The Next Best Book Club discussion

Hi all! It's Clockwork Discussion time! How many of you had to read this in school? How many read it as an adult for the first time? Did any of you re-read it specifically for this discussion?

Your discussion leader Patricia will be here soon to walk you through a month-long conversation around the book!

I read this as a teenager first, but not for school. The first time I read, that version had all 21 chapters. Later as an adult I read the version with only 20 and was confused because I came away with a very different feeling about the story. I looked into it and realized there were 2 versions and have since read the full version a few times.

It's a bit difficult to get through, but completely genius. The fact that Burgess makes up a language to separate the reader from the violence enough to make it possible just blows me away. I find this similar to Kazuo Ishiguro. Ishiguro writes in such a calm voice that you don't realize something horrific is happening until you are well into it. A different tactic, but the same general idea.

I remember the language and having to go back and forth to read the translation so I could understand the book. It was quite thought provoking and after reading it I then watched the movie which really didn't do it justice since large portions were left out and not explained.But in the long run I think it was well written and a very interesting read

Hi everyone! I'm looking forward to reading and discussing A Clockwork Orange with you this month. This is the first time I've read the book. I don't know if it was banned when I was in school, but I do remember seeing the movie at the drive-in. I found the language difficult at first and stopping to look words up every other sentence was annoying so I just read without the glossary. It all started making sense after a few chapters. I've finished reading Part One and should finish the book this week.

Saw the movie first. Did not like it. The book is krazzzyyyyyy.

Noorilhuda wrote: "Saw the movie first. Did not like it. The book is krazzzyyyyyy."

Oh that movie traumatized me lol! I remember my friends would try to get me to go see it with them and I just stayed home!!! Once is enough.

I read this book two or three years ago. So how do you guys do these discussions? Talk about your fave scenes?

Oh, okay, I read the first post. Shockingly enough, I never read this for school. I read it during junior of high school, which was two or three years ago. I found it in the school library, which was super surprising to me. And it was always checked out and one day I found it and snatched it like it was a rare copy to buy.

And funny story, I was reading it in class and a teacher came up to me and was like "Wow, I read this when I was in college," reminiscing her young days and possibly questioning how I was able to get a copy.

Although, I will admit that the book wasn't shocking to me. Should I be worried?

Here are a few discussion questions I found online:

1. Why is freedom of choice such an important concept in this book? Do you believe "choice" is a predominantly American ideal? What would people in Communist China (or anywhere else with much stricter censorship) think about the matter? What would they think about the book?

2. What does moral choice have to do with the concept of good and evil? How would you define good and of evil? Good and bad? Can a person who doesn't really know how to commit crime be viewed as a good person, or must she affirmatively decline to commit crimes to be viewed as such?

3. Are brainwashed people no longer people? Are they more like robots or children? What about people who have been indoctrinated with a certain religious philosophy; can they still be considered autonomous? How about people who have been manipulated subliminally through decades upon decades of masterful advertising?

4. Can language shape thought? Does society (and what happens in it) shape language and communication? If the youth in the book were not communicating in nadsat – which, arguably, may be conducive to violence – is it possible that they might act less violently? What is the importance of nadsat to the tenets of the book?

5. Based on what Alex thinks about in the last chapter, do you suppose that children can also be considered clockwork oranges? What is the significance of that reference? Why does Burgess reference it throughout the book? Who is the best example of a clockwork orange, and why?

6.Do you see a connection between violence and music? Why or why not? Why do you suppose Alex links the two? How coincidental is it that Ludovico's Technique also involves music? What is the significance of that?

@ Patricia, before I answer, let me confess that I hate, HATE, hate the main character and as far as I am concerned he did not deserve any sympathy of anyone ever.

Having said that, my humble opinion:

1. People in China are very happy, thank you U.S., every country has its own set of problems. And choice has nothing to do with whether people are happy or not - it is more a factor of being prosperous or poor. If a society gives me the choice to hang myself but fails to provide any medicine / treatment / facility for what ails me, then what good is that choice? If a society gives me no choice - biasing against me as a gender - then there is a problem, but seldom have societies crumbled because people were not being given books to read (Fahrenheit or no Fahrenheit!), culture crumbles, yes, but government crumbles only when it fails to provide people basic necessities.

I also think its a lethargic exercise - to say that Alex should have been allowed to choose what he wanted to do - he was a bloody criminal! Worst form of juvenile delinquency that is called a yob in UK - if the government decided to make a guinea pig out of him, it did the society a favor!

Ideally he should have been locked in jail with key thrown away!

'Choice' is a religious phenomena (before a secular one) - we choose our own happiness and are supposed to be responsible for our actions - that is what every major religion / religious thought promotes.

Alex does not get my sympathy neither do his reactions to the treatment - so he cannot enjoy classical music - boo hoo!

2. I've always believed that people would kill and rape others if they thought no one was watching and they could get away with it. The idea that we are inherently good is false. Society shapes us, but Alex was evil from the get-go no matter how many regrets or dreams of happy family life he has by the end!


3. This one is a very cool question. (Are brainwashed people no longer people? Are they more like robots or children? What about people who have been indoctrinated with a certain religious philosophy; can they still be considered autonomous? How about people who have been manipulated subliminally through decades upon decades of masterful advertising? )

Answer: As long as the brainwashed person is not killing, maiming, raping, terrorizing or otherwise being a nuisance to society, it is fine and he is a person. But when we read the news and see sob stories of monsters like (I'm sounding like a right-winger, right?!!!) Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Boston bomber) or the Charleston massacre guy - do these guys have a choice because they were brainwashed? Of course not. They were limited in their capacity to think and evolve - which is the very reason why they are dangerous. I remember the Waco Texas mass suicide / gas fire deaths (happened during Clinton years) - the reason why the victims got sympathy was because they had followed a crazy guy (David Koresh) - but these very people led their children to their deaths! So such brain washed people deserve no sympathy.

You don't give a mass murderer a second chance!


4. (Can language shape thought? If the youth in the book were not communicating in nadsat – which, arguably, may be conducive to violence – is it possible that they might act less violently?)

The book was written at the height of cold war - of course the poor Russians were going to get blamed for something in a dystopian future!

Language plays a role in motivating people. We literally raise criminals and apologists and rumor-mongers and do-gooders.

5. (clockwork orange)
I don't think the state did a bad thing to Alex by conditioning him.

Cognitive therapy, behavioral modules, all attempt that. We just don't like the idea of Big Brother doing it, when we know that most of our lives are pre-determined by caste, creed, education, class, race, place of birth, place of work, type of work, and family history. We just like to think we control our own fate, while we have little control.

6.(Do you see a connection between violence and music?)
Yes, I do. Just like there is a connection between violence on television and kids killing machines - it's a debate really - some people like to believe that inherent characteristics make us do things, while others believe experiences and tastes form us.

But when Alex stops enjoying music (Beethoven/ classical) because of the treatment, I found it whimsical - the symbolism is that he lost a bit of humanity because he could not enjoy music anymore - but to me he seemed like Hitler really - who cares whether the guy has good taste in music - he's a mass murderer. Alex belonged in jail. Not an opera house or streets! And no government should apologize for controlling his mind - as long as they are not trying to create assassins out of people like Alex!

And there are far better books and allegories on government manipulation.

I really feel this was an overrated book that capitalized the war-mongering paranoid Cold War-Westerners.

I picked up this book at the library yesterday, and it took me forever to get through the first few pages - I kept going back and forth between the words in the book and the glossary I found online. Though once I found the meanings to the words, it quickly made sense. I'm slowly starting to remember the translations, too.

Sarah Valerie wrote: "I picked up this book at the library yesterday, and it took me forever to get through the first few pages - I kept going back and forth between the words in the book and the glossary I found online..."

Yes, it does take a few chapters to get used to the language. I'm going to try to read Part Two tonight. It took me two days to read Part One :-)

I read this book and saw the movie while in college many years ago. Great to see it resurface here in this discussion. It did leave a lasting impression on me.

Is anyone else annoyed by Alex repeatedly referring to us, the readers, as "O my brothers"?

While I do believe language an lend itself to certain feelings and actions, I think the larger role Nasdat played in the novel was distancing us, the reader, from the violence. If you do not flip back and forth to the glossary the language seems to quickly make sense, but still requires a longer thought process to "translate" as you read. This allows the reader to continue reading a particularly violent scene without stopping to reflect. By the time you really know what is happening it's almost too late to be mortified and take a breather.

This discussion has piqued my interest to reread. First, however, Lori, I need to get over the newsletter comment, 'if you read it forever and a day ago' because now I feel really old ;)

Scot wrote: "This discussion has piqued my interest to reread. First, however, Lori, I need to get over the newsletter comment, 'if you read it forever and a day ago' because now I feel really old ;)"

Scott, I saw the movie at the drive in so I know how you feel lol!

Scot wrote: "This discussion has piqued my interest to reread. First, however, Lori, I need to get over the newsletter comment, 'if you read it forever and a day ago' because now I feel really old ;)"

LOL I first read this book 31 years ago. Does that count as forever and a day?

Kandice wrote: "Scot wrote: "This discussion has piqued my interest to reread. First, however, Lori, I need to get over the newsletter comment, 'if you read it forever and a day ago' because now I feel really old..."

Personally, I think that would qualify and that would probably put me just a bit further, maybe forever and a week. Meanwhile, since Patricia's drive in is probably no longer around and I no longer have a copy, I had to purchase an eBook of Clockwork Orange to follow up on my reread. Never thought in Clockwork Orange days that I'd be using a term like eBook.

Haha. No offense meant by the comment : )

I'm one of those too, just so you know! I actually read it for the first time in 2007, as an adult, and for me, that feels like forever and a day ago. It's all in how times passes, right? And the state of our individual memories. (Somehow this was not on my particular reading lists in english class.)

I never had to read it for school either. Seeing what my one remaining highs school-er is assigned to read I can't imagine she will either!

I am now trying to imagine a quiz in an English class for this book. Ummm...kind of drawing a blank! I think it makes for terrific discussion fodder, bit not so much in a class setting.

One of my favourite books! I hope that new readers don't find the language too jarring. I re-read the first chapter to get a grasp of it.

The movie has nothing on the book. The book is written well enough that you almost feel you strangely understand why Alex and his droogs do some of the horrible things that they do and that you are just as much apart of their actions as they are. Whereas the movie just makes you feel like a spectator to their acts and I found some of the scenes really hard to watch. I don't think you're meant to like Alex but you're definitely supposed to be fully immersed in his world which, I feel the author pulled off.

I read this novel a few summers ago after an AP Lit student of mine told me that I h-a-d to read it. It's on the College Board list, so I like to read as many novels as I can to later recommend to my students (not everyone is going to love The Kite Runner, you know?)

This was a jarring, deeply poignant novel. I feel as though book groups could spend hours pondering the philosophical inferences that Burgess makes as to human nature and the duplicity of man.

There's also this huge underlying question of: what d-o you do with individuals-who either through mental illness or insanity or maybe just through plain choice-do inexplicably evil things without remorse?

I think that Burgess' response (based on the novel's conclusion) would be, "damned if I know!"

I'd have to agree with him.

Amongst other things, I appreciated the emphasis on criminal rehabilitation. I think Alex has a serious personality disorder that can't be fixed by prison nor by this reformed method of correction. Alex is a sociopath and is quite sadistic. He loves violence, loves to be violent, and feeds off the pain of others, and he certainly acknowledges it to himself. However, the second he gets caught and has to pay for his actions, he places blame on his misfortune and bad friends who forced him into these situations. When he gave his latest statement of his situation, it was still extremely fabricated. Although the Ludovico method "cured" him from violence, the core of the issue remains alive. He's still a sociopath who can't take responsibility for his own actions. I thought this was absolutely brilliant.

Shelby wrote: "Amongst other things, I appreciated the emphasis on criminal rehabilitation. I think Alex has a serious personality disorder that can't be fixed by prison nor by this reformed method of correction...."

I thought it was a poignant message as well; that actions can be forced, but matters of moral conscience can never be mandated or controlled by another. I think that idea can be translated into so many facets of civilization, both on a corporate and individual level.

I am among the individuals who did not read this book in high school. In fact I read it a year ago and, like many of you, used the glossary to be able to understand what was being said. I don't think I would like the movie because of the violence that is portrayed. For someone who has seen the movie, is it graphic?

Julie wrote: "I am among the individuals who did not read this book in high school. In fact I read it a year ago and, like many of you, used the glossary to be able to understand what was being said. I don't thi..."

Very! The violence is very stylized which seems to distance the watcher a bit the same as the language did in the book. That being said, it is not for the faint of heart.

There is a graphic rape scene on a stage. There is a graphic, very violent rape in a home. It's a movie with a lot of violence. There is a fast-forwarded graphic sex scene, and much later a brief, slow motion sex scene.

The scenes are extremely well-crafted, and the story forces you to think about important ideas. The costume designs, the acting, the interior designs, are legendary.

I don't have to look for translations or the words, because words are in Russian, just written in English words. I know how to type blind, so I don't use "ruglish" (we call it), but many my Russian friends writing Russians words using English letter when they don't have Russian keyboard. I just interested if author knows Russian language or somebody help him to pick up this words? I read it one year ago and I'm living in USA. I would like to see copy of this book in Russian translation, how would they translate this word if they already Russian, probably just leave them the same written in English lerrers

Yuliya wrote: "I don't have to look for translations or the words, because words are in Russian, just written in English words. I know how to type blind, so I don't use "ruglish" (we call it), but many my Russian..."

From Wikipedia:

Nadsat is a fictional register or argot used by the teenagers in Anthony Burgess's novel A Clockwork Orange. In addition to being a novelist, Burgess was a linguist[1] and he used this background to depict his characters as speaking a form of Russian-influenced English. The name itself comes from the Russian suffix equivalent of '-teen' as in 'thirteen' (-надцать, -nadtsat'). Nadsat was also used in Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of the book.