A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

4
For those unaware of it, this a dystopian novel (in my mind similar to 1984) about a boy Alex (!) who, like many his age, is extremely violent and speaks with rather unintelligible slang. He's an anti-hero in many ways, but he isn't, actually, completely evil. In many ways, this book is also a very different kind of coming of age novel.

First off, I think it's important to get my warnings out of the way. Alex is a violent person, which can be gruesome, but most of us can move past that; but there is also sexual crime, perpetrated by him, in the book. There isn't a great detail, but it's something obvious in the story and he has a very objectifying perception of women.

There is also the "NadSat" talk. It's the slang that the teenagers use and has mainly Russian derivations, while others are just nods towards certain ideas or people. Starting the book, I really struggled with this. I got a dictionary up online to help understand what was happening since he'd speak normally for many a page, but then start using NadSat for almost every other word. It was taking me out of the story so I had to do something. Apparently the author didn't like the NadSat Dictionary idea since he wanted people to actually go away and look up the Russian stems, so that everyone might have a slightly different interpretation, but though I tried, it was too difficult.

As I often find with classics, the story didn't jump out at me so much as the ideas behind it; it was merely the podium on which the ideas had to stand in order to be seen. It isn't bad, though. There's three parts; '1' is life before jail, '2' is life in jail and during "treatment" while '3' is after jail and when he rejoins society. Basically, we get to know Alex and see him commit crimes, then we see his droogies (friends) turn on him so he goes to jail. here, he gets involved in Ludovico treatment- a treatment which breeds an aversion to an act by subjecting someone to unbearable sensations when seeing or thinking of the act. An association-aversion treatment. I'll leave the ending in case you decide to read, but you can sort of guess where it is heading (but I promise you couldn't guess it in it's entirety). Also, each part has 7 sections- appealing to my OCD. The idea was that 21 (culturally an age of maturity) is when Alex finally starts changing since I wouldn't call it maturity.

The main idea that leaps from this novel is the argument of whether it is better to do good things, but only because you have been conditioned for it, or to do as you wouldst, even if you do bad. Alex is turned into an acceptable citizen who will never be violent, never misuse someone, never commit a crime. He is the perfect denizen in the eyes of the Government since he costs no money, and goes about doing his own job. The Prison Chaplain is the main character we have against this. He says it is wrong to take away free will and that if one does bad things then it is acceptable only in the light that it is chosen. Everyone, I think, believes Free Will is paramount, but equally believes that it is wrong to cause or allow evil to fester. It's a hard question because it pits two ideas against one another, and in many ways comes down to the self versus the community. Ultimately though, I couldn't defend taking away Free Will. The right to choice is so fundamentally human and I can't bear elements of subjugation or oppression. Cured Alex is no longer a human because there is more powerful force controlling his ability to function. I think the novel veers you in that direction overall, so I am biased, but I don't think that undermines the argument at all.

There's other ideas present, but to a lesser extent. For example, there's the notion that merely having good taste does not make one good. Ask yourself what kind of music a criminal listens too. Contemporary mainstream, I imagine? Alex, he likes Classical Music. He describes it really beautifully until he starts imaging violent images and his adoration for it humanises him and is one of those things that makes you like him since, subliminally, I think we think someone who likes classical music can't be all bad. In fact, this idea is murmuring throughout the entire novel. Burgess is poetic in his writing, and reading him is no effort at all even if you don't exactly understand. He's written really beautifully, despite the subject matter. There's probably a notion of making bad things look good to fool the majority that you could argue, but that's one level of inference too far for me to be going.

I have some minor issues with the book. There's a noticeable lack of female characters in the book; when they are there they are merely plot devices, it seems. I didn't take this as sexist though, I think Burgess was just trying to draw the parallels to Alex and the Government. Though it doesn't say it, I get the feeling it is a very strong patriarchy- that Alex just isn't as discreet as his superiors. The only hint at this is when they are demonstrating the treatment to the officials and the beautiful woman walks off stage and Alex sees the hunger in the men's eyes.

NadSat is the other issue because, though I expected it, I didn't expect it quite so much so it took a small while to get used to.

Some good things I didn't mention too include how I found the book rather funny. One in particular was at the end of part two and the Chaplain says "God help the lot of us" after the treatment is found successful. He sees what no one else does: that the Government doesn't care who they use it on. He seems to have finally given up since no one can see this obvious fact; it just made me smile. I love Cassandra (Greek) characters. The characterisations are also marvellous considering the little time we see some of them, though perhaps a bit black and white.

This was a really enjoyable book. If you don't read classics (modern or otherwise) then I really recommend trying this one if your interested in trying to read more. It's a typical dystopian, and would probably appeal to fans of 1984, though they may see too many parallels with the two. Once again, a fantastic and pleasantly short read.

Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen

5
Austen's first written (but last published) novel follows Catherine, a young, inexperienced woman who makes sense of the world around her through the fantastical, Good Vs Evil romantic view of the world. Despite what one might call nuances, it extremely easy to read.

I'm so glad to have read Austen again. I think she's my favourite classical author because I understand her wit, her imagery and find myself captivated by stories that I never thought I would like or read. This isn't my favourite, but it really is a great book. Its greatest strength is how easy to read it is. Classics are infamous for being difficult to read and they say you need a great vocabulary and all that. It helps, don't mistake what I'm saying, but that's nonsense. Anyone can read, understand and enjoy a classic if the story is to their liking. With this book it's particularly prominent since had I not known it to be Austen, I could have mistaken it for contemporary writing. It really is that understandable.

The book itself is weird. As I said, I read it as coming-of-age as our protagonist sets out into town-life and finds her world upside down and herself mesmerised. She's never encountered this kind of thing before, and it shows in her naivety and simple trusting nature. She gradually begins to question herself and those around her, and eventually starts maturing, but I'm glad that she isn't completely different at the end. Catherine is still Catherine, just with a different view of the world.

Narration was a another oddity in the book. It wasn't bad, but Austen's way of writing was in a way that she'd occasionally move from the third person view of just Catherine's story to making a social commentary or witty remark. Once, she even went from Catherine's train of thought to her own ideas. It was nice, as someone who likes Austen, to get such a straight forward look into her head. I think if I'd read this first though, it might have been bothersome since here before me was a writer I had never read getting slightly off topic. I'd defend her saying this is merely her first book, but the point stands.

As a coming-of-age novel (at least in my mind), it's expected that the side characters would be strong and diverse. There was perhaps a sense that one family was bad and another was good, but I think it wasn't unfounded and, at least at the time, it wasn't bad so much as 'not-good'. I'm being a little vague in case you read it. The characters themselves were amazing though: I could picture Isabella, hear Henry Tilney's voice and see his smile as he teased Catherine or his sister and picture the kind of gentleman the General was. And as I say, they were diverse. Catherine, in order to develop, has to encounter people that would challenge her innocence and force experience upon her. So we face the deceptive or the secretive and she originally ignores it, but comes to recognise it and then act upon it. For me, I liked the General because (grumpy and prejudiced as he is) he was interesting and hard-to-read.

Since Austen is known for it, I'll talk about the romance in the book. There are two love interests in this book, and indeed romance and love forms parts of a side-story/sub-plot, but it isn't as prominent as in other books. Rather than perpetually husband-hunting or at least very romantically aware (like Elizabeth or Emma from her other books) the romance is always peripheral in Catherine's view of the world. She considers her own fancy important, but it doesn't overshadow the idea that this book is more about Catherine's perception of the world. I think I'll make a comment her as well that I always prefer classical romance. It more about falling in love than the aftermath, which interests me more.

One final comment is that I loved how Catherine seemed to contrast Emma in her later book. One is self-assured, a matchmaker and sometimes annoying, the other is innocent, impressionable and loveable. I really feel like the pair are practically two sides of the same coin, though not quite. By the end of the book, Catherine has learnt enough to be considered not as polar-opposite to Emma as originally. Anyway, just a thought that I'd like opinions on if opinions are to be had.

So I adored this book and if you're struggling this late on for a Christmas present, perhaps this would not be a bad idea? It's not a romance, and the humour and tale of story based almost entirely on perception (making it in many ways unreliable) is interesting. Austen's way of referring to her as the Heroine grounds us in it's ironic reminder to take what is said with a pinch of salt. An excellent book.

Marked Quotes:

"The person, be it gentlemen or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid."


"I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible."