New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 14, 2005

Tim Cavanaugh hits the banlieus for a little of the old ultraviolence.

Comments

|11.14.05 @ 11:01PM|#

Got Moloko?

|11.14.05 @ 11:19PM|#

so one wonders what mr cavanaugh would do to solve these problems. if the root cause is non-starving unemployed youth, would it be solved by cutting off aid? you think the riots are bad now, just wait till they actually are starving. and how is the government supposed to make sure an arabic name is not a barrier to employment -- anti-discrimination laws?

mr cavanaugh, you and your libertarian ilk might as well put up the white flag and admit that governance which treats the individual as supreme cannot handle situations like this. where a society takes the form of a random collection of individuals, instead of a community which recognizes and indeed cherishes its shared traditions, chaos is the ultimate result.

we in the us have thus far been lucky to avoid paying the devil his due; we are still coasting on the momentum given us by the shared traditional american culture which fades away more every year. soon will come the day when the reality of modern america is laid bare: all that we americans have in common is that we each live by our own law, and care nothing for each other beyond utility.

|11.14.05 @ 11:27PM|#

Well, if the muslim droogies hadn't been giving the old in-out real fierce to their women, we wouldn't have had to viddy this happen, would we?

Sandy|11.14.05 @ 11:30PM|#

So will they be eating bifstekiwakies and oeufiwoefies?

I would note Jane Galt's take which was basically, "Smashing stuff is cool, and this was all the rage." I think there's something to it, in the sense that the initial outrage gave a sort of social signal that "it's OK to smash stuff". Perhaps the initial feelings of outrage sparked the riot, but I think afterwards it became about getting away with what you could get away with.

|11.14.05 @ 11:41PM|#

I'm siiiiiiiiingin' in the rain (kick).

Warren|11.15.05 @ 12:07AM|#

Bravo Tim! A Clockwork Orange is my favorite movie of all time. I largely give the credit to Kubrick. However you are absolutely spot on in declaring "the book is worth reading for the unsettling experience of being locked into nadsat for nearly 200 pages." Both the book and the movie are each a masterpiece. Alas I am unfamiliar with Burgess' larger work you describe. I'll add a few titles to my amazon wish list.

I have no idea if your analysis of the current troubles besieging the streets of France holds water. I do however, welcome such a poignant exposition of Alex and his droogs.

|11.15.05 @ 1:55AM|#

Burgess's novel M/F is the one instance in The History Of All The Art Ever where a "twist" ending isn't stupid.

Make sure it's on your list (though it's usually out of print, because it's very odd and unpopular).

Another Tim Completely|11.15.05 @ 2:35AM|#

Tim, Burgess' novel is precisely the right fit for the situation there in France. Astute. And going beyond that, let me say, I have nothing but admiration for how you consistently find ways to work James Joyce into your pieces.

As far as biggus' criticism goes, well, I don't think they've invented the government yet that doesn't have some group riot, somewhere. But the less-stated flipside of the libertarian coin-- rigorous punishment for anyone who violates the rights of others (say, by burning their car)-- that's a better way of putting down a riot than trying to engage it in a 'dialogue,' definitely.

A chaotic and disconnected populace might indeed be the recipe for societal disintegration, but that still doesn't make culture the job of the State. Libertarianism affords the maximum opportunity for individuals to create and maintain their own authentic social networks. If some of those networks actively menace the others, they can be treated (as far as the State is concerned) like a human immune system treats a viral outbreak.

And just as one last thing: it's harder to riot when you have work in the morning.

|11.15.05 @ 7:57AM|#

A Clockwork Orange is known primarily through Stanley Kubrick's remarkably faithful film adaptation

Burgess wouldn't agree, being pissed that Kubrick didn't film his final chapter, which IMO would have been anti-climactic for a film (I prefer its current ending). I think he was also a bit pissed that he's best remembered for this and not much else (much like Alec Guinness being known by millions only for his role as Obi-Wan).

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 8:06AM|#

Brett,

I was always think of Bridge Over the River Kwai and his role as Col. Nicholson.

MP|11.15.05 @ 8:17AM|#

mr cavanaugh, you and your libertarian ilk might as well put up the white flag and admit that governance which treats the individual as supreme cannot handle situations like this.

Oh poo on that. It's the economy, stupid!

|11.15.05 @ 8:33AM|#

"governance which treats the individual as supreme"

... an oxymoron

|11.15.05 @ 9:37AM|#

Mama Weer All Crazee Now

|11.15.05 @ 9:39AM|#

Brett,

I've also read that Burgess only wrote that last chapter after being pressured into it by the publisher.

|11.15.05 @ 9:43AM|#

Hak - Agreed. But I still doubt that most from my generation (mid-30s) or younger have ever seen that film, and half of those who have probably don't even realize it's the same actor.

I've also heard contradictory statements on if and how much he hated his Star Wars involvement.

Russ - Interesting, I don't rememember ever hearing that. It's been a long time, but I don't remember it in the foreward that Burgess wrote for a version of the book I had, which discussed the movie.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 9:48AM|#

Brett,

There are many statements attributed to him re: his hatred of Star Wars. Whether he really said them I can neither confirm nor deny.

|11.15.05 @ 9:50AM|#

Russ-

I always heard it the other way: the publisher wanted him to drop the last chapter to make the novel more shocking.

|11.15.05 @ 9:53AM|#

I like "Nothing Like the Sun" a lot too-- for those of you who want to read more Burgess. It's about Shakespeare and his love life-- with, naturellement, the original elizabethan dialect intact. "The Wanting Seed" is cool too.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 9:58AM|#

Brett,

Of course, when I think of Richard Harris I don't think of Harry Potter, I think of "A Man Called Horse" and "The Molly Maguires."

|11.15.05 @ 10:10AM|#

Hak - I think of Orca.

;-)

Jesse Walker|11.15.05 @ 10:16AM|#

For some reason the final chapter was originally left out of the American edition of the book. I've heard that Kubrick wasn't familiar with the full version, and that that's why the movie ends when it does, but I'm not sure if that's accurate.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Brett,

If I were a theist I'd tell you to rot in hell. As it is, I'll just kick you in your cyber-nuts. :)

Harris had a pretty shitty time of it through much of the 1970s and 1980s. Lots of bad scripts, etc.

fyodor|11.15.05 @ 10:27AM|#

Somehow I don't think Burgess being remembered only for A Clockwork Orange is like Guinnes only being remembered for being Obi-Wan. I'd say it's more like David Selznik being remembered only for Gone With the Wind. The difference? Obi-Wan was not representative of Guiness's career, rather just something he did as part of something that turned out to be real popular. A Clockwork Orange, like Gone With the Wind, was a major and representative achievement. Either was worth being remembered for. The only problem in either case was being remembered only for it. Artists just get real hung up on being pigeonholed.

fyodor|11.15.05 @ 10:30AM|#

Re Jessie's post, I wonder if I read the American edition cause I don't remember the book ending any differently than the movie. I read the book first and then saw the movie, both close to 30 years ago. That's a long time, but if I'd been surprised at something being left out at the end after such a faithful adaptation, I think I woulda remembered that.

|11.15.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Artists just get real hung up on being pigeonholed.

The funny thing is, 99.99% don't get remembered for anything at all.

|11.15.05 @ 10:40AM|#

fyodor - Fair enough. Quotes I've heard from both seem quite similar, at least in their bitterness for what the majority remembers them for.

If interested, a summary of the 21st chapter can be found here.

|11.15.05 @ 10:49AM|#

Burgess's A Clockwork Testament (I think) is about an author who's serious and thoughtful book is perverted into an exploitative and nigh-pornographic blockbuster film, and who is reviled for much of the book by feminists on the left and prudes on the right who've never actually read the novel upon which the film was based.

|11.15.05 @ 10:52AM|#

Oh, and some droog, it should be "real horrorshow" not "real fierce".

Just trying to help, not trying to be a pain in the gulliver.

|11.15.05 @ 11:08AM|#

SPOILER REQUEST Re: Clockwork

My dim recollection is that the final line of the novel was "I was cured all right" or similar and that is the way the movie ends, another dim recollection.

What does happen at the end? (I dont mind spoilers but others may.)

|11.15.05 @ 11:10AM|#

Never mind, thank you, Brett.

Viking Moose|11.15.05 @ 11:21AM|#

Hak, buddy: "cyber nuts"

paging Herrik! Herrik!!!! wo bist Du?

|11.15.05 @ 11:28AM|#

MINOR SPOILER AHEAD

Basically, they had to undo the Ludovico procedure because of the side effects, and the Interior Minister set Alex up with a cushy job. There was a danger that the minster's govt might be voted out over the scandal, and Alex's part of the deal was to be available for photo-ops to show everything was righty-right.

nmg|11.15.05 @ 12:19PM|#

you and your libertarian ilk might as well put up the white flag and admit that governance which treats the individual as supreme cannot handle situations like this.

Ummm... ironically, this is the situation BEST handled in a pure anarcho-capitalist utopia setup.

The private security firm, whose services I subscribe to, simply shows up to honor their contract, namely bust a few heads and send the rioters packing. Problem solved.

nmg

Tim Cavanaugh|11.15.05 @ 2:13PM|#

My dim recollection is that the final line of the novel was "I was cured all right" or similar and that is the way the movie ends, another dim recollection.

What does happen at the end? (I dont mind spoilers but others may.)

In the original edition, "I was cured all right" is the last line of the penultimate chapter. There's another chapter after that detailing Alex's rehabilitation. He has a new group of droogs and has become the gang's grey eminence, but through a few clumsy, obvious details--he now wants to drink tea instead of Milk Plus and carries around a picture of a baby he cut out of a magazine--it's established that he wants to leave his wild youth behind. Eventually, he walks out of the Duke of New York, meets up with his old droog Pete, who is now married and working, and decides he wants to settle down and have a son.

It's a very weak chapter that mars the book, but by Burgess' own account in both the preface to a 1986 complete U.S. edition and his own memoirs, that's the way he originally wrote it and saw it into print in the United KIngdom. If anything, his publishers pressured him to drop the final chapter, which he agreed to do for the original U.S. edition. That's the version Kubrick read and made into a movie, which is a good thing, IMO. When I call the Kubrick movie "remarkably faithful," I mean it stuck very closely to the plot, dialogue, descriptions-much more closely than is normal for a movie adaptation. Burgess would obviously contend that it's not faithful because it cuts the last episode.

FWIW, Burgess makes two arguments in favor of the complete edition: 1. The book is an argument in favor of free will, so Alex has to be seen choosing to do the right thing of his own volition. 2. A novel has to show the protagonist undergoing some change; otherwise it's just a fable. I don't find either argument persuasive in this case (though both may be true in general), but he's the author.

fyodor|11.15.05 @ 6:13PM|#

That last chapter sounds like a milquetoast letdown--yet true to real life!!

|11.16.05 @ 9:20AM|#

Since you say Islamo-fascist in your article, by your definition isn't there a 99% chance that you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh well, at least it's not 100.