Talk:A Clockwork Orange (novel)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge with Ultraviolence

Concerning the Ultraviolence article which was considered for deletion, the consensus was to merge with this article. Although I was the creator of the Ultraviolence article, I'm certainly not an expert in A clockwork Orange, so I don't consider myself the best one to perform the merge. Here's the article's main part which I think should (somehow) be merged here (sorry if this is unnecessary, but I don't know how merging articles works):

---

Ultraviolence is a term used roughly to describe acts of excessive and/or unjustified violence. The term was coined by Anthony Burgess in his novel A Clockwork Orange, where the main character Alex DeLarge and his gang of "droogs" roam the streets committing violent crimes out of enjoyment, including rape and murder, referred to as "do[ing] the ultra-violent".

This sense of aesthetic violence has led to the term's usage in media, i.e. criticism regarding the representation of violence as enjoyable spectacle. The term "ultraviolence" has been applied to several works of entertainment such as the Saw series, Hostel, GANTZ, and the Manhunt game series.

and some links from the external links section I consider relevant for the term and the book:

• Clockwork Orange and the Aestheticization of Violence
• Screening Violence Film theory appoach to ultraviolence in the media
• UltraViolent Atrocities Saturate Pop Culture

Kreachure (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"He is also unable to listen to any classical composition without experiencing the same jarring physical reaction."

Is this right? I saw the movie a week ago, and I distinctly remember that Alex claimed to only get ill in reaction to "just the 9th." 129.119.187.242 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit I have not yet read the book, but it is possible it is different from the movie in that matter. Puceron (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In the book it seems that any classical music will do this to him. It's probably just different from the movie (which I have not seen).76.216.113.183 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)anonymous

Article needs balance

I think that lead sentence should give a very brief description of what the book is about. Currently it says nothing about this. Further, I think that the plot summary is a little too detailed. Just my opinion of what would make the article better for anyone who cares to work on it. ike9898 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

F. Alexander

F. Alexander: An author writing, at the beginning of the novel, his own novel called A Clockwork Orange. The gang breaks into his house and brutally beats him while forcing him to watch as they rape his wife. He is paralysed as a result of the attack, while his wife dies. He takes Alex in off the street, and then tries to drive him to suicide after recognising him.

I haven't read the book in some years, but I have read it several times. Is it correct that he was paralyzed in the book? I recall he was caring for Alex alone, and don't remember any mention of a wheelchair or the like. I think that might have been an addition to the film for visual purposes. --68.35.11.25 (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I just checked, and am correcting. The book specifies in part 3 chapter 4 that Alex hears "nogas" (feet or legs) coming to the door before Mr. Alexander opens it, and since he appears to otherwise be alone in the house and no mention of wheelchairs or crutches are made, one can presume Alexander is fully ambulatory.--68.35.11.25 (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Disconnected ibid, etc.

Could someone please identify the citation to which the ibid in "(Burgess' words, ibid.)" means to refer? I think it probably means to refer to the strangely-formatted "Burgess, Anthony (1986) A Clockwork Orange Resucked in A Clockwork Orange, W. W. Norton & Company, New York" citation, but I can't find that online, don't have access to a paper copy, and I'm not sure. See Wikipedia:FOOT#Style recommendations. Incidentally, if this, this, and this apparent copyvio requotes are accurate, Burgess' words there didn't include the phrase "badly flawed". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Mighty Boosh

Its a minor point that could be added: in the episode Electro in series 1 the band is called Kraftwork Orange, and they dress like droogs, but with suspenders. AutomaticWriting 03:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As queer as a clockwork orange

Not sure how this is relevant to the article but what's queer about a clockwork orange? --86.149.220.250 (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite its modern connotations the word queer actually just means strange, and a clockwork orange is most definitely a strange concept. People used to use the word queer much more generally than they do now, it was a very common word for describing absolutely anything out of the ordinary. For example if you were ill you might say you felt queer. --88.112.152.215 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "orang" as stated in the article

Actually, the article incorrectly states "orang" means man. In fact, it means "person". Man can be translated "pria" or "lelaki". 198.185.66.18 (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Man" has two meanings in English, the oldest is "person"/"human", the newer but today more common is "male". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Korova Milk Bar - NYC

Though now moved on , there used to be a " Korova Milk Bar " on 200 Avenue A in New York City. It was a fairly good replica of the movie set, to include the mannequins ( though they did not dispense anything ) and the font/text on the walls. The rest of the bar consisted of video screens, a jukebox, and drinks named after elements of the book and film.

The bar shut down in 2006 as I understand due to economic issues. There have been rumors about it coming back in Las Vegas circa 2008 but nothing ever came of this.

There is a bar listed as Korova Milk Bar at 213 East Post Road White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 949-8838 , which has the same menu and pictures show the same motif as the bar in New York City, but I have not visited it in person so I can't be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delchi (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Why is there no critical reception section. Portillo (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

in Latin, the expression a-lex means "without law".... not

Quote - in Latin, the expression a-lex means "without law".... no, it doesn't. It's what it was *intended* to mean, but it doesn't mean anything at all in Latin due to a severe grammatical error.67.22.209.125 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy in article

Under the "After prison" heading, it states

Alex falls into the hands of Mr. Alexander, the husband of the woman he raped at the beginning of part one. Mr. Alexander was apparently crippled in the initial assault and is now confined to a wheelchair, and his wife is now deceased, due to an illness he blames on the rape. Since Alex was wearing a Disraeli mask during the earlier assault, Alexander does not recognize him as the attacker. Recognizing Alex's photo from the newspaper, Mr. Alexander's political activist friends decide to use him as a weapon against the government by turning him into a poster child for the victims of fascism; they play classical music in the room beside his, triggering the maddening effect of the Ludovico treatment. Driven to insanity by the music, Alex jumps from his bedroom window in an attempt to end his life.

while under the "Characters" heading it states

F. Alexander: An author writing, at the beginning of the novel, his own novel called A Clockwork Orange. The gang breaks into his house and brutally beats him while forcing him to watch as they rape his wife. He is paralyzed as a result of the attack, while his wife dies. He takes Alex in off the street, and then tries to drive him to suicide after recognizing him.

This seems to be a difference of opinion regarding both whether Alex was recognised by Mr. Alexander, and the motives for trying to drive him to suicide, which should be reconciled.

My understanding of both the book and the film is that the former is correct, but others may disagree Gyroreach (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

i don't have a source for this but i happen to be doing a report on this book and my understanding is that F. Alexander did not recognize him by his face but rather by his speech.75.118.79.44 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Alex's surname

Moved this here from the article:

"However, in the film, following the attempted suicide the newspapers state his name as 'Alex Burgess' very clearly. The newspaper in the movie does not say Alex Burgess, it is the authors name in the newspapers as Burgess; refering to the original author"

Obviously needs to be worked out before it can go back in. ike9898 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Under the characters section where it says that a rumored surname is "DeLarge" i believe that the preceding summary of a scene is incorrect in what he is referring to with "Alexander the large" i believe he is referring to his phallus.75.118.79.44 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet Another Meaning of 'Clockwork Orange'

http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/sociology/article_view?article_id=soco_tr_bpl090 defines a clockwork orange as "an abstract representation of subcultural deviance".

In the novel "Pictures of Perfection" by Reginald Hill it is used in this sense by Detective Sergeant Wield: "Wrong again - I'm as queer as a clockwork orange". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.76.39 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Title meaning

The meaning of the title is discussed in two sections, which merely repeat the information in the other section. Section "title" (under section "analysis") and section "meaning of title" need to be merged somewhere. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of the title is given in the novel, not given in Kubrick's film - and Burgess wrote a "sequel" to this novel, unfortunately I cannot trace the source of this information, I remember the name Alex was in its title, unfortunately this fact is not given in existing references to Burgess Lung salad (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

some other points

There's an essay by Burgess in which he says his current feelings about the necessity of the last chapter are ambiguous, and that the American publisher might have been right about removing it.

The plot summary neglects several important points. Alex does, indeed, justify his behavior, in a Nietzschean manner -- that, as he is not an intellectual "sheep" and is consciously self-aware, he is therefore free to do whatever he likes, because he is doing it of his own free will. This butts up against an essay he finds in the house of one of his victims, titled "A Clockwork Orange", in which the writer talks about something that seems to be organic and alive, but is actually a deterministic mechanism. Alex gets the point, and tears up the essay in anger. Naturally, none of this appears in Kubrick's wretchedly perverse film. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Furthermore, in a novel where a form of brainwashing plays a role, the narrative itself brainwashes the reader into understanding Nadsat."

what a ridiculous sentence. the reader is not *brainwashed* into understanding Nadsat. what nonsense. 96.251.14.24 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Brighton anachronism

"Just up the road in Brighton, mods and rockers were regularly fighting each other" seems to be Will Self misremembering the '60s, as the mods and rockers publicity for the "Second Battle of Hastings" at Brighton was at Whitsun in May '64. If they were regularly fighting each other in '62, the media don't seem to have noticed it. It also seems that the term Rocker (subculture) postdated the battles of '64, and '62 seems a bit early for mods beyond the modernist/trad jazz argument. So, I've moved the part of the sentence here. dave souza, talk 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm, "the final chapter"?

In the final chapter, Alex finds himself half-heartedly preparing for yet another night of crime with a new trio of droogs. After a chance encounter with Pete, who has reformed and married, Alex finds himself taking less and less pleasure in acts of senseless violence. He begins contemplating giving up crime himself to become a productive member of society and start a family of his own, while reflecting on the notion that his own children will be just as destructive-- if not more so-- than he himself.

Really? I just finished my copy (Ballantine Books First Edition, Thirty First Printing - November 1987) and this definitely isn't in the book. The final chapter ends with Alex in the hospital listening to Beethoven's Ninth. Then an afterword by Stanley Edgar Hyman, a Nadsat glossary, and... that's it. So either this is specific to some edition of the book I don't possess (which itself would be noteworthy), or it's completely made up by some clever editor, or I'm going batshit insane. --WayneMokane (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In some other article, I read that the American edition omits the final chapter. We should find a reliable source and update the article accordingly. ike9898 (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep seems like you're right on that one. Moreover our article A Clockwork Orange (film) on the film discusses this because apparently Kubrick unknowingly based his film on the omitted-final-chapter American version. I didn't notice that before I posted my first comment here since I was deliberately trying to avoid that article having not seen the film yet. So... I guess all that's left is to mention that little tidbit in this article citing the same source? --WayneMokane (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation added. ike9898 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I used to have an old British (Penguin) edition of the book which also omitted the final chapter, in fact for years after reading it I was unaware that there was a chapter missing. I'll try and find a citation for this. MFlet1 (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The book's origonal publication in England consisted of the origonal twenty-one chapters Burgess had intended. However, the Amarican publishers insisted in removing the final chapter in their publication of the book, deeming it to be too 'unrealistic' for American readers. The final chapter has been recently re-established in American publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.100.149 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

While comparing editions, it might also be worth mentioning that the Penguin UK & Commonwealth edition (at least the one I have) omitted the Nadsat glossary - you had to work it out yourself. 124.169.91.38 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What does this part of the introduction mean?

"Through the exploits and experiences of a teenager it explores the violent nature of humans, human free will to choose between good or evil, and the desolation of free will as a solution to evil."

I don't understand the last part: "....and the desolation of free will as a solution to evil."

Desolation? Perhaps this is literally correct, but as a native English-speaker, I find this difficult to understand. I assume it is being used here as a synonym of "destruction". Personally,I think it would be easier to understand if phrased differently. 124.169.91.38 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. I was going to post the same thing!Bluetd (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it didn't make quite sense. I think my new wording adds what was lacking in the presentation, and what "A Clockwork Orange" is really about. For more information, please read Anthony Burgess's book "1985", which talks also about Zamiatine's "We", about Huxley's "Brave New World" and about Orwell's "1984". Akseli9 (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Introduction (4 May 2013)

Society in which Alex lives, has no such "culture of extreme youth rebellion and violence". At the contrary, Alex's "extreme youth rebellion and violence" is his only way to express his "free will", in a society where free will is forgotten, in such a society where Ludovico's technique (restraining free will) can be (wrongly) seen as a means to fight evil. Alex does not represent the society in which he lives. At the contrary, he and his taste for good music and violence, is the only way he has to act against a society where such things as good music, violence and free will, are forgotten. Akseli9 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not wrong, but you two made inexplicable (I believe ;-) changes to the sentece we talk about. Before that, the sentence "[explores] ... the desolation of free will as a solution to evil". meant that "the desolation of free will" was seen "as a solution to evil" Now I read the end of your sentence differently: "a cynical society in which free will is forgotten as a solution to evil" seems to indicate that free will is (was) a solution to evil before it (=free will) was forgotten. Free will is not "forgotten" in that society. If it is not clear what i mean, I can explain further. My only mistake is that I wrote only Picbok had confused meaning, while it had been you two. ;-) BTW consecutive edits changing or blurring the initial meaning completelely, especially in the lead of the article, are a grave danger to wiki. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for closely following this. Sorry for the confusion, let me ask if you could find a better wording for my "forgotten". Perhaps "neglected", but this one I find it still not quite right. Your version "free will is restrained in order to find a solution to evil" applies to Ludovico Technique theories, not to the entire society. To the entire society, what would apply would be more something like "free will is forgotten", as if entire society had forgotten what free will is and that free will is essential (especially when coping with evil). Thanks is advance. Akseli9 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that the society/mainstream culture depicted in the book has forgotten/neglected free will significantly more than the then existing society or our society nowadays. It is more socialistic but that is to show the blending between the Western world and Russia - that they are essentially the same. Burgess wrote about methods/principles/point of views on how to handle "evil" with relation to freedom of each indiviual. But my opinion is irrelevant and the best way would be to quote a relevant source (some critic, literature historian, not Burgess) on what this book is about. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Release details

I don't believe all the published versions are notable enough to be included. I propose to remove most of them. Thoughts? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

dubious claim

"... then scuffle with a rival gang. Joyriding through the countryside in a stolen car, they break into an isolated cottage and maul the young couple living there, beating the husband and raping his wife. ... "

have you seen the movie ? It is a rather elderly gent with a middle-aged wife. Not "a young couple", at all.Lathamibird (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 04 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. In order to properly adjudicate this move request, we must examine whether any of the homonymous subjects can be considered primary topic per policy criteria of overwhelming usage or long-term significance. While the novel obviously pre-dates the film adaptation, both works have been shown by discussants to have high cultural impact and independent long-term significance. The film gets more traffic than the novel but that is not enough to make it the overwhelming primary topic. Therefore, per WP:DAB, the dab page should sit at the base name and the novel should be distinguished from the film by the "(novel)" qualifier. As the film and the novel are both highly notable, and collectively largely more notable than other homonyms, WP:TWODABS advises that each article should refer to the other by hatnote, in addition to having a pointer to the dab page. (If a disambiguation page is needed, but one of the other topics is of particular interest, then it may be appropriate to link to it explicitly as well as linking to the disambiguation page.) Some opposing editors disagree with placing dab pages at ambiguous base names; that is a legitimate question to be debated at the relevant policy pages, instead of being invoked against individual move requests that are in line with current policy. — JFG ^talk 22:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

---

A Clockwork Orange → A Clockwork Orange (novel) – the movie is more known than the book (you can see this also by the visits at the two articles), so that "A Clockwork Orange" should send to the disamb page. For similar cases, see The Shining (film), The Silence of the Lambs (novel), The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (novel), Trainspotting (novel), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel), etc. – Almicione (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support, i saw the disam page, and there are two other articles with same name, one for a film and another for its soundtrack, so "(novel)" should be added. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Unneeded, there is no compelling reason for the pages of novels, the pages of films adapted from those novels, and the dab pages with the same name to have exactly the same structure of relationships nor to have that relationship structure be based on current popularity. Either one can be treated as primary and the rest of the structure organized to suit.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The book, in this case, is very highly regarded, and the film really only adds to its long-term significance. This, to me, is a similar case to Gone with the Wind. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Very good point about Gone with the Wind. Agree that this is a very similar case. I have just raised an RM for it. Andrewa (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support this move for clarity 2601:541:4305:C70:34:C4F3:EC64:2947 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Both the novel and the film of A Clockwork Orange have similar levels of notability, as far as I've seen. Both attracted controversy and are regarded highly in the respective fields of literature and cinema. In fact, I think the film might even be a bit more notable than the novel, as a quick online search for "clockwork orange" would indicate. I'd also like to note the case of Fight Club (novel) as another example of book titling. –Matthew - (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Both of them have almost equal notability. I would say this is a good case for differentiating using the title. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The statistics show the film to be more popular than the novel, but that shall not make the film more primary at this point. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Virtually all readers are looking for something to do with this book, its film adaptation, and associated uses. That information, with link to the main article, can also be found at the novel's article (and it can be greatly expanded). As such, it functions as a WP:CONCEPTDAB in spirit. There's also a hat note for the film, meaning readers find it in just as few clicks as a dab page. I don't really see the benefit to sending all readers to a dab page when we could send them to relevant content instead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, Cuchullain, the stats disagree. Many users have searched the film because it is familiar to them the most. Doctor Zhivago was originally a novel, but then it became a disambiguation page (turned into set index) because the film is more popular. Similar to Dr Zhivago, if moved, the original novel of A Clockwork Orange would lose numbers, i.e. numbers would be affected. George Ho (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The stats are clear that virtually everyone is looking for the novel, its film adaptation, and related uses. In fact, there are few unrelated articles. Given that the novel's article can cover adaptations, and the fact that the film is already in the hat note, I don't see a real benefit to putting a dab page at the base name. That just sends everyone to a dead end.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If moved, the hatnote will be removed. You are underestimating the value of a dab page. A dab page is necessary when a base title lacks the primary topic. A concept disambiguation implies that the novel is the primary topic by default. However, the novel fails to be the primary topic, i.e. the usage criterion. Why forcing readers to read the whole article... or just the whole introduction? They will just find the film adaptation in just one second per statistics. Why not make the film the primary topic instead? George Ho (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that this article suits the spirit of WP:CONCEPTDAB, in that it includes information on all of the significant uses of the term "A Clockwork Orange". It's better to send readers to content they're seeking than sending everyone to a dead end. I wouldn't object to moving the film to A Clockwork Orange, but given that virtually everyone is looking for one of these related topics, I do think putting the dab page at the base name is an unnecessary roadblock.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

But doesn't that cut both ways... the article about the film does, in the same sense, cover the book? Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the benefit to sending all readers to a dab page. That would only happen for people who type "A Clockwork Orange" directly into the search box without clicking on the real article titles which show up below the search box. Besides, all incoming links can be pointed to the correct page. Most readers will end up at the page they want. kennethaw88 • talk 01:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. By both WP:PT criteria, the novel fails. It cannot be the primary topic. While I agree that the film may well be the primary topic, that is not the issue here. The issue is simply that the novel is not. Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, George Ho, and Andrewa. Arguments are similar to those raised at Talk:Gone with the Wind#Requested move 14 September 2016. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cuchullain and Nohomersryan. The novel is the WP:PTOPIC by long-term significance. SSTflyer 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Both topics have long-term significance, and both have lots of page views, though the film has about twice as many. It might be hard to defend the position that the film is primary, but certainly, the novel is not the primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 00:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The film might be the primary topic based on pageviews, but that is not the proposal we're considering here. If the film is not primary, the novel (or overall "broad concept" topic, if you prefer) certainly is, based on Cúchullain's reasons above. I agree that there is no benefit to having a dab page at the base name. That would only cause an extra step for those readers who land on the base name and do want the novel (or broad concept), with no benefit for those wanting the film. Station1 (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Clockwork Orange (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420020421/http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedclassics/reasonsbanned to http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedclassics/reasonsbanned

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Clockwork Orange (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040225221221/http://kubricks0.tripod.com/burgesam.htm to http://kubricks0.tripod.com/burgesam.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sequel

Was an unpublished sequel to this novel discovered in 2019? 131.123.48.170 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In a word, no. What was found was the complete text of a non-fiction commentary called The Clockwork Condition, which was Burgess' response to the interpretations of his novel after Kubrick's film was released. Portions of it had been previously published, for example in the New Yorker in June 2012. It is not in any sense a 'sequel' to the novel, clickbait headlines aside. 209.179.83.101 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• A Clockwork Orange - the treatment.jpg
• Alex and his droogies.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• A Clockwork Orange - the treatment.jpg
• Alex and his droogies.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Russianized slang

What was the reason for this? Did the main character just have an affinity for Russian? Was this a Russianized Europe (instead of Americanized?). -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.64 (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

See here and here.   pablo_hablo. 12:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time Burgess wrote this novel, it was still Cold War era and the Sovietic bloc was "the evil world" to the eyes of the Western bloc. Using the USSR langage was subversive in that way, like they would have succeeded in subliminal subversion of the Western youth, or like the Western youth would have used USSR langage as a teenage rebellion.

Parallel can be made with hard-rock youth of the nineties using hell, devil and all sorts of antechrist references as a kind of Christian culture youth rebellion.

If he had written "A Clockwork Orange" in the nineties, Anthony Burgess would probably have used Arabicized slang instead of Russianized slang. Akseli9 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"drunk American servicemen" was savagely attacked his first wife (ref to interview with the Village Voice [1]); and he wrote this novel for psychological reasons, projecting Americans into Russians??? This projection seems strange to the present. so... Your Arabic slang hypothesis sounds too direct for this author. Halfcookie (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot section

I see no reason for the plot synopsis for a novel of such unexceptional length to be padded out and split up as it is now. The purpose of a plot synopsis is to convey the story's events as concisely as possible – with details restricted to those that serve an active role in advancing the plot – and in an easily navigable format, ideally split into a beginning, middle and end (subsection headings are entirely unnecessary). Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The novel is split into parts, so it's reasonable for the summary to be so as well. I am afraid that this is a very heavy rewrite and is not up-to-scratch in my opinion. Totally rewriting the whole plot without recourse to talk is BOLD indeed but there are several issues with the copy (in my opinion). Could I ask you to propose smaller changes and give your reasons? Please bear in mind that the article is written in UK ENGVAR. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Splitting a synopsis into subsections is only justified if the plot is too long and complex to be navigable otherwise, and even then that's a highly improbable scenario; the uncut edition of The Stand is 1,000+ pages, and the synopsis in its article is still four even and reasonably-sized paragraphs. Seeing how this work is a fraction of that size, subsections are absolutely uncalled for, and three concise paragraphs would suffice. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not subsections due to complexity, it's a summary that reflects the format of the book, which is split into parts. It's also really not that long. My main issue with your edit is that it really doesn't read that well (in my opinion). It leaves out many important details and the prose is not improved. Several discussions concerning much smaller edits than yours have taken place, and a heavy copy edit, which in my opinion didn't improve the article, isn't trimming. I would ask that you propose smaller changes and give your reason(s) for them.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Reflecting the book's format is just superfluous fluff and entirely unnecessary for plot synopses in an encyclopedia. Keeping the synopsis as a series of even paragraphs in a single whole section keeps the page's format consistent with other literature pages on this site. And again, I question the importance of several of the details that've been reinstated, such as the descriptions of the individual droogs, that whole deal with Alexander's manuscript, the crimes that don't have much to do with later events, etc. etc., and your personal opinion on how well the prose reads isn't enough to sway me. A wider consensus will have to be conducted before we reach a conclusion here. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexander's manuscript is titled 'A Clockwork Orange'. An interesting and important insight into his thoughts and an amazing meta-fictional touch. The droogs are quite important in my opinion. And I have been very careful and, dare I say, WP:CIVIL, as regards the criticism your edit, to make clear that it is opinion. I would suggest proposing less wholesale changes for the moment.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The droogs are more important as a collective than as individual characters, and even then only up to their betrayal. A case might be made for the one who joins the police, but he's just part of the wide gaggle of past victims that exact their revenge on Alex up to his arrival at Alexander's. As for the manuscript, as amusingly self-referential as it may be, it's really not that important in the grand scheme of things unless those thoughts of Alexander's conveyed in the manuscript work their direct influence over the plot's proceedings, and no amount of "interesting"s and "amazing"s can fix that. I reiterate that your personal opinion alone won't be enough to salvage the page's current state. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please moot alterations here, as you see fit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)