Burgess wrote A Clockwork Orange in three parts, each with seven chapters. When the book first came out in the US, however, the last chapter was cut until a later edition was published. The version we read included the last chapter, and I can't decide which one would have been a better ending. The last chapter was interesting, but it almost gave too much closure. Alex has his mind and compulsions back, he has new friends, and he's thinking of his future; it landed with a thunk right back where it started. However, it added to the cyclical nature of the book, and it developed Alex a little more. The end of the second to last chapter is more open, and I really liked the last paragraph. I felt like it had more impact than the last chapter did. I like the idea of ending with "I was cured all right." There is something liberating to the reader, and, even though you know Alex is just going to go be violent again, the reader isn’t forced to encounter that fact without the last chapter, although that might be part of Burgess’s point. It’s hopeful and almost cheerful. The last chapter might work better as an epilogue, so it’s still there, but it doesn’t feel as much part of the story. Even as it is, it seems a little tacked on. I like the ending of the 20th chapter, but I wouldn’t want to change any meaning that Burgess wanted with the 21st. The book was also written as three parts of seven chapters each, and I wouldn’t want to mess up the evenness of that either. It would be better if the changes in the last part of the book were less abrupt; everything felt really sudden, whereas the beginning of the book felt a lot more smooth and well-paced. Burgess said in his introduction that the last chapter is for Alex to grow up, and it shows that violence is juvenile, but I didn’t find that it showed that very well, and the concept seems too optimistic, especially given the rest of the book.
I similarly had mixed feelings about the books's ending. In the end of the 20th chapter, you realize first subtly and then obviously that Alex’s brainwashing has been reversed. The final line "I was cured all right" is very ominous, since the “cure” represents a return to violence and criminality. At the same time, it has some ambiguity; maybe it is a cure, since it returned him to a natural state of free will. Even so, ending with Chapter 20 would leave the reader with the sinking feeling that nothing could be done to stop evil people, though at the same time perhaps Stephanie is right and the strength of human free will could produce a positive emotional reaction.
ReplyDeleteChapter 21 brings Alex back to the streets in an echo of the first chapter with an almost line for line repetition, but reveals that in the two years since his release he has begun to have doubts. He starts to question his life of droogery, and finally he realizes that he wants to settle down and become a father. This radical change is a little bit unbelievable, but the other problem is its the message. I feel like ending the book with Alex realizing the error of his ways and optimistically deciding to reform himself is a little too positive. It seems to dismiss the incredible horrendousness of his crimes in the past, including serial rape and assault as well as murder. Ending the book with Alex deciding not to do that anymore implies that it is normal or kid stuff, and as such that it is not very serious. It seems very dangerous to send that type of message, even if it wasn’t Burgess’s intention.
I preferred the book ending with the 20th chapter, because I felt that it portrayed a clearer message. While Burgess may have not intended it, the 20th chapter seems to make a stronger statement about the effect of government on the individual. Alex's "cure" was not one of free-will, necessarily, and thus there is again someone or something else dictating his actions. It is a disheartening ending, but seems realistic given Alex's journey over the course of the book.
ReplyDeleteThe 21st chapter seems unbelievable and necessary for a conclusion. Burgess wanted the 21 chapters to show a coming of age, but the evolution from the 20th to the 21st chapter seems forced and strange. Alex's ambivalence towards his life of ultra-violence gives a bizarre message of hope and reform to the reader, although I agree with Samantha that the nonchalance is a little concerning. I can understand Burgess's desire to show an evolved and mature protagonist by the end of the novel - a character that has realized his flaws and has moved on. Had it been more fully developed, I could understand and believe Alex's development.
You're right, Stephanie, that it does seem "tacked-on," as though Burgess wants to reassure the reader that Alex does, in fact, grow out of his behavior. But then, there's the impression that his "behavior" is merely undesirable rather than harmful and frightening.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I dislike the last chapter. In my most humble opinion, it trivializes all Alex did before by saying "I would not really be able to stop him... And so it would like itty on to like the end of the world" (191). Alex even says that his son my kill some "starry forella" as well (191). Maybe Burgess is only trying to say that youths are violent and always will be. I can agree with that, sort of. But Alex was dangerous to the people around him, and saying or even just implying that that's just youth is obscene. Though, now that I think about it, there really is no satisfying way to end the book. If it had just ended with him being cured that would have sent the message that having the choice to be good for one individual is more valuable than the safety of others. If the book had ended when he committed suicide, that would have told us that the state has the right to force people to be good. Its just a terrible situation, maybe he should just not have written the book.
ReplyDelete