Burgess queer as a clockwork orange

[WritersBlock]

Disclaimer: This is a literature topic.

Some of you may be aware of the Stanley Kubrik film "A Clockwork Orange". You may have seen it. It's based on the book of the same name by Anthony Burgess. You may have read it. The book was named after the cockney expression "as queer as a clockwork orange", which the book describes as a mechanic fruit (a "clockwork orange") in a world of organic fruit. Which fits the plot of the story quite well, as well as referencing the use of the futuristic teenage "Nadsat" slang that "Your Humble Narrator", the anti-hero Alex uses throughout the novel.

The book is impeccably structured, with the three parts separated into seven chapters, each part beginning with and reiterating an inviting "What's it going to be then, eh?", with different applications in each of the three situations. The last chapter plays heavily into the structure, giving it a very well rounded feel at the end, but I won't say much more than that, for the sake of those that are yet to indulge the book. The plot follows this character, Alex, in his association with ultra-violence, rape and drugs, and of course, the brilliant tunes of Ludwig van.

I read the book a few days ago, and I loved it. It's a really well constructed book, very dark and gritty and brimming with character and personality that you love to hate. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I very much intend to.

Now, I picked up a copy of the book for $10. It's one of those mass-print classics that have an introduction on the book by an admirer and then the text itself. I briefly read parts of the introduction, which detailed Burgess's disappointment on "A Clockwork Orange" being his most popular piece of writing. I found this to be a trifle odd. Not quite in the sense of a clockwork orange in an organic fruit world, but certainly strange to some extent. He's disappointed at one of his novels being largely popular over some of his other works. I mean, yeah, authors have their favourite pieces, but this got me wondering, if this is only one of his mediocre works, then what does he consider his best? If my best story were half as good as A Clockwork Orange I'd be absolutely stoked.

Perspective, it certainly helps to have some.

So Anthony Burgess, what's it going to be then, eh?

[TheSilverGuitar]

I've only read two Burgess books, A Clockwork Orange and Devil of a State, and I preferred the former much more, although the latter is pretty great. He's an amazing writer, regardless.

Also, my favourite topic when discussing the book: did you read the 21 chapter or 20 chapter version?

[Sekhem]

movie was better, writers are too full of themselves and expect a 1:1 translation of the book to film

i believe stephen king hated the shining too

kubrick always makes the movie better than the book (except with lolita but whatev)

[TheSilverGuitar]

At 10/17/09 10:47 AM, Sekhem wrote: movie was better

Eh, for me it depends. The film was excellent and Kubrick is the best director ever, but some parts looked way cheesier and futuristic in the film than I imagined in the book.
I'd consider them about equal, and I hardly ever like a film adaptation of a book I like.

[WritersBlock]

At 10/17/09 10:45 AM, TheSilverGuitar wrote: I've only read two Burgess books, A Clockwork Orange and Devil of a State, and I preferred the former much more, although the latter is pretty great. He's an amazing writer, regardless.

Also, my favourite topic when discussing the book: did you read the 21 chapter or 20 chapter version?

I read the 21 chapter version. It really rounded the book off for me, personally.

At 10/17/09 10:47 AM, Sekhem wrote: movie was better, writers are too full of themselves and expect a 1:1 translation of the book to film

i believe stephen king hated the shining too

kubrick always makes the movie better than the book (except with lolita but whatev)

I seriously doubt writers expect a direct translation, as they are (well, should be) aware of the restrictions of film. A novel can often reach 200-300 pages long. Your normal screenplay is 90 pages. Besides, a good sale for a book is in the tens of thousands. A movie is only considered successful if cinema sales push into the millions. Burgess was disappointed partly due to the fact that people would associate his book as that book that was turned into a popular/controvarsial (aestheticisation of violence) Kubrick film. Novelists have earned the right to back their own work.

However, in the case of A Clockwork Orange, my copy of the book is only 141 pages long and the film is 136 minutes. So, at roughly 1 page a minute for the script, they've only lopped off a few pages (the last chapter?). Whereas King... well of course they'd have to trim the shit out of his books. But people don't understand that. And people still flock to the movies.

I usually prefer the books, just because of the individual input and style, and freedoms to creativity. You can get a lot more into a book than you can a film. Although, I must admit, I thought Fight Club was better than your average film (although the book was loads better, imo).

[HungarianSupermarket]

At 10/17/09 11:13 AM, WritersBlock wrote:

At 10/17/09 10:45 AM, TheSilverGuitar wrote: I've only read two Burgess books, A Clockwork Orange and Devil of a State, and I preferred the former much more, although the latter is pretty great. He's an amazing writer, regardless.

Also, my favourite topic when discussing the book: did you read the 21 chapter or 20 chapter version?

I read the 21 chapter version. It really rounded the book off for me, personally.

I was actually rather sad when I found out there was another chapter left out of the film adaptation. I had loved the film for a year or so before I decided to read the book, and every time I watched it afterwards it always felt unfinished.

Its a real toss-up for me trying to decide which version is better, I really admire what Kubrick did for the story, not a lot of directors would be able to accomplish what he did. Some parts of the story had to be toned down for the film, obviously (scenes involving drugging and raping 10 year old girls aren't really going to make a good reputation for a film) It also saddens me that Kubrick had to pull the film from the public for 20 or so years because people were blaming him for copycat killings and whatnot. Perhaps people just weren't ready to appreciate it.

[WritersBlock]

At 10/17/09 11:21 AM, HungarianSupermarket wrote: Perhaps people just weren't ready to appreciate it.

I think this. Even Burgess himself felt ill towards some of the themes he wrote about, that people were interpreting his text as a glorification of violence and rape rather than the more morally righteous freedom of choice over government interference/opression.

[White-hole]

At 10/17/09 10:47 AM, Sekhem wrote: movie was better, writers are too full of themselves and expect a 1:1 translation of the book to film

i believe stephen king hated the shining too

kubrick always makes the movie better than the book (except with lolita but whatev)

Less better, more different. He put his own spin on it more than improved the books he adapted. I'd say thats what annoyed novelists more, as he was, as they saw it, mangling their creations.

[HungarianSupermarket]

At 10/17/09 11:31 AM, WritersBlock wrote:

At 10/17/09 11:21 AM, HungarianSupermarket wrote: Perhaps people just weren't ready to appreciate it.

I think this. Even Burgess himself felt ill towards some of the themes he wrote about, that people were interpreting his text as a glorification of violence and rape rather than the more morally righteous freedom of choice over government interference/opression.

Absolutely. Even today when I tell people about it the typical response I get is "er.. why would you want to read a book about murder and rape?" After which of course I facepalm and try to explain the greater message behind the story in words that they might understand. :3

[Scarab]

Like another user brought up (and yourself I think?), I think most of Burgess' disappointment stemmed from the way that people would associate the themes with the film rather than the book, and seeing as the film uses the American text as the base that cuts off the last chapter, so the point Burgess was trying to make about the incessant and inevitable developing of a person no matter what kind of horrific dystopia they're living in (that's my interpretation, I've not read around to see how that view fares), is gone... hence the possible glorification of it all, like you also mentioned.

I also don't think many writers would like to have their name attatched to one book if talking casually. It's like how artists of all kinds of mediums learn to hate the most notorious of their material. I think books in the Penguin Modern Classics range come with a bit at the back about "what makes a modern classic?", and it directly mentions "It may cause controversy, such as Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange". For Burgess, everything else about the book AND himself was just taken out of it.

He was certainly an interesting man though. I've spent some time reading about him before. He's the kind of person you'd do opium with regardless of everything, I think. Maybe that's just me, haha.

At 10/17/09 11:31 AM, WritersBlock wrote: I think this. Even Burgess himself felt ill towards some of the themes he wrote about, that people were interpreting his text as a glorification of violence and rape rather than the more morally righteous freedom of choice over government interference/opression.

It comes back to that saying of Francois Truffaut's that I've posted about before, that it's supposedly impossible (in Truffaut's usually unsourced words) to make an anti-war film because you'll end up glorifying it. This applies to things like A Clockwork Orange where the writer attempts to make constructive points through what something might result in negatively, if that makes sense. Something else that springs to mind is Sam Peckinpah's violent western film The Wild Bunch - Peckinpah had affirmed that the imagery would work positively on viewers. He was shocked when the violence became it's selling point for indulgence for many, and today you'll often see the film summed up as "very violent" at the top.

Now look back at the Penguin Modern Classics bit from earlier, and well...

[EpicFail]

A Clockwork Orange is an incredible read.
It seems to be the only fictional book that has changed my life in some way, whether it be a minor change or a major change.

I saw the movie before reading the book, and even the movie alone was extraordinary.
I insist that you all read the book, it is not like any other.

[tigerkitty]

At 10/17/09 12:14 PM, Scarab wrote: Like another user brought up (and yourself I think?), I think most of Burgess' disappointment stemmed from the way that people would associate the themes with the film rather than the book, ...Burgess was trying to make about the incessant and inevitable developing of a person no matter what kind of horrific dystopia they're living in...hence the possible glorification of it all, like you also mentioned.

I knew I'd see you post in this topic, haha.

I agree with you on this point, and sort of meld your other one into it as well.

I think Burgess is disappointed that this is the book his is most recognized for, not only because like has been said, he probably wishes he were more widely associated with his works as a whole, not just single samples (much like Hemmingway or Shakespeare for some quick simple examples)

BUT, because this book is a stew of controversy and macabre imagery that makes it a very dark work. I don't think it's because he doesn't view it as being a prime piece of his own writing, but because perhaps its popularity and recognition is based partially on the darkness of the work and not solely on its literary refinement.

I hope I'm making sense...

[e-lord]

At 10/17/09 10:47 AM, Sekhem wrote: movie was better, writers are too full of themselves and expect a 1:1 translation of the book to film

i believe stephen king hated the shining too

kubrick always makes the movie better than the book (except with lolita but whatev)

I thought they were about equal, but I liked the ending for the movie better than the ending for the book. We don't really need to know what happens to Alex after he's "cured", we can just make assumptions. Plus the whole idea of him losing interest in violence is just silly.

[WritersBlock]

At 10/17/09 12:47 PM, e-lord wrote: Plus the whole idea of him losing interest in violence is just silly.

On the contrary, his losing interest in violence is a key aspect of Burgess's theme, as explained by scarab not too long ago. The book was about people being who they are and people change. They grow up. You could say that A Clockwork Orange is a "queer" take on the coming of age novel, his profound natural resolution being a place of peace and contentment, rather than the plain and simple "he was bad then, he is bad now, he's never going to change", because basically, that was one of the major flaws in the government's implementation of the Ludovico technique. He's not going to change without their forcing change upon him. Think about it. Alex is 15 at the start of the novel. 17, almost 18 at the end of it. He's every single teenager in our world going through puberty. He grows up, learns things, he changes of his own accord, given the time.