Article Analysis #4 - 1 views
-
Angie Pena on 25 Jan 11Argument: Rubin Rabinovitz writes that Anthony Burgess reuses a motif of libertarian vs. authoritarian in many of his novels. Often times this conflict of the characters is a projection of Burgess' views on morals and ethics as well as a display of Burgess' internal struggle. Rabinovitz refers to his novels A Clockwork Orange and the Tremor of Intent, pegging characters to libertarian and authoritarian personas. Through these comparisons he observes Burgess' own inconsistencies in his writing. Evidence: "The apparent inconsistencies in Burgess's dualistic moral views are sometimes seen as the result of his utilization of the Eastern yin-yang principles" (Rabinovitz). "What the religious novelist often seems to be saying is that evil is a kind of good, since it is an aspect of Ultimate Reality; though what he is really saying is that evil is more interesting to write about than good" (Burgess). "Very often, Burgess's use of Manichean dualism does work to reconcile differences in Eastern and Western thought; but problems arise when a choice must be made between relativism and absolutism...Absolutism seems to demand absolute fidelity, and in this sense Burgess's moral point of view appears ambiguous or inconsistent" (Rabinovitz). Thoughts: Rabinovitz focuses on conflicting ideologies that are not often recognized when reading A Clockwork Orange. He also offers a background on Anthony Burgess' location and how that contributes to his characters. Rabinovitz recognizes many of Burgess' characters as projections of Burgess himself and proposes how the clash of eastern and western philosophy influenced the author.