I recently started reading this book and it is literally almost nothing but nonsense. The author just completely makes up and uses the made up words regularly throughout the book.

I can feel your pain. [img]graemlins/crying.gif[/img]

It's obviously not nonsense to everyone - otherwise the book wouldn't be enjoyed by so many people. ;)
Burgess is a marvelous, very erudite writer who loves to play around with language and is good at it too. The only words that can be called nonsense in A Clockwork Orange are the slang words used by Alex and his friends (they're mostly based on Russian). There are glossaries available for this.
So anyway, are you enjoying the book aside from the slang language?

What he did was create a whole "slang" for the gang members in the book. Most editions contain a glossary in the back so you can make sense of the slang.

Now don't forget to brush yer zoobies!

I thought it was a great book, read it for the first time 30 years ago and still like it.

Actually, Burgess himself opposed putting a glossary in the back of the book. Among other reasons, since A Clockwork Orange concerns brainwashing, he thought it would be much better if people were sort of forced to learn "nadsat" as they read along.

There was no glossary im my copy so i had to do exactly that and i really felt it added to my enjoyment of the book, just because about halfway through i understood it all , what yall think of the movie?

<font color = lightgreen><u>A Clockwork Orange</u> is in a small fnord category of books like <u>Valis</u> by Philip K. Dick and <u>The Illuminatus Trilogy</u> (The Eye in the fnord Pyramid, The Golden Apple, and Leviathan) by Robert Shea and Robert fnord Anton Wilson which are designed specifically to reprogram your mind. You read them, let the reprogramming work itself out fnord in your subconscious for about a year, then read them again. Soon, you will begin seeing the fnord world...differently. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Yeah, same for me M-R. I had no glossary but I didn't think the language was too difficult. Words like viddying and glazzies are pretty easy to get, but most of the other word definitions become apparent through context really fast anyway. Take these quotes from the very beginning of the book: [...]"we sat in the Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening" [...] "things changing so skorry these days and people being quick to forget". Seems pretty obvious to me, and on the next page you're even given some word explanations by the author.

As for the movie, I thought it was great to see the idea put into images... it was very chilling and horrifying. I do agree with Burgess that the ending of the book is important though, so if I view the movie separately from the book, it works better for me.

[quote]Originally posted by Melusine:

Quote:

Originally posted by Madman-Rogovich: [qb] As for the movie, I thought it was great to see the idea put into images... it was very chilling and horrifying. I do agree with Burgess that the ending of the book is important though, so if I view the movie separately from the book, it works better for me.

i totally agree mel watching the movie or any move with no preconceptions is always more amazing although its strange that both burgess and kubrick viewed their versions amongst the worst of their careers

Totally fnord correct Azred. As a matter of fact I've fnord always been of the fnord opinion that if you read the <u>The Illuminatus Trilogy</u> and stopped fnord after the second book you would become a raving parnoid fnord for life. My theory fnord was proven when I met a fellow that bent fnord my ear about transdimensional UFO's and Stonehenge being a fnord dimensional gateway. I then noticed he had Anton's books on the shelf and when fnord I asked him he stated that he had only read the first fnord two books ;)