Those who would wish to direct readers with a moral reading compass just hate snarky narrators who would rather commit violent drug-fueled crimes or masturbate to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony than go to school. Often criticized and deemed unsuitable for readers because of its unflinching scenes of criminal violence, blasphemy, and an unrepentant sociopathic protagonist, Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange holds a special place as one of the 20th century's most misaligned and misread works of fiction. Set in a dystopian, not-too-distant future, the England of A Clockwork Orange is a society ravaged by Soviet influence, poverty, and rampant violent crime committed by roving gangs of teenagers who speak a pidgin language that adults find incomprehensible.
One can't help but feel a certain affinity for Alex, the highly-intelligent, witty, violent, criminal, classical music-loving, anti-hero of Burgess's 1962 novel. By the age of 15, Alex, a gang leader, has already committed numerous assaults, thefts, rapes, vandalisms, and even murders. Why? Because it's fun. As a first-person narrator, Alex relays his life of truancy and crime honestly and with relish - violence, or ultraviolence, as Burgess calls it, turns Alex on. Alex is a disturbingly reliable narrator.
Burgess's ability to create a youth language comprised of equal parts of Slavic, English, Russian, Cockney rhyming slang, and baby-talk sets this work apart from pulpish texts published purely for violence junkies. Alex and his droogs display a command of this language and adults are unable to understand them. Burgess implies that language carries valuable political cache and the group that controls the language has the greatest power.
Alex is finally incarcerated for his crimes and while in prison becomes a model prisoner, eligible for an experimental rehabilitation technique. Given drugs to induce a crippling nausea while watching scenes of violence renders Alex physically incapable of committing any act of violence without becoming wretchedly ill. After just two weeks of this "treatment," Alex is released from prison. The prison chaplain warns that any human incapable of choosing between good and evil is no longer human, but a "clockwork orange" - organic in matter, but really just a machine.
Brilliantly structured into three sections of seven chapters each (21 being the age of adulthood), section three begins with Alex's release from prison. Alex comes full circle as part three mirrors part one - Alex encounters all of his former victims and associates, but he's no longer the victimizer as revenge is exacted upon him. He ultimately becomes a political pawn and the Ludovico technique is reversed. The narrative concludes with our humble narrator saying that he's simply outgrown violence and that it's just the way of the world. He imagines finding a wife and having some children who will probably behave just as he did, yet another type of clockwork orange.
Most of the criticism leveled against Clockwork focuses on what some readers interpret as the author's ambivalence towards his subject matter, especially the unrepentantly violent "hero." Burgess doesn't glorify gangs and violence; he suggests, without pontificating, that this thuggish behavior might be the logical outcome of a society that warehouses its poor in dilapidated public high rises and bad schools while the wealthy flock to the suburbs where, as intellectuals and politicians, they write books and conjure up rehabilitation theories about a population they've long abandoned. And at Clockwork's most basic and central core, Burgess asks the reader to think about the essence of being human, in all its beauty and ugliness.
Page 1 of 1 pages
I have to say I find it shocking that a blog on a banned book has been censored by the library! What could be the logical explanation here? Frankly, I don’t think there is one. Having read the novel, I know that the word that has been censored is “masturbation.” This is not a curse word and can easily be found in any dictionary! How embarrassing for this library! It wants to celebrate the fact that its collection includes books that have been banned, but turns around and censors technical terms! Hypocrisy at its most unbelievable!
Correction: The word is “masturbate.” If we’re concerned about the exposure of youth to such a word, I would suggest that the mixed-message that is the library’s simultaneous advocacy of banned books AND censorship of words is infinitely more harmful.
What is the point of advocating the reading of banned books to turn around and “protect” potential readers from a word that signifies a natural mammalian activity?
http://www.slate.com/id/2223013/pagenum/all/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Do-Animals-Masturbate-44324.shtml
This is simply a puritanical reaction to a harmless word.
Interestingly,”#!@?” most likely calls to most readers’ minds a word that is typically considered (whether rightly or wrongly) more offensive than “masturbate.” Hmmm…
masturbate
Code apparently converts “m*sturbate” to “#!@?” What’s that about?
“...pulpish texts published purely…” nice, tanya!
thanks heather and mr./mrs./ms. logic for your support and kind words.
for those just surfing into this thread and wondering what all the comments are about - the “offending” word has been restored. thanks to everyone for their support.
Great! It’s nice to see that this has been fixed, though it is no longer neutered.
just an additional funny: once, when trying to post the last name of a chinese artist online (wang), code intercepted and replaced it with that same cartoon swearing. the artist thought it was hilarious.
Just to add to the discussion a bit - yes, you’re right. We do have a “naughty words” blocker that all comments on our website pass through.
Usually, it works great - it blocks out “R-rated” words, keeps name-calling to a minimum, etc. Many websites use a similar function, with the goal being to keep the discussion as open and friendly as possible.
In this case, it didn’t work so well. sorry!
David King, Digital Branch Manager
Mr. King,
I think it would be really helpful for the public to see the list of words that are “blocked” by your software. This would provoke an interesting discussion about banning words and concepts that really is about a listing of “bad” words that has been created by a corporation or computer. Could you share that with us?
Baxterboy - while I don’t have a problem sharing those words with you, it’d come out a bit funny: they’re words like #!@?, #!@?, and bitch. ![]()
As you can see, it’s a simple stop list to keep us all focused on the topic.
Thanks for asking!
david King, Digital Branch Manager
Looks like we took “bitch” off the list.
DK
I meant perhaps you could share the list with your staff so this kind of apparent censorship embarassment could be avoided in the future. Who decides what words are on the list and when to allow them?
Ah - good idea! I’ll make sure staff have access to that if they need it - thanks for the suggestion.
Who decides? Our web team created the original list (we probably used another stop words list), then we adjust it as needed.
David King, Digital Branch Manager
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add A Comment
* = Required fields
Your Email will not be displayed
Allowed HTML
Rate This Post





Based on 7 Ratings