Anthony Burgess on the message of A Clockwork Orange

The current volume of The New Yorker is the "Science Fiction issue." In it, a previously unpublished 1973 essay by Anthony Burgess about his novel, A Clockwork Orange.

In “The Clockwork Condition” (p. 69), an essay written in 1973 but never published, Anthony Burgess reflects on the “true meaning” of his most famous novel, A Clockwork Orange. In addition to commenting on the inspiration for the work, and its main character, Alex, Burgess offers an argument about the nature of good and evil and the necessity of free will, as seen through the prisms of Nazi Germany and the Resistance, Catholicism and Calvinism. “We probably have no duty to like Beethoven or hate Coca-Cola, but it is at least conceivable that we have a duty to distrust the state,” Burgess writes. Conformity is natural, and perhaps preferable for many people, he explains, but “when patterns of conformity are imposed by the state, then one has a right to be frightened.” Ultimately, he writes of A Clockwork Orange, “what I was trying to say was that it is better to be bad of one’s own free will than to be good through scientific brainwashing.”

The Clockwork Condition

Mark Frauenfelder is the founder of Boing Boing and the editor-in-chief of MAKE and Cool Tools. Twitter: @frauenfelder. Come and hear Mark speak at the ALA conference in Chicago on July 1.

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

ChicagoD

I feel like it’s probably better for the Little Alex to be bad of his own free will, but probably worse for his victims.

Also, Anthony Burgess is not Burgess Meredith, in case I am the only one who had to look this up.
- Rich Keller
  
  Now I’m imagining Burgess Meredith as his character in “Rocky” as Alex…
  - ymendel
    
    …or the Penguin undergoing the Ludovico technique?
- http://www.xradiograph.com/ OtherMichael
  
  Also, Anthony Burgess is not Piers Anthony, who is not Anthony Daniels, who is not Jack Daniels, who is not Jack Nicholson, who is not Nicholson Baker.
  
  I hope that clears this up.
  - ChicagoD
    
    Perfectly. Thank you, Michael.
    
    Oh wait, you’re OtherMichael? Not Lorne Michaels?
    - awjt
      
      Are you related to Heavy D or Kool Moe?
      - ChicagoD
        
        They’re (or were) brothers.
        
        So to speak.
    - http://www.xradiograph.com/ OtherMichael
      
      I’m still having a hard time envisioning a world where “Burgess Meredith” and “Anthony Burgess” are confusingly similar.
      
      I suppose it’s the large role Meredith played in bringing “Clockwork” to Broadway, after his success with “Ulysses in Nighttown” and “The Wake.” I must say, though, that Zero Mostel singing in NadSat remains a mind-blower.
yri

Not to detract from the brilliance of A Clockwork Orange, but I think The Wanting Seed is also definitely worth a read, and gives a very interesting perspective on the unfolding of history since its publication in 1962.
Ipo

“We probably have no duty to like Beethoven or hate Coca-Cola, but it is at least conceivable that we have a duty to distrust the state,”

More than just conceivable, it should be obvious.
Looking at history, it’s our duty to distrust any and all powers, and lead them on a short reign.
Not doing so has never worked out in the long run.

If everybody voted we’d have enough clout to do so, even with the dumb and the bad voting against their own and all our interest.
- Wreckrob8
  
  I think at the time of writing many people were much less ready to question the state and its authority. Today it seems obvious, then not necessarily so. But isn’t that why fewer people feel engaged in the electoral process? You cannot have mistrust in the state and full participation in its institutions.
- robuluz
  
  Everybody votes in Australia and its no better.
  
  Oh, hang on, its heaps better. But still shit.
  - Wreckrob8
    
    Aussies are legally required by the state to vote. How is that ‘heaps’ better?
    - robuluz
      
      Its heaps better in Australia because we were barely able to form government at the last election, the ruling labor party is rife with scandle and has no confidence in the prime minister, and is only just capable of passing legislation.
      
      That should give you some idea of where I rate the political status in the US.
      
      I understand that from an American perspective we’re overgoverned. I saw the debate over health care in your country. I can live with your condescension.
      - zarray
        
        I find your countries’ love of censorship (books, video games, internet) to be amusing.
      - robuluz
        
        @zarray:disqus What, are you like a Bond villian or something?
- benher
  
  Yeah, “should” be obvious. 1984′s message “should” have been obvious too… now it’s a policy bible for the state.
gmpierce

The book has to speak for itself because even now Anthony Burgess cannot seem to explain what he was trying to say in twenty-five words or less.

In a way, what he is saying is that there is something fundamentally wrong in turning a man into a thing. The meaning is very simply expressed in the words of the title. Who is it wrong FOR – everyone.
- http://newnumber6.livejournal.com Peter
  
  I think “even now”, Anthony Burgess also cannot seem to explain what he was trying to say in MORE than twenty-five words.
- dragonfrog
  
  If the idea of the book could be expressed in twenty five words or less, there wouldn’t be much point in reading it.
  
  If you won’t think about anything not expressible in a tweet or a bumper sticker, that’s your own thing.
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=709453064 David Nordahl
    
    Maybe not 25 words or less, but 10 minute TED talk maybe.
- Jeremy Mesiano-Crookston
  
  what I was trying to say was that it is better to be bad of one’s own free will than to be good through scientific brainwashing
  
  That’s 26 words for Burgess
  
  In a way, what he is saying is that there is something fundamentally wrong in turning a man into a thing. The meaning is very simply expressed in the words of the title. Who is it wrong FOR – everyone.
  
  That’s 40 words for you, Kemosabe.
  
  Also, Burgess is also up on the scorecard by “1 world-changing book”. So I think he wins this round hands down. If you really want a win against him, you could probably dig him up and armwrestle him. I think when it comes to writing things, Burgess will beat you for the rest of your life.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Erik-Walton/1021214463 Erik Walton

Looks like you have to subscribe to read the entire article. Shameless tease there guys… :/
- Michael Ellis Day
  
  Or just buy a printed copy of the issue.
Jonathan Badger

Of course believing that ”it is better to be bad of one’s own free will than to be good through scientific brainwashing” implies that there is something than can be called objectively “free will”. Given that our actions are a result of our genes and our experiences (which is more important can be debated), neither of which are really under our own control, it isn’t clear if “free will” has any real meaning.
- ChicagoD
  
  “Given that . . .” Uh huh. Not sure I’m willing to concede this just yet. Got any links or anything?
  - Jonathan Badger
    
    Presumably you accept that your actions are the result of your brain telling your muscles to do things. There’s a whole science of neurobiology that deals with understanding why and when those neurons in the brain fire. Like any other cell, there is a genetic component, but the way they are connected to each other and to our sense organs means that outside experience can also play a role and that information can be stored (memories). This is Biology 101 here. Unless you want to postulate that the brain isn’t the source of our actions, it’s not clear what the alternative is.
    - Wreckrob8
      
      It all depends on the type of connections your brain makes early in life. God is the interference in the universe which disturbs possible natural neural connections. Free will is a psychological problem (a problem of mind) which only becomes meaningful at the end of an evolutionary process – it is actually a problem of physical sexual function.
    - ChicagoD
      
      So, no links?
      
      So, the brain triggers the actions, and it is made up of cells, and cells have DNA, and “outside experience can also play a role” means there is no free will? I don’t think we are defining free will the same way. Which is fine, but not worth typing a bunch of stuff the mods will just delete later anyway.
      - thecleaninglady
        
        A possible line of questioning free will is: look at what preceded the action. For example if it is a thought, did you cause that thought? Did you say to yourself: at 5pm today I will have the thought “I should get some coffee.” Looking at a specific example, look for what preceded the thought. And then what preceded that etc. See what you find out.
        
        Also, do you act upon every single thought that happens to cross your mind? What other components are involved? What precedes them?Not arguing it is one way or another, just introducing another viewpoint, and reminding you that investigation is possible.
      - robuluz
        
        No, look, forget about the low level mechanics. Everything you know about everything presupposes that all events are caused by antecendant events. It doesn’t matter if the cause is neurological or mischeivous angels. What matters is that it is pretty much impossible to imagine any system without causality, and when we do events dissolve into randomness.
        
        So from the perspective of determinism it seems like free will is an illusion.
    - thecleaninglady
      
      This is more of a How than a Why.
      
      But what happens before the appearance of the nerve impulses that make the meat twitch? If you say nothing, then I invite you to look further.
- Dv Revolutionary
  
  “Scientific brainwashing” for everyone then!
  
  Just kidding obviously. However have you ever seen someone trained to work for a reward – say simple praise? It may be pavlovian but it’s not too bad. Trained to fear punishment, it’s awful.
  
  The most disturbing part of the book besides the fact that Alex of the book raped two 12-year-old girls from the recordstore was the final chapter where Alex grew up, became a somewhat respectable adult with a job and a fiance! Regardless of if he was brainwashed at the Ludivigo center he was a biological clockwork machine programed to outgrow his rebellious criminal phase. That was disturbing.
  
  It may misidentify how we outgrow criminality but it presented the cold truth that there is a surprising lack of justice in the world and that lack of justice might not mater.
  - thecleaninglady
    
    Incentive by reward = incentive by fear of not getting the reward.
    
    Punishment and rewards are terrible ways to enslave people and train them out of their intrinsic motivation. See Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn on how destructive this is to human beings and especially children.
    
    And yes, it is the norm.
- Gatto
  
  human decision making is incredibly complex. there are *so* many factors that shape us, and guide us, and that we in turn shape and guide, that even if someday we’re able to prove “free will” does not “technically” not exist, the term, and all it implies, seems to be close enough.
  
  the concept of the “turning test” for AI works with us too: if you can’t tell the difference, how can it matter?
- thecleaninglady
  
  While I agree with the possibility that free will may not be what we think it to be, I would be interested to see how individual genes map to individual actions. In my experience thoughts, emotions and intentions often precede actions and I am yet to meet someone who can guess their next thought for example.
- AnthonyC
  
  The question to ask is, what do you want from your free will?
  
  For me, I want to make choices for reasons. The reasons are 1) the current structure of my mind and body as caused by previous choices and events, and 2) current sensory inputs. If past influences had been different, it is not so much that you would make a different decision, more that it would not be you making the decision. It would be someone else who, in the space of all possible persons, is relatively similar to you.
  
  If this bothers you, or you refuse to call it free will, that is unfortunate, because it sounds like the thing you think you want isn’t possible even in principle. You exist within physics- the underlying rules of the universe, even if they include randomness, determine the actions of every bit of matter in your body, thus you. Even if you include “supernatural” interventions that act on whole complex entities like your mind, those too must be based on a rule or else be random.
Teller

ChiD raises a good point. Exercising your free will to dispose of someone else’s is usually considered a criminal act. Compared to eliminating the offender’s free will through brainwashing, restricting their free movement is a preferable action.
- thecleaninglady
  
  You may be interested in this amazing lecture by linguistics professor George Lakoff on how language is being used for framing our political and other choices (and I would call this brainwashing).
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
  - Teller
    
    Good speech. I can think of a few framings we hear all the time: “Climate Denialist”, “Pro Life”, “Pro Choice”, “Homophobic”, “Human Rights.” Burgess frames his point with “Free Will”, which has meaning for some, none for others. Thanks for link.
http://echofox3.blogspot.com efergus3

“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” E.M. Forster
jhavatar

If you plan on reading the book, I made a NadsatEnglish dictionary app (“Nadsat for Gloopies”) when I recently read it for the first time on my Android e-reader.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jhavatar.nadsat
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jose-Garcia/522427015 Jose Garcia

I see the Clockwork Orange as a very reactionary straw man argument against the Welfare State. One of the implicit assumptions of the book is that the introduction of a social safety net would turn the lower classes into violent savages. This was a popular notion at the time the book was written. Nowadays people don’t take such notions seriously outside of the very far right.

From that very paranoid premise Burgess ramps it up to it’s most absurd extreme. Some people might find that an enjoyable ride but I didn’t.

History has proven Burgess’s paranoia wrong and the novel doesn’t have much merit other than opening a window into reactionary paranoia of it’s time.

As to Burgess explaining what his novel was about I thought books were supposed to speak for themselves.
- retchdog
  
  yeah, pretty much… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_(Anthony_Burgess_novel)
Virgil22

Gutted that nobody thought to mention the early 90s classic mountain bike by Orange (a bike building co from the lake district) known as the clockwork. A fine bike if ever there was one.

Anyway, back on topic, great book, shit movie, ’nuff said
- Dv Revolutionary
  
  Your calling a Kubrick movie shit? Seriously? Are you just being trite? Are you trying to make up something on topic? Are you trolling me?
  
  The movie may be cold, strange, sharp, alienating, beautiful, bizarre, precise, it’s anything but shit.
UrbanUndead

Oooo, Daniel Clowes on the cover of the NYer!
Roy Trumbull

His real name was John Burgess Wilson (1917-1993). The first volume of his autobiography was “Little Wilson and Big God”. Apparently Kubrick left him high and dry to do the talk show circuit after the movie came out.