“A Clockwork Orange” by Anthony Burgess
“Is it better for a man to have chosen evil than to have good imposed upon him?”
This is a classic novel that was first published in 1962. The story is set in a near-future England, and it is about a youth sub-culture of extreme violence that is projected by the main character Alex, his second in command George, and his 2 muscles Pete and Dim.
We’re talking about mugging, robbing a shop, home invasion, beating a man, gang-raping a woman, and even killing; before a certain betrayal landed Alex in prison.
However, this is not a book about violence, per se. But instead, it is a book that exposes and demonstrates the notion of free will into the extremes.
And it is most prominently showed in part 2 where Alex undergoes an experimental rehabilitation program, in exchange with reduced prison sentence, that makes him physically sick whenever he’s thinking about violence or hears his favourite classical music (which was used as his conditioning). This experiment has effectively made him lost his free will and the ability to choose between good and evil, and instead incentivized him to become civilized like a robot.
Indeed, this is a dystopian novel. Or to be more accurate, this book is written in a pre-dystopian setting where the focus is still in the individual misconducts, to show the attempt to control a misbehave member of society, rather than the later-stage government control over the entire society.
As the author, Anthony Burgess, remarks on the core philosophy of the book, “by definition, a human being is endowed with free will. He can use this to choose between good and evil. If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange—meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or (since this is increasingly replacing both) the Almighty State.”
Indeed, this is what a clockwork orange is: imagine an orange fruit that is organic, juicy, and natural. Now imagine inside it there’s actually a mechanical clockwork, which indicates that it is a controllable robot (with its humanity and free will stripped away), despite the outer natural appearance.
Burgess then continued, “It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil. The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to exist along with good, in order that moral choice may operate. Life is sustained by the grinding opposition of moral entities.”
Part 3 of the book is where moral choice is further challenged, where a more controlled and defenseless Alex is now out of prison but rejected by his family, receiving revenge by those he has harmed in the past, and eventually attempted suicide due to the helplessness of his situation of living like a robot. But then after the failed suicide attempt, the government wants to avoid scandal and eventually reverses Alex’s conditioning. He was then “cured”, but crucially, his violent impulses also return.
Funnily enough, the argument about free will is also unintentionally presents in the way the book was published, where Burgess breaks down the story into 21 chapters (with 21 represents the age of maturity). The entire 21 chapters were published in England and all around the world, but in the US the publisher insisted to only publish 20 chapters and omitted the very last chapter.
What was in the last chapter? Throughout the book Burgess has showed how human beings can test the boundaries of evilness, if not controlled. But in the 21st chapter, the now “free” 18-year-old Alex eventually grows bored of violence. He then encounters an old friend who is now married and living a normal life, and Alex decides that he want something mature like this for himself.
This suggests that true maturation is a natural choice, and not something that can be forced by the state. And perhaps more importantly, it shows that even inside this outrageously violent human being there’s still a little good in him that can change over time. This is Burgess’ view at its entirety.
Meanwhile, in the US version (that was adapted into the movie by Stanley Kubrick) the 21st chapter was omitted altogether and Alex stayed evil until the end of the story, arguing that people’s basic nature don’t change that much when the controlling mechanisms are dismantled.
What a delightful contrast. So which one is correct? The US version is definitely more edgy and realistic. But the international version is more grounded and also realistic. I guess both versions are correct, that everyone can experience both depending on their specific circumstances.
Understandably, this unique philosophical dilemma has made this book often referred to as the third big dystopian book alongside the more popular 1984 and Brave New World. Or as I see it, the Johan Cruyff to the Pele and Maradona debate for the greatest football player of all time.
However, I also understand why a lot of people don’t like the book. It is so surprising for me that for such a popular book it writes poorly, making it a difficult book to read and comprehend, even for a merely 116 pages book (and I have just read a brilliant 562-pages book about a very violent Nigerian civil war, with no problem at all).
But if we can read on and endure the unnecessary “noise”, ignore the way the book is structured and instead actively reading to just find the silver linings; the deep philosophical talking points from the book are exceptional. So, the question remains, is it better to be violent out of free will or be good but like a clockwork orange?
THE CHAOS THEORY 