“Otomatik Portakal”ın yazarı Anthony Burgess’ın biraz gözardı edilmiş romanı “Bir Elin Sesi Var” ilk defa 1961 yılında yayımlanmış. Burgess’ın “Otomatik Portakal” romanındaki gibi çok sade ve eğlenceli dili romanı bir çırpıda bitirmenize neden oluyor. TV’deki bir bilgi yarışmasında sadece fotoğrafik bir belleği olduğu için büyük para ödülünü kazanan işçi sınıfından bir genç ve onun güzel karısının değişen hayatını anlatan kitap yoğun bir pop kültür eleştirisi aynı zamanda. Çok büyük bir zenginlik elde eden çift, bu parayla nasıl yaşayacaklarını bulamadıkları gibi, dünyanın yoz yüzüyle de bir anda tanışıyorlar. Hiçbir şeyden zevk alamaz bir hale düşüyorlar...

I read this at some point after finishing school, feeling a continuing admiration for the author of A Clockwork Orange and wondering if his other titles were as good. The basic story of this one has stuck with me over the years, as have a few specific scenes. It deserves more attention than I think it got.

One hand clapping by Anthony Burgess (1972), [1st American ed.]

"I got the idea that wherever you went all that would matter would be the people, and they seem to be all pretty much the same. I suppose the only real reason for travelling is to learn that all people are the same. I tell you that now, so you don't need to waste your money on travelling."

Can’t help but compare this to many a Highsmith novel. Exasperating to watch the characters making one bad decision after another, but impossible to turn away from.

Wonderful book, like dark chocolate -- so sweet yet bitter at the same time.

Janet Shirley is so much fun as a narrator, she's the perfect foil for Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. At first she seems sweet, fun, down to earth and kind. Only little by little do you notice that she's not much interested in other people, only in her own pleasures. The nature of the pleasures is interesting, too. She's not a sadist like Alex, far from it. If she had her way she'd just be left to enjoy herself innocently in random sex, random spending, and random travel. She's only interested in having all the wonderful things people on TV have, and she doesn't care how she gets them. But violence and murder are only a means to an end, never an end in themselves.

Janet's husband Howard is a much less likable character. It's important to bear in mind that he's not entirely Burgess' stand-in. The cheap shots at modern culture, pop music and television probably reflect Burgess' views. But Burgess understands that Howard is just as dishonest about the past as popular culture is about the present. At one point Janet innocently remarks that Howard "is selling the past just like he sells one of his used cars" and that really sums it up.

But it's really Jan's book, and if you're like me you'll end up cheering for her in spite of yourself.

It was pretty average, though kind of dull for the first 2/3 of the book, then it got crazy. It's one of those books with a "twist", so if you're only half into it and not entirely convinced it's going to get better, stick with it!

It was certainly interesting to read a book by Burgess that took place during his time. This book mostly foreshadows human greed and lust. It wasn't as fast paced as The Wanting Seed or A Clockwork Orange, but it steadily kept me reading. I highly recommend it for anyone that enjoys looking into the dark side of "love", human emotion, greed, and capitalism overall.

Of his own book, Anthony Burgess said: “The book tries to encapsulate a period and an ethos now dead, and I cannot think of it as much more than a jeu dashed off to make a hundred pounds or so. But in Eastern Europe it had a late success. It was regarded as a condemnation of money-making, a debased culture, the whole capitalist Western way of life, than to endure which it would be better to be dead. It was adapted for television in Warsaw and turned into a stage musical in Budapest. It was one of the two books for which I was known in the old Soviet bloc. Needless to say, what money it has earned there remains sequestered.’”

When reading this book, I didn’t interpret the book as a clear-cut condemnation of consumerism, technology, and America’s influence in Europe (even if that’s what Burgess was intending to portray). I saw Howard’s character, especially in his relationship with Janet, as a criticism of the people who condemn consumerism and use a broad brush to paint the “modern day” as an intellectually dead, soulless, consumerist hellscape. I felt that the juxtaposition of Janet’s character with Howard’s and her inability to understand what he was thinking showed just how illogical and disproportionate his criticisms were: she was able to have the same criticisms of society yet find a middle ground without taking drastic but ultimately meaningless actions — how would putting one “boring” poem in the paper shock the world into understanding?

I felt that the ending, with her fighting back, killing him, and moving on with her life with her next love, demonstrated that his way of becoming a “martyr” for his values was, in effect, absolutely meaningless. Life went on. You can see this as either a continued criticism of modern society (“We’re too far gone, there’s nothing any of us can do”) or as an indication that her philosophy (“It’s not the world that’s bad, but the people”) was right all along. I felt that her embracing of almost a libertine philosophy is portrayed in a neutral-to-positive light — I don’t think her vague hints towards maybe killing Red is any worse (or more negatively portrayed) than Howard’s planned murder-suicide.

I think an interesting topic for discussion would be that he planned to murder her if she didn’t go along with the suicide pact — how does the attempted murder affect his image as an anti-consumerist martyr we’re supposed to embrace? How is that any better than her?

What struck me most about Burgess’ review is not how harsh and dismissive he is about his book — which is a quite compelling read, even if the characters and plot are relatively simple — but that he believes this book is no longer relevant. It seems like you can’t go a day without hearing thinkpieces about millennials or cell phones or how nobody reads books anymore. I think that as long as there’s a society, there will be people criticizing the new generation for being too vapid, too materialistic, too invested in technology, not appreciative of the old authors and the old way of life, etc. In essence, I think there will always be Howards.

Aside from all of that, the plot is not fully unpredictable, but it’s still thrilling building up to the attempted murder-suicide. Even if you aren’t interested in the themes, I think it’s a fun read! I do wish we’d heard more of the poem, but I enjoyed the detail of her falling asleep while her husband reads it — it made a more effective impact that way.

Взех тази книга, защото много харесвам "Портокал с часовников механизъм" и бях любопитен да прочета още нещо от Бърджес. Книгата е написана добре, но за съжаление не ми допаднаха нито историята, нито героите.

Some observations:
The narrative is not concerned with holding one's hand with description. It seems to belligerently push aside any attempt at that, in a way which is quite witty and sometimes made me smile.

The darkness of the human soul is left open-ended which is what haunts me now.

Short read.

Easily Burgess's most linguistically simple work, but his general mastery of inflection and cadence is somewhat propelled by this; without the use and abuse of his exceptional vocabulary Burgess has to rely on his core storytelling abilities, and it works so very, very well.

Without giving much away, I can safely say that through its simple story it tells a larger yet equally simple message that we've heard in every language, every culture, over thousands of years: money can't buy happiness. But here it gets taken to stranger and darker places. The message is a doorway into something more profound, but still unerringly simple and cleanly executed.

Burgess was a man with a lot to say, but in One Hand Clapping he shuts up a bit and that makes it a noble addition to his body of work.