Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

english.elpais.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 170 posts

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#51

Post by LeifCarrotson »

simmerup wrote: post #8

I feel like the moment you put any idea out there you have the potential to influence people unexpectedly, and be at peace with that. I saw a youtube interview of an addict who said he started taking painkillers regularly because he saw House doing it. Surely the writers didn’t know they were setting up some kid in suburban America up for addiction by giving him that mannerism

Unexpectedly?

The whole point of publishing an idea or art piece is to influence people. Sure, some people will misinterpret it, but it should be pretty obvious that if you make a heroically brilliant protagonist dismissive of an opioid addiction that some people are going to think that's cool, especially if you're portraying that on TV. That's why Burgess wrote:

> I should not have written the book because of this danger of misinterpretation...

Kubrick's film (disclaimer: I've only read the book, I've never seen the movie) has apparently made this problem worse for Burgess. Similarly, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was a deeply flawed protagonist, which readers of his books would see, but I believe that the way the character was portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. in the recent film/series adaptations similarly disguised those flaws and had a strong potential for some misinterpretation and more negative impacts.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#52

Post by Hasu »

blindriver wrote: post #20

Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. In the book at the very end Alex decides out of his own free will to stop being violent. Which is the entire point of the book: free will vs being forced to do something. It’s so powerful, I don’t think any book affected as much as that did at the time. Kubrick focused on the violence and the rapes and by lea…

> Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book.

The American version of the book doesn't have the final chapter, and was the basis for Kubrick's film. He was aware of the final chapter but never considered using it, as he didn't agree with Burgess and thought it didn't make sense (this was also the opinion of the American editor who had the final chapter removed).

The movie does include the Ludovico technique and all the themes about free will and goodness vs the choice of goodness, it just leaves out the very unrealistic ending where Alex reforms.

I think the film is a masterpiece and the book's original ending is unrealistic nonsense. I hardly think it's the "most important part".

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#53

Post by elf25 »

ljf wrote: post #31
sevagh wrote: post #16

Tangential: I remember reading a criticism about the South Park ginger episode leading to redheads getting bullied. I was curious (and still haven't wrapped my head around) what blame can be placed, if any. 1. Shitty people had latent bullying and cruelty instincts and South Park gave them the idea of diverting that to redheads 2. People were just chilling until South Park taught them to be cruel and bully gingers

It is hard to know. My old work colleague took great efforts to keep his son from watching any TV, films or cartoons - they did loads of art, listened to music and went to the theatre a little. He was a pretty chill kid when I met him. One day his son played at a friend's house when he was 3, nearly 4, and ended up watching a hulk cartoon. He spent the next 3 weeks running around the house screaming 'hulk smash' and…

[dead]

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#54

Post by JoeAltmaier »

blindriver wrote: post #20

Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. In the book at the very end Alex decides out of his own free will to stop being violent. Which is the entire point of the book: free will vs being forced to do something. It’s so powerful, I don’t think any book affected as much as that did at the time. Kubrick focused on the violence and the rapes and by lea…

A book is not about some apology patchup line tacked onto the end. It's about everything between the covers.

It was about disaffected youth acting out immorally because they were not given a functioning moral code? And that's what the movie showed.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#55

Post by zoky »

blindriver wrote: post #20

Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. In the book at the very end Alex decides out of his own free will to stop being violent. Which is the entire point of the book: free will vs being forced to do something. It’s so powerful, I don’t think any book affected as much as that did at the time. Kubrick focused on the violence and the rapes and by lea…

I’m gonna hard disagree with you here. Having read the novel and seen the movie, Kubrick was 100% right to leave the last chapter out.

With the last chapter intact, the story is no longer about Alex. It’s about some hypothetical futuristic society where ultraviolence is the norm and is just considered to be some coming of age rite of passage, that you eventually grow out of. It takes the violence in the story and makes it mundane and pedestrian, to the point where we have to come up with insane torturous methods like the Ludivico Technique, just as we prescribe kids Ritalin or Adderall, only we would do so just to attempt to keep things under control. It’s a story that is, frankly, ridiculous in its hyperbole, to the point that it bears little resemblance to anything but science fiction.

Kubrick and Burgess’s American editor were absolutely right to leave off the last chapter, thereby transforming the novel into the portrait of an irredeemable sociopath. A sociopath who has been enabled to a far greater extent by a simultaneously far more lenient and vindictive society than our own, yes, but therein lies the warning. While we want to redeem those criminals who are victims of circumstance, what happens when we take it too far?

By apologizing for Alex as a victim of society and circumstance, who only owes his psychopathic tendencies to said circumstances, Burgess’s novel falls flat as a criticism of society at Large (get it?)

Don’t get me wrong—I greatly enjoyed the novel, and recommend it to anyone who liked the movie. But I honestly believe the last chapter would have been best left unwritten.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#56

Post by ryandamm »

blindriver wrote: post #20

Kubrick’s version was a failure because he missed the most important part and the last few pages of the book. In the book at the very end Alex decides out of his own free will to stop being violent. Which is the entire point of the book: free will vs being forced to do something. It’s so powerful, I don’t think any book affected as much as that did at the time. Kubrick focused on the violence and the rapes and by lea…

I strongly disagree, having read the book and seen the movie.

The “point” of the book is irrelevant; chapter 21 is disconnected from the main text, set at some remove from the events in the previous chapters, and utterly banal. It’s an extended internal monologue of the most boring sort where the author states his moral.

But the best works of literature, in my opinion, transcend simple morality tales and touch something a bit more universal and hard to define in language. If your point can be summarized in a short essay, all you’ve done is illustrate an essay at length. “This novel could’ve been an email.”

What is captivating about _Clockwork_ is precisely its depiction of violence, its almost sympathetic glorification of the id. The protagonist’s unapologetic thirst for violence is what makes the novel (and movie) interesting. It’s reminding us that violence and aggression are part of the human condition, and part of the reader, too: you may recoil, but you also identify with Alex — it’s a first person account so that’s natural.

The last chapter ruins it though with petty moralizing. The voice of Alex the psychopath is far better than that of Burgess the moralist, and the novel is better for having its terminal essay removed.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#57

Post by xivzgrev »

h2odragon wrote: post #23
simmerup wrote: post #8

I feel like the moment you put any idea out there you have the potential to influence people unexpectedly, and be at peace with that. I saw a youtube interview of an addict who said he started taking painkillers regularly because he saw House doing it. Surely the writers didn’t know they were setting up some kid in suburban America up for addiction by giving him that mannerism

> Surely the writers didn’t know they were setting up some kid in suburban America up for addiction Ya think? I disagree. It was product placement at the time . Now, it's hard not to call it outright drug pushing.

To me it was character development. His whole persona is this independent persona - his genius puts him above normal people, rules, and his team is merely there to execute his ideas and bounce ideas off of (like his ball).

Despite all of that, he has crippling pain and a painkiller addiction that he’s utterly dependent on. It brings him back down to earth.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#58

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

sevagh wrote: post #16

Tangential: I remember reading a criticism about the South Park ginger episode leading to redheads getting bullied. I was curious (and still haven't wrapped my head around) what blame can be placed, if any. 1. Shitty people had latent bullying and cruelty instincts and South Park gave them the idea of diverting that to redheads 2. People were just chilling until South Park taught them to be cruel and bully gingers

Humans are monkey-see monkey-do. We all believe we're rational independent actors but we really aren't.

That's the whole point of the ad industry.

Media are experienced as authoritative and high status. If they normalise behaviours and beliefs at least some humans will copy them unthinkingly.

There aren't any moral limits to this. If media normalise mass murder, you get mass murder.

Some people are more resistant than others, but everyone has weak spots.

Re: 'I should not have written 'A Clockwork Orange''

#59

Post by elf25 »

coliveira wrote: post #35
simmerup wrote: post #8

I feel like the moment you put any idea out there you have the potential to influence people unexpectedly, and be at peace with that. I saw a youtube interview of an addict who said he started taking painkillers regularly because he saw House doing it. Surely the writers didn’t know they were setting up some kid in suburban America up for addiction by giving him that mannerism

Not only that, House was the inspiration for a whole generation of drug addicts by providing a character that they could empathize with. The same way that Wall Street created a whole generation that wanted to become crooked stock operators.

My what a boring media landscape it would be if all characters were goodie little “Mary Poppins” types.

Just because a minority wrongly take inspiration from an ill behaved character is no reason to temper a fictional character actions. Did Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid lead to an increase in bank and train robberies?

Post reply on HN