posted
"'What's it going to be then, eh?' There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry. The Korova Milkbar was a milk-plus mesto, and you may, O my brothers, have forgotten what these mestos were like, things changing so skorry these days and everybody very quick to forget, newspapers not being read much neither."
Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange Confusing, but discernible . . . leaves an interesting taste on the palatte.
posted
Huh? I hope I'm not the only one to have this reaction, but I have no idea what the *#&@^# IS going on here.
STINKER
I was annoyed at the first "that is". The second "that Is" made me growl.
If someone knows what "rassoodocks" means, I'd love to know. Webster doesn't seem to.
"mesto" technically is in the dictionary, but the unabridged one I would have to subscribe to in order to find out what it means, so since I'm poor if someone can just tell me without needing $4.95 I'd love to know.
"skorry" also does not seem to be a real world.
I understood 2 things from this introduction: 1. That the main character and some friends are at the Konova Milkbar (which I'm assuming is some kind of diner or cafe). 2. That reading the rest of this book will be a painstaking activity requiring frequent trips to an unabridged dictionary or to someone who can translate words like "droogs" (though I got that one from context).
Technically, after the first huh I went through this several more times and think I have some idea that something skorry (scary?) is going on, but if it takes me 5-10 minutes per paragraph to read this, it will take me the rest of my life to wade through it, and I wouldn't want to do that.
posted
OSC makes a little "to do" 'bout Clockwork in one of his books, in reference to slang usage. It certainly isn't for everyone, but the meanings of the words CAN be discerned from the context in almost every incident. Yeah, if you want to know EVERY word that is being 'said', it is a little work. If you let yourself get set into the story, though, it can get quite entertaining . . . eventually . . . sort of . . . yeah.
"making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening"
making up . . . our minds.
, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry.
Referring to the type of day/weather
The Korova Milkbar was a milk-plus mesto, and you may, O my brothers, have forgotten what these mestos were like,
Uhm . . . something added to the milk?
things changing so skorry these days
Wow, I didn't even pick up what "skorry" meant. Scary, yeah . . .
[This message has been edited by JBShearer (edited February 05, 2004).]
First, you didn't post 13 lines, so you don't get the full flavor of Burgess's opening.
Second, this is a novel, not a short story, so the 13 line bit is a null point. I would hope that any intelligent reader would give a novel more than thirteen lines before putting it down. A chapter at the very least!
Third, I love this book, and I love the opening. I think it's a masterpiece. You have to remember you're reading a for of slang -- the story is being told by a gang member. What I like best about it is that if you accept the slang for what it is, and if you trust that Burgess is a master writer (which he is), after the first few pages you are safely enraptured by the fictional dream.
posted
I have to agree with Jerome- HOOK all the way. Let yourself go and let the fascinating beauty of the language wash over you. I felt the same way about Irvine Welsh's Trainspotting. The subject matter is so NOT beautiful or aesthetic in any way, but the language is almost like some kind of strange music. I love it.
By the way, many copies of this will have a glossary at the back, so if you get really hung up on finding the meaning, you can just flip to that. Though after giving it a chance, context provides a bit of clarity.
posted
I have to agree with Christine here. If somebody gave me those lines on a sheet of paper and asked me if I'd like to read the rest of the book, I would say no straightaway. They mean absolutely nothing. Okay, it's obviously slang but ??? The rest of the book might turn out to be great and I'd be missing out on the read of a lifetime (I haven't actually read the book by the way) but on the basis of those lines there is no way I would want to read further.
However, if I was given the book and read those lines I would read on because, like Jerome, I believe I should give a novel at least a chapter before deciding whether or not it's rubbish.
posted
I see two camps here: "The-give-this-a-chance" and "The this is too confusing"
As for me, I abhor confusing dialects. Why is the author subjecting me to this? What I get from this opening is an author showing off--The Korova Milkbar was a milk-plus mesto, and you may, O my brothers, have forgotten what these mestos were like, things changing so skorry these days and everybody very quick to forget, newspapers not being read much neither.
Sure, theoretically you should give more than a page to checking a book out. But from this excerpt, of which I understand little, what indication do I have that the author has any skill, whatsoever?
quote: Nick Vend By the way, many copies of this will have a glossary at the back, so if you get really hung up on finding the meaning, you can just flip to that.
But why should I need to constantly check a glossary? Isn't that breaking the reading experience?
I would keep on reading if this book was given to me as a gift, or recomendation. But if I was in the library or bookstore, looking for a good choice, this would not get any more of my time. Stinker
quote:I would hope that any intelligent reader would give a novel more than thirteen lines before putting it down.
Absolutely. In MOST circumstances. In this one, however, the author would have about two more pages to start making sense before I put it down. Just as soon as I got the impression that the ENTIRE book is going to hurt so much to read, I would put it down because I've got better things to do with my time.
Someone also said that it seemed like the author was showing off. I thought that was a great way of putting it.
posted
What the heck is 13 lines then? I've tried thirteen lines in WP, thirteen lines in the "post box", thirteen lines from the novel. Every time somebody pipes up with a "too long" or "too short". Can it be thirteen sentences? There are a few authors that I can think of where that'd be around 12 pages.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2011
|
posted
Thirteen lines of size 12 (on Word) Courier. Averages out at something like ten words a line. What you've posted would probably be around eight or nine lines I reckon.
Posts: 156 | Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted
You know, I have always wanted to read this book, but never have. I might give it a try, but not based on these thirteen lines. I would probably have to read on a little further to make a fair decision.
The use of slang doesn't bother me, if I know what it means. If I have to re-read a sentance two or three times to get the meaning it becomes tedious. I am sure that in time I might pick up the meaning by seeing it used in dialogue or descrition. But I don't read fiction books to learn new languages, I read for entertainment. I definately do not want to refer to a glossary or thesarus while reading a work of fiction. To me, that ruins the whole purpose of reading fiction. If I wanted to have to referance stuff in books, I'd read a textbook.
Based on what I am reading here I'd read a bit further just to see if I could make out what the HELL the author is talking about. After a page or two if it continued on like this, I'd archive it, like the Arc of the Covanant in Indiana Jones and never look at it again.
I just realized what this reminds me of!
This is just like the scene of the Vultures in Disney's JUNGLE BOOK.
(paraphrased) "Whatcha wanna do?" "I dunno, what you wanna do?" "Things is right dead all over!" "You mean you wish they were! eh?" "HAAHAHAHAHAHA!" If you know the scene, I think you'll notice the comparison.
Rating: LINE
[This message has been edited by TruHero (edited February 07, 2004).]
posted
I definitely agree that this would never grab me. It's way too tedious a read. I can understand it, but I would have to be in the mood for very active reading. And this would be even more troublesome if any fast-paced scenes came up that I wanted to get through quickly to find out what happens next. (I admit it; I often cheat. Anybody else find themselves skipping paragraphs when things are fast paced, just making a mental note to check it later, in case you missed something important?)
Posts: 292 | Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted
Must admit, I don't tend to skip the fast-paced scenes. That's usually where all the interesting stuff happens. It's the slow-paced passages of endless pointless description that don't do anything for me. The amount of times I've suddenly noticed I'm at the bottom of a page two seconds after flipping it over and had to force myself to push my eyes back to the top again and read it through properly.
Posts: 156 | Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted
No question, this is a HOOK, one of the best I've ever read. A Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece. It also has one of the best titles in literary history.
I believe reading Clockwork does not necessarily take an active reader. I base this argumejnt on the fact that Burgess never made a glossary. A glossary was added later by an editor who took his best guess at the meaning of the slang. I believe Burgess meant for the reader to just let the story unfold. The harder you try to understand every word the less you will understand the story.
But Clockwork does demand maturity from its readers. If you are a kid who likes simple conflicts, simple plots, and simple characters then Clockwork isn't for you. The story explores culture, free will, religion, philosophy, morality, science, and politics.
Edit: formatting
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited February 12, 2004).]
quote:But [i]Clockwork[/i} it does demand maturity from its readers. If you are a kid who likes simple conflicts, simple plots, and simple characters then [i]Clockwork isn't for you.
I just have to say straight out, that arguments like this have two problems. One, they are extremely weak, basically it is name calling. "Well, you're just not mature enough to understand." Second, as it basically is name calling, it makes people mad.
There is no such thing as a masterpiece. There are only things that, in one or more individual's OPINION, are exceptional. Masterpiece only makes sense in the context of opinion.
One of the things that is difficult for writers to accept is that people will hate their work. It does not mean those people are right, and it is why not all critique can be taken, some has to be ignored. If Anthony Burgess had shown this to me, for example, I would have told him that it sucked, but many of you who like it wuol dhave missed out on what you apparently believe is a great story.
So always keep in mind that we are discussing opinions in here. As it happens I am a mature reader who enjoys complex conflicts, plots, and characters. Frankly, from the introduction here that we are discussin, we cannot even tell if any of those things are true. All we know is that this will be a tedious read.
posted
Thank you, Christine, for saving me the trouble of having to nail my feelings down on paper (which is what writing feels like...). I totally agree with you.
posted
No, Christine, Phanto, and TruHero--there are novels that demand a certian level of maturity and intelligence the part of the reader. I know this is contrary to what a lot of people believe, but just as the reader has the right to demand certain things from an author, an author has a right to demand certain things from his or her readers. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is one novel that demands quite a bit (and Burgess is a writer who demands quite a bit), and only a reader who has what it takes to read and understand a novel like this can adequately comment on it.
But I don't think Doc Brown was trying to insult you or anyone else. I think was making a statement of fact -- probably hoping to urge you and others to give the book a chance -- and unfortunatley it happened to come across in the wrong way. I certianly don't doubt that you all are mature individuals and that you all are mature readers as well, and I'm pretty sure that Doc Brown didn't mean to imply that.
On the subject of masterpieces . . . well, I have to respectfully disagree. Unless you believe in the objectivity of beauty and art--and there are not too many people around nowadays who believe in that--you'll believe in the existence of unicorns faster than you'll believe in the existence of masterpieces in art and literature.
But this is not the place to discuss this. In fact, when I was still a lurker on this forum I saw it almost hacked to death, and I don't intend to resurrect that quarrel.
[This message has been edited by Jerome Vall (edited February 08, 2004).]
posted
J.V. You are correct on one point. This is not the place to argue whether or not someone is mature or intelligent enough to understand a writers style. That is for the individual alone.
This IS a place just to say whether or not the beginnig worked for you or not, and why, end of story.
If you feel you need to defend your position on your comments then do it in the correct place. That is why I am going to delete my earlier comment, and others should consider doing the same. Besides backhanded compliments are neither nice or appreciated, no matter the intent.
I will also delete this post later, out of repsect to keep this section as it was intended.
posted
I'm afraid I continue to stand by everything I said and will neither apologize nor delete my post.
JV, I think you completely misunderstood my comment on maturity. I never said that it did not take a mature reader to appreciate A CLOCKWORD ORANGE, only that saying so in the way that was implied (at least, that was how I took it) was a pointless argument. There are a great many books that require maturity to read, but that does not mean that anyone who is mature will read and enjoy them, which is what I felt was implied.
I also think you misunderstood what I meant about a masterpiece. I reread it and see room for confusion. I believe in the total subjectivity of art, which means that a masterpiece is only a masterpiece in someone's opinion. When I said ther eis no such thing as a materpiece, I meant an objective masterpiece.
And just in general, I don't take back my commentser. I may apologize for them if I believe I was wrong or try to explain them differently if I felt I was misunderstood, but I stand by what I say at all times.
This is a little off the subject, but I have noticed that JV and I disagree on just about everything. I was just remembering a few friends from college who disagreed with me on everything, and yet we were friends. I think we simply decided to be mature about our disagreements and have fun with them. We also decided that if we ever did agree on anything then either it was surely true or the world was coming to and end -- possibly both. I feel I have run into a similiar situation with you, JV, and I hope we can feel similiarly about it.
posted
I read Clockwork when I was in my late twenties, and I found it tedious. Not only because of the forced invention of really stupid sounding slang but simply because I am not, have never been, and never will be a cynic.
Anyway, as opening lines go, frankly they annoyed me, but I pressed on anyway - Clockwork was one of those books I read because it was an Important Book for Book Snobs, therefore it simply had to be read regardless of personal taste. Wish I could get those couple of hours back. Ah, well. Live and learn and all that.
posted
Again, I don't think that Doc Brown meant to imply that one needs maturity to enjoy mature novels (though that's true), but only that one needs maturity to understand mature novels. If they don't enjoy it, at least they have reasons other than not being able to understand it.
quote:I feel I have run into a similiar situation with you, JV, and I hope we can feel similiarly about it.
I certainly do feel the same way about it, and I shall be praying for your conversion.
quote:Clockwork was one of those books I read because it was an Important Book for Book Snobs....
Though I do understand how CLOCKWORK can find its way on the the lists of literary snobs, I don't think Burgess is too happy about that. In fact, he seems to be pretty disappointed that it's this novel of all of his novels that has kept his name somewhat famous.
By the way, did you read the complete novel or the cut novel? The complete novel has 21 chapters, but the one published in the States for a number of years had only 20 chapters. The key to understanding the novel is the 21st chapter, and if you read it I don't think you could call CLOCKWORK a cynical novel. (Well, I guess you could, but I'd question your maturity and intelligence. )
[This message has been edited by Jerome Vall (edited February 08, 2004).]
posted
I guess my suggestion fell like the proverbial tree in the forest. Therefore did it ever happen? I will continue.
It wasn't however an appology, or a retraction. I still stand behind what I said earlier, in agreement with Christine. I just didn't feel like this was the forum for it.
I just wonder, J.V., You keep referring to what Doc Brown said, but you are saying the very same thing, and might I add, over and over again.
Also, you seem to be in the minority on this one so far. So why don't you just let it go, and let everyone decide whether or not this book can stand on its own merits.
By the way, you are doing a fine job of cheerleading, but maybe Burgess wouldn't be too happy about that either, since he wasn't too happy (in your words)
quote: it's this novel of all his novels that has kept his name somewhat famous
.
You make it sound like he was f*$#@%g ashamed of it or something, and maybe rightly so. (shrug)
Still, I might pick it up someday, but for now I will resist the temptation. If you have to work that hard to sell something, there must be something wrong with it.
quote:I just wonder, J.V., You keep referring to what Doc Brown said, but you are saying the very same thing, and might I add, over and over again.
That's because I agree with him. If I didn't, I'd be in your camp.
quote:Also, you seem to be in the minority on this one so far. So why don't you just let it go, and let everyone decide whether or not this book can stand on its own merits.
Huh? Whatever happened to mature, intelligent, and open-minded discussion about books, which is what this forum is supposed to be about? So what if I'm in the minority and arguing my position? You don't have agree with it, and no one is forcing you to respond to me.
At any rate, not having read the novel yourself, you're not much in a position to talk about it's merits or demerits beyond the few lines that were posted above.
posted
Speaking as someone who is in the STINKER camp, I am not offended by any of the discussion here. In fact, I enjoy knowing why it is that people like certain things that I do not, it provides me with insights into humanity in general and humans who are different from me in specific. This aids me both as a person and as a writer.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited February 09, 2004).]
I read the version which had the added chapter at the end. I think the original editors had the right idea in leaving it out - somehow the addition of that last chapter actually made the previous 20 less honest though no less vile. It's been, what, ten years(?) since I last read the thing, so I'm not carrying around my original critique in my aging grey matter, but I do remember closing the covers and thinking "What a big, fat load of existential bullshit."
Because I generally trust my gut, I've no desire to revisit the work and re-evaulate.
[This message has been edited by ccwbass (edited February 09, 2004).]
posted
Actually, the original editors (the British ones) left the 21st chapter in. It was the American editors who took it out (and it was the American verison on which Kubric based his film). But that's pretty much beside the point.
Existenital bullshit, eh? Should I suppose from this statement that you're not a fan of the contemporary philosophical novel? I admit that I am (Walker Percy being my favorite), but that has a lot to do with the fact that I'm am amature philosopher (meaning that I enjoy reading philosophy), and whenever a novel becomes philosophical I take great delight in it. (It's not for everyone.) But I certainly don't like philosophical-based story as much as I like an old-fashioned story-based story. I'd take Dickens over Burgess anyday.
posted
My tastes are in a very weird state of flux right now. I've been doing lots of re-reading lately, maybe out of nostalgia, and i've discovered that some books I absolutely loved as a teenager do absolutely nothing for me today.
My most recent encounter with contemporary fiction was the "Best Short Stories of 2002." Since I won as an award for my ability to write academic b.s., I felt obliged to read it - hey; I was gonna be an English professor after all.
Hated 'em - every single one of those stories just reeked of grad student/lit crit intellectual masturbation.
It's taken me a while to nail down what it is that sells a story for me. I can live with hackneyed writing and over-simplstic plots if the story, or at least characters in the story, offer something to me. Even the most beautiful writing, though, is hard to swallow if it's in the service of a worldview I've learned to reject. The emotion I equate with Clockwork is that of hopelessness. Existential, being, really, a very plastic philosophy, is simply a snappy little name to give the emotion, but it was still hopelessness.
And I don't believe in hopelessness, even when it's presented as skillfully as Burgess did it.
But personal taste is such a fickle thing. At least mine is. Ultimately, I doubt I will ever be able to point out precisely where Clockwork left me cold. I think it was just several layers of impression that gelled into a thick piece of plywood by the last chapter.
On the other hand the movie Dr. Strangelove makes Clockwork look like a treatise in optimism and Christian cheer, yet I love the movie, even as I disagree with it.
So, now that I think about it, perhaps it is wrong of me to say that I dislike Clockwork because of its inherent cynicism.
posted
At the risk of tripping over a big hint, I've got to say that I think I was misunderstood earlier. I didn't mean that people who don't like Clockwork are immature. I meant that the themes of Clockwork are not suitable for children.
Alex lives in a world where good people are not really good and the evil people are not really evil. Alex also lives in a world where humans can be programmed, and in fact all of them are programmed. They can be made violent or nonviolent, they can even be made to hate or fear things (Alex's relationship with Beethoven's music).
In short, Alex lives in a world where good and evil don't exist, and human have no free will. I don't have the book in front of me, but paraphrasing the prison minister character: "A clockwork painted orange so as to resemble life . . ."
These themes are not suitable for children.
Children's stories need good heroes and evil villains. In children's stories a character's merit is based on the choices he/she makes using their free will. In the world of Clockwork the characters do not have free will. Burgess makes that explicit in the title.
Personally, I didn't worry about Clockwork being cynical, just as I didn't worry about LOTR to being heretical or Star Wars violating the laws of physics and biology. Clockwork is just another really creative story set in a world not our own. I found it to be an amazing piece of writing, though your mileage may vary.
posted
Actually, that sounds like a fascinating book. One of these days I might have to try to get past the language, becuase the themes sound relaly interesting. I just have to wait until I'm up to some heavier reading than usual. Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
This one's for you, Doc, from todays Bleat:
quote:You know what's really sad? DeVries appears to be entirely out of print.. My old paperbacks are falling apart. It's the same with Anthony Burgess. Trust me - Burgess belongs in the canon. Good that he had two hits ("Clockwork Orange" and "Earthly Powers," the Manichean disquisition masquerading a popular potboiler) - it means someone might unearth the 40+ books he wrote and carry them forward. Anyway: limited quantites. Brilliant stuff. England in the 60s. Dickensian, Rabelasian, Chaucerian, Shakespearian, bawdy smark brisk stern heady Joycean novels, and brilliantly funny as well. The best serious author of the post-war period? I'd say yes. And I always have.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
I was just remembering a few friends from college who disagreed with me on everything, and yet we were friends. I think we simply decided to be mature about our disagreements and have fun with them. We also decided that if we ever did agree on anything then either it was surely true or the world was coming to and end -- possibly both. I feel I have run into a similiar situation with you, JV, and I hope we can feel similiarly about it. 
