“So Dim did the strong-man on the devotchka, who was still creech creech creeching away in very horrorshow four-in-a-bar, locking her rookers from the back, while I ripped away at this and that and the other, the others going haw haw haw still, and real horrorshow groodies they were that then exhibited their pink glazzies, O my brothers, while I untrussed and got ready for the plunge. Plunging, I could slooshy cries of agony and this writer bleeding veck nearly got loose howling bezoomny with the filthiest of slovos… Then there was like quiet and we were full of like hate, so smashed what was left to be smashed – typewriter, lamp, chairs – and Dim watered the fire out and was going to dung on the carpet, but I said no… The writer veck and his zheena were not really there, bloody and torn and making noises. But they’d live.” - Alex
This passage describes a typical night of violence for Alex and his friends. They break into a country house, vandalize it and rape the woman. The rape scene made a strong impression on me, because of Alex’s quite sincere, graphically detailed report of the act and his feelings. They engage in such blatant violence that I feel nauseated just reading about it. They don’t really do it for money or for revenge. Even meaningless violence is terrifying enough, but the hardest idea to digest is that they actually seem to take great pleasure in their brutality. Alex’s usual objective tone becomes excited and almost poetic in this passage, as he compares her nipples to pink eyes. The ecstasy he gets out of the rape, and the way he ignores the furious husband, is sickening. After getting so worked up about the rape, the disinterested tone of ‘there was like quiet and we were full of like hate’ is quite jarring. However, it is interesting that after all the random smashing, Alex stops Dim from defecating on the floor. It is as if the violence is too elegant to be demeaned with such a crude act. I shudder when I wonder how special his sadism is to him. Alex’s lack of concern for the effects of his destructive behaviour is all the more chilling. He dismisses the beaten up couple with no emotion beyond checking that they will survive. Do terrorists in the real world do what they do for similar reasons? Because it excites them to hurt others? Because they really don’t care about what happens to their victims? To Alex, violence is an ideal. Is that just the writer’s characterization at work, or could this be a deeper psychological observation about certain kinds of people? Another thing that struck me was the excessive use of nadsat language. It took me a long time to puzzle everything out, and the awkward language somehow dilutes the initial shock of what the author is describing. It was only after reading it over a couple more times that the full impact of the actual brutality hit me. Maybe the author intended to protect the readers from that shock. It remains an extremely disturbing passage, as much for its enthusiasm as for its content.
December 4, 2008
Fantaisie-Impromptu in a Minor Key
“Now what I fancied first tonight was this new violin concerto by the American Geoffrey Platus, played by Odysseus Choerilos with the Macon (Georgia) Philharmonic, so I slid it in and waited. Then, brothers, it came. Oh, bliss, bliss and heaven… Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh. The trombones crunched redgold under my bed, and behind my gullivers the trumpets three-wise silverflamed, and there by the door the timps rolling through my guts and out again crunched like candy thunder. Oh, it was wonder of wonders. And then, a bird of like rarest spun heavenmetal, or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now, came the violin solo above all the other strings, and those strings were like a cage of silk round my bed. Then flute and oboe bored, like worms of like platinum, into the thick thick toffee gold and silver. I was in such bliss, my brothers.” - Alex
Alex’s ecstasy while listening to music is very obvious in this passage. This is really a quite beautifully written passage, with a lot of striking imagery. Most readers cannot help being entranced by the sheer lyrical quality of Alex’s description of the concerto. I think Anthony Burgess intentionally wanted his readers to admire and connect with Alex in this passage. The novel has just described a night of gruesome violence, bringing out the most repulsive aspects of Alex. Ending the night by displaying Alex’s love for classical music, especially such an appealing quote, reveals a very admirable side of his character instead. Burgess leads his readers to feel more sympathetic towards Alex, and makes him look like more of a human being and less of a monster. Readers will generally associate a love for classical music with refined and elegant tastes and a keen intellect. This passage lets us appreciate that Alex is no crass common thug, but actually a quite intelligent and exceptional young person. He already has the maturity and keen attention necessary for really enjoying classical compositions. We cannot help but be touched by his pure rapture when listening to his favourite music. This connection is important, as it helps the reader develop empathy for Alex’s treatment later in the novel. Even the reader feels outraged when the government psychologist, himself uninterested in music, quite callously twists the conditioning such that Alex can never hear his beloved music again without feeling sick. The music serves to contrast his own good taste and humanity with his heartless enemies’ lack of it, and his despair allows us to feel more sympathy for the creature that they turn him into. Coming at this point in the novel, this passage persuades the readers to see Alex as a human being rather than the brutal monster that they just witnessed. Music may not have civilized Alex, but we can see that it still stirs up passions and emotions within him as strongly as it does for us readers.
Alex’s ecstasy while listening to music is very obvious in this passage. This is really a quite beautifully written passage, with a lot of striking imagery. Most readers cannot help being entranced by the sheer lyrical quality of Alex’s description of the concerto. I think Anthony Burgess intentionally wanted his readers to admire and connect with Alex in this passage. The novel has just described a night of gruesome violence, bringing out the most repulsive aspects of Alex. Ending the night by displaying Alex’s love for classical music, especially such an appealing quote, reveals a very admirable side of his character instead. Burgess leads his readers to feel more sympathetic towards Alex, and makes him look like more of a human being and less of a monster. Readers will generally associate a love for classical music with refined and elegant tastes and a keen intellect. This passage lets us appreciate that Alex is no crass common thug, but actually a quite intelligent and exceptional young person. He already has the maturity and keen attention necessary for really enjoying classical compositions. We cannot help but be touched by his pure rapture when listening to his favourite music. This connection is important, as it helps the reader develop empathy for Alex’s treatment later in the novel. Even the reader feels outraged when the government psychologist, himself uninterested in music, quite callously twists the conditioning such that Alex can never hear his beloved music again without feeling sick. The music serves to contrast his own good taste and humanity with his heartless enemies’ lack of it, and his despair allows us to feel more sympathy for the creature that they turn him into. Coming at this point in the novel, this passage persuades the readers to see Alex as a human being rather than the brutal monster that they just witnessed. Music may not have civilized Alex, but we can see that it still stirs up passions and emotions within him as strongly as it does for us readers.
Why be bad? Or why not?
“But, brothers, this biting of their toe-nails over what is the cause of badness is what turns me into a fine laughing malchick. They don’t go into the cause of goodness, so why the other shop? If lewdies are good that’s because they like it, and I wouldn’t ever interfere with their pleasures, and so of the other shop. And I was patronizing the other shop. More, badness is of the self, the one, the you or me on our oddy knockies, and that self is made by old Bog or God and is his great pride and radosty. But the not-self cannot have the bad, meaning they of the government and the judges and the schools cannot allow the bad because they cannot allow the self. And is not our modern history, my brothers, the story of brave malenky selves fighting these big machines? I am serious with you, brothers, over this. But what I do I do because I like to do.” - Alex
I think Alex raises a very valid point here. Why is it automatically assumed that being good is the natural state of a human being, and anyone who deviates from this path is making up for something that prevents happiness? His point of view equates goodness with conforming to society. Then it is natural that people who want to rebel against the ‘system’, would choose to be bad instead of good. This probably explains the existence of so many violent teenage street gangs in the novel. Young people especially feel a need to be different, and violence is the natural opposite of the pale, compliant good behaviour that their society seems to demand. Alex almost takes aesthetic pleasure in violence, so his behaviour really is something that he chooses to do just because he likes it. Alex could choose to be good simply because of social expectations, but if he chooses to be bad instead, it implies that he is asserting his own individuality. Alex adds that God created the self, or free will. So he should have a choice, to be able to do as he pleases, else God could simply have made everyone automatically good. To him, being good or bad are equally valid lifestyle choices. I think this explains Alex’s attraction to violence and antisocial behaviour, despite having a good family life and natural intelligence. The book already shows that he readily gives away the money he steals, so greed isn’t his motivation. He simply sees violence as a way to express himself, and go against what society and the authorities expect. This passage makes him appear to consider the government, law and education to be agents of conformity, which suppress free choice and try to make everyone follow their predetermined rules. I think this attitude is the root of his dislike and disrespect for them. It is true that history is full of revolutions against the repressive policies of such institutions. Maybe Alex will also be driven to take some kind of serious stand against them; however, he seems to be too self-absorbed to sacrifice his thought and action for any particular cause beyond himself. What Alex doesn’t realize is that his actions do harm other people, and thus he cannot say that he does not interfere with their pleasures. I wonder if he will ever understand that, and how he would react to it.
I think Alex raises a very valid point here. Why is it automatically assumed that being good is the natural state of a human being, and anyone who deviates from this path is making up for something that prevents happiness? His point of view equates goodness with conforming to society. Then it is natural that people who want to rebel against the ‘system’, would choose to be bad instead of good. This probably explains the existence of so many violent teenage street gangs in the novel. Young people especially feel a need to be different, and violence is the natural opposite of the pale, compliant good behaviour that their society seems to demand. Alex almost takes aesthetic pleasure in violence, so his behaviour really is something that he chooses to do just because he likes it. Alex could choose to be good simply because of social expectations, but if he chooses to be bad instead, it implies that he is asserting his own individuality. Alex adds that God created the self, or free will. So he should have a choice, to be able to do as he pleases, else God could simply have made everyone automatically good. To him, being good or bad are equally valid lifestyle choices. I think this explains Alex’s attraction to violence and antisocial behaviour, despite having a good family life and natural intelligence. The book already shows that he readily gives away the money he steals, so greed isn’t his motivation. He simply sees violence as a way to express himself, and go against what society and the authorities expect. This passage makes him appear to consider the government, law and education to be agents of conformity, which suppress free choice and try to make everyone follow their predetermined rules. I think this attitude is the root of his dislike and disrespect for them. It is true that history is full of revolutions against the repressive policies of such institutions. Maybe Alex will also be driven to take some kind of serious stand against them; however, he seems to be too self-absorbed to sacrifice his thought and action for any particular cause beyond himself. What Alex doesn’t realize is that his actions do harm other people, and thus he cannot say that he does not interfere with their pleasures. I wonder if he will ever understand that, and how he would react to it.
To be Good, or not to be Good - do we really have the Question?
“Goodness comes from within, 6655321. Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.” – The prison chaplain
I keep coming back to this quote, because the question it raises is one that makes me think a lot. How does one define true goodness? According to the Oxford Pocket Dictionary, being good means to have the right qualities, of the kind that people like. In the case of a person, it usually means someone who is kind and well-behaved. Alex is certainly not good by this definition, but he understands what goodness is, and he has made his own conscious choice to be the opposite because that appeals to him more. As readers, we have to respect his individuality although his dedication to his chosen ideal of violence horrifies us. I already feel that Alex refuses to be good precisely because society expects him to be so. The essence of true goodness is making that moral choice. The treatment will force Alex to become incapable of even thinking about violence, let alone doing it. Instead, he will be as nice as possible in order to counter the sickness. I do not think that such a reaction is goodness. Why is he the most good only when he is thinking about being the most violent? It is not goodness, it is pure selfishness to avoid being sick. Or worse, it is just reflexes. Man has moral choice, something animals do not. If you take away that choice, you reduce him to something even less than an animal – to a human shell with a machine for a conscience. If it were the unbreakable rule that all humans should be good, we would not even have the option of being wicked at all. The mere fact that we have free will to decide on our own actions, entitles us to do as we please. It is up to the individual to become civilized and gain the necessary maturity to realize that some of his actions may harm others, and that he has no right to destroy the happiness of others. If people are conditioned to behave exactly as some authority sees fit, there can be no room for varied opinions or dissent. There can be no room for creativity, innovation or art. There can be no room for all the beauty arising from free will, which makes us what we are: human. Any goodness arising from such a situation is nothing but a pale mockery of mankind’s potential. Creation requires imagination. Imagination requires freedom. If we do not have freedom of thought, we have no freedom at all.
I keep coming back to this quote, because the question it raises is one that makes me think a lot. How does one define true goodness? According to the Oxford Pocket Dictionary, being good means to have the right qualities, of the kind that people like. In the case of a person, it usually means someone who is kind and well-behaved. Alex is certainly not good by this definition, but he understands what goodness is, and he has made his own conscious choice to be the opposite because that appeals to him more. As readers, we have to respect his individuality although his dedication to his chosen ideal of violence horrifies us. I already feel that Alex refuses to be good precisely because society expects him to be so. The essence of true goodness is making that moral choice. The treatment will force Alex to become incapable of even thinking about violence, let alone doing it. Instead, he will be as nice as possible in order to counter the sickness. I do not think that such a reaction is goodness. Why is he the most good only when he is thinking about being the most violent? It is not goodness, it is pure selfishness to avoid being sick. Or worse, it is just reflexes. Man has moral choice, something animals do not. If you take away that choice, you reduce him to something even less than an animal – to a human shell with a machine for a conscience. If it were the unbreakable rule that all humans should be good, we would not even have the option of being wicked at all. The mere fact that we have free will to decide on our own actions, entitles us to do as we please. It is up to the individual to become civilized and gain the necessary maturity to realize that some of his actions may harm others, and that he has no right to destroy the happiness of others. If people are conditioned to behave exactly as some authority sees fit, there can be no room for varied opinions or dissent. There can be no room for creativity, innovation or art. There can be no room for all the beauty arising from free will, which makes us what we are: human. Any goodness arising from such a situation is nothing but a pale mockery of mankind’s potential. Creation requires imagination. Imagination requires freedom. If we do not have freedom of thought, we have no freedom at all.
Does a guinea pig know it's a guinea pig?
“Stop treating me like a thing that’s like got to be just used. I’m not an idiot you can impose on, you stupid bratchnies.” - Alex
I think that this quote is typical of Alex’s mentality throughout the novel. Alex is very proud of his own individuality. He delights in being different from the lewdies, or the common people of his society. He is contemptuous of them for being so meek and humble, willing to spend their lives rabbiting away at some ordinary job. Alex prefers to form his own group beyond the reach of the government’s authority, and rebel against its societal expectations. Alex is quite a selfish individual. He only wants what is best for him; he satisfies only his own desires. However, Alex’s immaturity blinds him to the desires of the people around him, concerning him. He does not realize that by being so childishly selfish and shortsighted, he is playing right into their hands. Because of his pride in his own leadership, he cannot believe that Dim would betray him to the police. His belief in his own rights is also in for a shock when the policemen beat him up violently and force him to confess all his crimes. When he hears about the new treatment from the chaplain, he is so desperate to get himself out of the prison that he does not stop to think about what this new treatment could involve. He is being typically selfish by not considering the consequences of anything. Although he thinks that he is serving his own self-interests, he is actually allowing the psychologists to use him as their guinea pig. After being set free, he accepts help from the political dissident group because he realizes that he has nowhere else to turn, and they will give him a comfortable life. Again, he cannot see that they are actually using his condition as a very visible tool in their protests against the government. In this passage, he finally realizes that they just see him as a ‘thing’ that they are trying to use to further their own ideals. At last, he is beginning to become mature. Alex starts to understand that all his efforts to remain an individual and serve only himself are backfiring since people can use his own impulses against him. I think that this passage marks the turning point when Alex grows up, losing his juvenile selfishness and learning to see the bigger picture. It gives me the feeling that Alex will soon see the truth about his own behaviour as well, and finally change from within.
I think that this quote is typical of Alex’s mentality throughout the novel. Alex is very proud of his own individuality. He delights in being different from the lewdies, or the common people of his society. He is contemptuous of them for being so meek and humble, willing to spend their lives rabbiting away at some ordinary job. Alex prefers to form his own group beyond the reach of the government’s authority, and rebel against its societal expectations. Alex is quite a selfish individual. He only wants what is best for him; he satisfies only his own desires. However, Alex’s immaturity blinds him to the desires of the people around him, concerning him. He does not realize that by being so childishly selfish and shortsighted, he is playing right into their hands. Because of his pride in his own leadership, he cannot believe that Dim would betray him to the police. His belief in his own rights is also in for a shock when the policemen beat him up violently and force him to confess all his crimes. When he hears about the new treatment from the chaplain, he is so desperate to get himself out of the prison that he does not stop to think about what this new treatment could involve. He is being typically selfish by not considering the consequences of anything. Although he thinks that he is serving his own self-interests, he is actually allowing the psychologists to use him as their guinea pig. After being set free, he accepts help from the political dissident group because he realizes that he has nowhere else to turn, and they will give him a comfortable life. Again, he cannot see that they are actually using his condition as a very visible tool in their protests against the government. In this passage, he finally realizes that they just see him as a ‘thing’ that they are trying to use to further their own ideals. At last, he is beginning to become mature. Alex starts to understand that all his efforts to remain an individual and serve only himself are backfiring since people can use his own impulses against him. I think that this passage marks the turning point when Alex grows up, losing his juvenile selfishness and learning to see the bigger picture. It gives me the feeling that Alex will soon see the truth about his own behaviour as well, and finally change from within.
Youth Must Have Its Fling
“Youth must go, ah yes. But youth is only being in a way like it might be an animal. No, it is not just like being an animal so much as being like one of these malenky toys you viddy being sold in the streets, like little chellovecks made out of tin and with a spring inside and then a winding handle on the outside and you wind it up grrr grrr grrr and off it itties, like walking, O my brothers. But it itties in a straight line and bangs straight into things bang bang and it cannot help what it is doing. Being young is like being one of these malenky machines.
When I had my son I would explain all that to him when he was starry enough to like understand. But then I knew he would not, or would not want to understand at all and would do all the veshches I had done, yes perhaps even killing some poor starry forella surrounded with mewing kots and koshkas, and I would not be able to really stop him. And nor would he be able to stop his own son, brothers. And so it would itty on to like the end of the world, round and round and round… like old Bog Himself turning and turning and turning a vonny grazhny orange in his gigantic rookers.” - Alex
The natural mentality of youth is always rebelliousness. Young people usually do not have the maturity to think about the deeper reasons or consequences of their actions. They just do what they do because they want to experiment with ideas, or discover what it is like to behave as they are not expected to. Alex seems to say that this is perfectly natural for a young person, and that they cannot really help what they are doing. Reasoning with them, or trying to figure out the causes, will not work because their actions are not guided by reason, but by impulse alone. Even when they get into trouble because of their actions, or they get punished, it cannot really stop them because they do not understand why they must stop. According to Alex, people finally let go of their irrational antisocial behaviour only when they grow up and become mature enough to understand that they are being foolish and it does not get them anywhere. According to this view, the conditioning will not work either because it does not address the root impulse of teenagers. They will eventually grow up and let go of the violence in any case. Alex himself seems to have grown up in this passage. He wants to stop his son from making the same mistakes that he made, but he feels that his son, too, would not listen to him and end up taking the same antisocial path. Young people need to understand the effects of their behaviour on their own if they are to truly let go of it. Alex thinks that this is a pattern that will repeat itself for every successive generation, as long as they have a way to rebel, and there is really no adequate method to stop that. It is rather frightening to think that we cannot really do anything about all the violence in the world. For example, the terrorists who blew up Mumbai recently were all young men aged around 20 or 21. There has been a lot of talk about what could have motivated them to do such a horrendous deed. What if it was just the reckless heady impulse of youth, combined with some cause that they strongly believed in? Does that mean that we cannot stop terrorism and violence? I cannot decide which is the more negative view: either people are evil enough to carry out such violence on the basis of reasoned justification, or they are doing it on impulse and there is no way to prevent that.
When I had my son I would explain all that to him when he was starry enough to like understand. But then I knew he would not, or would not want to understand at all and would do all the veshches I had done, yes perhaps even killing some poor starry forella surrounded with mewing kots and koshkas, and I would not be able to really stop him. And nor would he be able to stop his own son, brothers. And so it would itty on to like the end of the world, round and round and round… like old Bog Himself turning and turning and turning a vonny grazhny orange in his gigantic rookers.” - Alex
The natural mentality of youth is always rebelliousness. Young people usually do not have the maturity to think about the deeper reasons or consequences of their actions. They just do what they do because they want to experiment with ideas, or discover what it is like to behave as they are not expected to. Alex seems to say that this is perfectly natural for a young person, and that they cannot really help what they are doing. Reasoning with them, or trying to figure out the causes, will not work because their actions are not guided by reason, but by impulse alone. Even when they get into trouble because of their actions, or they get punished, it cannot really stop them because they do not understand why they must stop. According to Alex, people finally let go of their irrational antisocial behaviour only when they grow up and become mature enough to understand that they are being foolish and it does not get them anywhere. According to this view, the conditioning will not work either because it does not address the root impulse of teenagers. They will eventually grow up and let go of the violence in any case. Alex himself seems to have grown up in this passage. He wants to stop his son from making the same mistakes that he made, but he feels that his son, too, would not listen to him and end up taking the same antisocial path. Young people need to understand the effects of their behaviour on their own if they are to truly let go of it. Alex thinks that this is a pattern that will repeat itself for every successive generation, as long as they have a way to rebel, and there is really no adequate method to stop that. It is rather frightening to think that we cannot really do anything about all the violence in the world. For example, the terrorists who blew up Mumbai recently were all young men aged around 20 or 21. There has been a lot of talk about what could have motivated them to do such a horrendous deed. What if it was just the reckless heady impulse of youth, combined with some cause that they strongly believed in? Does that mean that we cannot stop terrorism and violence? I cannot decide which is the more negative view: either people are evil enough to carry out such violence on the basis of reasoned justification, or they are doing it on impulse and there is no way to prevent that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)