Clockwork Orange Feedom Essay, Research Paper
A Clockwork Orange
In the novel, A Clockwork Orange, I feel that Anthony Burgess has tried to show the importance of individual freedom over doing the right thing. However he has taken an extreme example of violence and perverse acts to accent this belief. It is my opinion that Burgess has somehow been blinded to the facts of nature in his quest to ensure personal freedom. The lines of just cause and moral principle have been eliminated.
Personal freedom can be described as acting upon your own accord and not becoming restricted by the social paradigm in which you live. This is definitely a noble cause; all men should have the right to choose the path of their own lives at any period in those lives as they see fit. You may have the right to choose your own actions, but you are not allowed to impose your freedom and thoughts on others. This is the point at which I think Burgess? supposed view becomes hypocritical. Alex has forced himself into the personal freedom of others, mainly his three droogs, and by doing so is no better than the state, which rehabilitated him at the end of the novel. If one imposes himself on the personal freedom of another in a rather violent manner, a reaction will occur and one can be assure that that response will not be one of logic.
If a rabid animal wanders around your neighborhood, do you let it continue to do so? The animal as you once knew it might have been, by all means an affectionate creature by always playing with the children and never once threatened the grumpy man next door, but what if today it threatens the lives of everyone in your community. What do you do with it now? The animal?s life would be naturally ended and it is freed from its disease. Alex is sick much like a rabid animal, he is perverse and though it may not be his fault, much like it was not the animal?s fault of becoming rabid, his threat on others has to be neutralized to ensure the safety of others. Alex was a demon that preyed on the meek and innocent; those of which were seeking nothing but peace. I know by personal experience that animals in a position that could harm others should be dealt with. In most cases you may be doing the subject a favour and putting it out of the misery that it now endures.
I question the actual freedom Alex believes he has. He seems to be oppressed by his emotional disease and perverseness. Alex is a slave to his supposed freedom, which is dictated by the feelings of the other people whose freedom he threatened. By choosing the path he did; Alex also must accept the consequences along with it; whether he wants them or not. A parallel to this is written in part two, chapter 3. ?This is not a reward. This is far from being a reward. Now, there is a form here to be signed. It says that you are willing to have the residue of your sentence commuted to submission to what is called here, ridiculous expression, Reclamation Treatment. Will you sign?? ?Most certainly I will sign? p.70-71
Alex is so quick to agree, because he sees the chance for his freedom to be redeemed; and is blinded by the acts that are present in his path to the freedom he seeks. The warden warns him that this is not a gift being handed to him, but instead perhaps a curse. Alex accepts this consequence much like he must accept the consequences set upon him by society for the lifestyle he chooses to live.
So as Anthony Burgess has been blinded to the facts of nature in his search to ensure personal freedom, so has Alex in the search for his. They are both heading for a long rough road and this road is unpredictable. Full with puddles to slow you and sinks holes to stop you. As mentioned in the short story Saturday Climbing, ?Extremism begets extremism.? Meaning to me that the extreme means in which the novel was written, leads to the extreme means in which the novel is unfolded and the development of the monster Alex.
Personal note: do you know if this, Anthony Burgess was a mad man?