I have mixed feelings about the books ending. It argues that the reckless, destructive and often antisocial behaviours of youth is something that can be grown out of, and as people become more mature and their outlook on life changes people are capable of making a self concious choice to be good and moral beings. The ludviggio technuique in the book removes that choice, so Alexes change in behavior is not a moral one and Burgess views this as worthless, the conciouss choice to change through free-will is arguably the more moral one and this I agree with.
However..
Some people don't/wont change their ways. Through the book I got the distinct impression that alex was a psycopath, and the extremes of behavior shown including rape, aggrevated assault and murder functioned at a level where rehabilitation is unlikely and reccidivism likely. Basically some people cannot change. Kubricks ending kept burgess moral argument imo, perhaps diluted a little without the ending to reinforce it, but most viewers and readers where sophisticated enough to probably grasp that without the final chapter so it was possibly a little heavy handed. I'm sure theres people who might dissagree with me but thats how I always saw it.
 |