Friday, December 17, 2004

Free will essay (Nadsat)

Free Will Sloochats Chelloveckness:
Lomticks from A Clockwork Orange and 1984

Free will is what maketh us chellovecks, oh my little brothers. In both Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange and Orwell’s 1984, the millicents’ oobivatting of vecks’ free will as a veshch to drat prestoopnicks also oobivats its victims’ chelloveckness. Chelloveckness hath like tree bolshy lomticks—choice, ponying, and passion—which are all nachinatted in free will.

The millicents in both biblios like oobivat the veshch of baddiwadness as a way of cracking the prestoopnicks themselves—the vecks cannot choose between dobby and vred when dobby is the oddy knocky choice. The gloopy doctor in Clockwork ponies that like “common criminals…can best be dealt with on a purely curative basis. Kill the criminal reflex” (ACO 92), but whilst the prestoopnick “ceases to be a wrongdoer, he ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice” (ACO 126). Also, 1984’s rozzes and millicents vareet to polez crimestop, which is “the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshhold of any dangerous thought…a skeptical or rebellious attitude [is] killed” (1984 174). Both millicents are like willing to use baddiwad and cally methods of dratting prestoopnicks; through Clockwork’s stracky conditioning and 1984’s indoctrination they vred the rassoodock and oobivat will, “the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action” (The American Heritage Dictionary)—and after all, “when a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man” (ACO 83).

But just as Adam and Eve chose all on their oddy knocky free will to like shvat from the tree of ponying, so ponying and rassoodock are also bolshy in skazzing our chelloveckness. Alex, the bolshy veck in Clockwork, is bolshy pooging to the millicents not because of his baddiwadness but because of his ponying of his oddy knocky and of the mesto, and all that cal. Alex’s ponying of his own veck doesn’t let uncertainty of the rassoodock sloochat; he is like sure of his own oddy knocky because of the dva ponying that the old ultra violence makes him full of radosty and that he can nazz the rozzes. So thus it is that, as Alex govoreets, “the government…cannot allow the bad because they cannot allow the self” and “the not-self [that the millicents create] cannot have the bad” (ACO 40). Winston skvats a similar rassoodock when he skvats a like ponying of the millicents’ bolshy control and its oozhassniness; this ponying, or thoughtcrime, prods Winston to nazz Bolshy Brat and the millicents, oh my brothers. Yet physical rabbitting is not a prerequisite for vredding in Oceania; the linguist Syme is like oobivatted for his ponying alone, though he never vreds the Party. O’Brien drats Winston’s shilarnies when he skazats, “The word you are trying to think of is solipsism [“the theory that the self is the only thing that can be known” (The American Heritage Dictionary)]…you are mistaken. This is not solipsism” (1984 219). The millicents of Orange and 1984 viddy ponying as a merzky veshch, and so they “propose debilitating and will-sapping techniques…[that add to] the full apparatus of totalitarianism” (ACO 160) by oobivatting the veck, the rassoodocks, the very chelloveckness of their lewdies.

Yet the bolshiest lomtick of chelloveckness is perhaps a veck’s like ability to feel passion, without which we turn into machines devoid of prestoopnick shilarnies, maybe, but also devoid of free will. “And is not our modern history,” skazats Alex, “the story of brave malenky selves fighting these big machines?” (ACO 40). As a side effect of oobivatting Alex’s baddiwad and ultra violent shilarnies, the millicents also like snuff his passion for classical music—gorgeousness and gorgeosity!—the only dobby veshch that exists in Alex’s jeezny. “The sweetest and most heavenly of activities partake in some measure of violence,” govoreets Dr. Brodsky oozhassnilly, “music, for instance” (ACO 115). Strackily, a similar oobivatting of passion sloochats in 1984; O’Brien skazats Winston that after his free will is vredded, no longer will “you be capable of ordinary human feeling…Never again will you be capable of love” (1984 256). Whilst Winston still shvatted his free will and thus his chelloveckness, his lubbilub for Julia was the bolshiest. But the Party’s dratting of thoughtcrime shvatted this passion from him until he vredded his lubbilub, “and after that, you don’t feel the same toward the other person any longer” (1984 292). Our dva vecks Alex and Winston are “transformed out of all recognition” (ACO 92) into passionless clockwork oranges, that is the millicents like “impose upon man, a creature of growth and capable of sweetness…laws and conditions appropriate to a mechanical creation” (ACO 21). Without passion, these vecks are also without will; the rozzes “have turned [each] into something other than a human being” (ACO 156).

“By definition,” govoreets Anthony Burgess in the nachinatter to Clockwork, “a human being is endowed with free will. He can use this to choose between good and evil…[but] it is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil” (ACO ix). His bolshy veck Alex and Orwell’s Winston are both viddied as prestoopnicks and as such, they are unskorrilly made unvecklike by millicents who, pooged, like snuff the vecks’ choice, their ponying, and their passion. After the lewdies are mechanized they are sovietted “out again in the big free world” (ACO 94)—but even if they itty in a supposedly “free world,” they itty without free will and without chelloveckness.


Anonymous Anonymous said...


It only makes me laugh the harder that I can understand it all

3:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home