If you do not come across Anthony Burgess’ surreal 1962 dystopian novel A Clockwork Orange at some point during your life, you must be living under a rock.
Set in the not-too-distant future, A Clockwork Orange deals with the misadventures of its unapologetic, teenage anti-hero protagonist Alex and his gang of hoodlums or “droogs.”
In their free time, when not committing random acts of violence against the unsuspecting public, Alex relaxes at the Korova milk bar, which specializes in drugged milk, often giving him the required “edge” for a night of violence.
Alex also unwinds with classical music and ruminations from the King James Bible.
Burgess has created the ultimate monster: an absolutely reprehensible being, who, at times, appears to be a normal, even-keeled person.
Readers witness Alex’s apathetic engagement in heinous crimes, including rape and murder, and his eventual imprisonment for the murder of a wealthy elderly woman.
After beating a pederast cellmate to death, he becomes a test subject for the Ludovico Technique, a form of aversion therapy which entails him being forced to watch graphic films after an experimental drug has been administered to his system.
By doing this, Alex is robbed of all violent and sexual urges.
In all honesty, that is as much as a plot synopsis anyone can give or get for this novel, as there is so much happening as the book progresses.
The reader is dealing with a treatise on philosophy in the modern, industrialized world, disguised as a work of what many claim to be science fiction.
What Burgess ultimately brings before the reader is the philosophical question of good and evil.
While Alex is no longer out in the world wreaking havoc on the population, is it “good” that he has been deprived of his ability to choose good over evil?
Who represents the biggest proponent of evil in the novel? Is it Alex? Or is it the state and the doctors for depriving him of what most see as the mind’s natural urges?
These are questions Burgess wants us as readers to confront and truly think about, not throw out an easy “yes” or “no” answer to.
These questions can be deemed relevant outside of the novel and applied to our current society.
The novel does not condone violence, like the film more-or-less did.
Burgess specifically made this point years later after public outcry and controversies.
This novel is the complete antithesis of that, condemning violence by exploring it on an in-depth humanistic level.
However, the power of this novel does not solely rest upon philosophy in the modern age.
On a page-level, Burgess also succeeds in reworking language and its role in the world.
Throughout the book, Alex and his gang speak in slang called “Nadsat,” a Russian-influenced version of English with hints of Cockney rhyme, which was invented by Burgess.
In a Chicago Sun-Times article, author Henry Kisor mentions that Burgess, who was also a linguist, employed the use of Nadsat as an example of linguistic slang as possessing a constantly changing nature.
In the novel, words take on both exaggerated meanings as well as entirely different meanings.
“Ultraviolence” is a “beating,” “gulliver” means “head,” “britva” means “knife,” “glazzies” “eyes,” and “devotchka” is a “woman.”
While this new vocabulary may seem intimidating at first, before long readers will find themselves interpreting it with ease.
Despite the fact that this novel remains controversial for many reasons, this novel is one powerhouse of a work of literary art.
There’s a reason the Modern Library appointed it to the list of the 100 Best English-Language Novels of the 20th Century.
Do yourself a favor and go out and pick this up now.
However, be wary of the fact that many newer copies include the originally omitted final chapter of the book, where Alex looks back on his violent halcyon days with regret.
Burgess wanted to keep the chapter omitted due to the fact that it took away from the bleak, realistic ending that was intended for the novel.
Take it upon yourself to skip that section.
But, as always, read this now.
Conner McDonough can be reached at cmcdonough@spartasn.ut.edu.
The “strange words” of the film are borrowed from standard Russian. The point was probably to show that Russia was having a great influence on other countries. Perhaps they were but not linguistically.