We have to address the language first - this book is written in Nadsat slang. This language being used purposely keeps you at a distance from what is going on. Allowing the content to be digested and considered as you’re being forced, by the slang, to consider every word.

It’s written in such a style (mainly credit to the slang used) that throws the reader. It reads almost nonsensical and casual but with just enough context to grasp the words as you get further in. The nonchalance of it all only adds to the consideration the reader then has for what is actually going on.

Each chapter was like a jigsaw, you slowly start to understand the individual pieces. By the time you have put it all together to see the full picture (and fully grasp what is going on) it’s usually something “ultra-violent”. You may wish you’d never put together the last piece.

It’s split in three sections and each exposes a different of element of violence and cruelty. This book forces you to look at your own good vs evil lens. The obvious ultra-violence in the beginning is just the tip of the iceberg, as you read on you realise there are plenty of variations that can amount to a good old horrorshow, in far more subtle and sinister ways.

This isn’t necessarily a spoiler but I will mention character specific thoughts:

The Chaplin is only pondering morals but when he throws out the line “bad people are better than those that have goodness thrust upon them” - it really sticks out. The idea of choice, and the honesty in choosing to be good or evil could still be purer than those forced to abide by one or the other. It’s a good question, and the global climate being what it is, it makes me wonder to whether what we are seeing now are people’s true inclinations or fear?

The question (if you’re religious) - does a God differentiate between those that choose and those that are forced? and if so, is the forced good truly equal to those choosing good? The same must be considered in reverse, is forced bad as evil as chosen bad? It’s an interesting theme when you think of the fact that most serious crimes in a court of law, have to include a valid and robust mens rea. The act is not enough, the intention is always to be considered. Those mentally unstable are sometime categorised as just as dangerous or more so, but there is an element for those that are vulnerable. Circling back to the question is chosen bad/good any different from having not known? Or do we weigh more not just on knowing, but on true understanding?

In a time where this book feels extremely relevant again, it is as much of a reminder to really self reflect and consider your own morals than maybe. heartwarming story that inspire’s good. A lot of bad is being done in the name of good (as it always has), whilst there are those now who feel confident enough (once again) to be bad in the open.

Enjoyment is not really a word I’d use for this book but it’s for sure interesting. Food for thought, at its best.