On the cover of my book they quote William S. Borroughs: "I do not know any other writer who has done as much with language... a very funny book". And he is quite right (at least with the first part).
One of my Russian speaking colleagues was highly amused when I spoke to him in Nadsat.
Because Nadsat is uses standard English grammar, it's even more accessible than Newspeak, my other favorite dystopian language.
burgess wrote at length about this in "rolling stone" back in the day. i kept that particular issue all these years because i think it's an important story. i can't find a copy of it online, though. the story is somewhat covered in the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#Nove...
... which also mentions that american versions of the book after 1986 restore the final chapter.
"That’s what it’s going to be then, brothers, as I come to the like end of this tale. You have been everywhere with your little droog Alex, suffering with him, and you have viddied some of the most grahzny bratchnies old Bog ever made, all on to your old droog Alex. And all it was was that I was young. But now as I end this story, brothers, I am not young, not no longer, oh no.
"Alex like groweth up, oh yes.
"But where I itty now, O my brothers, is all on my oddy knocky, where you cannot go. Tomorrow is all like sweet flowers and the turning vonny earth and the stars and the old Luna up there and your old droog Alex all on his oddy knocky seeking like a mate.
"And all that cal. A terrible grahzny vonny world, really, O my brothers. And so farewell from your little droog. And to all others in this story profound shooms of lip music brrrrrr. And they can kiss my sharries. But you, O my brothers, remember sometimes thy little Alex that was. Amen. And all that cal."
-- The End.
"In Kubrick's opinion — as in the opinion of other readers, including the original American editor — the final chapter was unconvincing and inconsistent with the book."
you are choosing to interpret that series of events differently than i did. i see it like this:
1) kubrick reads the american version of the book.
2) he writes most of the screenplay.
3) somebody tells him about chapter 21. he reads it.
4) kubrick decides that, even if he had originally read the 21-chapter book, he would ignore the final chapter as being unrealistic.
in that version of events, it doesn’t matter if he didn’t know about it beforehand or not, it would not have affected his final screenplay.
Clearly; sometimes people are insufferable though, and I'd rather let them know then carry anything into my actual life.
>you are choosing to interpret that series of events differently than i did. i see it like this: ...
And how does that disagree with my statement that he didn't know there was a last chapter until later? He may have never started the screenplay if he'd read the original since it completely changes the story. It's like Raymond Carver edited by Gordon Lish vs. not.
> The novel told the story of the state's attempt to cure a teenage delinquent.
> The unfinished non-fiction follow-up is described as "part philosophical reflection and part autobiography".
[...]
> the author abandoned the manuscript when he came to realise "he was a novelist and not a philosopher".
Burgess did well. He also wrote '1985', a sort of 'Nineteen Eighty Four' takeoff, but not nearly as powerful.
I read many of his writings, and he was OK for the 20th century, but I'm afraid that 'Clockwork Orange' will be his monument, Kubrick-aided.