Anthony Burgess' debatably modern classic is in my mind overshadowed by the Stanley Kubrick movie - although my recommendation is that you most definitely still read the book. Having seen the movie a number of times before reading this, the book had little impact on me and felt a bit dated, and dare I say boring at times!

The speculative fiction core of this tale is pretty spot on and the issues Anthony Burgess raises are timeless. The questions in and around crime and punishment still test us all after a millennia of our existence. 4 out of 12

2006 read

Può un uomo considerarsi redento e cambiato se il suo mutamento non è frutto di una scelta personale, ma solo di un condizionamento esterno al quale si soggiace per timore di eventuali conseguenze? Un romanzo davvero straordinario e illuminante, che sembra aver fatta sua la lezione del Kant della critica della Ragion Pratica e che spinge ogni lettore a riflettere sul diritto di preservare la propria libertà di essere, di essere individuo, nel bene come nel male.

Below is a stream of consciousness report of each part of the book:

Part 1: What the hell?! People actually like this book. Like, this is considered one of the best books of the twentieth century by real people? Is anything really going to happen or is this guy and his droogs just going to wander the streets committing random acts of violence? Thank God the violence is depicted with these silly words to make it more cartoonish and silly, but, man, this... this is insane. Oh wait, a malchick isn't a woman. Malchicks are guys. Got it. OK, wait a minute... wait a minute... there is a plot developing here all of a sudden, okay, awesome, great, hey this really isn't so bad after all. I see what's going on here. And, you know, those scenes of violence weren't really all that bad. I mean, they were bad, but it's just a book. It's all just kind of silly and fun and not real. It's dystopian fiction, alright? Alright, alright, alright. Matthew McConaughey. The first season of True Detective was so awesome.

Part 2: Ahhhh! What what is this stuff?! Why are they making him... spoiler...

Part 3: Nice plot twists, bringing some stuff back up, kinda full circle here. I like the way this ended, the real ending, not the leave-the-last-chapter-out-for-those-gun-loving-Americans ending. And now I finally know what all the slang words mean! I should read this again so I completely get it this time! Why didn't I read this book in high school when everyone else did? Why am I even reading it now? Why doesn't my Overdrive app ever give me better books to choose from? I like Doritos just as much as the next guy (malchick!) but I don't like this empty feeling they give me inside.

13.09.2022
1 star:
Burgess is a great author. His work is a masterpiece. You probably want to know why, in that case, I've rated this one star? Because I hate the main character - Alex. Every time he addressed me as "my friend" I wanted to slap him and scream - "I'm not your friend, you filthy piece of shit!"

24.01.2023:
5 stars:
It is only when we compare things, people, situations or our feelings that we can appraise them. Right now I'm reading "Running with Scissors" by Augusten Burroughs. It's very disturbing reading to be honest. I won't rate it high. And I started thinking about books that I rate low. "A Clockwork Orange" was one of that books. However, the quality of these two books is very different! Anthony Burgess created a world and a character that I've actively hated! Alex still conjure strong emotions in me. Burroughs' characters on the opposite side just aren't there for me. I don't want to say that they're flat or uninteresting, but they are surtanly unpleasant. And it's even worse to know that this book is kind of a memoir.

Después de varios meses de haberlo leído, sigo con la jerga nadsat en mi cabeza; y es cool, porque cuando estoy con alguien digo una que otra palabra y ni siquiera me entienden, y no me tomo el tiempo en explicarles. El libro es corto, pero llegando a la página 100 ya tienes el glosario en tu cabeza.
En fin, el autor dijo que está condenado a ser recordado por la película, y es cierto, la película es un clásico. Sin embargo, me gustó más el libro por el hecho de tomar su tiempo a describir la historia, algo que no pasa siempre en las películas. La trama es genial, nos hablan mucho del libre albedrío, de la violencia y se ese mundo distópico. Es violencia pura, algo que es de mi gusto.
Le puse 4 estrellas por el comienzo, se te hace difícil ya que no entiendes muy bien las palabras, pero una vez le tomes el ritmo, sentirás como fluye la trama.
Sí, lo recomiendo. Creo que este es un libro que muchos deberían leer. Bye.

It's brilliantly written, thought-provoking, horrific and occasionally hilarious.

This is one I'd like to recommend to my fellow droogies and devotchka's.

Go get yourself a copy, sit on your oddy knocky, make yourself a cup of chai and give this book a good viddy at!

In a dystopian future, a gang of youngsters lead by a psycho go about pillaging, murdering and raping. The leader is caught and undergoes psychological conditioning so that he can't do violence any more. It effectively makes him a vegetable, taking away all the faculties that make him human.

The story is narrated in a nearly unintelligible slang called Nadsat, and is full of scenes of obscene violence.

The book is beautiful.

This is the genius of Anthony Burgess.

Well my droogs, young malchicks and ptitstas and rabbitters all, you did just finish a horrorshow story, but that vonny chelloveck Anthony Burgess did only govoreet the half of it.

So when you left my tale I was growing up, choosing the dobby, skazating my prayers to Bog. All sneety and soft in the mozg went Alex you thought, shoomny about brats and marriage and sweet young forellas.

But that didn't last long as I soon found some fun of the most choodessny type. It’s true I didn’t have the same brooko for ultraviolence as at the start of our Wondrous Tale, curse that grazzy Doctor Brodsky and his prestoopnick droogs. But I began to kopat ultraviolence of a psychological type, which suited starry Alex much more than a grahzny drat in the nochy.

Meeting a molodoy devotchka, buying her presents, whispering sweet goloss, govoreeting ‘I love you’ before a bit of lubilub and the old in-and-out - then telling her as skorry as anything that I never loved her at all and that it was all grazzy lies while I watched the tears come to her glazznies, then hearing her creech like a bezoomny bratchny - all this was real horrorshow even though not a drop of the red red krovvy (the sight of which might still bring on my sickness) fell to the floor.

And after a while I found many new droogs who loved a bit of twenty-to-one with these same cruel games of the rassoodock, so I joined a club they had made.

And tolchok my yarbles if the heroine of this club wasn’t a starry baboochka who they loved so much because this soomka of theirs took even the moloko from the goobers of malenky brats. All my new droogs loved to smet and sing her song: ‘Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher’, and their club was called ‘The Young Conservatives’ and that was how I found my new love of politics.

And I was good at politics as my nazz was well known, thanks to my history and vonny Burgess, and my litso on the TV and I was still an oomny young nadsat with wit and charm who had a classy goloss when I wanted. So it was easy to become a Tory MP, and what a horrorshow new jeezny I began.

What sladky flip it was to pony I had the power to make all the poor old rabbiters freeze from cold in their domys just with a stroke of my pennywennie. Me and my Tory droogs we didn’t need to carry a britva or to put a noga in the yarbles to have our fun. Just to kopet that all the rabbiting of those poor lewdies, those poor ptitsas and malchicks would come to nothing as with a little tweak to the law (ha ha) we could crast their deng right out of their carman whenever we wanted to fill our hearts with radosty and our carmen with all their pretty polly.

I was so flip at pushing poor lost and poogly lewdies into the sea and having malenky brats wash up dead on the shores of our Royal Throne of Kings that I became Minister of the Inferior or Interior (which is a great and funny irony for all of you that have read the book).

But things did not stop there. My lies were so large and my tales so tall I did shlaga my way to become Prime Minister! Prime Minister Boris! (Although all my droogs still call me by my starry name which you pony is Alex, but Boris is a chepooka name for the gloopy lewdies that did vote your Humble Narrator into the highest position in all the land).

And once I was Prime Minister Boris that's when everything went truly horrorshow. It was the bestest and funniest chaos making and lie telling and crasting you could viddy. Once I was Prime Minister the whole nation could have a tolchok in the metaphorical yarbles, much luchshe than a tolchok to the real ones of a single starry pyahnitsa.

And with the pandemic, vesches got more horrorshow still, as I could smeck and smeck at how the millicents and rozzers would crast the last bit of hen-korm out of the carmans of the lewdies forced to stay at in their domys on their oddy knocky while I could party non stop with my new droogs at Number 10, peeting the sladkest wine while I shived a slice of the most horrowshow cheesyweesy. Best of all I could smot the bodies pile up in their thousands while I partied in the garden in the balmy May weather. And the lies I told. I even lied to Queenweenie!

O My Brothers, today I am truly World King. And tonight I will lie in my flat at Number 10, my gulliver on the pillow looking at the wallpaper (which was krovvy coloured but very tasteful and paid for by cutter from the finest carmens in the land) and think on how truly zammechat was that starry bratchny who said “pravda is nevychny than vymysel”.

POSTSCRIPT
For anyone puzzled by the nadsat langage that Boris speaks above ChatGPT 4 has kindly prepared a summary of the passage. I think we have to forgive ChatGPT one error though. The club Alex/Boris joins isn’t comparable to the Young Conservatives. It is the Young Conservatives.

The narrator, Alex, speaks to his audience, referring to them as friends, boys, girls, and talkers. He acknowledges that they have just finished a remarkable story, but notes that the author, Anthony Burgess, only told half of it.

Alex describes his life after the events of the story. He talks about growing up, choosing the good path, and praying to God. He implies that people might think he has become peaceful and domestic, contemplating family life and love.

However, this peaceful phase doesn't last. Alex finds a new kind of excitement, not the physical violence of his youth, but rather psychological manipulation and emotional cruelty. He talks about seducing young women, showering them with affection and gifts, and then cruelly revealing that his declarations of love were all lies, enjoying their emotional pain.

He finds others who share his enjoyment of these cruel psychological games, joining a club with similar interests. He humorously compares their club to the Young Conservatives, drawing a parallel between their actions and those of the political group.

Alex then talks about his success in politics, using his notorious past and his persuasive skills to become a Member of Parliament, and eventually, through deception and manipulation, the Prime Minister. He describes the power he wields in this position with dark humor, taking pleasure in the suffering and manipulation of the less fortunate.

He concludes by reflecting on his rise to power and the irony of his situation, drawing a connection to the theme of truth and fiction, and settling into his role with a sense of accomplishment.

This summary captures the essence of the passage, translating the Nadsat slang into a more standard form of English while retaining the thematic elements and the dark, satirical tone of the original text. For a more detailed understanding of the Nadsat language and its use in "A Clockwork Orange," consulting a Nadsat dictionary or a comprehensive guide to the novel would be beneficial.

Anthony Burgess had some tough things to say about this work and american movie. He says he has better work. but i have no desire to read more from him.

I watched the movie a while ago and was shocked did not enjoy it but was enthralled. Alex is terrible with no remorse. a real awful guy with his terrible droods. he's smart, ambitious, loves classical music, and the worst stuff you can imagine. the British government is high with crime most coming from the young. This is a doomsday scenario. everything worked out. i think the government worked well. I don't have a problem with them changing Alex he was a monster. They need sports in Brittin. i had sports i was never really violent or angry but knew some guys that the distraction was good for them. they were nothing like Alex he was a monster!

In the end Alex just kind of grew out of it. wants to have a kid. I'm reading the shining and dr. sleep and what jack Torrance does to Danny Torrance is bad enough. Alex kids will not do well!

Burgess has painted for the reader a potential, future, dystopian England, seen through the eyes of juvenile delinquent, Alex. Alex, is a product of the totalitarian society he belongs to and thrives on drug use, street fights, theft, and other even more heinous actions. One such action sees him incarcerated and, later, undergoing a course of state-sponsored psychological rehabilitation for both his violence and his joy of it.

Initially I perceived I would struggle with the writing style Burgess used here, as each page featured an abundance of nonsensical slang words. I quickly found these to be understandable, in their given context, and a quick Google search alleviated my confusion over the rest. I not only became acclimatised to these colloquialisms but appreciated their inclusions: each was well-placed to provide both understanding and to help broaden this futuristic setting.

Another element I anticipated some antagonism over was the heavy political focus. I was, once again, pleasantly surprised to find myself easily immersed in this satirical insight to extreme political manifestos and to appreciate the added comprehension for the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of the differing humans residing within them.

It is very rare that I reach for a book classified as 'hilarious', but the long-lasting renown had me foregoing my usual literary preferences and it definitely paid off. Whilst it did not mean I found a new favourite, within these pages, I did find much to appreciate, especially in relation to the ethical questions this raised, and even cracked a smile or two along the way. This was accompanied with some grimaces, due to the darker subject matter, but overall I found this less challenging and more enlightening than predicted.

I remember watching the movie in the 90s. It was the second Kubrick movie I'd seen (the other was Dr. Strangelove). At the time, I didn't realize the movie was based on a book. Both movies helped me see the world differently. So once I found out Clockwork was based on a book, I HAD to read it. So glad I did! The book felt less crazy than the movie, but it was equally effective.

I think really good dystopian/science fiction helps me to reconsider what I know of how the world operates and helps me reflect how I feel about the way I fit into that view, what change I want out of it, and what I might be able to do about it, if at all. At the time, that meant learning more about our political system and taking my power to vote more seriously.

Given how I feel like I am living in dystopia now (with US government overreach into women's autonomy and health, erasing history from history books, banning books, etc.), I find myself wanting to know more about political psychology and the psychology of fear, as well as wanting to understand the history of what was happening when books like this one and Fahrenheit 451 were written - what prompted these books, whether these books effect change for the positive or negative, and what might the authors have faced in terms of backlash or praise afterward.

Yo sé que a muchos les desagradará la calificación que le he dado, pero no pude sino darle 2 estrellas, y eso por el trasfondo del libro (que lo comento después).
A ver, este libro no es para cualquier persona, no. Yo era la primera que lo quería leer por las buenas críticas que tenía y por lo bien que todo el mundo habla de él, pero… se me hizo una lectura espesa por partes.

El inicio no me gustó, porque no me adaptaba a la jerga de Alex, un lenguaje inventado por el autor, el n  nadsat.n Pensé que abandonaría el libro, pero me hice la fuerte y continué leyendo, porque es para un reto. Y así descubrí que uno se acostumbra a estas palabras y que no necesita ir todo el tiempo a consultar el glosario. Otra cosa que no podía procesar era el exceso de violencia.


Luego continué leyendo y me estaba gustando, el centro de la historia me parecía bien, incluso me enganchó. Y lo estaba disfrutando, cosa que me sorprendió.

Hasta ese momento todo bien, pero entramos a los últimos 4 capítulos y llega lo que no está tan bien para mí. Se me hizo eterno a pesar de que no eran muchas páginas. Leí el capítulo 20, que es hasta donde habían dejado la edición norteamericana, y dije: VALE, el final, hasta aquí está bien. Continué con el capítulo 21, el controversial capítulo 21, el que fue eliminado hasta de la película y de él solo puedo decir una cosa: innecesario. No lo podría definir con otra palabra. Trata de explicar todos los errores cometidos por Alex, pero al final no nos dice nada, nos da las explicaciones con menor sentido existentes sobre la faz de la tierra, otro tipo de explicación a estos actos me hubiera hecho darle una calificación más alta. O simplemente que Alex no cambiara de pensamiento de manera tan abrupta, que eso es lo que molesta.
Escribo "explicación" en cursiva porque para todos sus actos no hay ni explicación ni justificación.
Okay, me calmo. Continuemos.

Me debatí entre 2 y 3 estrellas, porque me parece que la crítica a la cárcel, al gobierno y a muchas otras cosas está muy bien. La historia tiene violencia en abundancia, y no es algo que me agrade, pero no todo es eso. Tiene muchas cosas más que pueden ser comentadas. Trata de la moral, de poder elegir entre el bien y el mal y cómo no se solucionan los problemas simplemente condicionando a una persona para que haga el bien.

n  Nota: aún no entiendo por qué es considerado un clásico, tal vez sea el trasfondo. No lo sé, pero a mi parecer no se debería considerar como tal. Aunque, claro, es solo mi opinión.n