FREE WILL OR DIE

There is this over arching theme in Burgess's novel. Freewill versus conformity. SPOILER ALERT!!!! In the end, Alex decides to live a complete adult life. Yes, he was brainwashed (Ludvico Technique) into believing that violent or wrong action is associated with sickness. Now the question is, was the experiment he went through the cause of his final decision? I don't think so. Shortly after Alex was released from prison he tried to kill himself, but failed. He jumped out of his 18th floor window and survived. He did this because he couldn't bring himself to do the things that he wanted to do. He wanted to rape, assault, steal, kill. He couldn't do it. It was a moral issue. After prison he went from an amoral punk to a proper abiding citizen. While in the hospital he had dreams of doing the same old thing. Being bad. He also had dreams of settling down, having a child, a wife. Why not? The question he asked hiself in the beginning of Part 3 finally has meaning. It was a choice he was asking himself to make. Should he go back to the same old drill? Or should he clean himself up and see the greater things in life? He chose the lighter path. It was his choice. It was not the government's choice. Maybe the experiments influenced Alex to open his mind, but in the end Alex chose to say farewell to a life of destruction and evil. It was him and no one else. The book shows the reader that among a broken world, people can make choices for themselves, and that choices of freewill are not always going to be immoral. It's your choice.

NADSAT

NADSAT: a very annoying language. For a good part of this book I felt distanced from the characters' world as a result of the language barrier. Basically, NADSAT is a form of English influenced by Soviet Russian and old English dialects. The funny thing was that every key word that was said was a NADSAT word. These key words would reappear in different contexts and further describe their meaning. I have to admit that struggling to decipher these words was fun, putting possible definitions behind them until finally the right context clue would define it fully. Many of the people in my group said that the language made the book a faster read. That was the opposite for me. My erading for this book was almost like a weird traffic pattern. I'd speed up as long as a NADSAT word wasn't used, but then sooner than not, a word would show up and all of the sudden there was bumper-to-bumper traffic, out the middle of no where. Frustrating but fun. If that makes any sense. So overall, by the end of the book, I knew what each word meant, a few common ones were viddy meaning to see, appy polly loggy meaning appologies, litso meaning face, slooshy meaning to hear. Very peculiar language it is.

No, really, what's it going to be then?

This time Alex delivers this quote, it doesn’t really make sense. Because of the Ludovico Technique Alex is not allowed to make choices anymore. Since he loses this power to make meaningful choices, he also looses his identity as a human. Thus, the tables have turned. Once upon a time, Alex would use his droogs as schemes for power, now Alex himself had been utilized as a scheme for power. The Ludovico Technique is a system of psychological confusion. It associates bad behavior with sickness and nausea. After going through the experiment, Alex is unable to do the things he loves and making meaningful decisions. Therefore, Alex is in no place to ask this question. In fact, I am confused as to how he is able to ask this question. He has been stripped of all ability to choose freely but he is still able to ask this question. Maybe it is still like the saying. Maybe the city is still inside Alex. But, this time the city is under tighter wraps. This Technique surely changed Alex, and maybe for the better. By the very end of the story, Alex says farewell to the life he’d lived as an adolescent. Alex now continues, this an ending to soothe the faint hearted, and leaves the life he’d been living. He dreams of a life of commitment and love and settlement. He dreams of a child, a wife, and a life. This goes to show the world that, in the words of John Lock, people are generally good. No matter how bad someone is, there is a hint of goodness, and once that goodness takes over life is beautiful.

What's it going to be then, again?

This is the start of the second part. It also signifies a power shift. This is because Alex is in no position to ask this question. He just killed a woman and was abandoned by his fellow droogs. He is under the administration of the law now. Alex, being the livewire that he is, is locked up in a prison. The opposites are attracted and Alex is pretty much doomed. But the fact that he is able to pull out those words and deliver them again shows that his freedom of choice is still alive and that he might as well be executed because, it is like the saying: “you can take the man out of the city, but you can’t take the city out of the man.” This goes for Alex, you can lock Alex up, taking him out of a world where he can do, think, and act as he desires, but you can’t take that lifestyle out of Alex. Like the saying, Alex might be locked up, but if he were to serve his time and be released then he’d be back at the same old game in no time at all. Alex, now that he’s locked up, wants sullies his old lifestyle with an infatuation with God and the bible. He found pleasure in seeing himself as a Roman guard, whipping Jesus as he carried the cross. Sick. He also kills a man. One of the men in his own cell, he kills him. Under the jurisdiction of the government, Alex would continue on his path of mayhem and destruction, destroying a life. This is sort of ironic. He himself has had his life destroyed by being held prisoner, but he still manages to end another’s life. His incapacity to change, to become well is overpowered by his love of the fight, disobedience, and freedom of choice. That is, until he is administered to experiment the Ludovico Technique.

"What's it going to be then, eh?"

This quote starts each part of the book. It’s very interesting, actually. This quote is like a make believe introduction by the main character, Alex. It’s his way of saying, ‘okay, well, let me get started.’ Burgess isn’t completely invisible, however. The first time it is said, the quote brings the reader into Alex’s world. It’s this world of independence, free-spiritedness, anarchy, and absolute dismissal of all rules. Alex’s character is almost schizophrenic. At one moment he’ll be beating the crap out of an old drunkard, and at the next, he’ll snap at one of his droogies for being rude to the opera singer at the Korova (the milk bar that they frequent, drug and alcohol laced milk is served there). The quote brings the reader into Alex’s mind. He is the narrator of the story, a very strong voice in the first part. The second and third signify power shifts. The quote highlights Alex’s nonchalance towards life’s structure. Alex is consistently surrounded by a lack of authority (the only authority he knows is his own) shown by the broken down political and governmental structure of his home. The city where he lives could easily be associated with the gunk that gets stuck underneath your toenails.
Finally, the quote does a few more things. First, it highlights some of the major over arching themes and motifs: one being the sacredness of moral choice and two being the need for commitment. If only the two themes could walk hand in hand for Alex’s mind. Secondly, it guides the reader into Alex's world. Third, it shows you who Alex is. This is the question that Alex is continually asking himself. Perhaps he is bored. What's it going to be then? Rape? Assault? Theft? The world is Alex's playground.