A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess

The feeling I get from reading "A Clockwork Orange" is similar to that from reading "The Catcher in the Rye." The narrator is unlikeable, and that makes it hard to stay in his head. However, it is always a daring move to let an unlikable character narrate the story, and to make the reader sympathize with such a character is always a great literary achievement.

In the beginning I found it difficult to get into the novel, not only because of the unorthodox narrator, but also because of the lingo he uses. Writing it as a dystopian novel, the author is able to exercise his creative license to its fullest extent. Burgess chooses to create a new lingo for Alex, with which I had a bit of a hard time at first. It is perhaps not that difficult to create such a lingo, but to make it make sense is another story. Halfway in I already got used to these words and even began to replace real words with them in my head. This language in infectious, just like Alex; once I got into it, I could hardly put it down.

Recently I have been paying attention to the structure of the works I read, and find that a story doesn't have to have a complex plot in order for it to be enjoyable; what matters more is that it has a good structure. It is hard to enjoy a book when one constantly gets lost in it, and one gains very little from the experience if the message of the book is obscure due to weak structuring. "Clockwork" is a novella; it is short and swift, straightforward and framed in such a way that guides readers to the direction it wants us to go. When the structure is too obvious or overworked, it could make the work seem amateurish. I think Burgess discovers a way to walk right in the middle.

"Clockwork" is dark, and in order for it to achieve the effect that it does--fear, agony, sympathy--to the degree that it does, it has to be told by the narrator himself. Alex transfers his emotions to us; he lets us know what it feels like to enjoy violence, and then to be tormented by it. It is up to the reader to open up his or her mind and to be willing to embody this character. This novel isn't for everybody or anybody, but it certainly is a thrilling ride.


***SPOILER ALERT***

I need to discuss the 21st chapter, which is originally cut out from the first couple of American editions. Burgess was pretty pissed off about it. The chapter was published in the original, British version, as well as in all the other translations that were published around the world. Apparently the American publisher thought it was unnecessary, and that the book would do better without the glimpse of hope in the end that Alex would change. The chose to end the book with the 20th chapter, in which Alex is cured--he is no longer vulnerable to thoughts of violence--and seems to go back to the way he used to be, as opposed to feeling bored with that way of life and considering turning his life around. On one hand I think the author should have the right to control how his book should end, or what the message of the book should be. I also believe that the readers have the right to read what the author intends to publish, and decide for themselves whether or not that is a good ending. But on the other hand, I like the "American" ending better. It makes more sense, I suppose. I also find the 21th chapter heavy-handed. Burgess says that there is no point in writing a story without a good message, or without the growth and improvement of the character(s). With this I disagree. The growth can be the goal, the point toward the story is driven, but it is the journey that makes a good story, and whether or not he gets there or ends up elsewhere is up to fate.