I like this book. I enjoyed the thought that went into the book. I read it in its entirety, from the first page to the last page. The author shares some real and true nuggets in the story that many should acknowledge. The book was introduced to me in my western humanities II college course, and its content is very much relevant, present, and true. Great book. It has some type of slang that's used throughout the book. For me, that was no problem; however, to others, it may be. I enjoyed the depth of thought, the art of his delivery of what he meant to convey in this book.

How to review an infamous book about which so much has already been said? By avoiding reading others’ thoughts until I’ve written mine.

There are horrors in this book, but there is beauty too, and so much to think about. The ends of the book justify the means of its execution, even if the same is not true of what happens in the story.

Book vs Film, and Omission of Final Chapter

I saw the film first, and read the book shortly afterwards. Usually a bad idea, but in this case, being familiar with the plot and the Nadsat slang made it easier to relax (if that's an appropriate word, given some of the horrors to come) into the book. The film is less hypnotic and far more shocking than the book, because it is more visual and because, like the US version of the book, it omits the more optimistic final chapter.

The British censors originally passed the film - uncut. But a year later, it was cited as possibly inspiring a couple of murders, leading to threats against Kubrick's family. The year after that, Kubrick asked for it to be withdrawn, and it was, even though he said
"To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around."

See Withdrawl of film from UK screens
and
Omission of final chapter

Plot and Structure

It is a short novel, comprising three sections of seven chapters, told by “your humble narrator”, Alex. In the first section, Alex and his teenage gang indulge in “ultra-violence” (including sexual assault of young girls); in the middle section, Alex is in prison and then undergoes a horrific new treatment (a sort of aversion therapy); the final section follows him back in the real world, rejected by his parents, now the puppet of opposing political factions. The whole thing is set in a slightly dystopian, very near future and explores issues of original sin, punishment and revenge, free will, and the nature of evil.

One awful incident involves breaking in to a writer’s house and gang raping his wife, who later dies. A similar incident happened to Burgess’ first wife (though he wasn’t there at the time). Writing a fictionalised account from the point of view of the perpetrator is extraordinary: charitable, cathartic, or a more complex mixture?

Themes

Why is Alex as he is?
“What I do I do because I like to do”, and perhaps there is no more that can be said. As Alex ponders, “this biting of their toe-nails over what is the CAUSE of badness is what turns me into a fine laughing malchick. They don’t go into the cause of GOODNESS… badness is of the self… and that self is made by old Bog or God and is his great pride and radosty”.

Can people like Alex be cured, and if so, how?
Imprisonment, police brutality, fire and brimstone don’t work. Enter the Ludovico Technique, whereby Alex is injected with emetics before being strapped, with his eyelids held open, to watch videos of extreme physical and sexual violence. He becomes conditioned to be unable to commit such acts, or even to watch or think about them. This raises more questions than it solves. The prison governor prefers the old “eye for an eye”, but has to give in to the new idea of making bad people good. “The question is whether such a technique can really make a man good. Goodness comes from within… Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.” The chaplain has doubts, too, “Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?” On the other hand, by consenting to the treatment, Alex is, in an indirect way, choosing to be good.

The technique (or torture) is promoted as making Alex “sane” and “healthy” so that he can be “a free man”, but although he is released from prison, he remains imprisoned by the power of the technique, even to the extent that the music he loves now makes him sick (because it was playing in the background) and his inability to defend himself means he becomes a victim.

Do the ends justify the means?
Dr Brodsky thinks so: “We are not concerned with motive, with the higher ethics. We are only concerned with cutting down crime.” However, if it wears off, it will all have been for nothing.

Redemption?
The possibility of redemption is a common thread, reaching its peak in this final chapter. Burgess was raised as a Catholic, educated in Catholic schools, but lost his faith aged sixteen. He continued to have profound interest in religious ideas, though, as explained here.

The final chapter (omitted from US editions of the book until 1986, and also the film) feels incongruously optimistic in some ways, but by suggesting the true answer as to what will cure delinquency is… maturity, it might be thought the most pessimistic chapter. Is teen violence an inevitable cycle: something people grow into, and then out of when they start to see their place in the bigger picture? And if so, is that acceptable to society?

Language - Nadsat Slang

A distinctive feature of the book is the Nadsat slang that Alex and his droogs use (“nadsat” is the Russian suffix for “teen” – see here). Burgess invented it from Russian with a bit of Cockney rhyming slang and Malay, because real teen slang is so ephemeral, the book would quickly seem dated otherwise. He wanted the book published without a glossary, and it is written so carefully, that the meaning is usually clear, and becomes progressively so, as you become accustomed to it: “a bottle of beer frothing its gulliver off and a horrorshow rookerful of like plum cake” and “There’s only one veshch I require… having my malenky bit of fun with real droogs”. Where an English word is used literally and metaphorically, the Nadsat one is too; for example, “viddy” is used to see with one’s eyes and to understand someone’s point.

The skill of carefully used context makes Russian-based Nadsat much easier to follow than the dialect of Riddley Walker (see my review HERE), even though the latter is based on mishearings of English. (To be fair, the whole of Riddley Walker is written in dialect, whereas in Clockwork Orange, it's conventional English with a generous smattering of slang.)

Where the meaning isn't immediately obvious or is merely vague, you go with the flow until it seeps into your consciousness (much as would happen if you were dropped into an environment where you had no language in common with anyone else). It's another way of sucking the reader into Alex's world and his gang.

Nadsat lends a mesmerising and poetic aspect to the text that is in sharp contrast to the revulsion invoked by some of the things Alex does: tolchocking a starry veck doesn’t sound nearly as bad as beating an old man into a pulp - Nadsat acts as a protective veil. In the film, this effect is somewhat diluted because you SEE these acts.

The book was like published in 1962 and Alex frequently uses “like” as an interjection as I did earlier in this sentence – something that has become quite a common feature of youth speak in recent times. What happened in between, I wonder?

Other than that, much of what Alex says has echoes of Shakespeare and the King James Bible: “Come, gloopy bastard thou art. Think thou not on them” and “If fear thou hast in thy heart, o brother, pray banish it forthwith” and “Fear not. He canst taketh care of himself, verily”. There is always the painful contrast of beautiful language describing unpleasant and horrific things.

Similarly, the repetition of a few phrases is almost liturgical. Alex addresses his readers as “oh my brothers”, which is unsettling: if I’m one of his brothers, am I in some way complicit, or at least condoning, what he does? Another recurring phrase is, “What’s it going to be then, eh?” It is the opening phrase of each section and used several times in the first chapter of each section.

Music

Burgess was a composer, as well as a writer, and Alex has a passion for classical music, especially “Ludwig van”. This may be partly a ploy to make the book more ageless than if he loved, for example, Buddy Holly, but more importantly, it’s another way of creating dissonance: a deep appreciation of great art is not “supposed” to coexist with mindless delinquency.

Alex has lots of small speakers around his room, so “I was like netted and meshed in the orchestra”, and the music is his deepest joy: “Oh bliss, bliss and heaven. I lay all nagoy to the ceiling… sloshing the sluice of lovely sounds. Oh it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh.” The treatment destroys this pleasure- with dramatic results.

Horror and Beauty, Sympathy for a Villain

Ultimately, I think Alex is sympathetic villain: he has a seductive exuberance and charm and although he does horrific things, when awful things are done to him, sympathy flows.

Yes, there are horrors in this book, but there is beauty too, and so much to think about. The ends of the book justify the means of its execution, even if the same is not true of what happens in the story. Brilliant.

Jabberwock in Nadsat

Thanks to Forrest for finding this brilliant hybrid:
https://medium.com/@johnlewislo…/the-...

I had been avoiding this book for several reasons. The first of these was perhaps the weighty reputation this book has for being shocking and controversial. I was slightly afraid that the book wouldn't be as monumental as it had been built up as. The second was my initial exposure to the Kubrik film based on this book. Even the most blase 14 year old will have a strongly negative reaction to the film; the exact response it was intended to elicit, I'm sure. Finally, this book seemed to be a poltergeist that haunted my English teachers --- every time it was mentioned, those same teachers would take on a mask of otherworldly horror and admiration. They would then praise and condemn, in equal parts, its author for his demoniacally confounding use of slang. Several of my friends had even admitted to being unable to read the book. All in all, it wasn't a strongly alluring portrait of a book. It more closely resembled the challenge of a craggy cliff, with signs saying, "Do not climb -- 20,000 dead this year."

I was deeply surprised when I began reading this (during a brief jaunt as a member of the Panic! At The Disco reading club) and found it to be easily digestible and more thought-provoking than shocking. I think that in part this is due to my being a context-based vocabulary learner. I used to loathe putting down a book just to drag out a dictionary, and oddly enough this habit helped me here. However the majority of the thanks I can lay at the author's feet. This book was well paced and well written. It avoided lagging, like so many other literary classics. The central character was surprisingly easy to relate to, despite his inhumanity towards others. And this, paired with an insightful and meaningful plot, drove home the message of the book painfully well. And the final chapter, which was omitted in initial publications of this book, cinched the story shut in a way that the Kubrick film missed entirely.

Not only did I enjoy reading this book, ripping through it in only three nights, but I enjoyed sitting and thinking about it afterwards. I enjoyed discussing it. It stirred my brain in the same way that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep did. It hit its mark where other speculative fiction books aim wide or fall short.

I would recommend this to anyone who likes to be challenged and who likes to ponder their own nature.

Rebellion can take on many forms and in A Clockwork Orange it takes on the form of language: the spoken word.

All societies have their constraints, though breaking through them is often difficult. What the “poor” disaffected youth do here is create their own system of communication that is so utterly theirs. Every word carries history, and by destroying such words the youngster are proposing a break from tradition: they are proposing something new. This idea is captured when they attack the “bourgeoisie” professor in the opening scene; they beat him, tear his books apart and strip him naked in the streets. It is an act of aggression and power; it is an act that is infused with jealousy and rage. The lower classes are sick of the elites, and the poor are sick of the rich. And they want to stand on their own two feet.

“Is it better for a man to have chosen evil than to have good imposed upon him?”





However, despite the symbolic nature of the scene, it also demonstrates the rash nature of such youths. In their actions they perpetuate such divisions and class divides. They never stop to consider that perhaps the professor could be sympathetic to their cause. They just don't care; they enjoy violence too much. Instead they just see and object of power, knowledge and wealth, so they attempt to destroy it. Having passion and a strong will are vital for social change, but using such things sensibly and at the right time is also of equal importance. I'm not an advocate of violence, but they could have used that better and more productively too.

Society fears them; it fears these boys that represent dissatisfaction and anger. How far can they go? How powerful could they become? What will the future hold? Burgress shows us a speculative future, a “what if” situation that is not implausible. The novel is advisory; it suggests that something needs to be done to society in order to avoid the pitfall the gang fell into here. Like all significant literature, the work has a universal quality: it is as relevant today as it was when it was first published in the 1970s because it shows us what unbridled and misguided temper can achieve.

Alex (the gang leader) is thrown into jail after committing a particularly nasty crime. The doctors then attempt to rehabilitate him through psychological treatment based on schema theory and the rules of conditioning and association. Afterwards, the thought of violence sickens him physically and he is thrown out into a world that hates him and one he can no longer survive him. He is completely failed by society, but it is near impossible to have sympathy with such a reckless anarchist. He is violent and spiteful.

A Clockwork Orange is a postmodern masterpiece because of its experimental style, language and allegorical content. However, it is also an extremely difficult book to read and an even harder one to enjoy. The slang frustrated me; it was understandable but very dense at times. It’s a clever device, but an agenising one. I disliked this element for the same reason I will never attempt to read Finnegan’s Wake by James Joyce. I liked to get lost. I don’t like to have to put effort in when I read; perhaps I’m a lazy reader. Regardless though, it was a huge relief to actually finish. I’m still going to watch the film, and I do think I may enjoy it a little more than this.

I read this a great deal of time ago. Before a fair number of those reading this review were born. And the book itself was written before I was born - though not by very many years.

The intervening decades mean that this will be a somewhat vague accounting of the book's merits (in my eyes). It certainly made an impression on me, and the main character, Alex DeLarge, was the inspiration (at least in terms of a number of traits) for the main character in my debut novel, Prince of Thorns - both Alex and Jorg are very young, amoral, violent, and possessed of a certain degree of charm and intelligence.

A Clockwork Orange is, in my estimation, an observation (rather than study) of a phenomenon that is complicated in some ways and simple in others, and mispresented in a whole variety of manners by two-dimensional takes on it. Namely the nature of teenage rebellion (at the sharpest end where it shades into what we would commonly call 'evil') and how society interacts with it, seeking both to curb and cure it, and looks at that interaction both in terms of the damage wrought (in this case violent attacks including rape), the punitive measures taken (prison), the 'treatment' (in this futuristic world (from a 1960s perspective) this comes through both religion and a rather harrowing aversion therapy), the politics, and the final outcome.

The book's delivered in the first person through Alex's point of view with heavy doses of an invented street slang, an argot cobbled together with east European words IIRC. Alex is honest about his dishonesty, almost comical in his semi-tongue in cheek self-pity, and an engaging voice despite his many vile crimes.

One of the book's most interesting (to me) conclusions (I'll call it a conclusion because it's the final note, it's not delivered as a sermon) - is that what mellows our Alex into someone who might eventually be a reasonable person and might live up to the promise of his obvious intelligence and verbal skills, is simply time. He grows up. He casts his wickedness as belonging to the half-child, half-man that he was. The attempts to punish him, cure him, and rehabilitate him weren't significant.

And that's an interesting question at least - at what age does the stain of a person's deeds start to become permanent? We would probably not condemn a 40 year old man because when he was 2 he pushed his 1 year old brother into a fire to see what would happen. If we move that 40 down, and that 2 up ... where does it change. Is there an age at which Alex's crimes should not dog the rest of his life, and if so what is it?

And by making his crimes so terrible, Burgess ups the stakes on that question.


Join my Patreon
Join my 3-emails-a-year newsletter #prizes

..

The lesson about free will, governmental control and juvenile crimes wrapped in disgusting narrative with detailed description of violence through the eyes if the psychotic teenager. Interesting modern classic, but I wouldn't really recommend it.

Sure, the slang is a chore but in context they're all perfectly cromulent words.

"But, brothers, this biting of their toe-nails over what is the cause of badness is what turns me into a fine laughing malchick. They don't go into what is the cause of goodness, so why of the other shop? If lewdies are good that's because they like it, and I wouldn't ever interfere with their pleasures, and so of the other shop." (46)

"What does God want? 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?" (105)

"Then there was like quiet and we were full of like hate, so smashed what was left to be smashed – " (29)

4 stars. You gotta admire Burgess's commitment. And, beyond the gross-out factor, this got me squirming philosophically; I'm all for unlimited Freedom Of Choice, except for where it turns out maybe I'm not. It's tightly constructed, it's thought-provoking, it doesn't overstay its welcome, and I think it's Exhibit A for the way obscenity can transcend to become art.

I read this as part of a reading challenge. I've never seen the movie either, and now that I've read it, I don't think I want to.


This is what it would take to make me watch a movie that includes this as a scene.

It's really hard to review this book because it has been studied, picked apart, and written about for years and years. So, I'm going to approach it as I would any book: what an average American shlub thinks about it. No scholarly dissertation, no thesis, no talking about the symbolism. Just how it made me feel.

The biggest thing about this book is the fact that it is harder than hell to read. It's like decoding hieroglyphics. The language is some sort of made-up slang that will annoy the crap out of you when you start the book. And, this slang language is ridiculous. Many of the words are silly sounding and rhyming. (It is supposed to be an off-shoot of Cockney Rhyming Slang). You may just want to shoot yourself in the head after a few pages.



It's like Dr. Seuss broke bad or something. Seriously annoying.

The next big thing is the senseless, brutal violence in this story. There is killing, raping, and torture. It's horrible stuff. In this case, the stupid language actually helps because the words used for everything takes you a step-back from the violence.

The torture of our narrator was really the most important part of the story. Everything the book is saying comes down to whether the torture was a good thing or bad thing. There are complex issues that are explored, like crime & punishment, free will vs. determinism, parental and governmental responsibility, etc... This is why so much has been written about a book that calls eggs "eggiwegs". It had better be deep if one is willing to slosh through that much annoyingness. It's like running through a Lego gauntlet. There had better be something good at the end.

The version I read of this book included an extra chapter that was originally edited out of the American version of it. When I noted where it would have cut-off, I actually thought it would have been a much better story if it ended there. I guess that means the editor understood us Americans. But, in the forward that was written by the author, he whines and bitches about the editing. He actually whined and bitched about a lot of things. He was pretty bitter about the book and about Stanley Kubrick making a buttload of money off the movie. His own protagonist would have bitch-slapped him, cut him up a bit, and raped his mother if he met his creator. Seriously, the guy was a self-important weenie.


Luckily, this author is dead, so I get to trash him without remorse.

So, would I recommend anyone reading this book? No freaking way. I just finished it and I have a headache, am slightly depressed, and will be afraid of teenagers from now on. Just skip this and read something that will make you happy.

Rating: 1* of five

This novella is a pursey-lipped Great Aunt Prudence-shocker, a piece made to play on the fears of right-wing conservative religious nuts and libertarian dupes of the twin perils of Moral Degeneracy and Government Intervention.

The rest of my review is at Expendable Mudge Muses Aloud.

I tried to read this book maybe 10 or 11 years ago, and I made it exactly two pages. I just couldn't wrap my head around all of the weird slang. I don't feel too bad, though, because it seems that even Burgess himself kind of wishes that this book didn't exist. At least, in all of the interviews I have read from him about it (and the introduction to the edition that I just read) he doesn't speak too highly of it.

I gave it another try and am happy to say that, not only did I finish it, but I actually liked it quite a bit. It has a lot to say about morality, free will, and youth, among other things (Burgess manages to pack a lot into this slim book). It starts out pretty wild and shocking but, by the end, becomes introspective.

I also agree with Burgess that taking the final chapter out (which the American publisher insisted on and Kubrick followed suit with in the film version) drastically changes the meaning of the story, turning a story about someone having the choice of being good or evil into more of a story about someone being predestined to being evil. Besides that, I am completely and totally against abridgement, and so I heartily recommend reading the full 21 chapter novel as Burgess intended.

(Book 437 from 1001 books) - A Clockwork Orange – Anthony Burgess

A Clockwork Orange is a dystopian novel by English writer Anthony Burgess, published in 1962.

Set in a near future English society featuring a subculture of extreme youth violence, the teenage protagonist, Alex, narrates his violent exploits and his experiences with state authorities intent on reforming him. The book is partially written in a Russian-influenced argot called "Nadsat".

Part 1: Alex's world Alex is a 15-year-old living in a near-future dystopian city who leads his gang on a night of opportunistic, random "ultra-violence".

Alex's friends ("droogs" in the novel's Anglo-Russian slang, "Nadsat") are Dim, a slow-witted bruiser, who is the gang's muscle; Georgie, an ambitious second-in-command; and Pete, who mostly plays along as the droogs indulge their taste for ultra-violence.

Characterised as a sociopath and hardened juvenile delinquent, Alex is also intelligent, quick-witted, and enjoys classical music; he is particularly fond of Beethoven, whom he calls "Lovely Ludwig Van". ...

Part 2: The Ludovico Technique Alex is convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years in Wandsworth Prison. His parents visit one day to inform him that Georgie has been killed in a botched robbery. Two years into his term, he has obtained a job in one of the prison chapels, playing music on the stereo to accompany the Sunday Christian services. The chaplain mistakes Alex's Bible studies for stirrings of faith; in reality, Alex is only reading Scripture for the violent or sexual passages. ...

Part 3: After prison Alex returns to his parents' flat, only to find that they are letting his room to a lodger. Now homeless, he wanders the streets and enters a public library, hoping to learn of a painless method for committing suicide. The old scholar whom Alex had assaulted in Part 1 finds him and beats him, with the help of several friends. Two policemen come to Alex's rescue, but they turn out to be Dim and Billyboy, a former rival gang leader. They take Alex outside of town, brutalise him, and abandon him there. ...

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز یازدهم ماه اکتبر سال 2002 میلادی

عنوان: پرتقال کوکی؛ نوشته: آنتونی برجس؛ مترجم: پریرخ هاشمی؛ مشخصات نشر تهران، تمندر، 1381، در 211ص، شابک 9649040633؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده 20م

عنوان: پرتقال کوکی؛ نوشته: آنتونی برجس؛ مترجم: بهنام باقری؛ مشخصات نشر تهران، میلکان، 1394، در 180ص، شابک 9786007845264؛

عنوان: پرتقال کوکی؛ نویسنده و اقتباس استنلی کوبریک؛ مترجم: محمدمهدی فیاضی کیا؛ مشخصات نشر تهران، افراز، 1389، در 135 ص، شابک 9649789642432257؛

رمانی درباره ی نافرمانی گروهکی از جوانان در برابر قانون و جامعه، در آینده‌ ی کابوس‌وار است؛ «الکس»، یک نوجوان پانزده ‌ساله، داستان خود را به گویش ابداعی به نام «ندست» بازگو می‌کند، «استنلی کوبریک» از همین کتاب، فیلمنامه ای با همین عنوان برگرفته، و بنگاشته اند، پس همین عنوان فارسی از آنِ، آن فیلمنامه، و همان اقتباس نیز هست، فیلمنامه ی «اس��نلی کوبریک» با ترجمه جناب آقای «محمدمهدی فیاضی کیا»، را نشر افراز، در سال 1389هجری خورشیدی منتشر کرده، جناب «فربد آذسن» هم همین کتاب را در 172ص ترجمه کرده اند؛

پرتقال کوکی کمدی سیاه هجوآمیز پادآرمان‌شهری، از «آنتونی برجس» نویسنده ی اهل «بریتانیا» است، که نخستین بار در سال 1962میلادی منتشر شد؛ داستان در آینده‌ای نزدیک رخ می‌دهد، در زمانه‌ ای که خرده‌ فرهنگ خشونت در میان نسل جوان جامعه رواج دارد؛ «الکس»، قهرمان نوجوان داستان، رفتارهای خشن خود را روایت می‌کند؛ تفریح او و داستانش آزار فیزیکی و جنسی شهروندان بی‌گناه است؛ طی یکی از این ماجراها، «الکس» دستگیر و به زندان می‌افتد؛ دولت مدعی است روش نوینی برای اصلاح مجرمان یافته که می‌تواند جایگزین زندان شود؛ «الکس» داوطلبانه تن به درمان می‌دهد اما درمی‌یابد که آن روش چیزی کمتر از شکنجه و خشونت دولتی نیست؛ کتاب تا حدی به زبان مخفی «آرگو» به نام «ندست» نگاشته شده که متأثر از زبان «روسیه» است؛

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 08/06/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 17/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

پرتقال کوکی یکی از کتاب‌های معروف هست و فیلمش هم توسط "استنلی کوبریک" ساخته شده.
من فیلمشو ندیدم و نخواهم دید به دلایلی:)

این اولین تجربه‌ی خواندنی ام بصورت جدی از رمان‌های پادآرمان شهری هست. قبلا کتاب مزرعه ی حیوانات و۱۹۸۴ رو هم خوندم اما واسه سال‌ها پیش و یادم رفته.

روای داستان "الکس" پانزده ساله که شخصیت بسیار شرور دارد،همراه دوستاش شب ها به دزدی،ضرب و شتم مردم و البته تجاوز می‌کنند اما یک شب در طی این حوادث اتفاقی می افتد و الکس دستگیر می‌شود.
و از اینجا به بعد ماجرا خیلی هیجان انگیز و جالب میشه.

الکس به ۱۴ سال در زندان محکوم میشه، اما در این بین تعدادی از افراد میخوان یک سری آزمایش برای مجرم ها انجام بدن که اصلاح بشوند و برگردند جامعه و به قول خودشون زندان‌ها هم خلوت می‌شوند.
پس الکس رو انتخاب می‌کنند و الکس بخاطر اینکه جای چهارده سال میتونه بااین آزمایش در طی دو هفته آزاد شود. قبول می‌کند.

راستش بااینکه تنها کتابیه از این نویسنده خوندم.اما واقعا این نویسنده رو تحسین میکنم.
پشت این کتاب پر از ارزش های اخلاقی انسان هست.
ما در اینجا با شخصیت‌ شرور روبه رو هستیم که هیچ رحمی برای آدم ها ندارد.
اما بااین آزمایش زندگی اش زیر و رو میشه.
من کتاب رو با ترجمه‌ی فربد اذسن خوندم که در طاقچه بصورت رایگان هست و بنظرم اگه خواستین بخونین حتما این ترجمه باشه
من چندسال پیش خواستم بخونم نتونستم باهاش ارتباط برقرار کنم چونکه ترجمش خیلی ناجور بود.
البته مشکل من بود چونکه خود راوی داستان اینطور حرف میزنه و بنظرم اگه بهش فرصت بدین کم کم متوجه حرف های الکس می‌شوید

مثلا یجا میگه بصیرت کم کم متوجه شدم همون چشم یا نگاه هست
یا خوشکه که منظورش خانم خوشگل