In
A Clockwork Orange we see Alex’s
transformation from a bold, violence loving youth to what some would call a
functioning member of society. I found that as Alex’s view on violence changed
so did mine. In Part 1 Alex sees violence as a stylized performance, the best
means of expressing his emotions. The musical style of his violence is seen in his
description of his attack on Billyboy: “And, my brothers, it was real
satisfaction to me to waltz–left two three, right two three–and carve left
cheeky and right cheeky, so that like two curtains of blood seemed to pour out
at the same time, one on either side of his fat filthy oily snout (20).” A key
word in this quote is “satisfaction.” This is in contrast to the Alex the
reader sees in Part II. After the
conclusion of the Ludovico treatment, Alex is sick at even the thought of such
small acts of violence as killing a fly: “And that was right, brothers, because
when he said that I thought of killing a fly and felt just that tiny bit sick
(143).” This reaction to violence is only temporary, however. Toward the end of
Part III, after Alex is “cured” of the effects of the Ludovico treatment, he
returns to the outside world with yet another reaction to violence. By chapter
seven of Part III, Alex is simply bored by violence, and when presented with
the opportunity for a little of the old ultra-violent with his new droogs, Alex
turns down the offer: “’Look, droogies. Listen. Tonight I am somehow just not
in the mood. I know not why or how it is, but there it is (205).”
I found that as Alex’s reactions to
violence changed, my comfort with the violence changed as well. When Alex ‘s
violence is presented as art, I felt distanced and therefore more comfortable
with the violence. When Alex becomes sickened by violent thought and action, it
made me uncomfortable. And when Alex became uninterested in violence, I didn’t
even react to it.
I am curious if anyone else had this
reaction. Did anyone else find themself reacting differently to the violence
described in the three parts? If yes, do you believe that your reaction was a
result of the change is Alex’s character, or the change in the style in which
Anthony Burgess presents the violence? If no, why, or what’s your take?
I felt the same way about the change of violence over the book, though it was a very gradual mental shift. Part of the change was similar to becoming accustomed to Nadsat, but some was also due to Alex's emotional changes as well. I think this change is really due to Alex's personal view towards violence. Although the Ludivico treatment failed in the end, he still went through a change which is clearly seen in the quote from page 205. One difference in the violence that should also be taken into account is the fact that in the first part Alex is committing the acts of violence and towards the end he is just viewing them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Peter and Ben that there was a definite shift in attitude towards violence over the course of the novel. However, I found the violence more distasteful in the beginning than in the end. In the end, the question of whether the Ludovico Technique was ethical in some ways overshadowed the violence. Which is worse morally: depriving someone else of the ability to choose or violence itself? The fact that Alex is deprived of free will leads him to want to "do [himself] in, to snuff it, to blast off for ever out of this wicked and cruel world" (187). Are those responsible for creating the Ludovico Technique indirectly committing a murder (or attempting to) by causing Alex's suicidal desires?
ReplyDeleteI found myself reacting differently to Alex's actions; I do agree with Peter that through the 3 parts of the book the violence is changed. I think it is a change in Alex's character because you can truly see his two sides of evil and good. In the beginning Alex is the one who commits the crimes, brutally and gruesomely. He shows no pity for his victims whatsoever. By the end the violence begins to switch roles as Alex develops some good in him. He ends up becoming the victim of the doctors, the old men and police officers.
ReplyDeleteThis quote from Peter also draws my attention " we see Alex’s transformation from a bold, violence loving youth to what some would call a functioning member of society." It is odd how Burges goes from horribly bad to good after such short treatment, it makes me wonder if he was trying to show us that Alex only needed a little help to make his way through the world and would not commit as much violence if help was given.
I think that Peter is correct in pointing out a definite change in the violence. I think that part of this could come from the fact that it slowly starts to happen less and less, mostly because Alex is in jail or in treatment so he doesn't have as much of a chance. (He does kill someone in jail, though) I also think this change in violence comes from a shift in the book, which is most likely why it's spilt into parts. The first part was packed with violence, just the first 30 pages are full of theft, murder, and rape. I think this explicit showing of violence helps define the character of Alex and shock us a bit. We as the reader are being shown one extreme of the spectrum that spans from good to bad. The second part of the book we are introduced to two new ideas, the role of the government and the idea of free will and the importance of being able to make your own choices. This all adds together in the last part of the book where we are shown how a character such as Alex handles being deprived of free will and the repercussions of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Peter, but I believe that the previous posters are leaving out an important development of our perceptions of violence throughout the novel. One part that significantly changed my view of the violence Alex committed was the descriptions of the Ludovico Technique, and and scenes that they used. These scenes were so different than the rest of the violence in the book, used to inspire horror rather than pleasure in Alex's eyes. They showed an important progression: from someone who enjoyed the violence to someone who couldn't stand it, and then back again, finally ending with the maturity of someone who has different goals in life. It was almost as though they served as a catalyst to the reader, reminding him or her to apply the book to real life, and therefore changing the attitude towards violent scenes again.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Ben that Alex clearly has gone through a change which can be clearly seen in quotes on P205. He used to love violence but now he surprisingly finds violence boring. The Ludovico Technique no doubt contributed to Alex's change and influenced Alex, to some degree, in a positive way. However, I still view Ludovico Technique more a crime than a technique that can "cure" prisoners. While Alex and his droogs were robbing, beating and raping people, which could be classified as physical violence, Ludovico Technique experimenters were forcing Alex to do what he was not willing to do, which, I think, should be classified as mental violence. They did took away not only his ability to defend himself (as Peter says, Alex would feel sick even killing a fly) but also his rights to choose between right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteI find myself reacting the same way as Peter when reading Part 1 and 2. Reading Part 1, on one hand I was definitely shocked by what Alex and his droogs did, but on the other hand, I prepared myself for that because that was what "Modern Youth" at that time would do. Reading the chapters about the Ludovico Technique, I felt uncomfortably with his reaction towards violence because Alex was not been himself at all. However, Alex's reaction to violence in the last chapter symbolizes Alex's maturity and helps him become who he is again.
In terms of being comfortable with the violence I was the least comfortable with Alex's reaction in part II, because it is only in this part that we see Alex truly represented as a Clockwork Orange. As the Chaplin thoughtfully points out, there is no choice by methods of association. Throughout Part II and the first half of Part III, Alex plays the part of the abused. I think this reaction to violence is most meaningful because now we see that gut reaction. In facts, it is in this sequence that Alex becomes the closest we will ever see him to death.
ReplyDeleteIn Part I, I an exaggeration in the disregard of the affects of violence in our society, even a certain joy for inflicting pain and controlling chaos.
At the end of Part III, I saw less of disregard of violence but more of a growth in self. Alex believes he has a clear vision to his own path now, and is no longer concerned with the cycle of life that influences the decisions of "Modern Youth".
What Concerns me the most is how accurately Burgess portrays the acceptance of violence by the younger generation in the so called "Modern" society.
As stated before, I also believe that there is a definite change in Alex’s response to violence. I agree with Peter that when the violence was described as art, it reduced the effect by associating violence with something we consider morally acceptable. But as Alex went through the Ludovico treatment, the pain caused by violence made it have an impure presence. When he became indifferent to the violence in Part III, it came across as a positive development of Alex’s character and because of this I believe my reaction was varied because of Alex’s character adjustment. However, in the film I found my reaction to the violence to differ from my reaction to the literature. Seeing the violence from a different standpoint that did not include an artistic description, and instead was put with music and vulgar images, changed my perception of the severity. The film created a more shocking image while the book’s description played down the violence. Did your reactions to the violence in the film differ from those to the Alex’s description?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Louise's point about the violence in Part II being a different kind of violence. Alex was forced to feel differently towards violence and as a result, we can see him in two very different states. These two opposing ideas of violence make Alex's indifference to violence in Part III more puzzling. While Alex experiences a clear shift in perspective, we are left to wonder how truthful Alex is really being about his new feelings. I also agree with what Ellen said about the violence in the film. I found myself much more disturbed while watching the film than I did while reading. The violence was definitely more shocking and the soundtrack added a casual element which made it even more twisted. The film also made it easier to see Alex's shift in character through the different types of violence, although the movie had a different ending so we didn't experience Alex's feelings of indifference. However, in both the movie and the book, I found my perspective of violence shifting with Alex's.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kaya that the change in violence could also come from the breaks in the book, and shifts in time. I also think that although the violence is set to artistic like values in Part I, it is the more vivid violence within the book. Part II of the book also shows a horrific side, but because Alex hates the violence that he is seeing, his descriptions do not show the true horribleness that he claims is torturing him. I found that in part III, as he matures, he realizes that the violent acts he committed were naive and he found no interest in it any longer, which yet again, changed his opinion and therefore his descriptions of violent acts. I also agree with Ellen and Ellie that in the movie, I saw no real artistic side to his beating of people that in the book were very real. I also found that the violence within the movie was very much more uncomfortable and harder to bear while the book, like Ellen said, played down the violence to become tolerable.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Peter, and most of the previous contributors that I definitely felt differences in my perception of violence as Alex's changed. I think the differences in the ways that the violence was presented by Burgess made a great difference. As readers, we cannot help but be influenced by Alex's narration, as his feelings come across in the act of narration. When he says that he feels nauseous at the thought of violence, we sympathize. When he takes pleasure in it, we feel excited and happy for him. The manner in which Alex's actions are presented brainwashes us in a way that makes us not focus on what he is actually doing. I found myself not necessarily fully comprehending what Alex was doing; I was more centered on his feelings and emotions during the time at which he commits the acts of violence. Did anyone else have this reaction to the presentation of violence in the book?
ReplyDeleteTo contrast that, and touch on what Ellen, Ellie, and Liv said, I also found the movie to be more horrific, in that you get less of Alex's emotions, and more of the actual violence. Even though his acts were toned down in their severity, it felt much more shocking than the book, on account of you being forced to see what he is doing from an outsider's perspective, and not Alex's emotional perspective.
I absolutely believe that my reactions to Alex's violence changed when his did, and I think this is because of how I (and clearly many others) sympathized with our Humble Narrator. Pete, you brought up a great point with the "art" of violence. I think that Alex's description of knife-fighting as a "waltz" makes reading it so much more enjoyable, and yet it also has a deeper meaning: to show that violence is a part of art, and furthermore a part of life. Like the phoenix that rises from its own ashes, beauty and life come from (to a certain extent) destruction - "out with the old, in with the new". While that phrase may be cliche, it seems to apply to Burgess' message here-if even just vaguely. What do you guys think about Burgess' message of violence, and what he meant by it? I know we talked about this in class the other day, so if there is nothing more to say no worries.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the last question(s), I think that my views on the violence done to and by Alex were a result of his apparent character shifts. It was more difficult (impossible, even) for me to enjoy, persae, the violence Alex was involved in. When he felt sick as a result of his torture, I felt uncomfortable FOR him. I empathized with his character, and thus that went the other way as well. When he enjoyed the violence, I read on eagerly. Burgess did a great job in making the reader empathize with Alex, who could easily have been seen as despicable or disturbing.
Isaac raises a point which I agree with, and if we catch some crap for it, so be it. I was able to read eagerly through Alex's crasting and in out in out in part 1. I think I was attracted and compelled by the joy and conviction present in these examples of ultra-violence. I was fascinated with the vivaciousness with which Alex lived all parts of his life. He loved his music. He loved his crasting. He went about his night with a fervor which allured me. For this reason, I felt his violence was more bearable than, say, on page 205, when he declines to participate in the beatings. I disagree with what other people have said that he is "good" for this reason; a truly good person would have tried to prevent his droogs from committing the horrible acts which they did. Alex still chooses to be bad; however, it is in a resigned, bored manner. During these examples, I hated Alex. He was not "good". He had simply lost the joy which he was able to derive from violence. In other words, he allowed the violence without any positives for himself. This demonstrates a level of spitefulness which saddened me. Alex's pessimism and sense of helplessness in the final chapters of the book ("nor would he be able to stop his own son, brothers. And so it would itty on to like the end of the world, round and round and round" (191)) also disheartened me.
DeleteI was the least comfortable with the violence in part one mostly because of the types of crimes committed, but I agree that the artistic nature of some of the violence reduces the effect on the reader by making it morally acceptable, for example the fight with Billyboy. In the second part the violence changes as Alex’s reaction changes. The pain and sickness he feels creates an atmosphere of wrong that stems from the violence he sees. The Ludovico treatment removed the artistic aspect from the violence as it removed it from Alex as well. In part three the two aspects combine and Alex, freed from the Ludovico treatment, choose to channel the artistic part of violence into a new part of him revealed by the Ludovico treatment.
ReplyDeleteI, like many others, also experienced a reaction to violence, as well as Alex himself, throughout the book. I too felt a certain excitement when Alex enjoys his form of “art”, sickened by the Ludivico treatment, and content when Alex choose to grow up. I think that the reaction that the reader has is connected to both the form and the content. Burgess wrote the book so that Alex is talking directly to the reader and uses phrases such as “your Humble Narrator” in order to establish a friendly relationship with Alex. If Burgess did not style his writing this way I think that the emotions that Alex encounters would be meaningless and not relatable. The content also helps develop the character-reader relationship naturally because of the intrigue associated with evil. Evil has a habit of making stories more interesting from as early as Adam and Eve and has caused people to wonder about the evil within each of us. Burgess also connects Alex to the reader by examining the human experience of being a rebellious teen. While the majority does not experience the rebellious stage to the severity that Alex does, it is something that everyone goes through when we must choose for ourselves what we think is right at the time. However, we all grow up and experience change and certain knowledge about what is good and bad just as Alex does by the end of the book.
ReplyDeleteThe Ludivico treatment does not “cure” those exposed to it; but instead, serves as an extension of the prison system as a means to constrain Alex’s violent nature, rather than eliminating it. I agree with the comments made by Louise and Lydia, for I too found the Ludivico Treatment to fail in curing Alex. The Ludivico treatment was created in order to deal with the failing prison system, which only breeds more violence through “concentrated criminality.” The effect of the treatment on Alex is viewed by the government as a major success, as it regulates the violent attributes of criminals so that they may return to their former communities without being a threat to the order of the society, which government values over all else. Despite the government’s satisfaction with the results, Burgess stresses that Alex is not “cured.” The treatment is merely a different form of prison; instead of the prison bars being in front of Alex they are inside of him. Alex still has the same desire for violence, even though he can no longer act on them. A perfect example of this is when Alex attempts to punch one of the discharge officers in the Ludivico center: “And he brought his litso real near, a fat grin all over his rot. So I fisted and went smack at this listo…. And then, my brothers, I felt real sick again (124).” Alex still wishes to strike this man, but he simply cannot do so.
ReplyDeleteThe Ludivico treatment does “cure” Alex of his desire for violence, but it prevents him from making choice. The central theme of choice is first raised in F. Alexander’s book, A Clockwork Orange: “‘The attempt to impose upon man, a creature of growth and capable of sweetness… laws and conditions appropriate to a mechanical creation, against this I raise my sword pen (25).’” This quote emphasizes Burgess’ view that since man is capable of both good and evil, it is the fundamental right of the individual to choose which path he follows. Alex’s journey is a testament to this dual state of man. When Alex is young he commits acts so violent and cruel that it is almost impossible to dub him anything but evil. However, when he turns eighteen his violent inclinations begin to dissipate, and are replaced by his desire to settle down and start a family. Burgess seems to be saying that the only “mechanical” or predictable aspect of man is that he will always remain unpredictable.
I think it is really interesting on Peters take of the different type of violence throughout the book and the reactions to each one. I have to say I actualyl felt rather uncomfortable with the violence that is associated as an "art". I suppose an art form could be how one expresses themself, good or bad, but society has it in our heads that art is suppose to be connected to good, and thats all I have ever learned, art is passion, and creativity and unique. So when I think of art having a negative connotation its a strange, foreign feeling. However, when the violence is actually sickening, it is more bearable for me to read about only because I already expect violence to be sickening and violence already comes with a negative connotation for me, so its a little easier to digest. I know what to prepare for when I hear about violence being... violent.
ReplyDeleteMy perspective on the violence certainly shifted as the book progressed, and in some ways ran parallel to Alex's view on the subject. In reading Part One, I perceived, and thought of violence as the norm in his society, an accepted element, if not a way of life. As the part progressed I noted that there was no real motive behind the violence, save for Alex's need for self expression, in other words, I could find no reasoning for it. At this point my view on violence began to sour, acts of violence are one thing, but acts of violence with no purpose are quite another.
ReplyDeleteIn reading Part Two, my view shifted, violence was now put in perspective; While Alex's acts of violence robbed his victims of their lives and perhaps some, if not all of their self, the Ludovico Technique kills Alex's ability to make choices, and forces him to live in such a shell of humanity.
By the time part three came about, I was seeing violence as merely a stepping stone on Alex's road to humanity, and regaining his sense of self.
I completely agree with Ellie. For me, the most unsettling descriptions were not Alex's actions, but those of the government. As many people stated above, it was the artistic experience of his violence that made Alex a likable character even throughout his most inhumane moments in book I. Yet, the blunt and almost clinical descriptions of the police brutality and the Ludovico treatment in book II made me incredibly uncomfortable. I think a large part is due to the language difference and the sort of distance created by Alex's descriptions of his own actions versus his painful accounts of the violence inflicted upon him. There were points in book II in which I found myself concerned for Alex and enraged on his behalf, for doesn't a government that punishes violence with even more violent acts of its own simply breed more violence? While Alex finds his own resolution in adult hood, the reader never sees the same resolution in the adults running the state.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading some of the comments posted, I actually disagree with the idea that the violence in the move was worse than the violence read in the book. I thought that the violence was worse reading it because one had to use their own imagination to sort out exactly what happened (with all the nadsat used when describing violence) I think the author did this purposefully to get the reader to actually think and try and decode what they are reading. I agree with Peter though, the violence in the book seems to become less and less graphically brutal (except for Alex in Ludivico) the first example that Peter gives is especially gruesome. Alex describes the "streams" of blood, and although he still does many violent and immoral acts after this incident, they start to become less and less graphic. The climax would be when he broke into the "Cat Woman's" house. Although she ended up dying there was no rape or immediate murder, the woman was only taunted and then beaten. Alex went too far and ended up killing her, but the thing that sets this one apart is that she ends up dying in the hospital instead of in front of Alex and his droogs.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a change in Alex's response to violence, but am still unsure how real this can be. I agree, that when violence is related to art it lessens the negative response. But after the Ludovico treatment, it's hard to distinguish how Alex truly feels, for there is a negative response associated with violence. It is somewhat frightening how the treatment trained Alex to associate a feeling with a response such as illness. It is interesting that Burgess chose sickness as his response, and it is also interesting that Alex was injected with medications in order to cause this response.
ReplyDelete