ehh, it's a little better.
2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, "Literature is the question minus the answer." Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes' observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author's treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
In his 1962 novella A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess questions the merits of moral righteousness in a situation in which immorality is not feasible.
Alex, the teenage protagonist of the story, is sentenced to undergo a sort of aversion therapy for his repeated and severe crimes, rendering him incapable of violence. This is where Burgess first begins to ask what makes a morally good act. By depicting Alex, his free will revoked through government torture, as something sub-human, Burgess is taking a jab at the crime-and-punishment system. He asserts that choice is vital to morality; a moral act is only moral if it is chosen over some viable immoral option. In other words, discouraging immoral acts with a looming threat of punishment does not make one morally good, it makes one afraid.
While the treatment is in effect, Alex becomes a hollow shell. His superficial goodness (or rather, his lack of badness) means nothing because acting badly is an impossibility. When the treatment is broken, he is free to choose his actions as he pleases, but at this point he is truly reformed. He entertains the idea of settling down with a family, and imagines that his son will act out in the same ways he did, and he'll tell his son to behave, but he won't, and he shouldn't, because the ability to choose "evil" is what makes us human.
2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, "Literature is the question minus the answer." Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes' observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author's treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
In his 1962 novella A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess questions the merits of moral righteousness in a situation in which immorality is not feasible.
Alex, the teenage protagonist of the story, is sentenced to undergo a sort of aversion therapy for his repeated and severe crimes, rendering him incapable of violence. This is where Burgess first begins to ask what makes a morally good act. By depicting Alex, his free will revoked through government torture, as something sub-human, Burgess is taking a jab at the crime-and-punishment system. He asserts that choice is vital to morality; a moral act is only moral if it is chosen over some viable immoral option. In other words, discouraging immoral acts with a looming threat of punishment does not make one morally good, it makes one afraid.
After the treatment is finished, the "reformed" Alex is essentially thrown out onto the streets. He goes home to his parents' house, and his mother assumes he has broken out of prison illegally. She and her husband inform Alex that all of his belongings are gone, and they have rented out his room and can't accommodate him anymore. The new boarder berates Alex, causing him to break down and leave. He then goes to a library, where a bunch of old people beat him, and then some former gangmates-turned-policemen break up the violence and take Alex out of town where they beat him more themselves as revenge for their treatment under Alex's leadership. These events happen in rapid succession, creating an almost surreal personal hell for Alex. He wants to escape, or defend himself, but the thought of violence makes him ill. This is another slap on the wrist of the crime-and-punishment system, shaming it for rendering those that go through it totally defenseless in an unforgiving society. In a way, Burgess is also saying there is no absolute evil; sometimes, things like violence are not morally reprehensible.
While the treatment is in effect, Alex becomes a hollow shell. His superficial goodness (or rather, his lack of badness) means nothing because acting badly is an impossibility. When the treatment is broken, he is free to choose his actions as he pleases, but at this point he is truly reformed. He entertains the idea of settling down with a family, and imagines that his son will act out in the same ways he did, and he'll tell his son to behave, but he won't, and he shouldn't, because the ability to choose "evil" is what makes us human.
Great essay! I think this is really well written and your argument is clear. Even though I haven't read the book, I understood the main idea. I especially like the idea of Alex's son doing the same thing that he did; I think that's your strongest argument for the author's opinion because it shows that the questions about morality that the book raises can transcend through generations. They will always be important. I would say that there is a lot of summary in the second and third paragraphs. Trimming that down and increasing the amount of analysis would definitely strengthen your argument. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI would replace some of the summary found in the last half of the essay with maybe more of an analysis on the deeper meaning of the book. I like how you introduced the meaning your point contributed to at the very beginning of the essay, but I think it could be drawn back to more later. Also, you might want to avoid convoluted sentence structure like in "By depicting Alex, his free will revoked through government torture, as something sub-human, Burgess is taking a jab at the crime-and-punishment system" but that is being nitpicky. Overall though I think you had a great essay and the improvements to be made are minor.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a very good job of revising your essay so it meets the prompt requirements, specifically trying to bring up the question the Burgess asks with his novel. However, having read that book, I think you focus on the wrong question. You spend a lot of time talking about how the book is questioning the police force, while hardly mentioning the real question about the ideas of good and evil. This might be an odd critique, but I think looking at a broad philosophical idea as opposed to just saying Burgess is slamming the police would make for a higher level essay.
ReplyDelete