I Just Read About That…

SOUNDTRACK: JAPANDROIDS-“Fire’s Highway” (2012).

I regret dismissing the suggestions of the NPR folks the other day.  As the more I dig into their suggestions, the more I like–seems their selections are better than their descriptions of said selections.  Take this description of the Japandoids’ album: “snarling punk meets the fist-in-the-air anthemics of Born to Run-era Springsteen and his modern-day equivalents in The Gaslight Anthem.”  I’ve never really liked Springsteen (I know, a Jersey boy, too).  I think it’s more about production (and saxophone) than anything else.  So, comparing bands to him is never a sell for me (even if it may be true).  To me, this sounds much more like a low-key Arcade Fire (with literally no pretensions to anything–I mean, there’s only 2 Japandroids).  Granted, Arcade Fire owe a lot to Springsteen too, but they do something different with his sound, which is why I like them.  [I’m not going to be able to argue my way out of this].

Anyhow, this song is a four minutes of punky guitars and a stupidly catchy chorus.  The fact that it’s only two guys makes it all the more remarkable that it sounds like a full band.  And perhaps, the biggest difference for me is the singer’s voice which feels very early 90s alt rock/punk.  Whatever it is, I’m a fan and will certainly be listening to more of this album.

[READ: June 14, 2012] “The Clockwork Condition”

Like most young men of a certain bent, I loved A Clockwork Orange.  I’ve watched it dozens of times and I’ve read the book.  What I especially like about the story is that my feelings about it change as I get older—which, while not the point exactly, is certainly a theme in the story–how age makes things seem different.  The most important thing I learned from this article is that there was an epilogue in the British version of the book that was not available in the American version (or the film).  And it seems to be pretty important.  What a strange thing to leave out.

Incidentally, Burgess wrote the book in 1962 and the film came out in 1973, which is why he was wrote this in 1973.  He says he was asked about Issues that arose from the film.  And he talks a lot about them.

But he also gives a lot of background.  The title of the book comes from the expression “as queer as a clockwork orange” which is Cockney slang for something so weird it subverts nature.  It was a perfect title for an idea he was going to write about—how people suggested using aversion therapy to change juvenile delinquent behavior.

So this article goes on for a pretty long time, raising all kinds of questions.  It’s really articulate and fascinating and really makes me want to re-read the anti-authoritarian novels I read in high school: 1984, It Can’t Happen Here, Brave New World.   He even talks about B.F. Skinner, who proposed that aversion therapy (which is what Alex gets in the book/movie) was wrong and that positive reinforcement was always more effective.  Skinner worked with animals (Burgess jokes about that) and the whole “you get more flies with honey” attitude works better for training animals he says.  The same is true for people.  Besides, aversion therapy removes freewill.

This leads to a fascinating and kind of funny look at religion (Calvinist vs Catholic) and a look at whether life is predetermined or if we have freewill or both.  The “both” solution works something like this: God knows everything, and he knows what will happen to us all.  But he also gave man freewill.  How can this be?  Burgess’ phrasing of the argument goes like this: “An omniscient and omnipotent God, as a gesture of love for man, limits both His own power and His own knowledge.”  Said out loud, this is even crazier than many other things I’ve heard, even though I take it it’s more or less what most people believe.

But this is only the beginning of his discussion of freewill.  There’s also the issue of voluntarily restricting one’s freedom (like in a job–you wouldn’t be there if they didn’t make you stay).  He feels fortunate that as a novelist he does not have to subject himself to this.  And of course, there’s the issue of the State forcing itself on people—as in 1984 or Brave New World.  1984 is more dramatic, and he states that its very publication may have prevented such an outcome from occurring in the real world (although falsification of the past is rampant, especially in recent American history).  But Brave New World may show the more insidious kind of State dominance–submissive docility of the people though scientifically imposed contentment–something that you don’t have to look very hard to see.

His final comment in the article is about the nature of evil.  Evil is not the same as “bad” because you can’t have an evil orange.  Evil is not the same as “wrong” because sometimes it is wrong to do something and other times it is not—it’s subjective.  Evil is always evil—the negation of organic life.  I love this: “It is always evil to kill another human being, even though it is sometimes right to do so.”  He concludes where he began—“It would seem that enforced conditioning of a mind, however good the social intention, has to be evil.”

Burgess is a thought-provoking writer.  And as I said, I may have to go back and re-read all of those book again.