communication breakdown

Book Review: A Clockwork Orange (1968)

[ 8 / 10 ] Anthony Burgess' masterpiece is a difficult yet powerful read, a stunning look at a frightening future which, in turn, poses strong and controversial questions about present philosophies of thought. The novel's protagonist, known only as Alex, breaks the mold of the classic hero-narrator style. His cunning wit is surpassed only by his ruthlessness. This story about the exploits of Alex and his gang has haunted readers for nearly 40 years, and it remains as fresh as ever due to its unique style and message, which is as relevant today as the day it was written...

Despite only being 15, Alex is the leader of his clan, whose nightly misadventures include theft, assault, and rape. He exhibits a harrowing sense of indifference towards his victims, never experiencing guilt or remorse; rather, he finds humor in situations that cause others pain. They do not commit these crimes for reward or revenge, but simply for the enjoyment they receive from inflicting harm.

However, Alex's dictatorial treatment of his buddies leads them to betrayal on the very same night that one of their stunts goes awry and ends in murder. Alex is sent to prison and spends two years among some of the most vile people on earth. When he is offered a "shortcut" to parole, he jumps at the opportunity, not realizing that this new plan is a radical form of rehabilitation touted by the government. Alex's life is irreparably changed as he willingly submits himself to "treatment" and is eventually released back into the real world.

The first thing you might notice about this book is the language. Alex and his gang speak a brutal type of slang known as "nasdat", and is primarily a bastardization of the Russian dialect. This slang mercilessly permeates the entire book, making early chapters nearly impossible to fully understand. However, this intrusion is absolutely vital to the success and power of the book. Not only is Alex's slang speech a prime example of his rejection of our world, but it provides a window into his tortured psyche. Despite my early frustrations with the language, the miraculous thing is that, once I reached near the halfway point of the book, I was able to read nasdat seamlessly without any trouble in comprehension. It is one of the many things which make this book so unique.

Another of those things is the nature of our storyteller. Most narrators are inherently trustworthy and stable, even heroic in many situations. Alex, however, is the epitome of anti-hero - if anything, he is the primary villain. However, complicating things is the fact that, at the midway point of the book, a shift occurs and somehow we begin to empathize with Alex. And as he completes rehabilitation and re-enters the world, you can only help but wonder: Was it worth it? Was Alex a victim of the system himself? Startlingly, his past crimes are slowly forgotten and the weight of his current situation is magnified. And yet, despite all the hardship, he ultimately finds a way to best the system and come out unscathed. So is he hero, victim, or villain? The choice is yours to decide.

I have trouble rating this book on its own merits, since I have seen Kubrick's masterful film adaptation many times before reading this novel. Clearly the ideas belong to Burgess, but Kubrick was practically flawless in translating the concept to screen. While I'm on the subject, I must say that the adapation is one of the most faithful book-to-movie conversions I've ever seen. Any artistic changes made by Kubrick, with two notable exceptions, were mostly minor and harmless. Thus I consider the book and movie to be about on par with one another in quality - and as such, the book gets high marks.

Two things are missing from the movie which I figured I might comment on for those searching for differences. First, the meaning of the title is much more fleshed out in the novel. Second, and of ultimate importance, is the fact that the book's last chapter, omitted from the original American release, was also left out of the movie. This chapter is critical, and it is a travesty that it was not incorporated into the film. The book would not be as great as it is without this final conclusion to the story.

Ultimately, I would say that I slightly prefer the movie, despite the omission of the last chapter, simply because Kubrick did such a tremendous job in bringing the words to life on the screen. This is perhaps the only movie that I've ever seen which I would consider to be better than the book. But I say all this more as an endorsement of Kubrick than as a criticism of Burgess' novel. It is a forceful, controversial story that is sure to be thought-provoking and, for the careful reader, pretty hilarious. It will likely leave you pondering the questions it poses well after you finish, which in my opinion is one of the hallmarks of any great story.