Nadsat - Why is it so important?

What follows this introduction is actually a short essay I wrote that accompanied a presentation on the language used in A Clockwork Orange. This was for my "History and Development of the English Language" class. Anyways, some insights into Nadsat if you're a fan of the novel. If you've never read it, I think it's about that time, eh?

I’ve been a fan of the movie A Clockwork Orange for some time, but after reading the book, I completely fell in love with it. I became convinced that Anthony Burgess was a literary genius to be able to create an entire new language to use in this book.
The language flows effortlessly, so much so that I found myself using it after I was done reading the book. This makes it very believable as a slang and easily incorporated into everyday language. I must admit at first it was very overwhelming, reading so many words that I had never seen, but continuing to read made the words make more sense, so that one could tell by context what things were. Sadly, the movie cannot demonstrate the language near as well as the book, due to the limitations of screen.
So what is the language they use? It’s called Nadsat, which is the Russian word for teenager. The majority of words are Russian based, since Burgess spent a lot of time in Russia. It gives the book, which is already great due to its philosophical storyline, that extra edge over some of the other dystopian novels.
But why would Burgess want to create an entire language for his book? Well, first of all, it’s set in the future, so they need some type of futuristic lingo. Also, Burgess did not want to use the current slang, as that would have dated the book. Therefore, he made up a slang that was ageless. Secondly, they are teenagers in a gang, so it would be somewhat unrealistic for them to use proper English at all times. Lastly, and I think most importantly, the language masks, in a way, what is going on. The book is brutal and violent and deals with a lot of serious and unfavorable subjects. By calling things different names, similar to euphemisms, we can make ourselves feel better about it. Having Alex call blood “krovvy” and rape “ultra-violence”, we can distance ourselves from it and don’t feel so overwhelmed by the amount of horrible going-ons.
We may be able to compare Nadsat to the Newspeak invented by George Orwell for 1984. But although Newspeak was there and talked about, the entire book wasn’t written in Newspeak, though it would have been interesting had that played out. That means it is harder for the reader to imagine Newspeak, having not been surrounded by it throughout the book. We have only the appendix in the back that tells us how it should be spoken. Anthony Burgess was adamant about not having a Nadsat dictionary included in the book, and I was admonished by friends not to use one as I read because it diminishes the character if one always translates the words into Standard English. It is much better to take them at face value and simply assimilate them into one’s own vocabulary, which was Burgess’ intent.

Book Review: The Night Listener

Title: The Night Listener
Author: Armistead Maupin

Well, since the movie premiered at Sundance in January and just came out in theatres yesterday, I was interested in it and ordered it on Amazon.com. Now, before I get all nitpicky, let me just say I liked the book as a whole. It was definitely an enjoyable read, and I will probably go to see the movie, if only to see what they changed in it.
Without giving away too much, the basic plot is that a radio host whose lover just left him is in a depression until he is given a lift from a young boy dying of AIDS. This boy has written a book about his experiences and is a huge fan of the radio host. They talk often on the phone, until questions start to arise about the boys existance. Very strange. From the movie previews, they definitely make it out to be more of a suspense story than it actually is. On the cover of the book, it compares Mr. Maupin to Hitchcock. I wouldn't be so bold. Yes, there was a sense of wondering if he was crazy, or if the boy's mother was the crazy one, or if the boy existed, or what was going on, but it wasn't a page turning, edge-of-your-seat type suspense.
As to the prose style: it hardly impressed me. Of course, this is a pop fiction book, and it was quintessentially pop fiction. That is, mostly simple prose, lots of dialogue, and tons of cursing to make it "authentic" I suppose. I mean, not that I really have a problem with cursing at all--and that's probably an understatement; however, a lot of "fuck"ing doesn't make for really memorable prose.
Another thing that sort of bothered me was the abundance of homosexual debauchery. Not that I'm bothered by it on its own terms; it just really didn't have much to do with the plot. Even though the main character was gay, and it would be natural for him to talk about his love life since he was going through his partner leaving and all, and that didn't bother me, but when he was talking about cocksucking and such...well, I could have done without that. I could really do without cocksucking talk from anyone. But perhaps that type of sexual openness is the norm in San Francisco, what do I know? I'm a poor sheltered girl from SC. In any case, I did get the feeling that Mr. Maupin was trying to push his agenda while selling this book. At first, I thought it was a really good move for him to write about a gay couple without it being the whole intent of the book, and this is surely not written for the "gay audience", but I do think that some of the things that are talked about would scare away those of a more conservative mindset.
And on to the characters. There were way too many flat characters. I really couldn't connect with most of them. It seemed that he focused all his energy on Gabriel and Pete, and then just said "oh whatever" with the rest of the characters. Especially the deal with Gabriel's father. I wasn't touched by the scene where they "reconcile." It was, of course, way too cliche. But also, we only got a glimpse of his father before, so it just didn't mean that much anyway.
The back says the book is "a mystery studded with elegant twists and turns" but that's pretty much a straight up lie. There was the part where it was revealed that the boy might not be real, but they told you that one in the plot outline, so whoops! one surprise ruined. Then there was the another "twist" that was foreshadowed SO MUCH it was a real letdown when it actually happened. So really the only surprise was at the very end.
The ending really got me. I have to say, it was a rather disappointing ending, but I put down the book going "huh, well fuck. That was a surprise."
So I'm looking forward to seeing the movie adaptation to see how much gayness they decided to eliminate. Not only that, but while reading this, I was thinking "this wouldn't really make a good movie adaptation." That's because Maupin relies on too many book conventions; revelations that only work when you read them. You see, the way it's revealed to us that Pete might not be real is that we're told that Pete and his mother have the same voice on the phone. Well, if this were a movie, wouldn't we already have noticed that the first time we heard them both talk? It wouldn't come as a surprise. Plus, we would never have to see Pete in the movie. We would only see Gabriel talking on the phone, which would make for a boring movie. And a lot of it is told by inner narration, the story isn't really "action-packed." I guess that's why they tried to hype it up a bit and make it look really suspenseful. Well, anyways, if I go to see it, I'll probably have a movie review for you.

Some sound....but no fury

Well, after a long time searching for it, I finally bought the 1959 version of The Sound and the Fury on Ebay. And then, of course, it took about a month to arrive, a month of desperate waiting for my precious. Ok, so I kind of knew what I was getting into since I read several reviews on IMDb that said it was pretty terrible and the plot outline clearly said "loosely based on the novel." They weren't kidding. They cast Yul Brynner as Jason. Let's get one thing straight. The novel is set in Mississippi in 1928. Yul Brynner is Russian. Hmmm, how well do you think he can do a southern accent? About as well as the rest of the cast, apparently. They all seemed to take their southern acting lessons from Gone With the Wind, and this gave the ladies a very overblown, very Chah-leston accent. But getting back to Yul. So what did they do to offset little Yul's obvious Russian heritage? Change the plot, of course! We can't have little details in the greatest American novel ever written interfering with Mr. Brynner's acting! Are you mad? So they made Jason's mother the Cajun second wife, and Jason was a step-uncle instead of Quentin's real uncle. I guess that was for the romance scene as well. Yes, of course they had to put in semi-incestuous undertones; the plot would be severely lacking without them--but they put them in the wrong place!!! Jason HATES Quentin, why the hell did they have him kiss her? Honestly, although in some places the dialogue was right out of the book, the things they changed (some of them for no ostensible reason) lead me to believe the screenwriters never read the book; or at the very least, had only a vague recollection of it from high school. And let me see--the most important character from the novel, Caddy, who's supposed to be tragic and sympathetic and wonderful, is a huge bitch. She's only concerned with appearances and sleeping with fat old men apparently. And poor little Benjy (I say little, but Jack Warden is a huge man) was not sympathetic at all. You know why? They didn't let him show ANY emotion. He just walks around with a kind of blank look. Is that what retarded people act like? No! They can make noise! Jack Warden played the part like a mute. The saddest thing about Benjy in the novel is that he can't talk, but he bellows and moans, and he's trying to say and trying to say but he just can't. I didn't feel any emotion for Benjy in the movie. But enough of this, although I could point out a lot more instances of crappiness.
So here's the good news: I've been writing my own screenplay adaptation which is pretty close to the novel. I mean, I'm just doing it for fun in my spare time, not that I seriously hope it will be used, at least not in this point in time. Anyways, it's been difficult what with all the flashbacks and such, and of course I realize once I edit it, things will have to be changed. But the way it's looking, it will be a hell of a lot better adaptation than this version. Even if nothing comes of this, I do hope it will be remade well by someone.

Kids- you can't beat 'em!

In the classroom I was interning in, the students had to write a persuasive essay on a controversial topic. Several of the topics were of interest to me, and corporal punishment in schools is one. In SC, it's still legal to use corporal punishment on students. I remember in middle school when they took us on a tour and the asst. principal showed us the paddle he used to hit kids with. You got to sign it after he hit you. Needless to say, it was covered in signatures. And he was so proud. Of course 1) SC is one of about 30 states that still allows CP and 2) It's up to each district whether they want to use it or not, but regardless, should it be used?
First off, corporal punishment is defined as "the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child pain, but not injury, for purposes of correction or control of the child's behavior" (Strauss & Donnelly, 1993, p. 420) Spanking used to be the standard in child rearing, but with more information and more effective ways to discipline, a lot of parents have stopped using spanking to discipline.
On the one hand, there's a lot of research that states that children who receive CP are more prone to violence, depression, and stress; but rebuttals to Strauss and Donnelly state that much of their research is based on abused children, which is a whole different ballgame. I mean, a spanking is different from a beating (some would argue that point) . Not only that, but the research also fails to take into consideration other traits of bad parenting such as neglect, rejection, or simply absence.
But to the point - is it effective; that is, will it stop the student from repeating the behavior? Most studies say no. The problem is the student's actions are not generally explained to the student properly. They say "you did this, now you have to be hit." Ok, so maybe they don't know what they did wrong, or what they did is acceptable in their family, or maybe they don't know alternative ways of dealing with a situation.
Like a kid that gets in a fight - you tell him "you can't fight students, it's wrong to hit, now bend over so I can beat you with this paddle." That doesn't make sense, and it's only reinforcing their view that violence is a way to solve problems. What teachers, administrators, and parents need to do is explain what the student did, why it was wrong or inappropriate and alternate ways of dealing with it. Talking proves much more effective, and not only that but it shows respect for the student as a person, rather than an authoritarian relationship.
However, schools still feel like they need this type of power as a "last resort" to intimidate students, which shouldn't really be their goal in the first place. What really gets me is that in SC, while the school must ask permission before applying CP, if the parent says no, their kid gets kicked out of school. wtf? That's a really fair option.
But on the other hand, a lot of parents still teach their kids "if someone hits you, you hit back" and "an eye for an eye" instead of doing the rational and adult thing and walking away from a situation. Arguments for CP are "they deserve it," it's only used when extremely necessary (that doesn't explain the disproportionate use on African-American males), and using it as an intimidation or embarrassment factor. Well, I think those are rather flimsy arguments, but hey. But I have to admit that even though I was a damn good kid, I got my fair share of spankings and grew up fairly normal and really straight-laced there for a while, no drinking no drugs no sex, but I think it's college that corrupted me, not spankings.
Backing up from the moral issue, as I try to judge things by their effectiveness and assistance to society, if spanking and paddling students or children is not effective in getting them to stop their behavior, and it may cause them to commit more acts of violence, I'd have to say using corporal punishment is the worst form of discipline.

Interning at summer school

Let me just explain something to you. South Carolina has a bad reputation for graduating students who should have failed 3rd grade. I mean, how is it that 10th graders cannot comprehend parts of speech or subject-verb agreement? I've tutored 4th and 5th graders before, and these 10th graders had the exact same problems that they did. It did indeed sadden me to read sentences like "I am usually an avidly person." (not only that, but every vocabulary word that actually was an adjective had a sentence like "he is very *insert adj. here*." Oh, the creativity abounds in these kids.) Honestly, our public school system leaves much to be desired, but that can be said nationally. But I will give these kids the benefit of the doubt; after all, they are summer schoolers. And on that note, let me tell you how this all came about. You see, my college is very homosexual and forced me to perform 25 hours of age-appropriate youth experience even though 1)I already did it 2)It's my summer break 3)I have my own summer school to attend plus work every day. Regardless, I went ahead with their little scheme and went interning to the local high school where classes were being held. I was scared before I went, having images of thugs and crack addicts, students cursing me out, not listening, and generally being satan spawns like my father makes them out to be (he teaches in a juvenile detention center). Oh, the administrators tried to reassure me by telling me "well, not all the students are flunk-outs; some of them were expelled for drugs." Yeah, thanks guys. Oh, and then they tried to tell me this one: "some of these students are here to get ahead in their classes." Nope, didn't see any of those. But in all actuality, the students were much better than I expected, grammar problems aside. They amused me greatly with their writing, though. Their first task was to write about their favorite music artist, movie, tv show, etc. So of course I got a lot of "50 cent is the greatest rapper ever because I can relate to his lyrics and I want to be just like him when I grow up" and from the emo kids "As I Lay Dying is the best band ever because I can relate to their lyrics and I want to be just like them when I grow up." (my heart fluttered when I began to read that essay, hoping it was about the book, not the shitty band) And btw, does anyone know if the band named themself after Faulkner's book, and if so have they actually read it?
Another thing that amused me was their vocabulary sentences. Aside from what I've already said about them, some of these kids just gave way too much personal info in their sentences. I got things like "my girlfriend is very licentious every day" and from the emo kids "I was very despondent when I tried to kill myself." I had to laugh out loud at some of them.
And I have to relate this little gem: The regular teacher was going around the room asking people questions to get to know them, so he gets to one kid, who already didn't have his books or homework because "it's in my girlfriend's trunk and she and my mom are in jail" Um, don't need to know. "I forgot it" will suffice. Anyways, the teacher asks the kid if he works and the kid stars hemming and hawing around it, saying "well...I have this one job selling.....stuff....it pays really well...." so that it's blatently obvious that little Johnny's a drug dealer. So that's one of the ones who got expelled for drugs, huh? The teacher quickly moved on to the next student.
But all things considered, it was a fun experience, I enjoyed the class, and the kids were all well behaved or at least asleep. I'm not teaching the rest of the summer, but I'll be interning again in the fall and I'm sure I'll have some other things to talk about between now and then.

A note on the blog title

It comes from the book As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner, for whom I have an unhealthy obsession. But not only is it a cool ass quote, even taken out of context, but in the book, that sentence is a whole chapter unto itself. In addition, I could have my students write a 3 page paper on just that sentence if I so desired. Yeah, literature is that awesome.