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.