I slept terribly last night. It took me ages just to fall asleep. Then, as soon as I did, Bennet woke me up by growling at nothing and then I had very strange dreams which I don't remember, but I do know I woke up thinking, "What the deuce?" while feeling very vulnerable and a wee bit scared to go back to sleep.
I blame A Clockwork Orange. After a whirlwind tour of the book, apparently those images (and carryovers from seeing the movie a couple of months ago) seeped in further than I expected. So thank you, Anthony Burgess, for robbing me of my much-needed good night's sleep.
I'm going to need a lot of sunshine and lollipops to get over this one.
Oh wait, I have lollipops.
Compliments of my friend Jeff, who wanted me to take some dumb survey for his grad school class, to which I agreed, but only if I would be given a lollipop for my trouble. I never actually expect people to take me seriously, but when they do...well, I have a lollipop, don't I? I'd call that a good day.
So anyway, back to A Clockwork Orange.
I believe the term used most often and most vehemently at book club last night was, "disturbing." As bizarre as it is for me to say,
all things considered, this is one instance in which I was
glad to have seen the
movie prior to reading the book. Stanley Kubrick actually closely followed the American version of the text, and successfully gave me the willies with his movie, so that now the words on the page seemed almost...mild.
Comparative evaluations mean little, though, when the difference is between reading about very graphic, violent, sexual acts or seeing them on the telly. It's all twisted and disturbing and frightening, and these actions land our Humble and Faithful Narrator, a 15-year-old boy named Alex, in prison to serve a 16-year sentence for murder.
The really mind-boggling portion of the book is just beginning. Because after just two years in jail, Alex is chosen for a brand new experimental program - the Ludovico technique - that promises to completely recondition him to return to society within two weeks' time.
This reconditioning is purely a game of associations. Until now, Alex has gained joy from his acts of violence. Now, the doctors build an intolerance in him so that even the tiniest thought of cruelty makes his stomach turn. They manipulate his mind and body so that he cannot physically endure any violent thought or act against another man or being.
He became good, in the most basic sense. But they robbed him of the will to do good in the meantime, while also taking away much of the joy he derived from even non-violent acts, like music. Alex was a great lover of classical music. They took that away, and made it painful for him to endure.
And then they set him loose. Which (shockingly) goes poorly.
And the government feels just terrible, because here they used this controversial technique and they couldn't possibly have their little experiment go awry. So they fix it all up and make it better. And Alex lives on happy and free, eventually abandoning his wicked ways for more acceptable pursuits like marriage and parenthood. The end.
I'm still not sure how I feel about the book (and the fact that I'm even on the fence sets me apart from my co-clubbers, who pretty much hated it). I don't like the violence and the horror of it, and I'm not in love with the 21st chapter that Burgess fought so hard against the removal of for the American release (the end is rather cliche). I did, however, find the philosophy of the text to be brilliant. The question is simple, but profound: is it better to live freely, with risk of violence and fear as well as joy, or to control ourselves and those around us so that things are "right"? And if you are good not because you choose goodness, but because you are forced into it, is it still good?
My favorite application of this point from last night's discussion: what do we do with hyperactive kids? Medicate! Is that not controlling their minds to make them more "socially acceptable?" I'm still very young, and yet even I remember when hyper kids were told to go play outside, not handed a pill. Seriously, what is that?
The beauty of novels is that they allow us to ask those questions. Most of the books that have been made "classics" were met with controversy because they forced questions, and some folks just don't like that.
Burgess' writing also fascinated me. A page in, I texted a friend of mine to ask if he'd ever read the book. "I feel like I'm reading The Jabberwocky," I said, "Except it's 200 pages long."
I love
The Jabberwocky. I love that it makes absolutely no sense, and yet
it does.
In the same way, Burgess created his own language for the novel, supposedly to help distance us from the world he'd created because it was too harsh, too violent to be set in the current age. He made these words, that sounded like other words, and had no real meaning, and gave them meaning.
Turns out, the dialect of the "nadsats" (teens) is a
mixture of schoolboy slang, personal invention, and a whole lot of Russian.
Think about it: Russia. 1961. Soviet Union. Socialism. Control. Lemmings. Got it? Makes sense, right? Guess somebody ate their Wheaties this morning.
And, for the record, book clubs are pretty great. It was fun to not just decipher this pile o' pages on my own. Their thoughts sparked my thoughts, and their research gave more depth to my own. Next month is
Animal Farm. I'll be there.
Mmmkay, I'm now going to go put on happy music, lick a lollipop, and not think about scary things that go bump in the night.