills and his mind had formed a connection between violence and music, and that feeling of sickness so that he could not commit any wrongdoings in the future.

[Krabby]

Chaptersss: One?

My book is on request from the library at the moment, and will be arriving in about 2 years. But i started reading this a while ago, and couldn't get past the first chapter. What do you guys think about the language used? I couldn't understand it and it really frustrated me. Is there a basis to the words (someone said Russian or something before I think?) or are they made-up?

Same thing, I got it from the library but couldn't understand half of what was said in the first chapter so I just gave up. Then again, english's not my native language, not sure if it'd matter since the words aren't regular english.

[Salmoness]

I just finished reading it for the first time, and i really enjoyed it especially the language. I was interested by the use of nadsat with old Shakespearian English. My book's introduction explained Burgess's interest in Victorian languages but I just didn't feel they were particularly effective in this context. Very good book though, by the end the nadsat seemed very natural to me and I enjoyed the combination of opinions regarding freedom of choice - particularly that of Charlie the Priest. My main interest is in the milk, I struggled to understand the use of drugs in the book. The use of recreational drugs was never particularly mentioned except the milk, which seemed to take a lot of the blame for their violent behavior.

[schlachthof.funf]

I've read the book once or twice, and seen the movie many times. One interesting thing I noticed, "nadsat" is supposed to be the equivalent to a sort of youth slang language correct? I found it a bit odd when characters who are much older, like Alex's mother, used nadsat. Is this just older people trying to act "hip"? Or have I mis-understood the point of nadsat?

On the subject, I found that you can figure out the meanings of most, if not all of the nadsat simply by the context in which it was used. I don't see anything wrong with using a dictionary though, it's not as if it takes anything away from the novel.

I don't remember Alex's mom using nadsat, but if she did, it probably wasn't as nuanced and frequent as Alex's usage. Nadsat is generally only used by rebellious youths. Perhaps the equivalent today would be an adult saying "OMG" or something like that (much more tame, of course, but both slang).

I do remember, when I read the book, that Burgess said he strongly discouraged using a dictionary to translate the nadsat, because he intended the reader to immerse him or herself in the language completely, and use the context clues to learn.