Scan barcode
kamaria's review
5.0
This book is really difficult to review. And I feel like I'm the last person in the world that hasn't seen Kubrick's adaptation.
At first, it dragged endlessly, because I couldn't stomach Alex's acts of pointless violence. I started to become interested when he hits Dim because he interrupts the opera singer.
Even though there are several reflective critics on Christianity before, I think everything really starts when he's in treatment with Ludovico's technique. I loved how Burgess made me think: would I want that for criminals if I lived in that UK? If the answer's yes, then I'm saying I am choosing to make zombies and that I am willing to give the State a great power to control everyone. It is way too dangerous, it is really choosing to live in those dystopian worlds where the individual loses their freedom in order to achieve a greater good for the community. But then, if I say no to that question, I'm saying that I would prefer to live in fear.
It was a really distressing reading. That's why I liked the last chapter (the one missing in the first editions published in the US), because there's hope. Burgess believes in humans and believes that, given the choice, sooner or later we'll want peace. I think that's way too optimistic, but at least I'm not totally depressed after reading the book.
My favourite aspect of the book is nadsat, without a doubt. I loved the mix between Shakespearean expressions and rude-sounding slavic words. My edition came without a glossary, so I had to learn the slang without clues. And it was surprisingle easy - at the end I could have spoken as Alex myself. Burgess was a very talented writer.
At first, it dragged endlessly, because I couldn't stomach Alex's acts of pointless violence. I started to become interested when he hits Dim because he interrupts the opera singer.
Even though there are several reflective critics on Christianity before, I think everything really starts when he's in treatment with Ludovico's technique. I loved how Burgess made me think: would I want that for criminals if I lived in that UK? If the answer's yes, then I'm saying I am choosing to make zombies and that I am willing to give the State a great power to control everyone. It is way too dangerous, it is really choosing to live in those dystopian worlds where the individual loses their freedom in order to achieve a greater good for the community. But then, if I say no to that question, I'm saying that I would prefer to live in fear.
It was a really distressing reading. That's why I liked the last chapter (the one missing in the first editions published in the US), because there's hope. Burgess believes in humans and believes that, given the choice, sooner or later we'll want peace. I think that's way too optimistic, but at least I'm not totally depressed after reading the book.
My favourite aspect of the book is nadsat, without a doubt. I loved the mix between Shakespearean expressions and rude-sounding slavic words. My edition came without a glossary, so I had to learn the slang without clues. And it was surprisingle easy - at the end I could have spoken as Alex myself. Burgess was a very talented writer.
jorybear's review
5.0
When I started reading this book, I had no idea that I was in for a really wonderful mental exercise. I loved puzzling out the nadsat words, and it was interesting to see how quickly they started making perfect sense to me. The story is wonderful, and even though Alex is a terribly violent person, I was still able to sympathize with him. The version I read had the optional final chapter, but I think it's a stronger book without it. Either way, A Clockwork Orange is a really excellent book that I know will be memorable for years to come.
anh's review
2.0
interesting language that made the violence digestible, less interesting way of pondering free will
singinglight's review
4.0
One of the most interesting books I’ve read in a long time. It’s written in a made-up street slang which derives from Russian. Since I’m taking Russian I had fun deciphering the meanings. But it would be really confusing if I didn’t speak Russian! It’s very dark and violent, so be warned, but it’s definitely a good read if you can handle it. (Nov. 2007)
macklin's review
3.0
This was very interesting.I have not seen the famous film, and after reading this book I don't think I will. There is a lot of violence. Really graphic violence. I know that the language is supposed to shield one from it, and I think it does to the point I could continue reading but not enough to make me ever wan to see it.
banrions's review
2.0
So in my senior year of AP english we had to read a "classic" novel from this list and then do 20 annotations on it. It was the bane of every senior's existence for 3 months. I was friends with a lot of the kids in the grade above me and remembered that all they would talk about was "annotations this or annotations that" so I was prepared for the suckiness that was to be annotations. For this very reason I chose a short book. It really was nothing more than that. I wanted to not have to spend a lot of time reading cause I knew I would need extra time to write. That, and I sort of hate classic books. (something I am working on changing). So the shorter the better.
I had almost no idea of the contents of this book. I knew it was a dystopian novel about teenage boys and they did some bad stuff. I knew free will was involved.
Holy shit.
Bad stuff, doesn't even begin to cover it. I almost changed books within like the first 10 pages or so. I mean these weirdoes were dressed in idiotic clothing, walking around beating up on old people, stealing, raping 10 year old girls and having themselves a jolly good time. The main character is essentially a shithead. It goes on and he gets caught or something, and they try to "fix" him through these horrible brainwashing techniques that kills his love for classical music (Beethoven I think, its been 4 years since I read it so I don't really remember). I do remember feeling some sympathy for him during the whole brainwashing thing.
The only reason I have some appreciation for this book is because I had to do 20 fucking annotations on it. For a stupid short book about sociopathic teenage boys, it has a lot of articles written about free will and a ton of other stuff that after turning my annotations in, I blocked out of my memory forever. I remember being interested in the topics and things other people had to say about the book. But I also remember hating the book. So, the second star is for you Mrs. Schmitt, you and the horrid annotation project.
I had almost no idea of the contents of this book. I knew it was a dystopian novel about teenage boys and they did some bad stuff. I knew free will was involved.
Holy shit.
Bad stuff, doesn't even begin to cover it. I almost changed books within like the first 10 pages or so. I mean these weirdoes were dressed in idiotic clothing, walking around beating up on old people, stealing, raping 10 year old girls and having themselves a jolly good time. The main character is essentially a shithead. It goes on and he gets caught or something, and they try to "fix" him through these horrible brainwashing techniques that kills his love for classical music (Beethoven I think, its been 4 years since I read it so I don't really remember). I do remember feeling some sympathy for him during the whole brainwashing thing.
The only reason I have some appreciation for this book is because I had to do 20 fucking annotations on it. For a stupid short book about sociopathic teenage boys, it has a lot of articles written about free will and a ton of other stuff that after turning my annotations in, I blocked out of my memory forever. I remember being interested in the topics and things other people had to say about the book. But I also remember hating the book. So, the second star is for you Mrs. Schmitt, you and the horrid annotation project.
phdoingmydamnbest's review
3.0
This review will focus both on Fahrenheit 451 and A Clockwork Orange and so can also be found in my review of Fahrenheit 451.
The kind of questions I have after reading these two books one after another over three days are like this:
Can reading make us better people?
Is someone who appreciates art and literature a good person?
Is popular culture automatically bad? And if so, is this true in and of itself or because pop culture is almost always associated with teenagers? Are teenagers bad? Do they deserve that label?
I think in some ways both texts leave these questions very much up in the air (where they belong if you ask me) although Bradbury's own writing on Fahrenheit 451 seems to point to the moralising that 'if only children would just READ more then the world would be perfect.' This is what he actually says:
'If we ensure that by the end of their sixth year every child in every country can live in libraries to learn almost by osmosis, then our drug, street gang, rape and murder scores will suffer themselves near zero.'
Although I am, and always have been, a bookworm, and I genuinely believe that reading can help you become a more empathetic and compassionate person, I just unfortunately can't believe in this. It doesn't tally with real life, or with the world of Fahrenheit 451. Captain Beatty is a well-read man who becomes a fireman, even the wandering literary minds that Montag meets at the end of the novel admit that:
'They weren't at all certain that the things they carried in their heads might make every future dawn glow with a purer light, they were sure of nothing save that the books were on file behind their quiet eyes, the books were waiting, with their pages uncut, for the customers who might come by in later years, some with clean and some with dirty fingers.'
Obviously then, it is not something innate about books or art or music that makes society or individuals better, but something in what they can do under the right conditions.
And here, case in point, we look at Alex. Alex the 15 year old narrator of A Clockwork Orange who has raped, maimed, and killed before the age of 16. During his time in prison Alex reads the Bible. whether you believe in the Christian God or any god at all, the Bible can at least be inarguably be termed a book. A book that contains much violence and oppression, particularly in the Old Testament, but finishes on a high and hopeful note of peace, grace, and forgiveness. Alex reads the Bible and twists it into something that fulfils his own needs. He meditates on the crucifixion of Christ with no compassion, horror, or sympathy, instead imagining himself as a Roman soldier hammering the nails into Christ's hands and feet. Example one that reading does not always immediately make you a better person. This is easily applied in our reality, how many times have you pulled your hair in frustration at the twisting of religious texts, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or of political documents, constitutions, laws, treaties, to prove an insane point? Texts themselves are dangerous, because their meanings are always sliding around and perpetually on the verge of pitching off in an evil direction in the mouths and minds of people.
In Fahrenheit 451 Montag commits the last two books of the New Testament to memory just before the apocalyptic ending of the city and everything it represents. For Montag and his fellow wanderers it isn't clear whether this knowledge will ever be helpful to the people who are asking why things 'blew up under them.' But I suppose there is something to be said for having that option of knowledge, rather than nothing. It's funny how the Bible plays such a pivotal role in both books, sticking around even when everything else has gone so horribly wrong.
The second point I'd like to make is that, for a 15 year old, Alex has quite a fine appreciation of Beethoven, Mozart, and others from the classical period. He certainly has a more quote, unquote, refined musical taste than I had at 15. Of course, that's the crunch really though isn't it? It doesn't make him any better a person. He listens to Beethoven and imagines acts of ultra-violence, something that lays waste to the idea that 'young people these days are angry and violent because of video games, or rap music, or whatever else baby boomers see as new and threatening.'
Burgess sees popular culture as violent, Bradbury sees it as vapid and insubstantial, but even their own writing fails to prove that there is any way to be 'cultured' that definitively leads to goodness. We live in the four screen walled age of Mildred that fills our heads, but it doesn't mean we are unthinking. Alex listens to the great classical composers and it humanises him, one of the only things in the novel that makes you inclined to see him as a person, but it also dehumanises him into a monstrous child molester who dreams of violence, rape, and murder. Clarisse has never read a book, but she thinks more deeply and purely that Captain Beatty and his twisted well read knowledge.
Things are multifaceted and complicated, nowhere more so than in the land of the teenager and the popular culture they enjoy. Just because something is new it doesn't make it bad. Just because something is old doesn't make it good.Even if 'the public stopped reading of its own accord' no one should burn books. Even if teenagers do dreadful things choice should never be confiscated. It's a fallacy that Montag comes to realise to say 'if there's no solution then there's no problem.'
I hope you all enjoyed my review and I'd love to hear your thoughts on either text.
As always, book love,
Grace
The kind of questions I have after reading these two books one after another over three days are like this:
Can reading make us better people?
Is someone who appreciates art and literature a good person?
Is popular culture automatically bad? And if so, is this true in and of itself or because pop culture is almost always associated with teenagers? Are teenagers bad? Do they deserve that label?
I think in some ways both texts leave these questions very much up in the air (where they belong if you ask me) although Bradbury's own writing on Fahrenheit 451 seems to point to the moralising that 'if only children would just READ more then the world would be perfect.' This is what he actually says:
'If we ensure that by the end of their sixth year every child in every country can live in libraries to learn almost by osmosis, then our drug, street gang, rape and murder scores will suffer themselves near zero.'
Although I am, and always have been, a bookworm, and I genuinely believe that reading can help you become a more empathetic and compassionate person, I just unfortunately can't believe in this. It doesn't tally with real life, or with the world of Fahrenheit 451. Captain Beatty is a well-read man who becomes a fireman, even the wandering literary minds that Montag meets at the end of the novel admit that:
'They weren't at all certain that the things they carried in their heads might make every future dawn glow with a purer light, they were sure of nothing save that the books were on file behind their quiet eyes, the books were waiting, with their pages uncut, for the customers who might come by in later years, some with clean and some with dirty fingers.'
Obviously then, it is not something innate about books or art or music that makes society or individuals better, but something in what they can do under the right conditions.
And here, case in point, we look at Alex. Alex the 15 year old narrator of A Clockwork Orange who has raped, maimed, and killed before the age of 16. During his time in prison Alex reads the Bible. whether you believe in the Christian God or any god at all, the Bible can at least be inarguably be termed a book. A book that contains much violence and oppression, particularly in the Old Testament, but finishes on a high and hopeful note of peace, grace, and forgiveness. Alex reads the Bible and twists it into something that fulfils his own needs. He meditates on the crucifixion of Christ with no compassion, horror, or sympathy, instead imagining himself as a Roman soldier hammering the nails into Christ's hands and feet. Example one that reading does not always immediately make you a better person. This is easily applied in our reality, how many times have you pulled your hair in frustration at the twisting of religious texts, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or of political documents, constitutions, laws, treaties, to prove an insane point? Texts themselves are dangerous, because their meanings are always sliding around and perpetually on the verge of pitching off in an evil direction in the mouths and minds of people.
In Fahrenheit 451 Montag commits the last two books of the New Testament to memory just before the apocalyptic ending of the city and everything it represents. For Montag and his fellow wanderers it isn't clear whether this knowledge will ever be helpful to the people who are asking why things 'blew up under them.' But I suppose there is something to be said for having that option of knowledge, rather than nothing. It's funny how the Bible plays such a pivotal role in both books, sticking around even when everything else has gone so horribly wrong.
The second point I'd like to make is that, for a 15 year old, Alex has quite a fine appreciation of Beethoven, Mozart, and others from the classical period. He certainly has a more quote, unquote, refined musical taste than I had at 15. Of course, that's the crunch really though isn't it? It doesn't make him any better a person. He listens to Beethoven and imagines acts of ultra-violence, something that lays waste to the idea that 'young people these days are angry and violent because of video games, or rap music, or whatever else baby boomers see as new and threatening.'
Burgess sees popular culture as violent, Bradbury sees it as vapid and insubstantial, but even their own writing fails to prove that there is any way to be 'cultured' that definitively leads to goodness. We live in the four screen walled age of Mildred that fills our heads, but it doesn't mean we are unthinking. Alex listens to the great classical composers and it humanises him, one of the only things in the novel that makes you inclined to see him as a person, but it also dehumanises him into a monstrous child molester who dreams of violence, rape, and murder. Clarisse has never read a book, but she thinks more deeply and purely that Captain Beatty and his twisted well read knowledge.
Things are multifaceted and complicated, nowhere more so than in the land of the teenager and the popular culture they enjoy. Just because something is new it doesn't make it bad. Just because something is old doesn't make it good.Even if 'the public stopped reading of its own accord' no one should burn books. Even if teenagers do dreadful things choice should never be confiscated. It's a fallacy that Montag comes to realise to say 'if there's no solution then there's no problem.'
I hope you all enjoyed my review and I'd love to hear your thoughts on either text.
As always, book love,
Grace
jojoinabox's review
4.0
I'd seen the Kubrick film first, and thereafter decided that I ought to find the book, expecting it to be better. It was. The nadsat slang took a bit to catch onto, but I was fully comfortable with it by about halfway through. There is, of course, a lot of violence in A Clockwork Orange, often portrayed in a positive light, but I wouldn't say it glorifies "the old ultra-violence" as much as it has been accused of doing. Burgess' main point is not the violence of youth in society, but of the nature of free will; namely, is it better to be forced into goodness or choose to do evil? I think he answers his question quite plainly in Alex's story.
I would DEFINITELY say to make sure you get a copy with all 21 chapters (the American editions originally cut the last chapter), because the ending drastically changes the reading of the story, which makes it essential. I'd love to go into detail, but that'd be spoilers, so you'll have to take my word on it.
I would DEFINITELY say to make sure you get a copy with all 21 chapters (the American editions originally cut the last chapter), because the ending drastically changes the reading of the story, which makes it essential. I'd love to go into detail, but that'd be spoilers, so you'll have to take my word on it.