Post by ichorwhipLike I didn't see this spastic foment of caustic frothy vomit coming...
I guess I mixed in too many habaneros into the chupa's FC gruel...
<snip a whole pile of it, since you got selective. I always know when
I've "burned your ass" based on what you've cut out, brahahahaha!!!!!!>
"You hurt me, you really hurt me." What is it with this ongoing obsession
to "get my goat"? You should know by now it ain't never gonna happen...
If you want to de-elide anything I've snipped, feel free. I'm quite
sure I only edited it because it was off the original topic and too stupid
to
respond to in any event.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidPost by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidYou idiots are aware that the novel "A Clockwork Orange" had
a 21st chapter that was edited out of the American edition, right?
In that chapter, Alex gets out of the hospital, gets married, has
children, and lives a quiet exemplary life. The End.
Well Reidiot, in my initial skimming of your "literary" scum I almost
missed this. In the 21st chapter Alex does NOT get married, does NOT
have a child and his "exemplary life" is left up in the air.
No, you're right. What he does is state is his decision to get married,
and his intense desire to have children, and his lack of desire to return
to violence. Same difference, unless you're an idiot.
Post by ichorwhipThere's a
tone of ambivalence and ambiguity in the 21st chapter to be certain,
The only thing that's certain is that you're an idiot. Oh, and that there
is a "tonne" of certainty that in the chapter, Alex has lost most all
interest
in violence, is fantasizing about having children, and has set himself
a goal of finding a wife.
Post by ichorwhipbut I STILL don't think it works, and it definitely would have marred
Kubrick's film to include it.
Well, I agree with you, but at this point you might want to ask: WHY
doesn't it "work" for you? (I'll skip the reason it doesn't "work" for
me, which is probably the same reason, because I'm not the idiot here,
and I already know the answer anyway.)
This is great little test to see if the Quote Monkey can comprehend
and communicate his own reactions to the Rorsharch...I predict he can't,
because he never has. I'm going out on a limb and predict more idiotic
non-sequitur jabbering...
Post by ichorwhipFor the record, Alex realizes that he's
growing up: "I was like growing up." Past 18 and so forth, ya folla?
Sure, which is exactly what the original poster contemplated as the
theme of a sequel, which you idiotically rejected as "pointless to speculate
within the context of the novel or the film".
Post by ichorwhipHe does contemplate a wife and child, but there is no real "happy
ending" afforded. The last line is "And all that cal.", which is
telling within the context of Alex's supposed will to change his
lifestyle.
And the next to last line is "Amen", after he says he has decided to
find a wife and get married and have children. "Amen", from the
Greek "a menous", meaning "I have thought, and have concluded,
and now believe with all my heart and mind."
"What's it going to be then, eh?" You see, a REAL writer, a REALLY
good writer, like Burgess, knows SO much: words, their meanings,
people, their behavior, and uses the former to illustrate the latter.
"And all that cal." "Alex" uses that phrase several times in the last
chapter mocking his own fantasies about marriage and fatherhood.
Burgess paints the picture of the boy at the transition to manhood,
with the boy weakly deriding the values of the man he will become.
Gee, last time I checked, this is kind of like a fundamental part
of human life, something that any "artist" can incorporate and explicate
in their work. Just about every everybody is shocked at some time
about how they're now "thinking like my parents, which I used to
think was sooooooo stupid".
The only way you couldn't accept this is if you were permanently
trapped with the emotional maturity of a child...
Post by ichorwhipI guess you just forgot that since you're an idiot.
Didn't really forget anything, certainly not your idiotic and childish
and almost certainly disingenuous interpretation of "ambiguity" in the
21st chapter...
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidPost by ichorwhipYeah, and it was bullshit with all due respect to Burgess...
Oh yeah, I can smell your "respect" for a brilliant and well-regarded
author from here...
What you're smelling is prolly your underpants, idiot.
"Oh yeah, well...so's your face!!!" Hypocritical idiot...
Post by ichorwhipI happen to
hold the opinion that the 21st chapter was a mistake that didn't quite
fit.
But why? What is it in YOU that makes you "feel" this way?
Post by ichorwhipChapter 20 should have been Chapter 21 if he wanted the whole
numerical reference to 21 being the age of maturity.
Then chapter 20 would have been blank, like "Genji" lost among
the clouds!!!
Post by ichorwhipHe could have
rewritten it that way, but who really cares at this point? Just a bunch
of stupid shit...
"And all that cal."
Apparently you care, enough to try to re-write or just criticise something
that I must regretfully again inform you that you will NEVER come close to
accomplishing in your pitiful life.
Post by ichorwhipOne thing about Burgess, he certainly wrote better than you!
That's true of so many writers!
Post by ichorwhipWhat did
he have to say about ACO in total?: "I first published the novella _A
Clockwork Orange_ in 1962, which ought to be far enough in the past for
it to be erased from the world's literary memory. It refuses to be
erased, however, and for this the film version of the book made by
Stanley Kubrick may be held chiefly responsible. I should myself be
glad to disown it for various reasons, but this is not permitted."
Always the sardonic card this guy...
You'll never understand the "artist", that's for damn sure...
You just don't "get it"; in addition to having the emotional maturity
of "little child", you have the understanding of the creative process
of an eight-year-old, which you display with every slathering post
here...
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidHowever, if you read it carefully "between the lines", a reasonable
interpretation of my wording of "the facts" would be: Kubrick was
aware of the English version of the book before he made the movie,
decided he didn't want to portray the "redemption" theme of the book,
so he made the "nihilistic" (and many would call "juvenile") movie he
made, then...well, then...how can I put this gently...then he "didn't tell
the truth" about his foreknowledge of the unabridged novel.
Calling Kubrick a liar again, eh? That's nice.
Well, I can't factually call him a "liar", and I NEVER have, and I didn't
above, because I don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he
ever LIED about anything.
Post by ichorwhipAnd how can you
possibly expect me to "read between the lines" when it comes to pinning
your dumb, slippery, disingenuous ass down? I often read YOU between
the lines, but I don't want to repeat all that garbage. Nobody gives a
good goddam about you anyway...idiot.
You asked me to speculate about his mental state, I answered it with
a series of FACTS that tend to support the conclusion that Kubrick
never would have used the 21st chapter in any event. Apparently you
care what I think since you asked the question.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidPost by ichorwhipSo what's your big point then douchegoo? This is already well known
around here like most everything you have to say that's actually
on-topic.
Gee, I never would have guessed you two idiots were aware of this
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidPost by ichorwhipPerhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's
highly
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidPost by ichorwhipdoubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
"pointless to speculate within the context of the NOVEL or the film"
That's right idiot. I guess I should have clarified that I was talking
about the American version of the novel as it relates to the film
especially for idiot stalking flamers like you looking for any excuse
whatsoever to start another retarded "argument."
The "American version" of the novel is the exact same version as
the English version, just minus the last chapter! As Burgess explicitly
states, he carefully constructed the ENTIRE novel with that ending
in mind.
There is no "argument" here except that you make it one. I merely
pointed out a simple fact: that you two idiots were discussing a sequel
to "A Clockwork Orange" covering subject matter that was in the
21st chapter of the novel.
Aside from the pejorative use of the word "idiot", everything I've
said on the topic has been based on simple facts that either you
didn't know beforehand, or forgot about, which is all I said in the
first place. Be very aware that the word "idiot", though hurtful,
can be properly applied to persons who are unaware of well-known
facts, or who forget them.
The "argument", for the umpteenth time, is you back on your
backpedalling bike trying to "prove" that you're "right" while
simultaneously and ridiculously admitting you're wrong.
You just forgot the 21st chapter, period. You've admitted it,
you could just leave it at that. You're an idiot, we all know that,
why fight it?
Post by ichorwhipI had all but
forgotten the 21st chapter in the UK version because it just doesn't
fit well within the flow of the rest of the novel despite what Burgess
said.
You see, you come so close to admitting the simple truth here,
you just forgot about the 21st chapter, but you just got to pedal
that bike backwards just a little bit "to save face".
And hilariously, you used the word "flow". The word "flow" has
special meaning to me, because years ago a very immature idiot that
I was forced to work with, a giant Kubrick fan, a person like yourself
who is like a child with his nose pressed against the window display
of "art" but will never be admitted to the store, used to use the word
"flow" all the time, but he could never describe what he meant
by "flow".
Now I already know the probable repsonse to this, and I've basically
asked this before, but what about the 21st chapter doesn't "flow" for
you?
Post by ichorwhipThat's my opinion, and you can smell it all you want.
Well, where do you think that "opinion" came from?
Post by ichorwhipYou'll be
finding a lot of others with similar scents, snort their asses as well.
Maybe Americans just don't like the concept of redemption...
Post by ichorwhipKubrick especially deserves a good wafting because he "lied" and left
the 21st chapter out of his film. Also what's more important to me is
Kubrick's film, and it works just fine without that somewhat "gloopy"
21st chapter.
Yeah, I liked the movie too. Of course none of this has anything to
do with you being an idiot who idiotically forgot that there was a 21st
chapter in the first place...man, is your herring red...
Post by ichorwhipBurgess said in his typically facetious way: "Readers of
the twenty-first chapter must decide for themselves whether it enhances
the book they presumably know or is really a discardable limb. I meant
the book to end in this way, but my aesthetic judgement may have been
faulty. Writers are rarely their own best critics, nor are critics.
'Quod scripsi scripsi' said Pontius Pilate when he made Jesus Christ
the King of the Jews. 'What I have written I have Written.' We can
destroy what we have written but we cannot unwrite it. I leave what I
wrote with what Dr. Johnson called frigid indifference to the judgement
of that .00000001 of the American population which cares about such
things. Eat this sweetish segment or spit it out. You are free."
OK, if forced to the choice, I will spit it out.
I will say that I immensely enjoyed him slyly inserting the concept of
"free will" into his little dissertation about the "quality" of the 21st
chapter
which was all about, you guessed it, "free will"...
But once again, what does this have to do with you being an idiot?
Post by ichorwhipSo let me state this in a way that even a retard like you can hopefully
understand: Having the 21st chapter with a "naturally" reforming and
contemplative Alex is about as predictable and believable as you
suddenly making a post on AMK without any insulting behavior in it.
I've done so many times. People are little more complex than you,
with your sub-adolescent maturity level, can comprehend.
This may, though, serve as the most "politically correct" answer to
my question as to why you don't think the 21st chapter has the right
"flow". I was really looking for a more introspective insight, but
of course that would require an adult perspective, so I guess we
can just go with, "If a bad guy is a bad guy at the beginning of a
book, he must be a bad guy at the end."
For the record, I also didn't like that they turned Darth Varder into
such a wuss in "Star Wars". Also, those light sabers were NEAT!!!
Post by ichorwhipYou need the 21st chapter you idiot! Burgess was at least more of a
sport about bellyaching on how Kubrick "ruined" his novel etcetera.
Thank bog there were no lousy topiary droogs made out of shrubbery to
be excised; at least Burgess was better than that.
Burgess was a better man and writer than King.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidHmmm...but now you claim to have known it all along...
"It doesn't gel, and if it doesn't gel, it isn't aspic" - "Psycho"
Since you have such apparent difficulty reading between the lines
or the lines themselves, let me be as simply clear as possible: I think
you idiotically forgot all about the missing chapter in the original novel
when you pecked out your latest bit of idiotic drivel. You almost
certainly had heard about it previously, but because you are an
idiot, you just forgot about it.
Well idiot, I didn't bring up the 21st chapter because the "idiot" who
wrote the stupid article calling for a ACO sequel didn't bring it up.
No, idiot, you're back backpedalling on your bike again and again.
You've admitted that you "all but forgot" about the 21st chapter, and
certainly you would have "flamed" the original poster about the
similarities between his proposed sequel and the 21st chapter had
a functioning synapse in your tiny little brain been able to make the
connection.
Post by ichorwhipI could have approached Sexton's essay, or whatever it was, from that
direction, but I didn't.
I am in the mind of that Queen song that starts with "Bi-cycle...bi-cycle"
except with the lyric "Back-pedal...back-pedal".
To you, yes. To me, just another day laughing at the idiotic monkeys
in the Usenet zoo...
Post by ichorwhipA missed opportunity on my part
since the "douche" seemed to be pitching the "idea" of the 21st chapter
without even knowing it
And of course, he wasn't the only clueless one, riiiiiiiiiight?!!???!!???
You "forgot" it too,
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?!?!!!????!!???!!??
Post by ichorwhip(although, once again, there is no "happy"
ending.)
You see, this is why I'd like a more fullsome answer to the question
about what busts your chops so bad about the missing chapter. Why
is a chapter about a young man working a "good job" for a music
publisher, looking for wife so he can settle down and have an adorable
fat baby, not a "happy" ending?
And how does this tie in with the critics who claim that the movie
"glorified violence"? Would a really "happy" ending have been if Alex
had pulled a machine gun out from under his bed and blown away
the Minister of the Interior or Inferior and the photographers? "I
was cured, all right!!!"
Post by ichorwhipYay! Reidiot scored a free point!
Yay me! I win again!
Post by ichorwhipWould you like to see a
sequel to ACO such as Sexton suggested?
No. I clearly stated I wanted a sequel to "Dr. Strangelove", a whole
battle over "mineshaft rights".
Post by ichorwhipI think it's a stupid idea,
and I don't need the often forgotten
By you, you backpedalling idiot!!!
Post by ichorwhip21st chapter to say so, but thanks
for the reminder; even an idiot can read a noodle in a bowl of alphabet
soup every once in a while.
OK, I think we've come to a conclusion here: you just forgot the 21st
chapter. Let's see how long this fact sticks in your head...
Post by ichorwhipAfterall, you botched the facts having to
do with the 21st chapter yourself making you King of the Idiots.
Ah, I was close enough, come on, you're still the King, I am but
a mere peasant in the Land of the Idiots awaiting your latest idiotic
proclamation...
Post by ichorwhipI'll
still give you the point though. You need it more than I do.
Charity becomes the King!!! "Sometimes you have give and
like show generous to your unders."
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidPost by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidHe had carefully written a book with three distinct parts of seven
chapters each, each part beginning with the question "What's it going
to be then, eh?", and didn't like that the payoff to that TRULY
existential
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill Reidquestion was thrown away in the movie and the American novel...
Well I guess he should have made his own movie then.
Your sloooowwwww and poor reading comprehension, coupled
with your poor fact retention, makes coherent and thoughtful writing
impossible for you, which is probably why you lash out angrily
at writers of extreme accomplishment such as Anthony Burgess...
No, I "lash out" at idiots like you, Burgess doesn't make me angry, in
fact, he's pretty funny. Read the rest of Burgess then? Well let's
hear your idiot's exigesis!
The fact that he didn't even like ACO is part of the reason I don't
have super-esteem for his body of fiction.
You just don't get "it", do you? "It" being...well, everything...
Post by ichorwhipI think it's far and away
the best novel he wrote and that would include, per his wishes, the
21st chapter as weak and out of place as it is. I could be wrong since
I haven't read all his novels, but I'm open for suggestions and ready
to read anything worth reading as usual.
I hesitate to recommend anything for you to read as you've made
it very clear that you are an incredibly slow reader with very poor
comprehension of what you've read. You literally take longer to
read books than I take to write them; I was particularly amused
to hear jabbering here about "They Call Me PROFESSOR" Cocks'
book being a weighty ca. 225 pages with ca. 20 pages of footnotes.
Seeing as how that took you months to get through, and you are
apparently still working on follow-up read a half a year later, in the
interest of getting an "opinion" from you within my lifetime I would
like to recommend "The Cat In The Hat" by "They Don't Call
Me A DOCTOR" Gisel...
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidCertainly, I've clearly stated before that Kubrick deliberately
managed to miss or downplay some elements of the novel "A
Clockwork Orange". What he gave the audience was geared
a little more to certain type of individual, perhaps an angrier,
more thoughtless, crueler breed of "human"...
Sounds like you're describing yourself, but praps you're just wrong
anyway.
Maybe I am describing myself, I will admit that. Now tell us again
why redemption is such an "unhappy" concept to YOU?
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidWell, both the movie and the novel make it VERY clear that Alex
hated prison, and he considered the Ludovico treatment to be "the
tortures of the damned".
You're attempting to argue it both ways here. Kubrick made some
significant changes to the novel that all but obliterate any hint of
the 21st crapture.
What changes would those be? Alex was nothing if not even a
WORSE psychopath in the novel than in the movie.
Kubrick actually changed very little of importance in the novel.
The narration, dialog, and scenes in the movie were basically just
slightly truncated versions of what was in the novel. Kubrick
only added a few inconsequential scenes, and made some
superficial wardrobe and appearance changes; in general,
this was one of the most faithful adaptations of a book to
film I have ever seen. Your idiocy (and backpedalling) are
showing again...
Post by ichorwhipI'll stick to the film as we plod on here refuting
you point by point.
Why? What's the "point"? The truth is, all these "points" are
rather "pointless"...isn't that what you said in the first place?
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidSo why would he commit any further violent
crimes, and run the risk of either going back to prison or possibly
subjected to another experimental treatment, or both?
Because that is the nature of the beast you stupid idiot! Why do
career criminals become repeat offenders and on to the point of doing
life in prison? They know the risks, but they run them anyway. It's
like I'm trying to explain things to a kindergartener here!
But some people do their jail time and never commit another crime.
I feel like I'm talking to a zygote here...
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidBut there's something else that occurs quite obviously in both the
movie and the novel. Alex is transformed from the supreme undefeated
predator in the beginning, to a whimpering victim by the end. And
there is clear evidence that these experiences have ingrained at least
some amount of "empathy" into him.
That can be your interpretation, but I see it differently since I'm not
an idiot like you. Your "clear evidence" is tainted just like you are
"Unchanged, do I say - not quite. Prison taught him a false smile, the
rubbed hands of hypocrisy, the fawning, greased, obsequious leer."
I thought he was describing himself! He had a plan to use the space
freed up by "cured" criminals for political prisoners: "Concentrate
politicians
together, and what do you get? Concentrated politics!!!"
In any event, your reading comprehension is the problem here again.
I talked about him being a "whimpering victim AT THE END"; he was
only part way through his journey to that point when the Minister
gave his speech. Idiot.
Post by ichorwhipKubrick chose a pessimism that's far more accurate than the bleak
optimism Burgess offered with the 21st chapter, that's my read on it.
"Bleak optimism"...what an idiot. Kubrick actually left it open-ended;
his classic "we'll meet again" ending. We'll always have criminals, we'll
always have scheming politicians, we'll always have failed political schemes
and attempts to repair the images of politicians using media manipulation,
etc.
In other words, the basics of human society don't change. That DOESN'T
mean anything about the future life of any particular INDIVIDUAL, but
you'd have to have greater than an eight-year-old's appreciation of the
world and movie themes to understand that...
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidNote his response when he is
told that the writer's wife is dead: he seems genuinely shocked and
remorseful.
And yet ere he finds out this information he has no qualms about
returning to a favorite ol' ditty of ultraviolence while bathing...
Well, he doesn't find out the writer's wife is dead until AFTER he
takes his bath, idiot, but you've managed to miss one of the most
salient points of the original BRILLIANT novel, which is that
a person's EMOTIONAL response to a movie or book or music
is not necessarily tied to any particular INTERPRETATION.
Alex's love of music is similar to many other peoples', but with
one important distinction: he is explicitly shown to have violent
fantasies when listening to music.
Now there was actually one "significant" change between the novel
and the film. In the novel, Alex is APPEARS to have been conditioned
to be repulsed by ALL music. In the film, he is ACCIDENTALLY
conditioned to be repulsed ONLY by Beethoven's Ninth. This is
a "significant" change in that his reactions to music serve as a guide
to how truly he has been "cured".
Now, this is also a "significant" change because it really illustrates
a central issue about how Stanley Kubrick made movies. Why did
he make that change? I won't require to you read between the lines
for this one: he didn't make the change because of some great "artistic"
difference with the source material, but rather as a matter of convenience
for his particular style of presentation. Once he got the "Singin' In The
Rain" rape scene on film, he didn't want to let it go, and then he wanted
to tie it into the "reveal" of Alex's true identity to the writer.
But the change is most "significant" as it lends insight into the
THOUGHTS of Alex after he is "cured". And ironically enough,
it tends to remove any possible ambiguity about what Alex is
THINKING in the scene in the bathroom, UNLESS YOU'RE
A COMPLETE AND TOTAL IDIOT. Is he truly indulging in an
ultra-violent flashback, or is he thinking of the happy-go-lucky
Gene Kelly dance scene?
We can actually determine this PRECISELY in the "context" of the
film. Remember, he was conditioned to be "sick to the very heart at
the THOUGHT of killing a fly", and as we saw explicitly and in his
first-person narration, that if he had a violent THOUGHT, he
would become ill.
So he was NOT having a VIOLENT THOUGHTS when he
hummed "Singin' In The Rain" in the bathroom. And yet, the
comprehension-challenged idiot Quote Monkey comes to exactly
Post by ichorwhipThe same wretched scoundrel lurks beneath. Didn't you listen to
anything that Deltoid, the Priest, the Minister, the Chief Guard and
the Prison Governor said at all?
Yes, DID YOU? And to the extent that they claimed he could
never be redeemed (and the Priest clearly stated the central theme
of the novel that a man could be redeemed if it "came from within,
if he truly wants to be good"), did you ever consider the possibility
that they were just "characters" expressing their perhaps incorrect
"opinions"?
Going by your logic, the commies really did put flouride in our drinking
water to "impurify our precious bodily fluids"; after all, a "character"
said it...IDIOT!!!
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidIt seems as if his ordeal really has FINALLY taught him
that "people have the right to live without being tolchocked".
What it taught him was not to get caught the next time.
What better way not to get caught than to never actually do the
crime in the first place; "there's the deterrent element."
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidAnd he was offered "a good job at a good salary". Hmmm..."what's
it going to be then, eh?"
Maybe the police! He can be just like Georgie and Dim, such virtuous
officers of the law...
Maybe! "Every cop is a criminal...and all the sinners, saints!!!"
"Artists" try so hard to get through to you, what a waste of effort, but
only in your case, at least I can truly "appreciate" what they are saying...
Look, in the 21st chapter he has a "dream job" working for a music
company for good money, so we don't need to discuss THAT issue
any further...
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidPut it all together, his desire not to go back to prison, at
least a little understanding of the feelings of victims, an offer
of a "cushy" middle-class life, and it is not UNREASONABLE
to think that Alex might choose a more peaceful lifestyle...and
that is exactly how the SUCCESSFUL writer of the novel
chose to end his story.
Thinks he's making big points with all the caps, that's ALWAYS funny.
MY ONLY POINT IS THAT YOU'RE A JUVENILE ANGRY
ABUSIVE IDIOTIC LOSER QUOTE MONKEY!!!
lol
Post by ichorwhipBut Kubrick knew better! IDIOT!!!!
No, not really, he just made a brilliant movie based on a brilliant novel.
He did have a certain on-going "nihilistic" theme throughout his movies
that clearly precluded the "happy" ending of a free-will redemption of
an individual person, but the movie he made DOES NOT preclude
that possibility, just doesn't present it.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Bill ReidBut maybe YOU should write your own book...sorry, forgot
that first, you'll have to learn how to READ them a little quicker
and better, not to mention follow the plot of a "juvenile" movie...
I'm starting to think that you might actually really be an idiot. You
certainly can't read worth a damn and your comprehension skills are
void.
I always love the part where they throw things back at you that are
clearly true about them after you've stated them...lack of creativity
indeed.
Monkey see, monkey fling poo?
---
William Ernest "Not An Idiot, But I Play With Them On Usenet" Reid