This novel, published in 1962, technically falls after the period deemed as ‘Modernism’, yet it embodies all of the features that were characteristic of that literary era.  Burgess’s novel is a futuristic look at a Totalitarian government.  The main character (or anti-hero) is Alex, who is an ‘ultra-violent’ thief who has no qualms about using force to get the ‘in-out-in-out’.  The beginning of the story takes   us through a night in the life of Alex and his Droogs, and details the adventures that occupy their time.  At fifteen years old Alex is set up by his Droogs (Pete, Dim, and Georgie) and was sent to jail and convicted of murder.  At the Staja ( the State Penitentiary) he became 6655321 and spent two years (in a sentence of fourteen) there.  Alex is chosen by the government to undergo an experimental new ‘Ludvico’s Technique’, administered by Dr. Brodsky, that was to ‘cure’ him of all that was bad   (Reclamation Therapy).  Alex is given injections and made to watch films of rape and violence and the mixture of these images and the drug cause him to associate feelings of panic and nausea with violence.  He is released after a fortnight       ( two weeks) of treatment and after a few encounters with past victims finds himself at the HOME of a  radical writer (who ironically had also been a victim of Alex’s, but does not recognize him) who is strongly opposed to the new treatment the government has subjected him to.  This writer (F. Alexander) believes that this method robs the recipient of freedom of choice and moral decision – therefore depriving him of being human at all (a clockwork orange).  Alex eventually attempts suicide and the State is forced to admit that the therapy was a mistake and ‘cures’ him again.  The last chapter of the novel (which was omitted from the ‘American version’ and Stanley Kubrick’s film) shows Alex’s realization that he is growing up and out of his ultra-violent ways on his own.  He realizes that he wants a wife and son of his own.

A Clockwork Orange abandons normal ‘language’ (which Modernists believed couldn’t always convey meaning anyway) and
is written in ‘Nadsat’ ( which means teenager).  It is a slang that is spoken by the teenagers at the time.  Burgess  uses
approximately two-hundred and fifty ‘nadsat’ words (most of which have Russian roots) to convey his story.  This gives the
reader a sense of intimacy with Alex and his ‘droogs’ (friends) due to the fact that the adults in the novel can’t understand what
they are govoreeting (saying).   There is also a disruption of the linear flow of narrative aside from this private language; Alex (‘Our Humble Narrator’) tells the story in a remembering type sequence, but often interjects with thoughts or questions posed directly at the reader. Aside from the strange language that is found on the pages of this novel, one of the most obvious modernistic features is Burgess’s ability to shock. There are many different scenes that are quite disturbing and violent. Alex’s propensity to rape young girls (ten years old), and his absolute joy in the sight of blood and pain. ‘ …while I ripped away at this and that and the other…and real good horrorshow [good] groodies [breasts] they were that then exhibited their pink glazzies [eyes], O my brothers, while I untrussed [undresses] and got ready for the plunge.  Plunging I could slooshy [hear] the cries of agony’ ( Burgess 23).   This ties in with the fact that, as readers, we tend to follow the actions of Alex and his droogs and it is easy to get caught up in all this violent action and loose sight of the real meaning of Burgess’s novel.   Burgess writes this novel from and to the "ID".  Alex and his droogs embody all animal or primal instincts and the tale that has been set before the reader has little respect for realism. We are presented with a world in which the teenagers rule the nights, keeping all real people in their houses.  A world where there are milk bars (molokokordova) in which fifteen year olds can be served with milk that was laden with drugs.  This is a fantastical world where Burgess can exaggerate potential societal problems to show the absurdity of them.

    Another characteristic of this novel is the blurring of normal understanding, or the frustration of conventional expectations.
Alex takes every chance to scoff at books, education, and learning.  There is also the lack of remorse and guilt in Alex for all of
his violent acts.  Alex steals and kills for no other reason than for his own personal pleasure.  He states that he does not steal for the want of money, but for the pleasure of it.  Though all of these things are definitely different from what the  reader may expect, the fact that Alex is the ‘hero’ is probably the most bizarre.  The reader has relived each of these horrific incidents with him yet at the end of the novel the author solicits our empathy or sympathy for him.   Alex obviously is in strong conflict with the norm (or the bourgeoisie). He is a depiction of the ‘bad element’ of society that England was dealing with at the time that Burgess wrote this novel.  Alex is the embodiment of all that society would like to ignore or eliminate.
Aside from pitting Alex against the bourgeoisie, Burgess uses his story to magnify their decline.  He uses this surreal method of
aversion therapy (which was actually being discussed at the time) to show the dangers of this type of ‘human experiment’.  Alex
loses his identity first in prison when he becomes 6655321, and then the therapy ultimately takes away his ability to choose to
do wrong.  I believe that the leftist writer in this story is Burgess himself, and that the Reclamation Therapy and Dr. Brodsky are
meant to depict a composite of B.F. Skinner and Pavlov.  Burgess was greatly opposed to this sort of ‘treatment’, and though
his own experience mirrored that of the writer in the book (Burgess’s wife was raped and died due to an intruder in their home when Burgess was away in WWII) and he was a victim of a person such as Alex, he was still  opposed to what he believes to be unethical.  Burgess uses the Bible verse, "What god has put together, let no man put asunder" to explicate this point.   This may be a bit of a stretch, but I have read that Modernist writers often flirt with ideas of Fascism, and it seems that this idea is seen often in the friendship of Alex and his droogs.  Alex does not treat his friends as equals and is only satisfied with complete control and a dictator-like position, at one point even referring to one of his droogs as ‘Dim the soviet’ (54).  This idea is often tested in physical confrontation.  This is one of the recurrent themes of the novel.  Another reoccurring theme is that each section (and the final chapter) all begin with the line, "What’s it going to be then, eh?"  I believe that the purpose of this is to show the repetitiveness of Alex’s life, and the vicious circle that society has placed him in.  This serves to bind the whole of the novel together, even to the final chapter where Our Humble narrator is finally ready to break the repetition of violence and crime.

     I found one of the most disturbing aspects of the novel was how Burgess choose to question religious norms.  Alex often has
thoughts that link God and drugs, and that fact that music was better than either. ‘As I sloosied [listened], my glazzies [eyes]
tight shut to shut in the bliss that was better than any synthetic Bog [god] or God, I knew such lovely pictures. There were vecks [guys] and ptitsas [girls], both young and starry [ancient or old], lying on the ground screaming for mercy, and I was smecking [laughing] all over my rot [mouth] and grinding my boot in their litsos
[faces]’ (33).   There are two different places in the book in which Alex imagines himself as the one who is whipping Jesus and
nailing  him to  the cross.  ‘ I closed my glazzies [eyes] and  viddied  [saw]  myself  helping in  and  even  taking  charge of the tolcholcking [whipping] and the nailing in, being dressed in a like toga that was the height of Roman fashion’ (79). This, in itself, fulfills almost every criteria of Modernism.
The ultimate purpose of the novel – which is Predestination verses Free Will – is also an age old religious debate which Burgess
(being a lapsed Catholic) is well aquatinted with.  Music, which is a devise that was to bring one closer to God, brought Alex violent pictures of joy.   The illustration of the deconstruction of individualism, and the reconception of social issues in terms of the ‘masses’ rather than ‘individuals’ is a continual theme.  Alex is viewed as inhuman by society ( he is inconsequential and without a vote), and therefore a ‘cure’ is welcome even at the cost of Alex’s freedom of choice and identity as a human being.  The good of society is put ahead of individual rights.   The State and society will both profit from Alex’s reclamation.  There is also a reference to a mural that seems to possess characteristics of the impressionistic features of Modernism.  Nudes were usually gods or goddesses lounging around and in the Municipal painting in Municipal Flat 18a that Alex describes is naked men and women that are ‘stern in the dignity of labour at workbench and machine’ (31).  Burgess has rendered a magnificent thriller of a novel that embodies all of the objectives and concerns of the modernist writer.  Burgess introduces the idea of new alternatives in the final chapter (the one that is missing from the American version).  Alex has lived a life of horror and crime, but has the opportunity to make a change – of his own free will, and decides to do just that.  This is Burgess’s forum to magnify the potential horrors of a government (and of the science of consciousness and repetition)  that he saw was threatening to deprive people of their essential right to choose. His message is that it is better to have the choice to do bad than to be forced to do good.  Burgess delves into his own experience with a nadsat like Alex to give this novel its force and to give validity to its ultimate message.   I saw Stanley Kubrick’s film version of A Clockwork Orange several years ago, and hated it.  At the time, I felt that it was a film that was glorifying rape, violence and the degradation of women.  I am glad that I did not let this discourage me from reading this novel.  I found Burgess’s tale to be not only intriguing but extremely poignant in issues of State and religion.