This book was real horrorshow, O my brothers. I suggest that all vecks should viddy it if they have a chance.

"It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you watch them on a screen."

There are these dystopian visionary books that slowly but steadily move from speculative fiction into the field of painfully realistic portrayals of life as we know and suffer it. Huxley, Orwell and Atwood all saw our ordeal coming, and they created the mood and terror for our era long before we could follow their tracks in the daily news spit out in vicious bits and pieces.

Recently a retired teacher said to me that nobody could have predicted the generation of students we have to deal with today, who float above and beyond the rules that we try to convey to them: be it orthography, vocabulary, democratic processes, newsworthiness of information, priorities for action and life planning or just fundamental rules of polite communication between human beings of equal dignity - they pick and choose what suits them and laugh in our faces if we suggest there is a common agreement on any kind of behaviour. For every example we offer, they find a counterargument within a click-second on the phone, and the question of ethical guidelines morphs into whether or not we have the right to make any choices at all for these adolescents that they don't feel like agreeing to themselves, based on their current predilections.

And I heard myself replying to the older colleague that Anthony Burgess saw it coming in the 60s, and that the question was as hard to answer back then as it is now. Can we actually FORCE students to embrace democracy if they are naturally drawn to charismatic populists? Can we TEACH them critical thinking skills without the imperative and normative value system that turns them into clockwork oranges rather than human beings with a free will and a free choice?

How do human beings compete with their own technological achievements, namely the universal attractiveness of instant internet gratification? How do human beings make choices in a society that offers everything at all hours? That is as difficult to handle as the complete choicelessness that is its opposite - but it is much more time-consuming!

How do we deal with a generation that sets its own rules based on their idea of negotiable values, communicated in a shorthand pigeon language suitable for quick typing on small screens? How do we deal with their participation in the global online reality show that offers 24/7 opening hours for entertainment of all kinds?

Just by the fact that we as teachers are representing a hierarchy we make ourselves impossible in the eyes of a youth whose only wish is to be free, to destroy in order to rise as Phoenix from the ashes. Who does not remember at some point thinking after a lecture of some kind, coming from a place of power:

"And I thought to myself, Hell and blast you all, if all you bastards are on the side of Good then I'm glad I belong to the other shop."

How do we deal with this on a global scale? The answer my friend, is vital to the survival of our species at this point... but blowing in the wind all the same, while the greying droogs are taking over the power in one country after the other, cheered on by a generation of new droogs who believe in the right to destroy what you see if that is what you like to do. "I like, therefore I do", the new credo for a youth that can't be bothered with philosophy.

Written in 3 weeks: a proclamation of brilliance.

How many times in a day do we hear Be-Yourself, I-am-what-I-am, and all those statutory reminders calling upon our self-control, decision-making, and ever-active n  inner agentn which is none other than the entity that makes us us? When we grow up, we are all constantly being told or reminded or warned to find our own place in the society, not to get lost in the crowd, and most importantly, to be/become what we always want to be/become. And it is the choices we make during moral dilemmas diversifies us into the good and the bad (I am going to keep the ugly out of this discussion, dear brothers!). Does making bad choices make the one who made the choice bad? or make the one who found it bad, good? Nevertheless it is the self, our object of consciousness makes those choices. So, who should be blamed as our very own selves are in question, morality or almighty?

"Badness is of the self, the one, the you or me on our own, and that self is made by old God and is his great pride and joy. 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 little selves fighting these big machines?"

Burges tries to answer the above question through the unspeakable predatory acts and the disheartening human-conditioning experiences of his hero Alex who, once, was a brutal savage teenage gangster, and later, becomes a pawn in political struggle, a victim of government tyranny, and a Guinea Pig in an human conditioning experiment. Alex, in this story, has seen the sorrowful image of the holy bearded veck all nagoy hanging on the cross and he strongly believes that we all are capable of doing evil as much as he is. Within every man, is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin. Alex empathetically addresses his distant brothers, the readers, and asks that whether it is not the mere choice of every individual to be good or bad, let alone the dark impulses and consciousness.

Violence makes violence
“Delimitation is always difficult. The world is one, life is one. The sweetest and most heavenly of activities partake in some measure of violence – the act of love, for instance; music, for instance.”
Isn't there the evidence of violence from the time immemorial? We had waged and seen all kinds of wars, be it holy or civil or worldly. Our efforts to end violence has not turned out to be fruitful yet. Perhaps, it is really the question of moral choice, then. Leaving us with this question, Alex ends up in the prison and gets chosen for a novel experiment to cure the bad and eliminate the wrong. It is quite confounding to say what happens to him after that possibly-debilitating, will-sapping, and hideous experiment, to which doctors say that he positively responded - like a clockwork, Alex claims himself to be.

n  Is high art civilizing?n
“Great Music, it said, and Great Poetry would like quieten Modern Youth down and make Modern Youth more Civilized.”
Don't we all resort to some form of art to satiate our souls and please ourselves when troubled? The notion that art humanizes and unites us is commonly prevalent among us. Art keeps evolving as the man does, and the new forms of art are springing up like mushrooms after the rain. Art and Morality are closely connected: any form of art we appreciate has some significant impact and influence over us. Little do we realize that same art form or any other can aggravate our impulses and make us violent. Because, it makes us feel at home, gives us the power we dream of, and unleashes our dark demons which lurk beneath us. Well, there are other art forms which are unimaginably intimidating, making us wonder whether the so-called arts are aesthetic or artistic defects. Alex, being an ardent aficionado of Beethoven, Mozart and all, says that music sharpens him and makes him feel all powerful.

“Goodness comes from within. Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.”

The main argument of the book is n  “Is it better for a man to have chosen evil than to have good imposed upon him?” n In other words, "Is it better for a man to be bad than to be conditioned to be good?" Lets not forget that the desire to answer the above questions positively comes with certain negative consequences, only if you can imagine: How many beasts and demons we have tamed in the name of law, religion, and other holds we have enforced on them.

“It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil. The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to exist along with good, in order that moral choice may operate. Life is sustained by the grinding opposition of moral entities.”

However, finding ourselves impaled upon the horns of a dilemma of choosing between right and wrong is, sometimes, going to be inevitable. May the force be with all of us to fight against them...

Must-Read for all!

Let's begin with the Penguin book cover....Too cool for words!

And the novel....It's DARK. While slow going at first, it didn't take long to get the drift of the slang, nadsat talk....all the teens use it, but I recommend staying with it without long interruption once you start.

"It's a stinking world because it lets the young get on to the old like you done, and there's no law nor order no more. I'm not one bit scared of you, my boyos, because I'm too drunk to feel the pain if you hit me and if you kill me I'll be glad to be dead.". So they "cracked into him lovely" and went on their way.

Fifteen year old Alex and his 'droogs' Georgie, Pete and Dim wreak havoc throughout this "horrorshow" of ultra-violence in this 1962 classic. To Alex, everything is a "real horrorshow" something or other....as you will see.

And it's a wicked new world as the boys don their masks, light their 'cancers' and set out about stealing, maiming and gang raping....not to mention murdering without a care in the world. No one is safe....not grandma with her house full of cats (go 'pusspots') or little girls in the music store. (oh my)

Even Alex's Post-Corrective Advisor has had enough and gives warning that a reckoning is due, but Alex knows he has the old baboochkas...."good old girls" as cover. And his parents, they're oblivious....don't go out much, too many hooligans on the street. Ha!

n  "Everybody knows little Alex and his 'droogs'. Quite a famous young boy our Alex has become."n

But a power struggle to stay "real horrorshow" leader causes strife within the ranks forcing Alex to put BIG Dim in his place, then....O my brothers....traitorous 'droogs'.

Alex suffers thru 'viddies' for over a fortnight while in lock-up treatment, but nothing was so satisfying as when we see him experience payback. What goes around, comes around, hehehe.

As filthy dark and horrible as some of the actions are within these pages, believe it or not, it was almost comical because of the slang talk, even the worst of the worst, and I can't even believe I'm saying that.

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. What a crazy, surprising read! Guess I need to 'viddie' the movie now too.

n  UPDATE: August 11, 2019 - As for the movie, it follows the story as written with all the ultra-violence, but no bloody gore, the most horrid parts projected in fast-forward mode like a silent movie....and with music. The costumes of the actors are a riot especially Alex's mother....and, of course, the 'droogs'. SO CRAZY!!!n

Intense display of wordplay and a disturbing view of a possible future society falling into decadence. Sounds rather like the usual scifi projection of society trends but the writing, especially the supposed slang of the young, is a marvel.

Edit July, 2017.

In the beginning of ‘Clockwork Orange’, fifteen-year-old Alex and his entire gang - Dim, Pete and Georgie - are roaming the dark streets of an English city after taking drugs. They are looking for victims to assault and rob. It turns out to be a productive night! They become involved in a vicious gang fight, rob and beat up a scholar and then a drunk, rob a small mom-and-pop store, and best of all, rape the wife of a liberal intellectual writer whose home they invade. Later the next day, after getting two girls he meets in a music shop drunk while skipping school, he rapes them in his bedroom at his parent's apartment while the parents are at work. The girls are ten years old. Alex, the anti-hero of this shocking book, feels only how glorious his life is!

He sleeps late in the day, tired from the rape of the little girls, which turns out to be a mistake. Oh, not the rapes, gentle reader. He had disciplined Dim the night before, disgruntling the other teens in the gang. While waiting for Alex to come down from his parents’ apartment the next night, they had had time to talk about a realignment of authority within the gang. Alex reasserts his power over the others, at least he believes he has, just before they break into a rich woman’s house. Unfortunately, Alex kills the woman unaware she has already called the police. As he is trying to run from the house, Dim whips him across the eyes with his usual weapon, a long chain. They run away, but temporarily blinded, Alex is quickly captured by the police.

Thus ends part one. Part two and three could be called Alex in the Underworld - prison - and following that, the part where Alex is redeemed. Sort of. Most people know how this infamous novel ends because of the Stanley Kubrick movie which is based on the book, but I am not going to reveal too much more anyway.

Youth culture is also satirized along the way, along with false piety (politicians), liberalism, scholars and police work.

There are some interesting things about the intention of the author and the nature of the literary criticism of the book of which I had no idea when I read ‘Clockwork Orange’ for the first time in 1972, but I have been shocked to learn through reading this novel again now.

I did not know there were two versions of the book. I did not know about the chattering class’ wonder and controversy, or that the author had responded with explanations and interviews. In the 1970’s, I was simply picking up a book in a grocery store kiosk, and much later, saw the movie on late night TV alone.

Now I have learned I read the American version of the novel without the ‘Redemption Chapter’, chapter twenty-one, which was published in the British version of the book in the 1970's, and that the Kubrick movie also dropped the last chapter from the screenplay. My original copy had only twenty chapters. It is amazing how this last chapter twenty-one changes everything. For me, chapter twenty-one makes the story totally ridiculous! It is a Disney ending! Suddenly the book’s author is a different person to me - instead of a satirical genius writing a devastating social commentary on politics, culture, and crime, I see a religious ignorant fool of a writer with a clever ability for wordplay!

Damn it!

For this re-read, I bought the eBook from Amazon, and it had an explanatory introduction about the book by Burgess along with Chapter twenty-one.

Burgess, raised as a Catholic, says he was disgusted by the idea of programming someone to be a good person - he is horrified by Aversion Therapy, for example - but he apparently is completely blind to the rituals of his religion insofar as it continuously indoctrinates it's adherents to be a particular religiously-defined Good. Aversion Therapy is and was a real thing, btw.

He might be also ignoring the role of parents in training children to manners and morality in his novel, but I’m not certain. Alex is definitely choosing Evil, initially, for most of his life. Alex’s parents are afraid of Alex, too afraid to exercise any authority whatsoever. Burgess believes the philosophy of Free Will should override ALL considerations in morality. If choosing Good over Evil, or Evil over Good is not a personal option for any individual, Burgess believes what is left is only a soulless mechanical computer going through meaningless motions - a Great Mortal Sin worse than choosing Evil.

This is insane, gentle reader.

Burgess also confesses he loved living the life of ultraviolence through his characters. Well.

However, I also read an explanatory article by Burgess printed in The New Yorker, where he suggests one of his reasons for the book was to pay bills so he needed a novel that would sell. Apparently it was not truly in his mind to be writing the Great British Novel. But he adored the part of Catholic doctrine which emphasizes we have free will to choose being good or evil. He dislikes very much that some Protestant faiths imply God has already determined our futures and fates, including who will be fated to go to heaven or hell, indicating we are born already destined to be evil or good by God. This idea of God choosing everyone's fate beforehand repulsed him more than a person choosing to do evil.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/201...


Personally, I find myself literally split mentally over this book. Abstractly, I see the book club discussion questions immediately: about the value or process of being Good if it is enforced on you. Does the end justify the means? Having Free Will is overwhelming more important than actually being Good or Evil? Or that the author apparently is completely ignoring any doubts that religion’s role in defining Good and Evil could be faulty. At least, this is the impression I got from his interviews.

However, in reading the introduction to the latest published edition, as well as reading Chapter Twenty-one for the first time, there is obviously a theme present I had entirely misread. It seems what I thought were satirical scenes that demonstrated how evil Alex was yet, for example his warping bible stories into sexually stimulating pornography, while tricking the prison priest with his false piety, they were instead there to simply show Alex’s immaturity? This is one of the changes on interpreting the book that Chapter Twenty-one imposes, which is why I followed up to confirm by googling articles. Evil is purely a mechanical response of immaturity? Really? Really! Really.

The one thing that is not much analyzed by critics and reviewers are the victims. I am no fan of those who play victimization games all their lives for personal gain (of which Alex is guilty, by the way). But utterly ignored in the professional and classroom commentary, analysis and literary talk about the book’s abstract ideas is the minimizing of the fact Alex raped two ten-year-olds girls, and he and three other teens viciously raped a young wife in front of her husband, driving him mad and killing the woman somehow, as well as murdering a female senior citizen in her own home after breaking in, along with beating up other seniors and small business owners. Alex also terrorizes his own parents, since he is bigger and stronger than they are.

Yet, it is the victimization of Alex which is dramatically recognized  and ‘made right’ in the novel by giving him a well-paid job. The author also demonstrates how maturity has ‘cured’ Alex of Evil at age 19 because he is thinking of impregnating a woman (by force, for all we know) and wanting to make a son of his own.

Frankly, although the author says he actually thinks Free Will is more important than being good or evil and that this was the true moral of his story, and that he actually believes Evil is a matter of childish immaturity, to me, he only made a good case for employing Aversion Therapy. Chapter twenty-one only proved to me that charismatic psychopaths who are getting bored of gangbanging are permitted to move on peaceably due to rampant political corruption in society.

Either way, whether one takes in the Disney ending of Chapter twenty-one or the more real American version, since it is absolutely clear Alex is a psychopathic serial killer, sexual predator, animal abuser (maybe) and child rapist, as well as the inventive leader of murderous gangbangers, I wonder at how most of us think about the author's presentation of Alex. We blithely slip easily into talking about the abstract philosophies seemingly offered by the book and ignore what the character Alex is - someone who rapes ten-year-old tots and rapes, beats and murders women. For many of us, we see Chapter twenty-one as the redemption of Alex, which the author absolutely meant us to feel.

I believe no one in the real world who knows an Alex (I did) would ever go on and on blathering about the larger picture of the social and moral implications of locking up someone who committed the crimes Alex did in sympathetic terms of his immaturity, or whether he had a right to choose Good or Evil instead of being molded/controlled by Aversion Therapy ordered by government authorities (parental guidance and support doesn't count here).

I see the fun of the book's supposed philosophical arguments about immaturity and Free Will, but I am also completely dismayed, disgusted, frightened, horrified, and generally enraged by most everyone accepting Alex's redemption in Chapter twenty-one, ignoring he is still a fricking animal who raped children and killed people without ever looking back or feeling ANY guilt - Catholic or otherwise - at any point! WHERE IS THE GUILT? Am I the only one who noticed Alex has no guilty feelings at all? Am I the only one who is noticing how fricking twisted the author's Grand Philosophical arguments are given Alex’s murderous sexual-predator psychopathy? To me, the last chapter shows Alex is merely BORED with gangbanging destruction - for now.

People are wondrously misdirected by beautiful words (as well as the amazingly inventive near-future slang words, brilliantly conceived by Burgess for this fictional dystopia) over actual action, aren't we?

If you, gentle reader, have never attempted this modern classic, it not only is tremendously full of ugly violence (not graphic, imho), it is written entirely in an imaginary English called Nadsat, sort of a Russianized English. It takes awhile, but miraculously it becomes intelligible. It is the one truly pure fantastic thing about this novel! For this reason primarily, I will continue to give this flawed book four stars, even though the satirical elements have been diminished in my opinion by what has turned out to be the author's own self-exposed juvenile philosophy.

One of my favorite books of all time...but be warned that the ending is different than the ending of Stanley Kubrick's movie (also a classic). Truth be told I prefer the movie ending...but the overall message is the same: when a generation of vipers slithers free who provided the nest they were spawned in? To me this book is the perfect example of how the SA (Sturmabteilung) probably formed: groups of disassociated young men forming 'packs' to roam the city.

I snuck in to see the film when I was 15, based purely on the publicity arising from the release of this controversial piece. It promised sex and violence a plenty... and delivered, big style. I guess it wouldn't shock a modern audience of teenagers to the same extent but at that time it was really pushing the bounds of acceptability to UK film censors. In fact, the film was on loop so I actually saw it twice. It left a big impression, not least of all because of the classical music soundtrack - I still think of the film whenever I hear Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

I read the book shortly after and, predictably, it wasn't as shocking without the visual imagery. But the story of 15 year old Alex (yes, the same age as me) and his droogs/ friends was still very powerful. What I recall most vividly was the need to regularly refer to the language dictionary, kindly provided, to enable an understanding of the strange vocabulary adopted. The violence was still graphic but the moral message (the most boring element to me when watching the film) was more impactful. I was at once understanding of the need to address the violence perpetrated but also horrified by the 'big brother' tactics employed.

It's difficult to overstate the impact of this book/film at the time. I can clearly recall many teenagers aping the dress the gang wore in the film and adopting elements of the language. I didn't actually witness any evidence of the violent behaviour being copied, though there were some reports at the time - for most it was all about aping the the strut and the pose. It demonstrated to me the power of cinema and literature in terms of its impacts on culture, language and behaviour. It also pricked my interest in books and films: their ability to excite, shock, inform, disturb and to purely entertain.

هذه الرواية دون شك تحوي أغرب مفردات إنجليزية قرأتها، من هذه الزاوية تكتسب روايتنا فرادتها، بجانب ذلك فإن بعض الجمل تم بناءها بطريقة غريبة للغاية ولكنها جميلة. بالإضافة لهذا التميز على الجانب اللغوي للرواية فإن الكوميديا السوداء التي تميز كل الجمل المحكية على لسان أليكس مميزة وجميلة.
الأربع نجوم وليس الخمس بسبب الفصل الأخير الذي أفسد جمال الرواية. لذا أنصح قارىء الرواية بتجاهل هذا الفصل أو على الأقل قرأته بعد برهة من الوقت حتى لا يفسد عليه جو وجمال الرواية. لقد كان كوبريك من الذكاء أن تجاهل هذا الفصل في فيلمه.
هذه من المرات النادرة التي أقرأ فيها رواية شاهدتها من قبل مقتبسة في فيلم من أفلامي المفضلة وأجدها لا تقل عنه في المستوى.

This novel without a doubt contains the most weird English Vocabulary i've ever read, It's unique from this aspect. Also some sentence structure are very strange and in the same time beautiful. Along with this language distinction, the black humor of every single sentence in Burgess' narration - on Alex's tongue - are unique and beautiful.
The 4 - and not 5 - stars because of the last chapter which spoil every thing about the novel's beauty, I advice any reader to cancel it or at least read it after a break of time. Kubrick was very smart to cancel it on his movie.
This's one of the rare times when i read a novel which made into one of my favorites movies and find it not less than a masterpiece as the movie.

In 1960 Anthony Burgess was 43 and had written 4 novels and had a proper job teaching in the British Colonial Service in Malaya and Brunei. Then he had a collapse and the story gets complicated. But I like the first cool version AB told, which was that he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour and given a year to live. Since as you know he lived a further 33 years, we may conclude the doctors were not entirely correct. However - the doctor tells you you have a year to live - what do you do?* Lapse into a major depression? Get drunk and stay drunk? Buy a Harley davidson? Not if you were Anthony Burgess. Uxorious regard for his wife's future security bade him to place his arse on a chair in the unpleasing English seaside town of Hove and type out five and a half novels in the one year left to him, which, he later pointed out, was approximately equivalent to E M Forster's entire lifetime output. And the last of these five completed novels was A Clockwork Orange.

No mean feat.

So, this little novel should be on everyone who hasn't read it's must read list. It's a real hoot, and it's absolutely eerie in its predictions about youth culture and recreational drug use. It's also very famous for its hilarious language, all those malenky droogs, horrorshow devotchkas and gullivers and lashings of the old in-out in-out - the reader must be warned that it's very catching and you will for sure begin boring all your friends and family about tolchocking the millicents and creeching on your platties and suchlike. They'll give you frosty looks and begin avoiding you at the breakfast table, but you won't be able to help it. In extreme cases they might smeck your grazhny yarbles and that will definately shut you up.




* Reminds me of the old joke where the doctor says to the guy "I'm sorry to say you only have three minutes to live." Guy says "Isn't there anything you can do for me?" Doctor says "I could boil you an egg."

Ο Άλεξ είναι ένα παιδί επί της ουσίας ,15 ετών που μαζί με τη συμμορία του σκορπίζουν τη βία ,τον φόβο ,έτσι για την πλάκα τους ..όταν όμως μια από αυτές τις "πλάκες" πάρει μια απροσδόκητη τροπή ,τότε ο Άλεξ θα ανακαλύψει τον πραγματικό κόσμο και θα αναγκαστεί να αφήσει πίσω του την νεανικότητά του και την παράλογη βία που όπως λέει ο συγγραφέας ,είναι "ίδιον των νέων ,που έχουν πολλή ενέργεια αλλά λίγο ταλέντο για δημιουργία". Έτσι ο Άλεξ γίνεται ένα μπαλάκι ,ένα "κουρδιστό πορτοκάλι " ανάμεσα στα συμφέροντα κυβερνήσεων και παρατάξεων που όλοι θέλουν να τον "θεραπεύσουν" . Όχι φυσικά για να τον βοηθήσουν ,αλλά για να καρπωθούν μια ακόμη επιτυχία . Η θεραπεία αυτή περιλαμβάνει τρομακτικές μεθόδους-με χρήση βίας χειρότερης ίσως και από αυτή που χρησιμοποιούσε ο ιδιος- που θα τον κάνουν να στραφεί ενάντια στον εαυτό του ,να σιχαθεί πράγματα που αγαπούσε και τον έκαναν χαρούμενο ,όπως την 9η του Μπετόβεν ,φτάνοντας τον σε τέτοιο σημείο που από κει που ο αναγνώστης αρχικά τον αντιπαθεί -δικαιως- για τη σκληρότητα του ,να καταλήξει να τον λυπάται με όλη του την ψυχή ,γι'αυτό το άμοιρο πλάσμα που έχει πια γίνει .
Το βιβλίο αυτό δεν είναι τίποτα λιγότερο από ένα αριστούργημα ,κατά τη γνώμη μου .είναι κάπως κρίμα που η ταινία έχει καρπωθεί όλη την επιτυχία και τους διθυράμβους ,καθώς ανήκει ΣΊΓΟΥΡΑ στην κατηγορία όπου τα βιβλία είναι καλύτερα από την αντίστοιχη ταινία .Είναι ένα βιβλίο σκληρό ,βιαιο ,σκοτεινό ,δυστοπικο,δύσκολο στην ανάγνωση καθώς είναι γεμάτο με την "αργκω" του Άλεξ και των συνομηλίκων του που είναι μια εκδοχή των αγγλικών με πολλά στοιχεία ρωσικών ,δημιουργώντας λέξεις που αρχικά πρέπει να γυρίζεις συνέχεια στο γλωσσάρι στο τέλος του βιβλίου για να καταλάβεις ,αλλά στην πορεία κάπως γίνεσαι και εσύ μέρος αυτής της "κλίκας" και όπως κατανοείς αυτόν τον οργισμένο ,μπερδεμένο έφηβο ,έτσι μαθαίνεις και τη γλώσσα του .
Είναι η δεύτερη ανάγνωση που κάνω σε αυτό το βιβλίο ,μου έδωσε πολλά περισσότερα από την πρώτη και σίγουρα δεν λέμε εδώ αντίο με τον Άλεξ ,τον οποίο μπορώ να πω ότι συμπονεσα ...

Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.
…
Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?
…
What's it going to be then, eh?

Regular readers of my reviews know that I’m always on the lookout for that rare situation: the movie that’s better than the book. I keep a running list of them on my profile page, but it’s still less than 10 movies long. But onto that list I now add A Clockwork Orange, a flawed book that was turned by Stanley Kubrick into a better movie. There’s no real way to talk about the reasons why without spoilers so, if you’re trying to avoid spoilers about a 60-year-old novel (or a 50-year-old movie), please stop reading here.

A Clockwork Orange has a very formal construction. The novel is divided into three parts, each of which has seven chapters. The first part is 15-year-old Alex and his mates robbing, fighting, raping, and generally terrorizing the people around them. The second part is 17-year-old Alex after two years in prison, with the middle chapter of that part—and thus the entire novel—being the famous scene where Alex begins being conditioned to be incapable of violence. And the third part is Alex after he’s released from prison and trying to re-enter polite society.

So with that formal construction it is very interesting that the twenty-first and final chapter of A Clockwork Orange was not originally published in the United States. But after reading the novel, I completely agree with that original choice, and by extension with Stanley Kubrick’s decision to also end the movie with the 20th chapter. The 21st chapter feels like a cop out, with a now-18-year-old Alex feeling that he’s outgrowing violence and that he’s ready to settle down. I mean, of course people tend to outgrow violence (not a lot of gray hair or walkers in your typical street gang