One Hand Clapping ~ Anthony Burgess ~ 12/99 ~ Book Export

I always like to explore Ist person narrations to see what the narrator reveals about herself as well as how she colors the reader's view of the other characters.

I found Janet a very interesting narrator: chatty, frank, observant (especially observant of other character's physical appearance and attire), friendly toward the readers she often speaks to directly as if talking to them at the supermarket where she works, down to earth, and seemingly reliable.

The latter is important because we have to trust the narrator in order for us to believe the story she tells. This, of course, isn't always the case with first person narration as writers sometimes give us an unreliable narrator to add to the complexity of our ferreting out her character and understanding her through this added dimension of her speaking voice.

Burgess does this dimension of characterization in spades later with Alex in Clockwork Orange as Alex speaks a totally new language of his own. But back to Janet.

Janet seems to be telling it as it is at least from her perspective. She doesn't hold anything back or deceive us.

Or does she?

Is she really being up front with us as she tells us what she saw in Howard? He was handsome in a dark sort of way- and a good dancer- very athletic as they rocked and rolled. Sexy by adolescent standards- but we aren't told that directly. In fact she lets us know that she wasn't into the teen-age girl's pop singers' adoration with "screaming and all that."

She is a proper English girl- not like the blondes from the north who are "tanned all over."

Sure she is.

She rebuffs the sexual pats and gropes of the science teacher not because it is wrong, but because he is physically unattractive- old pudgy- ughh- repulsive.

What of Howard- he isn't unattractive- she is very pretty- and very lively. We later learn because she can't really avoid telling us of it- that she is not immune to youthful hormones (although she can keep them in perspective).

I think we ought to watch this narrator carefully and measure her words against her actions- and see the other characters not only as she describes them but as they act.

Is her older sister as she describes her- or do we have some sibling rivalry here and find a different Myrtle emerge?

Is Howard the person she describes or is there a different Howard who will appear later?

First person narratives are always interesting to explore by seeing what we can learn of them by what they reveal in the telling. Holden Caufield, Huck Finn, and Janet Shirley tell us something about themselves by the way they tell us about others.

As far as I've gotten (arrival at the London hotel with no luggage), I see the difference between Janet and Howard as engagement with life versus detachment. Particularly this is evident with Howard in his reaction to Myrtle's suicide attempt.

I thought it was very interesting when Janet had a vision of the men whose names were evoked in the quiz show and thought it was "cheap and dirty to applaud something that nobody had any idea of".

Isn't this a fascinating book? I finished it waiting for the car today and don't want to give anything away but I was also struck by the narration and the....what sort of quality is that? What do you call that? I believe it has a name. She's almost....childlike or basic about some things but very different and evasive about others, and I do think there might be something going on with Myrtle, too?

And of course she and Howard are quite different in their approach to life, or are they? I find myself now wondering that last point...

And there are lots of throwaway lines, very telling throughout the book, it's actually quite surprising. If Jim hadn't told us it was written in the 60's I certainly wouldn't have known it by the prose or the subject, in fact it's pretty fresh, I don't see too much to date it anywhere.

Perhaps Howard is a child of his times, tho.

Those are really two good points that Deborah raises, both Janet and Howard had different feelings toward the old dead men that Howard won on, I don't understand HER reaction, as Deborah quotes above? What does it mean??

Detachment versus engagement, that's really quite good. Is Janet attached that well, tho or does she mold things to her own mind a bit?

Strange quality about her voice that I can't quite grasp yet.

Ginny

OH, MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS! Something awful has happened!I just received an email from B&N that ny book "One Hand Clapping" was delayed, and that they were just sending it out today!! Here I've been haunting the mailman daily looking for it, I ordered it two weeks ago and thought it would be here in plenty of time. Now it looks like it will be 2-3 days before it gets here. Anyway, I'll stay up all night if I have to, reading, so I won't be that far behind. I'm so sorry. Lorrie

Lorrie, I had a similar experience with B&N and a book I'd ordered for an online discussion. I'll slow down and wait for you; it is a quick read!

Ginny, I wonder whether your ear for Janet's voice is picking up the sound of a man writing in the first person as a woman. Just a thought.

OO, another new perspective, something to think about! Well done again, Deborah!

Not to fret, Lorrie, you are more than worth waiting for! It's a fast read.

Ginny

I thought, in addition to the apparently frank and ingenuous Janet, that the author (when you look back on it, he really did a good job there, didn't he, very skillful?) Anyway, I thought he sprinkled quite a few truisms or opinions throughout the text which don't rely solely on having read the book and wondered if anybody else caught them or cared to discuss them?

One was on page 19, for example. "Lies, you see. Life's all telling lies nowadays. All cheating and being a stranger to the truth." How about page 22, "The dream's better than the real thing, though. You take it from me." Those two thoughts seem to epitomize to me the opposing opinions of husband and wife.

My earliest note in the book is "Forrest Gump." The narrator seems to me to be using almost a Forrest Gump innocent attitude, wanting nothing, basic point of view whch then exposes all those around her while keeping her own.....innocence? intact. But then we see something different, it's hilarious when she is forced to really be honest, I thought.

And of course we really can't ignore the Quiz Show aspect. The Van Doren $64,000 quiz show debacle. Have you all seen the movie, perhaps, QUIZ SHOW with Ralph Fiennes? It's truly wonderful.

The hottest thing on TV at the moment is something called something like So You Want to be a Millionaire? with Regis Philbin? Have you all seen it? I understand the questions are totally dumb, have never seen it. Here's a little blurb on the influence of the Get Rich Quick mentality of the new Millionaire Quiz Show:

 

A 'Millionaire' Everywhere  

BY STEPHEN M. SILVERMAN 

Caught slightly off-guard by the humongous ratings of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" during an 18-night run that ended last week, ABC executives are now said to be mulling over the questions of whether or not to bring the quiz show back as a regular series and, if so, how often to run it.  
"We really believe we're in a win-win situation no matter what we do here," Lloyd Braun, ABC Entertainment co-chairman, told the Associated Press on Tuesday. Meanwhile, CBS' top executive, Leslie Moonves, tried to steal some of ABC's thunder, saying in a conference call with reporters that he had heard "Millionaire" will begin airing regularly on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays starting in January.  

CBS, by the way, is planning a "Millionaire" spin-off (rip-off?) of its own, reports Variety. Fox already started "Greed." Now CBS has entered into an agreement with Celador Prods., the British brains behind the original "Millionaire," to produce a U.S. version of another Brit hit, "Winning Lines."

And of course there was that TV Show of the Past "The Millionaire," or what was it called? John Beresfoot Tipton? Where you could HAVE a million dollars but you had to spend it all in one day and you couldn't tell anybody where you got it? Remember that one? Remember how people agonized over it? Boy it wouldn't take much to blow 1 million dollars in one day today, would it?

When was the old TV show QUEEN FOR A DAY on? I don't think we should overlook the influence, whether or not tongue in cheek here of the quiz show, and televisions elevating the common man for whatever reason, tho Howard made his big money somewhere else.

What sly jubs throughtout at different conventions of society.

I was struck by the depth of the questions asked of Howard on the TV show, how many did YOU get right? I thought the scenes of the "friendly" MC on the game and how Howard seemed to play it up and hesitate pure Van Doren. Of course Van Doren WAS acting. Do you remember Joyce Brothers on the old big quiz shows? The new magazine article in PEOPLE magazine recalls her famous knowledge about baseball, and she can STILL to this day answer difficult questions on the subject in defiance of those who suggest she, too, was rigged.

I also love the way the author begins to put foreshadowings and forebodings into the Gump like innocence of their lives, when you underline them it makes a text in itself.

It's quite an intriguing read, to me. But the "lying" thing is pure 60's too, or are there people who think that way today?

Ginny

My favorite..... "There's little enough in life, really, and you only find it worth living for the odd moments, and if you think you're going to be able to have those odd moments again, then it makes life wonderful and have a meaning."

And on the Van Doren saga... I sat there and watched that show, (through the snow on the screen) enthralled and that little jockey that had a mind like Howard's, and finally realized with Mark Van Doren, that it was all a put on... How deflating to know we had all been duped...

Has anyone noticed that Janet never cooks from scratch, and they eat lots of unhealthy, fried, fatty, usually tinned food. I can't remember a single fruit or vegetable (not counting potatoes) being heard from. If it was much later, I guess they'd be eating at McDonald's. You are what you eat?

That IS true, Deborah, now that you mention it, there was a LOT about food and it never looked good, either, wonder why?? Wonder why all the emphasis on food? Her cooking, his cooking? What did it signify? Sure was plain and uninspired stuff.

Pat, I love that quote, it's pitiful in a way, isn't it? Sort of well, I don't expect anything so when something really nice comes along it's the hope of that again that keeps me going. Poignant? Or??

GREED is the big catch word of the millennium, even to the name of a new game show. I thought it was a sign of the late 90s and now we can see it was...or was it a part of the 50's?? I don't remember. I remember the first Levittowns, the second one in New Jersey, how we went thru the houses, the little bit they cost (a home for every returning soldier, for every American). Levitt himself lived in my town but not in one of his prefabs. The backyard barbeques, remember "The Pawnbroker" with Rod Steiger, I like Ike and the good life at last? But somewhere in the 60's the rebellion started, or when was it actually that the "hippies" and the beatniks and the flower children began? The Vietnam War? Howard seems to be a precursor perhaps or maybe I don't know what happened when? Of course I'm not sure it's fair to compare American backyard culture with a British council estate? I'm not sure WHAT the climate was in Great Britain at that time.

I find, by the way, the habit of Janet's narration with very few paragraphs interesting, the effect is one of rushing to get the words out. I was trying to pay attention to WHEN it happened but lost the idea while reading, do you all think it's significant?

Ginny

Since there are only a few of us here, while we wait for Lorrie and so as not to spoil any of the details and all, just from a basic standpoint, which character in the book do you personally identify with, if either? Whose outlook seems the closest to your own?

Ginny

Hey, wait for me! I feel like I'm waiting on the train platform waving goodbye to all the happy travelers, watching the train fade away, so don't even think about closing! To be honest, Im a little provoked with B&N, but I won't lose my cool. Now I'm off to go sit at the front door where I can glare at the mailman if he doesn't bring my book! Besides, all this talk about food is making me hungry. Again. Lorrie

I might not ever have thought of it, Ginny, if you hadn't posed the question but I realize, as someone who is manic depressive I can identify with both of them. Janet gregarious, spendthrift, conscience surbordinated to libido, definitely a bit manic. Howard friendless except for his mate, strong conscience, less horrified by the taking of one's life. Of course I admit I have a tendency to see them under every bed!

 

The Beards 

Janet calls the writers that Howard has his photographic knowledge 
of "beards" (although the Bronte sisters probably didn't sport 
much along that line). Howard knows all about the data 
surrounding them but very little about the content of their works 
or meaning of it all. He just feels they pictured a superior 
world (even if bloody- the  executions in their world were 
"clean") and they are more evidence to Howard that his world is 
going to hell in a handbasket and the way to solve it is to get 
out (or at least to test that theory with his "hobby"). 

Of course, if he had looked a little deeper he would have found 
that they were often involved not so much in despair as Howard is 
but in searching for that elusive "truth and beauty " that 
Tennyson found with his romantic vision. 

Janet, who wishes she had been able to study history, has a more 
realistic but extremely shallow  knowledge of the world of the 
"beards." She knows about the awful smells, narrow streets and a 
Queen who never took a bath (compared to the modern Elizabeth who 
probably bathes 3-4 times a day.) 

Burgess has Howard choose the "books" category for the Quiz and 
the choice lends itself well to a number of satiric themes that 
run through the book from his spoof of the modern educational 
system devoid of intellectual substance, all the way through to 
the hypocrsy, empty posturing  and cant of the modern (probably 
long haired but beardless) "artists" led by Redvers Glass and 
probably epitomized by "One Hand Clappin'" the modern play they 
see in London (50'S) whose title is picked up from one of the 
more popular intellectual fads of that era - Zen Buddhism. 

This would have been the period (late 50's- early 60's) when the 
Theatre of the Absurd with plays like Beckett's Endgame and 
Waiting for Godot, Pinter's Birthday Party, Ionesco's The Bald 
Soprano, and Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead 
hit the London theatre scene. 

These are  plays that Howard would have enjoyed if he had been 
able to bend his photographic brain to the task because none of 
them envisions much hope for modern man. 

Now that I think of it, Janet reminds me a lot of Daisy in 
Inoesco's Le Rhinoceros. I wonder if Burgess borrowed Daisy for 
his novel. There are many similarities and both end up as 
survivors in a superficial valueless world. 

In many ways Howard has some despairing Beckett-like traits. But 
Beckett would have been aware of the  content of the "beards" as 
well as the surface data. Ironically Pinter, Ionesco, and 
Beckett's  works are now  aged enough to be the "beards" of our 
time. 

And Burgess does little in the novel to affirm the values of the 
beards whom he does admire and read but concentrates on spoofing 
the status quo (which certainly many of the beards did as well)

GREAT posts, Guys! I had been thinking about Deborah's all day when I saw Jim's and now am thinking along a totally new line.

First off, these characters are not, I think, quite as straightforward as they appear, both of you have pointed that out very nicely.

Before I go a step further, what IS the correct phrase, "Photographic brain" makes me laugh every time I look at it, it's Janet's phrase but that's not correct, is it? Yet I can't remember the proper phrase now.

My own grandmother had what was called "total recall," which is quite different.

At first I identified with Howard because Janet is so....so.....plain? So devoid of curiosity and any kind of intellectual life? So.....dead, really. Is the whole thing a parody? A conceit?

Then I saw that Jim is saying Howard has NO grasp of the Beards, he just knows facts. Remember that guy on one of those major quiz shows? He was the same way? He couldn't pronounce the words and didn't know what they meant, but he WAS able to recall everything he ever read? I wonder if Burgess got the idea from that guy, can't remember his name, and it wasn't Stempel.

So Howard, tho, can we say he's an idealist? OK, he doesn't KNOW the background (WHAT, after all IS ever ideal)? But he does try in his own way, to bring what he considers the perfect world to his own life. The thing is eerily like the movie "American Beauty," which I saw yesterday where a flawed anti hero sees beauty and perfection in death. Strange strange strange, have you all seen it? STRANGE is the operative word.

OK, do you understand the philosophy BEHIND the Buddist "One hand clapping," and if you do, will you explain it here?

And there's that "Waiting for Godot" again, it comes up in each and every book discussion: shouldn't we read it sometime so we can have a basis for comparison?

Frankly, the story here reminds me of the mirror image of "Wants," the first Grace Paley story in ENORMOUS CHANGES AT THE LAST MINUTE, which we're currently concluding in the BC Online above. In that one, the husband's chief complaint was that the wife "wanted nothing," I don't understand these characters to whom "be content with enough" seems to be a foreign idea.

I think there's a lot more to this book than it first appears, and am very grateful to you all for your comments. We're a small group assembled here, but a good one!

What is the author saying about the meaning of life here, I do think he's saying something!

Ginny

I think Howard did read some of his books. I remember before he went on the quiz show he was saying something about Dean Swift and the horses (which I took to be a reference to Gulliver's Travels). Janet assumed he was talking about some television program.

I've been giving the significance of the title a lot of thought. From what I've discovered about the Zen aspect, thinking about the sound of one hand clapping is supposed to open your mind briefly to some kind of "higher understanding".

Funny how Janet calls Howard's photographic memory a deformity. Makes him seem like some sort of idiot savant in reverse.

I'm still lurking in here, waiting for my book. It's just got to be here tomorrow! But reading some of these posts is almost as good as reading the book itself. Jim, your comments on The Beards was very astute. Am I mistaken or were or are you a teacher? I enjoy what you say, and the explanatory way you go about it makes me think of my favorite English teacher, named appropriately enough Miss English.

And Ginny, the way you describe the two characters so far make them seem very real.

Deborah, I like the phrase, "idiot savant in reverse." See you all soon, I'm almost sure.

Lorrie

I got the book today, so will be in to hound you. I remember the Pinter, Ionesco era very, very well. I saw Waiting for Godot many, many years ago, along with many other plays of that time. Can't wait to get started on this Burgess book. I like Burgess very much, but never read Clockwork Orange.

I'll be back.
Mal

I just finished building and uploading the last of thirty-three pages for the January-February Millennium issue of Sonata magazine for the arts, which will go on the web around December 30th. It's a job that takes intense concentration, and when I'm doing it I feel as if I'm in a state of nothingness. Well, I've started to wake up and notice what's around me. The only hand that's clapping is my own!

Mal

I think this is a funny, funny book. Oh, Burgess does love to spoof people and what he sees. I love the breathless way he makes Janet speak as narrator. On first impression I see Howard as a rather pompous, self-important, pre-Raphaelite type. Remember them? They were always flirting with suicide, the peacefully dramatic answer to everything.

The depiction of coquette Myrtle was great. Janet is so bloody ordinary, and, of course she talks about food. She works in a market and eating is more or less her entertainment thus far. Out of a can is how people of small means live, for heaven's sake, and working as they do, it's easier. Janet also is influenced by all she sees on TV, as are her pay-rent-to-the-council neighbors. Burgess is a master at not telling the story or describing the characters, but revealing the plot and characters through narration and dialogue. Bits and pieces come together, and a group of people and their environment become real.

I'm going to enjoy this book. No big haw haws, but I'm laughing just the same.

Mal

Hi, Mal, It's great to see you in here! Like you, I just got the book today and I've been reading it in a hurry to catch up to everybody. I'm just getting acquainted with Harold and his wife, and it takes a moment or two to become used to the veddy British expressions and phrases. Burgess won international acclaim for "Clockwork Orange," and I must admit that book was definitly "different." I'm anxious to get into this one a little more, although when it first came out I understand the reviews were pretty likewarm. Anyway, more later. Lorrie

 

The cover of my edition of "Clappin'" has phraes like 
"devilishly funny," "amusing," and "comic vision". 

I suspect they are all from reviews posted in 1961 when the book 
was originally published as humor is fairly fragile (except for 
some of the masters of wit- and even a master like Shaw can be 
pretty boring stuff read now) and what appeared funny in 1960 may 
not seem so to readers in 1999. 

Still I did find occasion to smile when reading Clappin' and even 
a chuckle out loud as I read Janet's opening words to chapter 26 
giving advice on coping with a difficult domestic situation with 
a hot cup of strong tea and some thought. 

Her thought opening Chapter 25 evoked a broad smile if not a 
chuckle and there were other points in the novel where some of 
the satiric ironies approached (but didn't quite reach) the 
promise of the blurbs. 

I snickered a little when Janet declared "I've always hated 
people having secrets" just after her roll in the hay with Red. 

Burgess used some props to help along his satire- the fur coat- 
the art work of the guests- a "Keystone" cop and some clearly 
comic intended scenes- the Redvers eating and drinking snoring  
scenes- The Shirleys being kicked out of the second class 
compartment because they had Ist class tickets - riding the bus 
to the furriers- and more. 

But I have to admit I didn't quite  share the reviewer's enthusiasm  
for the "comic vision" of this novel, but it has its moments.

I like the way Burgess, through Janet’s thoughts, pokes fun at those staid, middle-class people in their staid, middle-class village, with their built-in prejudices and deplorable diets. Does anyone else detect the slight antisemitism that Janet shows occasionally?

Like Jim, I confess I’m missing some of the humor here, although the scenes with Janet and Red’s toss in the hay were funny, like the overnight guest who snored so loudly. Janet’s description of the poet, with his “fruity” voice is right on, and I confess I can’t help but admire the gall of this disreputable character. Is he really the son of a knight, or a peer?

I’m enjoying this light-hearted read. It’s a welcome change from “Enormous Changes” which, you must admit, was sometimes quite grim.

Deborah, like you, I feel that there’s a lot of attention paid to what everybody is eating. Sure, Mal, I understand that’s how they ate, but canned beans on toast a delicacy? I have to remember the book was written in the ‘60's, and I don’t think there was as much attention paid to nutrition in those days. Or maybe it’s Burgess’ way of pointing out the dreadfully banal sort of sort of cuisine they followed.

I’m beginning to sense that we’re approaching a climax somewhere. I feel a temptation to peek at the ending, but I won’t, I want to read about their travel adventures first.

You're all quite far ahead of me in this book, though I do recall reading it before. Lorrie, nothing was said about the food's being a delicacy. English breakfasts, bangers and mash, baked beans on toast, fish and chips and bubble and squeak were and still are common fare. I said food was Janet's entertainment. The telly was serious business to these folks.

You didn't think the early description of Janet's schooling with the cool guitar-playing teachers was funny? Didn't Howard's sleep-walking session make you smile as you visualized it? Myrtle's ultra romantic suicide attempt and the hospital scene made me smile, too. What about Janet's sitting in front of the TV with a bottle of British sherry and "dainty tea sandwiches" dressed in her black evening frock? Didn't that scene have humor? There are more.

Granted that some of the wit is directed to Brits, I still maintain that this is a most amusing book, a book which must be seen as well as read. I haven't seen reviews, and this beat up old copy from the Apple Chill library has nothing on it to influence me.

There'll be more later from me, perhaps, if I dare.

Mal

Mal, SURE you dare! I'm thrilled to see you here and now our Lorrie has the book, too! Great!!

I'm still brooding over Howard. A remark that Penelope Keith made, (whom we just saw in Chicago) keeps returning to haunt me, "Shyness is just ego out of its depth."

Howard, well, what CAN we say about Howard? Does having this "photographic" brain (still need the right term here) make him superior? Does he, in fact, exhibit any other strength of intelligence? Isn't there something now about "Emotional IQ?" Aren't they saying brains are not enough? IS he smart, do you think?

Can you relate at all to his feeling of isolation because of the way he thinks?

I don't know how to take Howard. I do know I relate more closely to him than I do Janet, but don't understand his rationalizations.

I DO know I wouldn't have gotten to first base with those questions, only knew ONE out of the bunch and I don't see (hmmmm?) anybody else fessing up here either? hahahahahaaa

Hoo boy!

Anyway, the book is sort of a light pastiche with a decidedly dark underlining, very much like the movie American Beauty.

The food is plain because Janet is "plain," or so she would like for us to think. Plain and simple. Sarah, straight and tall. Straightforward, not secretive (!!??!!) just your "All British girl" content with enough.....

Did you catch the snide remarks about education? The reactions of the neighbors to Howard's smartness, the others in the store? Is this common in every culture?

I think Howard realizes his shortcomings and is sorry for them, I think his ability makes him even more frustrated than he would have been. Note in the beginning it's our Janet who urges him on, to seek more of a career, am just not sure what's going on in the dynamic between them.

What do you think, which one do you relate to, if either?

Ginny

Is it me, or does this "discussion" bear an uncanny resemblance to the Republican presidential "debate" (a question is an opportunity for a speech, an answer is an opportunity for a speech)?

I'm too busy to watch Republican debates, so have no standard of comparison. How would you run this discussion, Deborah?

Mal

I’m struck by Howard’s disillusionment with the Establishment ,(?) with which we get a glimpse all through the book. Whether it’s the tone of the times, that “Ban the Bomb” mentality of those days, or simply disgust at what he perceives to be worthless values,Harold’s demeanor seem to change, from the time he decides to participate in the game show. Even Janet notices it, like when she says in Chapter 3 “I felt there was something in Howard that I didn’t understand and that I was a bit afraid of.” Or like in Chapter 4, where she says, “He was changing inside in a queer sort of way, was Howard, but I trusted him.”

Yeah, I noticed that changing, too, but didn't understand too well what was actually changing, so it was one of those things I "passed" over for later... which never came.

Jeepers, I hate I'm so long winded! I keep trying to keep it short! hahahahaa, and I must admit, having been called on it, a....shall we say.... greater need than usual to come up with something, anything. ....Pretty sharp, our Deborah!

Let's try it somewhat differently, but how?

I'm game.

Ginny

Deborah, I’m curious as to your reference to a Republican debate. Forgive my apparent ability to grasp the significance. The last Republican debate I saw was a travesty. Is that what you mean? Lorrie

After reading four chapters I posted this: "On first impression I see Howard as a rather pompous, self-important, pre-Raphaelite type. Remember them? They were always flirting with suicide, the peacefully dramatic answer to everything."

I find that I was not so very wrong. Dear ordinary Janet proves to be quite a survivor, doesn't she? Street smarts maybe, or maybe just plain instinct were her forte, as it turns out.

It's probably a good idea not to read more into this book than is there. It's an amusing satire from first page to last, in my opinion. I won't defend that stand.

Did someone say it's to be a movie? It'll be a good one with a lot of laughs. Wait and see.

Mal

Speaking of the movie version, who do you think would be good actors for the roles of Howard and Janet? I don't think even Coppola knows yet, at least it hasn't been announced. I imagine the actors would have to be British, it would be hard to find an American actor who could fake that accent. Michael Caine? Too old? I can see Lynn Redgrave (maybe) as Janet. Remember her in "Georgy-girl?"

Mal, I think you're right. There's not all that much deep meaning in what these people portray. I haven't come to the end yet, but I'm sure there will be a denouement of some kind. Lorrie

I read this book all out of sync with this discussion but I do want to check in.

I started this book before the discussion opened up and when the picture at the top first appeared I thought, "Hmmm. I wonder who these people are supposed to be." Imagine how dumb I felt when I finally caught on - ,"Why, that's Janet and Howard!" Even after making that connection, I've never been able to get beyond my first impression that Janet and Howard were rather frumpy, middle-aged people. I guess somewhere it is mentioned that Janet is rather attractive but that just didn't fit in with my eventual firm image of her. When it was mentioned that it was her 24th birthday, I could only think, "No, there's a mistake here!" Odd, aye?

Of the two, Janet originally seemed to have more depth - a more active mind, capable of original thinking. But, by the end, while Janet did emerge as a survivor, it was Howard who had taken the whole thing to another level - misguided, for sure, but indicative of some "heavy" thinking on his part.

This was just a treat to read - light and amusing at first, much more provocative at the end. I am now very much inclined to search out more Anthony Burgess books.

Oh, and yes, their diet was deplorable but I have a feeling that they may have been typical of their social group. I've always heard that English cooking wasn't the greatest and, bless their hearts, to our standards that may be so.

Lorrie, great question about who could play their parts.

Does anyone watch the PBS show, "Keeping up Appearances"? I LOVE that show and can see the leads playing our Janet and Howard. Of course, they're way too old but I still see them that way.

Hey, DIANE! ALL RIIIGHT!!

Oh gosh I just love "Keeping Up Appearances," but they are too old. But wouldn't they be FINE in that one, tho I can't see poor Richard doing the Howard bit?

Of all the episodes of that one I like the Rolls Royce best, and the one where she visited the stately home and planted herself waiting for the owner and told everybody that was why she was waiting standing there, only to find him in the garden and take him for a gardener. What a hoot. That one is all about pretention.

Now is this one about pretention, do you think? If so, what is it lampooning?

Maybe you are all right and there's not too much under the surface here, maybe that's what causes my anxiety about discussing it?

By the way, Diane, have you seen To the Manor Born? We just, those of us who went to Chicago to the Book Groups Gathering, just saw Penelope Keith on stage in Noel Coward's "After the Ball," she was the ONLY one you could understand and looked fabulous, just gorgeous.

Jim: Why are you spelling it "Clappin'?"

Ginny

Ginny,

I spell in Clappin' because that is the title Burgess gave it in the
first publication back in 1960(61)?

Malyrn,

Yes, I found Janet's descriptions of her teachers very funny- and unfortunately too close to the truth for that period and on into 60's and 70's when schools both in England and US tried to woo students by being buddies with them (and failed miserably).

I understand why Burgess wanted Janet and Howard to suddenly gain wealth to move his plot along and to assist in the satire of the effects of wealth on the two of them, but I can't figure out why he didn't just stick with the satire on the quiz programs and have the money accumlulate that way.

Instead he uses the quiz money as a relatively small stake and has Howard accumlulate the rest by betting on the horses in a manner that I can't understand.

I don't bet the horses but I think you make money on the horses not by picking a winner but by picking a series of winners and essentially outwitting the other gamblers. Having a photographic memory wouldn't seem to help as every better has a knowledge of past perfomance of each horse in a race in printed form (photographic memory not needed).

Howard has an advantage, however, as he is shown to be able to see into the future by projecting his mind pictures of past race results into the future (maybe the ghost of Christmas future was helping).

I wonder if we are to believe that he really had that ability or if that ploy is part of the satire somehow? Maybe there is a little satire here about English bookies and betting that I am unable to figure out. I imagine one has to be an anglophile to really know all about the English passion for horse races (I'll have to go back and re-read some Dick Francis).

This book reminds me of the theater of the absurd. I think that's what Burgess wanted it to do, thus the One Hand Clapping title. The title is taken from the name of the play Janet and Howard saw, type of which I remember yawning through back in the 60's. If Burgess meant Howard's premise to be "Life is absurd", then it follows that he would make his fortune betting on horses rather something sensible like investments or even continuing on the quiz show. The quiz show is only one of the devices Burgess uses to get his characters where he wants them to be.

Burgess is poking fun at the oh-so-serious attitudes and trends of that time in a subtle, not in-your-face end of the 20th century way. Logic has nothing much to do with what happens in this book. That is why I posted last night that it probably is a good idea not to read more into this story than is there. Considering that Janet is Howard's only hobby, it is absurd to think that his photographic memory would be used to remember authors and titles of books. In reality, he would have been photographing extraneous bits of trivia.

Incidentally, the scene at Howard and Janet's house when they returned from their travels is one of the funniest I think I ever read. It will make a great scene in the movie if they use it. One can never predict the vagaries of film-makers. Burgess's writing must be visualized, and it takes imagination on the part of the reader for it to work.

Mal

The book cover announces that Francis Ford Coppola has the film rights and several posters have raised questions about a possible movie.

Here are some links to sites about Coppola which may or may not shed some light on what he might do with the story.

He did direct one film "Peggy Sue got Married" that deals with the same time period and possible age group of characters but from looking at some of these links I think we can expect almost anything from Coppola if he does the film.

biography

credits

Salon story

I think Coppola will fill in some scenes from the period when Red and his gang occupy the flat and what went on there at that time.

That would emphasize Mal's insight into the absurd aspects in the book.

And, of course, some sex scenes that Janet does not describe in detail (actually I think they are better that way- funnier)

Yeah, Mal, the visual impact of that scene where Howard and Janet return from their trip would be a deliciously comic one on screen. That whole scene reminded me of when, as caretakers of an apartment building where the owner had rented an apartment to people he later found out were “hippies,” my husband and I had to evict them. Their apartment looked Kafka-esque but eerily attractive. They had painted all the walls black (for a psychedelic effect, they said) and were conducting an ongoing open-house on a 24hr. basis. Reasons for eviction, plus non-payment of rent. Anyway, that confrontation was not unlike that of Howard and Janet’s upon their return. I think this is one of the funniest chapters in the book, because I can picture it so well.

Well!! I finished the book, and without peeking at the end, too. I'm still in a state of surprise (?) but I'm not about to say a word. Let's not anyone talk about this ending until everyone has finished the book. There's a lot there for discussion. I've been thinking about that couple, and I think I like Janet a little more. At least she knows her limitations and seems to enjoy life on her own terms, although I'll never understand any woman's blind obedience to her husband. Lorrie

Yeah, I agree, nobody tell the end, but, Jim, how about tell us what's meant by Burgess having spelled "clappin'" that way in the first edition?

Ginny

Ginny,

Clappin' is I think an attempt to represent a dialect and add to the satire of the more pretentious "Clapping" title used for the avante garde play they attended.

As Mal points out the novel is itself absudrist in plot- characterization etc. and Burgess may be saying "Hey look I can write this nonsense too in my own dialect."

The ending is the grand finale of the satire and I think it would be a mistake to take it seriously. (especially considereing Janet's hot tea advice)

But that's the problem with our present time- what may have been considered the epitiome of absurdity in 1960 now happens regularly-

Can you imagine, for example, any way a modern musical satirist ( ala the old Spike Jones records) could satirize some forms of popular music now- how would one ever know it was a satire?

Remember, for example, the camp movie "Eating Raul" (sp) I think that was the title- nowadays that might be taken as a documentary.

Oh, Jim, I really had to laugh out loud when you said, in regard to satirizing modern music, "But how would one ever know it's a satire?" Very good. You're right. It seems as though the only blatant satire we can see these days is on Saturday Night Live. Lorrie

Great points, everybody!

Now the thing that immediately stands out for me is that the majority of the book is NOT, however, written in dialogue? A few instances, very few. Dialogue, according to the Poet Laureate of SC, is very difficult to write and to write successfully.

Wonder why he changed the title back? Maybe he didn't, maybe the American publisher, feeling that nobody would get it here, changed it for him.

Wonder what the title has to do with the book at all? Have not understood the signifigance of the Buddist philosophy yet?

I did think the horse racing was a bit off. Howard should have won bigger, if he were doing a farce Howard would have won a million pounds. Absurd? Well, if that's what he's aiming for, then it would be. As Jim pointed out a photographic brain would be useless with the racing Form in full view, that didn't compute.

Last night I was appalled to see on the television where my husband had left it after Jeopardy which he has started watching and needs to go on for WWII, a quiz show with lots of tension and crying and behold, it was the new GREED. Boy is that an awful show. It has everything but somebody in a Devil suit with pitchfork. Awful truly truly awful. Disgusting.

If there's no point to the book, there's no point in reading it. Is there no point the author is making besides life is a theater of the absurd?

Then why is Howard attempting to make life perfect as he saw it? That article in PEOPLE MAGAZINE had much the same import: no, we're not going to help the poor or cure disease, we're going to LIVE a little.

Howard didn't have enough money to do what he wanted to do anyway.

And when he DID attempt to help the poor or further a literary cause, look what happened?

I'm not at all sure this book is as light or inconsequential as everybody seems to think?

Ginny

Wonder what the title has to do with the book at all?

While they were in London before going on to America, Howard read about this play "One Hand Clapping" in the Times, "a play dealing with the decay and decadence in the world about us, very witty."

Near the end of Chapter 16.

In the year before this book was written, Burgess received a false alarm that he had a brain tumor (this from "About the Author" at the end of my ancient paperback). He went on to write five books in one year. I am of the opinion this was, for him, a sort of potboiler. I think it's a slight piece of black humor, which is collapsing under the weight of our words. It probably would have been ephemeral, if not for the body of Burgess' work.

Deborah! Do you think maybe that the possible brain tumor (and thank you for that info, didn't know that), made him think a bit about the meaning of life and if so, what does this book tell us, I wonder? hahahaahhaha Do you think there's something subliminal coming out? Had no idea he wrote so many at once, sort of in a fever, then. Yet Dickens wrote A CHRISTMAS CAROL in a very short period of time (tho I don't think he wrote 5 others at the same time).

Actually this is my first meeting with Burgess. I have heard of A Clockwork Orange but never saw it. Wasn't it violent?

Pat W, OK, "a play dealing with the decay and decadence in the world about us, very witty." so it's a take on a take, but what's that all got to do with Budda? IS this about decay and decadence? Want to be sure I ferret out every last meaning.

I don't know, don't you all think that if an author takes the time to write something it should MEAN something, despite the "poem should not mean, but be," type of thought??

Ginny

A satire does have meaning-

By pointing out how ridiculous a particular situation- movement- philosophy is an author is rejecting it.

What is to replace it?

I think Burgess would replace the moderns (the Clappin') with the beards.

That is a little of his message-

Clockwork is a much more serious work that grapples with a very basic philosophical issue- the problems surrounding the concept of free will- vs determinism or behaviorism.

If you want a heavier work by Burgess take it on.

Meanwhile I like Clappin'-

I enjoy dark- even black humor.

Dark beer, too.

Are there no other male readers of this book?

Gads, I'm outnumbered.

Looking forward to the Coppola film if he ever makes it.

Clockwork fits into a long line of literay works that have taken on the free will issue.

i

Deborah, that's an interesting fact about Burgess having been diagnosed with a brain tumor. In my estimation, I think it explains a lot about the message he was trying to get across (through Harold) concerning the state of the world as he saw it, in those days. His eemingly miraculous recovery must have colored the way he saw Life, and I imagine that's what he was saying in this book. Brain tumor or not, I personally like the way he wrote this book. I find on rereading some of his scenes that they're even funnier. What a great movie this could make, if they don't screw it up! Lorrie

I've been wondering about the title. While on their London trip Harold tries to explain the title "one Hand Clapping" to a scoffing Janet. He attempts to explain the Zen Buddhism source by saying,"It's a way of getting in touch with reality, you see, proceeding by way of thae absurd." And then he goes on "Like imagining thunder with no noise, or a bird flying with no head or wings. It's supposed to be a way of getting to God." does anyone see anything prophetic here? Does Burgess mean this is the underlying reason behind Harold's plan? To "get closer to God?" Lorrie

Any opera buffs in the group? I found a review of our book on the New York Times website (if anyone wants the address let me know). The reviewer calls the book "Witty and shrewdly joyful" and titles his review "A mental Rigoletto". He wisely withholds the ending, but states we'll "be better for learning why the title is "One Hand Clapping". I guess I'm not better yet!

YES, Deborah, please post it and hurry, they take them off and you have to pay to get them out of archive and I'll make an html page of it. Rigoletto, hah? Well, who of us is better?? Let him speak now!!

I just asked my husband what was meant by the headless and wingless bird flying and he was most unhelpful!

Looks like you ARE surrounded on THIS one, our Jim, but you won't be in 2000, Charlie has taken a "pledge" to read all 12 of the Book Club Online features, as I hope we all will, we'll definitely all be the better for it.

You mean the NY Times is talking about our selection NOW??? OOPS!! Are we AU COURANT YET AGAIN, CLUBBERS????????

hahahahahha

Ginny

Deborah, I'd love to see that NY Times article. I'm anxious to see what the connection is between that intriguing title and the opera Rigoletto. I love opera, but I'm afraid I'm only familiar with the Puccini ones. My brother, a true opera aficionado, sneers at me and calls my taste "shmaltzy." I don't care. I still sob along with the dying Mimi.

Not to worry, Jim! We're all perfectly harmless.

The review is in a special section of archived material on authors. The address is http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/30/home/burgess.html

Deborah: Wonderful article. I knew Burgess wrote a lot of books, but never realized he was that prolific! Like you, Deborah, I don't feel any better for learning about the title.

Has anyone heard anything about Burgess' talent for music? I read somewhere he had a passion for it, and was an adept musician, but can't remember where I read it. Lorrie

Brickner took the book too seriously. As I posted before, Burgess was spoofing the people and the culture of the day. It's not the only book in which he has done this. One hand clapping is to Westerners as absurd a comment as the question where is your lap when you stand up? One hand clapping makes no sound, so what was all the brouhaha and fuss of that era about? I believe that was Burgess's premise in this book. What Howard wanted was nirvana, nothing more, nothing less. Nirvana? That's the ultimate of nothingness.

Incidentally, the brain tumor was a misdiagnosis. Burgess lived for thirty-three years after he was told he had a brief time to live. One wife, an alcoholic, died, and he married another woman some years later. In the meantime he wrote, and I'm very glad he did.

Mal, typing on a brand new powerful computer, early Christmas gift from her daughter and friend. Guess what? 120 bucks was the cost with rebates. You've got two hands clapping here in North Carolina tonight.

From a page about a concert at Brown University of music by Anthony Burgess:

Paul Phillips, director of orchestras and chamber music at Brown, has organized the concert, which is free to the public. "Most people know Anthony Burgess as a British novelist and essayist," Phillips said, "but he was also a very gifted composer who wrote a vast amount of music of all types, including orchestral, ballet and chamber music compositions."

The performance will begin with the earliest preserved work by Burgess, Cradlesong, written in 1952, and Preludes (1964), both for piano solo. The concert will feature Master Coale's Pieces, a work written for Sam Coale, a professor at Wheaton College and a Providence resident. "In the late '70s, while Sam Coale traveled to Monaco to interview Burgess for a biography, Sam mentioned that he played the piano," said Phillips. "A few days later Burgess presented him with a set of piano pieces entitled Master Coale's Pieces." Coale, who has never heard a live performance of the compositions, will introduce the work and describe the circumstances of its composition.

Mal, how interesting on the musical side of Burgess, marvelous! Thanks so much.

I hate to admit this, Everybody, but I CAN actually clap with one hand? Does that make me a freak? I can make a sound with one hand, can't YOU? It's lessened, but it's a sound.

I didn't think the Buddists clapped anyway to show appreciation? What's the origin of clapping, didn't think they did. Thought that was Western. O, for the origin of clapping.

Deborah, thanks so much, now I believe you have magic powers, had no trouble reading those articles and didn't need to pay, am now confused because many of the articles are pay only, totally confused, but very much enjoyed reading it and may try a couple of the others. Putting the link in the heading, thanks for that, and thanks, Jim, for your links.

Little by little by the help of our members here we're building a heading!

Noel Coward was another author who had a "light" outlook on life and writing. I still maintain that the clown or the irreverent person or the flake or the satirist is dead serious at heart, very dead. I know of no clown or entertainer or writer...well, maybe Dave Barry....who in person was not as serious as a crutch and most of them have totally traumatic backgrounds. I contend that what passes for brush off satire and black humor has a base somewhere else and is saying something. What, I don't know, but something.

Me, either, Lorrie, I don't feel the least enlightened!

Ginny

This is not on the topic, but what I'm going to mention is very important to my family and me and many, many others in this country.

Are you on a list as an organ donor? It suddenly occurred to me that I am not, and I'm going to do something about that right away. My son, Rob, who visited me recently from Florida, is seriously ill with Hepatitis C. This past week his name was placed on a list for a liver transplant. If he is the recipient of one, it would not only prolong his life; it might save it. I urge you to to think about putting your name on an organ donor list. I know I'm going to as soon as I possibly can.

Mal

Mal: that's a great reminder, we all may think we are but often have not made arrangements, thanks for bringing it up, so sorry to hear about your son and I hope he may be able to get a transplant, I know that's so hard. That doggone Hep C, it's awful! You know our Larry had a beginning case which they caught early, I guess, anyway he's been able to discontinue the awful treatments after it seems years. It's a horror!

So sorry, thinking of you and your son!

Came in here to say the things we learn here in our Bookclubs! Of COURSE we can all hum "La donna e'mobile," and, Folks, THAT'S from Rigoletto!!

Here is a clip and it's a HUGE clip so I won't leave it on our server long, just enough for you to hear the glorious voice. Right under it on the page was CARUSO singing one from Rigoletto, maybe next week I'll put him up!

Here's the plot of Rigoletto: (NB in Edit: this site keeps crashing my computer so have reproduced it here, apologize for the length, it's better than rebooting every second):

The Story
CHARACTERS
IL DUCA of Mantua, tenor
RIGOLETTO, court jester, baritone
GILDA, his daughter, soprano
SPARAFUCILE,assassin, bass
MADDALENA, his sister, alto
GIOVANNA, Gilda's confident, mezzosoprano
The Count of MONTERONE, baritone
MARULLO, knight, baritone
BORSA Matteo, courtier, tenor
The Count of CEPRANO, bass
La CONTESSA, his wife, soprano
A Court bailiff, tenor
A Dukess' page, mezzosoprano

Knights, Dames, Pages, Halberdiers

The plot is set in the city of Mantua (Italy) and its neighbourhood during XVI century.

ACT I

The Duke of Mantua, lecherous and ambiguous, gives a party to boast about his countless lovers. Later he leaves the party with the Countess of Ceprano; in the meantime Rigoletto, the court jester, mocks the jealous husband of the Countess of Ceprano. The knight Marullo mocks Rigoletto, and reveals that in spite of his being hunchbacked Rigoletto has a young lover. The mocked Count of Ceprano plans a revenge: to kidnap jester's lover. The party ends when the Count of Monterone accuses the Duke to have seduced his beloved daughter. The Duke has him arrested and Rigoletto mocks him: Monterone curses the Duke and his jester. Later Rigoletto is going home while he meets Sparafucile, an assassin who offers him his “abilities”. Rigoletto refuses but asks his name. When at home, Rigoletto reveals to Gilda, who is his secret daughter and not his lover, his sad heart. When Rigoletto goes out, the Duke sneaks in and disguises himself as a poor student, trying to seduce Gilda, but has to run away as the Count of Ceprano and the other courtiers are coming. They meet Rigoletto who is coming back, and tricking him they are helped by the blindfolded Rigoletto to kidnap his own daughter, that he believes to be the Countess of Ceprano. But when he hears her voice calling for help from the distance he understands everything, and remembers the curse by Monterone (Ah, la maledizione!).

ACT II

The kidnapped Gilda is imprisoned in the Duke's palace. The courtiers boast about their action with the Duke, who understands that Gilda is in his palace and decides to go and reveal his identity to her. Rigoletto arrives and tries to have back his daughter, but is mocked and curses the courtiers. When at last Gilda runs out of the Duke's apartments, ashamed and tearful as the Duke seduced her, Rigoletto decides to have the Duke killed by Sparafucile.

ACT III

On the banks of Mincio river near Mantua there's an old inn. Gilda tells Rigoletto that she still loves the Duke, and Rigoletto tells her to look through the inn's window: the Duke is seducing Maddalena, Sparafucile's sister. Rigoletto orders Gilda to disguise in man's clothes and move to Verona, where he will go after his vengeance. A storm arrives while Maddalena, who now loves the Duke, tries to convince his brother to kill the hunchbacked jester instead of the Duke, but Sparafucile doesn't want to betray a “client”. They agree to kill the first stranger coming in the inn in place of the Duke, and to put the corpse in a sack to trick Rigoletto. Gilda didn't obey to her father, and is out of the inn where she listened everything. She decides to be the victim, to save her beloved Duke's life: she enters, is stabbed and put in a sack. When the storm is over Rigoletto arrives, takes the sack and pays Sparafucile. While the jester is throwing the sack in the Mincio river he hears the voice of the Duke singing La donna è mobile. He swiftly opens the sack and discovers her daughter agonizing. Gilda asks his father to forgive her, then dies in his arms. Rigoletto, desperately hugging her daughter's corpse, yells Ah, la maledizione!.

and here's the clip: Clip of Rigoletto.

It takes that clip a LONGGGG time to get to where you can hear him singing without interruptions but it's worth it.

So my question is, what does Rigoletto have to do with ONE HAND?

Ginny

There is satire and satire. Social satire, such as what is found in Gulliver's Travels, most certainly carries a serious message and is meant to sway public opinion. What Burgess does in One Hand Clapping is not social satire. It is a tongue in cheek commentary about people and an era. I know the popular way is to find deep meaning in books, to identify with characters, to find a profound messages, etc., but that method is not always right. I am reminded of the time someone spoke to Agatha Christie about the strong message in one of her novels. She responded by saying, "What message? I wrote the book because I needed the money."

Burgess's book has little or nothing to do with Buddhism. The play in the book titled One Hand Clapping, which had nothing to do with Buddhism, either, was simply an example of the trend of the times and meant to enhance the character of Howard, who felt that life is absurd, also a popular conception of that time. Witness the existensial writing of Sartre and Camus, stimulated by the horrors of World War II and most certainly serious commentaries about their country

Burgess is an extremely clever writer. He uses one subplot after another to get his characters where he wants them to be. The ending is perfect. The genius contrivance of Howard's last abode is the very adept way in which Burgess told Howard in a very wry and witty way that his obsession with the absurdity of life was absolutely right. After all, didn't life turn around and prove that Howard was absurd, too? Burgess is not telling the reader that he held that opinion. I rather assume, since his intelligence and objectivity were what they were, that he was well aware of "what fools these mortals be". That to me is the only sort of message Burgess states in this book: "What fools these mortals be". Of course, another British writer with the same degree of intelligence and objectivity said the same thing long, long before Burgess ever came on the scene.

Mal

I had a problem with my browser on the plot.

Try this:

 

Knights, Dames, Pages, Halberdiers  

The plot is set in the city of Mantua (Italy) and its 
neighbourhood during XVI century.   

 ACT I  

The Duke of Mantua, lecherous and ambiguous, gives a party to 
boast about his countless lovers. Later he leaves the party with 
the Countess of Ceprano; in the meantime Rigoletto, the court 
jester, mocks the jealous husband of the Countess of Ceprano. The 
knight Marullo mocks Rigoletto, and reveals that in spite of his 
being hunchbacked Rigoletto has a young lover. The mocked Count 
of Ceprano plans a revenge: to kidnap jester's lover. The party 
ends when the Count of Monterone accuses the Duke to have seduced 
his beloved daughter. The Duke has him arrested and Rigoletto 
mocks him: Monterone curses the Duke and his jester. Later 
Rigoletto is going home while he meets Sparafucile, an assassin 
who offers him his “abilities”. Rigoletto refuses but asks his 
name. When at home, Rigoletto reveals to Gilda, who is his secret 
daughter and not his lover, his sad heart. When Rigoletto goes 
out, the Duke sneaks in and disguises himself as a poor student, 
trying to seduce Gilda, but has to run away as the Count of 
Ceprano and the other courtiers are coming. They meet Rigoletto 
who is coming back, and tricking him they are helped by the 
blindfolded Rigoletto to kidnap his own daughter, that he 
believes to be the Countess of Ceprano. But when he hears her 
voice calling for help from the distance he understands 
everything, and remembers the curse by Monterone (Ah, la 
maledizione!).  

 ACT II  

The kidnapped Gilda is imprisoned in the Duke's palace. The 
courtiers boast about their action with the Duke, who understands 
that Gilda is in his palace and decides to go and reveal his 
identity to her. Rigoletto arrives and tries to have back his 
daughter, but is mocked and curses the courtiers. When at last 
Gilda runs out of the Duke's apartments, ashamed and tearful as 
the Duke seduced her, Rigoletto decides to have the Duke killed 
by Sparafucile.  

 ACT III  

On the banks of Mincio river near Mantua there's an old inn. 
Gilda tells Rigoletto that she still loves the Duke, and 
Rigoletto tells her to look through the inn's window: the Duke is 
seducing Maddalena, Sparafucile's sister. Rigoletto orders Gilda 
to disguise in man's clothes and move to Verona, where he will go 
after his vengeance. A storm arrives while Maddalena, who now 
loves the Duke, tries to convince his brother to kill the 
hunchbacked jester instead of the Duke, but Sparafucile doesn't 
want to betray a “client”. They agree to kill the first stranger 
coming in the inn in place of the Duke, and to put the corpse in 
a sack to trick Rigoletto. Gilda didn't obey to her father, and 
is out of the inn where she listened everything. She decides to 
be the victim, to save her beloved Duke's life: she enters, is 
stabbed and put in a sack. When the storm is over Rigoletto 
arrives, takes the sack and pays Sparafucile. While the jester is 
throwing the sack in the Mincio river he hears the voice of the 
Duke singing La donna è mobile. He swiftly opens the sack and 
discovers her daughter agonizing. Gilda asks his father to 
forgive her, then dies in his arms. Rigoletto, desperately 
hugging her daughter's corpse, yells Ah, la maledizione!.

I have no idea how it connects to One Hand Clappin'- The title given when it was first published untrer the name of Kell.

The Ny Times review is from 1972- must have been republished then under the Burgess name.

I agree with Mal- we are trying to make too much of it.

For reference to music in a Burgess work- go to Clockwork where music (mainly Beethoven) plays an important role.

Jim, that was great of you to supply the plot behind the opera "Rigoletto." I recognize it now, especially when you remind us where the familiar aria "O Donna Mobile" came from. Maybe I'm too dense, but I still don't see the connection between the title One Hand Clapping and this opera.

I've been reading some surprising things about Burgess in the Electric Library. I'll post some of them here, because I don't think that url is linkable. Lorrie

Jim, wouldn't you say that the opera, Rigoletto, which I saw many years ago, is another example of "What fools these mortals be"? Rigoletto and others were caught up in plans of their own contrivance. Seems to me Sparafucile was the winner here. He, after all, was paid for what he did.

Mal

Burgess wrote a treatise on common speech at one time, and when he was asked about it his answer was something like this: "W.B. Yeats," writes Burgess, "wrote of one of his poems that he 'made it out of a mouthful of air.' All literature is made in this way, though we tend to think of it as a scratching of signs on paper. Literature gives permanence to language: people learn Greek to read Plato and Latin to read Catullus. Language is books. But it is primarily so much air, a mouthful at a time, modified by contortions of the vocal organs. It is impermanent, evanescent, highly changeable, but it is the primary reality, while writing and printing are of a secondary order."

Wouldn't you think that he would put wriing first, as the primary reality, rather than "a mouthful of air" as he puts it? Lorrie

Lorris, without language there can be no literature. I understand well why Burgess said what he did, even if "It is impermanent, evanescent, highly changeable...."

Lorrie, you should consider putting this quote by Burgess into the Seniors View of the Future folder where Robby has started a discussion about language.

Mal

Mal & Jim & Lorrie... Thanks for your posts.. I rather liked One Hand Clapping and agree with what you all have said.

Great posts, everybody! The author of the piece in the NY Times said of ONE HAND CLAPPING, "Howard, though, is tortured by the cynicism and fury of one whose very kind of brain, he insists, suits him all too well for his time. Howard “accepts,” in fact much more easily than Janet does; he accepts to the point of succumbing to the worst the world can offer, in order to justify his attempted revenge on it. Howard is a mental Rigoletto."

I find that interesting, the author of the piece is making a connection between Howard's being a mental Rigoletto and the Verdi opera which was, anybody would have to admit, a very convoluted plot. And in the end, Rigoletto's own plots for revenge cost him what he loved the most.

Could we say Howard has a plan or a plot? Is Howard trying to eke out revenge in some way and if so, against whom?

Going to see if this thing has a study guide somewhere.

Ginny

La donn'e mobile, and so are critics and reviewers, as far as I'm concerned. To bring Rigoletto into this discussion seems like a weighty non sequitur to me. Rigoletto is a melodrama. Is One Hand Clapping a melodrama, too?

I remember the time of this book very, very well. I can remember saying some of the lofty things Howard said, including "Life is absurd". I did not have the perspicacity at that time to understand that the very, very intellectual group I was in and I were indulging in a most self-centered, unrealistic view. Burgess knew better, so used what he saw and wrote an amusing little book about it. That's what One Hand Clapping is, you know; an amusing little book, no more, no less. For some reason, based on fact, I'm sure Burgess would agree. Anybody here ever read any David Lodge? He's another Brit who loves to poke fun at people and the times in which they live.

Mal

Well if it's just a light little book I guess we've done what we can with it, one of our more historic short discussions, I guess, and me with most, nay, 99 percent of my own questions unanswered, I'll reread it and see if I can figure them out myself. Heck, that's what you're supposed to do, anyway!

I looked up Theater of the Absurd to refamiliarize myself with the term and here's what I found:

"An avant-gards dramatic convention that emphasizes the illogical and purposeless nature of existence." (So far, so good).

"Often violent, grotesque, and outrageously funny, it strips language of traditional poetic and utilitarian functions, and instead conveys its meaning through masks, reitual, sounds, gestures, costumes or stylized actions. The DADA and surrealist movements, the experiments and theoretical writings of Artaud and Citrac are directly related tot he theatre of the absurd.

The main concern of the major dramatists of the ABSURD, Beckett, Gener and Ionesco-- is to project onto the stage a personal, concrete image of a situation that epitomizes man's fundamental helplesness in a contradictory and alientaing universe. Sometimes, social criticism is embedded in these authors' works, but this is less important than their portrayal of human reacion to the esential realities: death, self, time, loneliness, communication, nd freedom. These ancient themes are presented in ways that are intended to shock the audience so that the viewer assumes a more detached and critical attitude than in conventional drama; it is a theatre of alienation rather than a theatre of identification." ( I think the very first thing Deborah said was about identificaion/ alienation?)

Now I find that very interesting. I find that as I get older, lots of half forgotten or maybe half never understood terms rattle around in my vocabulary: like theatre of the absurd, and I'm very grateful to this book for making the distinction clear. I learn something in each discussion we have here. The quotes, by the way, are from Benet's READER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA.

As Mickey Pearlman said, the issue is not whether or not we liked the book but whether we learned anything at all from it.

They do say there are only a couple of themes in literature, I'm wondering what theme this is supposed to be?

So I'll take my unanswered questions back to the book and maybe read another Burgess to see where that gets me.

By the way, I also found it interesting that this same Artaud promoted a "theatre of cruelty" in which "cruelty...was an awareness of the determinism of evil, the devouring fores of love, the eroticism of death and of man's obsessions and crminal tendencies. The theatre would deal with man's instinctual preoccupations in order to liberate them, and it aimed to do this through gesture and scenery."

Interesting, huh?

Ginny

Jim mentioned in an earlier post that Janet reminded him of a female character in "The Rhinoceros" by Ionesco. He also mentioned Beckett and Pinter. How could I forget Jean Genet? Jim's post brought memories back of plays I had seen in the sixties by these playwrights. When I came to the production of "One Hand Clapping" it made me smile because it was so much like those plays and others by lesser known playwrights.

The idea of alienation was one held by many people in the late fifties and sixties. I myself and other artists and writers I knew at that time in western New York were part of this group. It tried to separate itself from the establishment and society because of an alienated feeling, sometimes justified because of wrongs done by society, and led directly to the Hippie movement in this country. Howard was Burgess's wry and extreme manifestation of alienation thought. Janet was prosaic and much less idealistic than those who followed this trend, though one wonders what her future would be after her move to France. Burgess's comment about the effects of the alienation idea can be found at the end of the book with Howard's wanted but sad demise.

I see nowhere a statement that Burgess held views of alienation. However, he saw what was happening and knew the end result, which in many cases was the transformation of people who chose to be out of society into corporation executives and other well-paid fields which were very much part of society. Jane Fonda's husband at the time, Tom Hayden I believe is his name, is a prime example of this.

Who said there are only "a couple themes in literature", and what are they, please?

Mal

Recent notes on Burgess:

At one time, when Burgess and his wife were living in Monaco, he was asked if he saw much of Princess Grace. He replied that from their balcony they could see the Palace, and often would wave to the royal family.

“It worked out fine,” said Burgess. “I never told her how to run the country and she never told me how to write.”

After reading much of this man’s biography I’m impressed by how prolific he was, and how great was the quality and range of his work. I believe he was a really gifted writer—erudite, deep, judicious, and witty.

One Hand Clapping was one of Burgess’s lesser known books. Frankly, I’m surprised that this one was chosen for review, rather than one of his more critically acclaimed works. Perhaps because Coppola bought the movie rights.

For more about the role music played in the life of Anthony Burgess, click this link.

Music and Burgess

Just got the news on Public radio of the death of Joesph Heller- author of that darkest (and funniest) of WWII satires, "Catch 22".

One can see why following WWII there was a movement to portray the world as absurd. Nobody did it better than Heller.

Every war seems to produce some such movement of alienation of one sort or another.

But then I think even the darkest of satires is in its own way an affirmation of some sense of value in life.

We wouldn't be waiting for Godot if we didn't believe there was something to wait for even if we weren't sure just what it was (our ultimate unanswered question) otherwise we would take Howard's way out.

We have had season tickets to the Guthrie Theatre almost since its inceptinon and I recall somewhat vaguely the period when Burgess worked for the Guthrie as a writer and advisor.

He translated Cyrnao and we attended the Guthrie presentation at that time (dates escape me)

It was certainly an affirmation of life- even with a war at its center. (Cyrnao is generally thought of as a play about a guy with a big nose- but it is far more than that)

Ginny-

Unanswered querstions are the best kind. Any book that leaves you with them has to be a good read.

Burgess translated Cyranos poetic lines as well- given his talent for language I recall they came out quite well- mouthfuls of air put to good use.

It interests me, Jim, that you have mentioned Waiting for Godot at least twice in discussion of Burgess's book. Out of curiosity, I searched for something about the production I saw years and years ago, probably in the fifties, in Boston. John Carradine was in it, and also Estelle Winwood, if my memory serves me right. I left the theater feeling absolutely unfulfilled. The only connection with religion or waiting for an afterlife that I could find at that time and now is the first three letters of Godot. Anyway, this is somethng I found. It mentions absudism, and I thought, aha, this was the first play of the following absudist theater. You probably know more about this than I do, so if I'm wrong I apologize. Here's a small bit of what I found. Perhaps it could be read in relation to Howard's attitude about life.

"Dates of premiers: 1953 (French version, in Paris) and 1955 (English version, in London)"

"Why it mattered then: When "Waiting for Godot" was staged for the first time in 1953, the news quickly got around that young Irish dramatist Samuel Beckett had come up with something curious, innovative and brilliant. The play is about two ragged tramps who kill time waiting for the mysterious and elusive Godot. And it's about the enigma of human existence, the hunger for spiritual belief in a godless age, the vagaries of friendship, death, futility - you name it. Actually, this stark, richly humorous script's stubborn defiance of easy interpretation cracked open a myriad of new theatrical possibilities. It introduced to the stage an earthy and poetic absurdism that reflected a world stripped of much of its historical meaning and spiritual moorings."

What a loss! I read Catch 22 years and years ago, and have never forgotten it. What a masterpiece it was. Requiescat in pace, Joseph Heller.

Let's not forget Joseph Heller in BC Online. We have opportunities to select it in the "Modern Library" category (#7) or in the Author's Works category (Cath-22 and CLosing Time might be nice).

To get back to "One Hand Clapping": How far along is everybody in this book? Has anyone noted the feelings Janet had while they were touring the United States on their sightseeing trip? Some of her reactions were very funny, like she says "All you remember about any place is the small things, like the young lad selling newspapers and picking his nose, and a girl crossing a street in Detroit, I think it was, whose stiletto heel came off and sh had to sort of hop to the other side. Then in a drive-in place in Hollywood a man spilt coffee all down his tie and said, "For Christ's sake!" And a man who sold me a packet of sanitary towels in a drug store who had very bad teeth., which you wouldn't see on the films. I got the idea that wherever you went all that would matter would be the people, and they seem to be pretty much all the same. I suppose the only real reason for travelling is to learn that all people are the same. I tell you this now, so you've no need to wste your money on travelling."

Do you get the feeling that our Janet is a wee bit homesick?

Lorrie

Lorrie,

Sorry about that but I get off the track now and then and here is another ramble.

But I will get back to Clapping,

Mal,

No, there was nothing fulfilling about Godot- just the faintest glimmer of hope.

But isn't that enough?

I understand the first US production was a tryout for prisoners in San Quenton and they loved it- understood it- and got some value from it.

Whatever else reading this book has done for me it has taken me back to the time period of the late 50's early 60's and the popular literary world at that time- especially with the death of Heller now- particularly the satire of the era but other aspects as well.

In digging around in the cellar (some might say the cesspool of my memory) I dredged up another satire and found to my surprize that it too has recently been re-issued and is available at Barnes and Noble (don't rush out and buy it).

It is that slightly pornographic (not for a modern reader, though- but it was at the time quite risque) takeoff on Candide by Terry Southern, who gave us Dr. Strangelove and Easy Rider. It was called Candy and followed the adventures of a young lady, Candy Christian.

I remember it in conjunction with Clappin' because it has a ribald satire of that entire Zen enthusiasm as it is one of the phases that Candy, the heroine, goes through.

Like Janet, Candy was a survivor with a firmer grip on reality than the other characters inhabiting the bizzare and absurd world of the satire.

On a more serious level and for reasons I can't fathom, I recall another writer, the poet Sylvia Plath whose confessional poetry, particularly "Daddy" echoed the fears and turmoil of the era.

Maybe it was the topic of suicide (we are now permitted I take it to talk of the ending) brought out in the One Hand Clapping.

I wonder of Burgess was aware of Plath and her situation- Myrtle comes to mind- No- I think not.

Why is it that popular references to the era of the 50's see it as a time of "Father Knows Best" and family values- whatever they are? Whatever else they were the 50's certainly contained the leading edge of the 60-s to mid 70's.

Are all these reprints a harbinger of a return of the period- I hope not.

ps- I wouldn't recommend reading Candy (really dated)

Lorrie, I didn't get that impression. What I saw was a naive young woman whose biggest influence was television and films. Everyone is perfect on TV and in the movies, and Janet was surprised that in the glorified United States, people spit, pick their noses, and have acne just as they do in England.

Jim, to me Plath's poetry is too personal to be related to this book. She did feel that life was absurd but for different reasons I believe than those Burgess had Howard assume. I must admit that I have not read Candy, but it sounds like a lot of fun. Terry Southern, you say? Jane Austen's stuff is dated, too, haha! Hmmm. I never found anything hopeful in Godot.

You know, I am new in this readers' discussion, and I'm wondering which book we do next. Could somebody tell me, please, so I can scrounge around thrift shops, or stand on the corner with a tin cup until somebody gives me enough nickels so I can buy it. Thanks!

Mal

Mal: the next selection of the Book Club Online is TIMELINE which will begin in January. Charlie has mapped out a year of reading in 2000 starting with a best seller for January, every month is different, cf: Book Club Online 2000, from which TIMELINE was chosen.

It will be an exciting year!

All this talk about WAITING FOR GODOT has me taking the plunge: I ordered my own copy, all 60 pages of it and expect it any day. I'm looking forward to it, I love plays and it seems that it comes up all the time in our Book Club Online discussions. I do believe I'll pass on Candy, tho, altho I'm reading Michael Malone's hilarious HANDLING SIN and it's very Janet like, and irreverent. It's a hoot. Perhaps one day we might consider it.

Likewise I hope to vote for Ibsen when we get to the months about authors and their works or maybe Great Books, love Ibsen and really enjoy reading plays. I wish I could get R.U.R. again but apparently it's scarcer than hen's teeth, it's a great play.

Lorrie, I noted those passages and thought again about how childlike Janet is in many ways. I remember an old professor telling me NOT to take my children to Italy that they were young and all they might remember was the pigeon pooping or some ice cream melting in the street instead of what I had spent money to take them to see. In that way, Janet is sort of a childlike view, isn't she? A innocent sort of ingenue or....I still don't have the words for her wide eyed innocence combined with her very hard eyed look at Howard....all self defense and not her fault ever, of course. I wonder in thinking of them which one WAS the most innocent?

But this passage you wrote is very interesting: "I got the idea that wherever you went all that would matter would be the people, and they seem to be pretty much all the same. I suppose the only real reason for travelling is to learn that all people are the same. I tell you this now, so you've no need to wste your money on travelling." I know a lot of people who feel the same, that people are the same wherever you go and that you can see all you need to see 2 miles from your house, but that's not really what Burgess has Janet SAYING. I had forgotten that was in there, and think, really that the statement you quoted contains two ideas which quite different, sort of a logical progression which doesn't fit: IF...then but then is skewered. I'm glad you put that up in there, it's a great example of the skewered kind of thinking in the whole book.

Oh and by the way, I believe the reason ONE HAND CLAPPING was nominated was because it was reviewed in the NY TIMES, prehaps a reissue or something, and caught somebody's eye.

Maybe the reason I don't know what to make of Janet is that Janet herself is not a....what's the word, logical character herself? I keep having the nagging feeling that I'm missing something here, but Jim may be right, it's good to have unanswered questions at the end of a book.

Ginny

Michael Malone is one of my favorite writers. Ever read Clyde Edgerton? His Walking Across Egypt kept me up until 3 a.m. laughing.

Count me out on Timeline unless I can get it at the library. If it's new, as i suppose it is, the waiting list will be so long that the discussion will be over by the time I have the book.

Mal

This has turned out to be a really stimulating discussion. The trade-off of different opinions, or even like opinions, especially those by Jim and Mal, are quite interesting. Ginny, I hope you can give your opinions soon on Godot. With all this talk, I've been rummaging around among some of my old books, I think I remember my brother giving me a copy once. (The intellectual brother) hahaha

Just don't forget our main topic--I think it would be nice to touch on the book's ending before we close down.

Lorrie

Before we discuss the end of the book, what about Red? Have we figured out what part he plays in One Hand Clapping?

Mal

I finished this book last evening--what an ending!! I guess we aren`t talking about that yet!! I was surprised--didn`t expect that at all!!

May,

Well I guess with this post I am discussing the ending.

But then I always like to discuss a book as a whole as if all participants had read the entire book,

I think the practice of not revealing key plot aspects is related to "reviewing" a book where you are trying to inform potential readers of key aspects of the book and letting them discover others as they read.

But I never read these discussions as reviews.

 

I was a little surprized by the way Burgess treated the trip to 
the US. The novel was first published with an English audience in 
mind and with Howard using their trip partly to convince Janet 
that this is an empty world (but she found parts of it 
delightful- admiring beach boys especially)- Burgess had an 
audience that was probably quite willing to accept the USA as the 
epitome of an empty world. 

But he didn't play the Ugly American card or at least not very 
forcefully- some digs at our use of German scientists to develop 
tools of mass destruction to deliver the bomb (the Brits never 
did develop the A bomb  did they?- but then they perfected the 
German invented night fire bombing of enemy cities that killed more  
civilians 
than the  A bomb did- both in Germany and later as we picked up 
the strategy and used it in Japan.) 

Maybe a few other digs here and there- but mainly he passed on 
that one (aside from our food giving Janet indigestion- 
indigestion indeed- back to beans on toast- yuck-I'll bet the 
Brits invented creamed beef on toast- the infamous SOS of WWII- I 
digress) and used the trip to allow Red to occupy the digs back 
home, to show Janet that people are the same all over the world- 
and us that Janet is the same wherever she is) 

Mal asks about Redvers Glass. I think he was a key character in 
the novel serving several purposes very well. He served as a 
satiric figure representing the failed and decadent aristocracy, 
the fake pretentious intellectual (remember his passing off the 
poetry of one of the beards as his own- and the very bad poem 
that was his own). But he also  serves to serve Janet- who does a 
complete turnabout in the novel (well not completely as she was 
always in control of things even before she killed Howard) from 
the role of the submissive female to the more modern role of the 
lady in charge. 

In a darker vein I guess I better not pursue a discussion of 
Sylvia Plath in that topic of gender roles as it is personal to 
many of us in perhaps a number of ways. Suffice it to say that I 
read her poem "Daddy" from the father's point of view. 

But I did not read Clapping from Howard's point of view. 

Janet is a winner with me.

Mal asked about futire discussions.

Some of us will be discussing "Where the River Turns to Sky" next month- see the section on future discussions.

Charles Wendell has organized it so the author has agreed to participate.

That won't be a first for the book club here but should be interesting.

OK, I need to absorb Jim's great post before responding but the Book Club Online (apparently my post was lost in yesterday's crash) will next be discussing TIMELINE by Michael Crichton.

Charlie has mapped out a very exciting YEAR OF READING for us in 2000~ Several people have "taken the pledge" hahahaha, to read all 12. We start with the category (all months have been assigned a "category") of BESTSELLERS, and of the many choices available, we voted on TIMELINE, a very timely choice. It's costly but is available at less than half price in lots of places not to mention the Library if you can get on the list. I hope you will join us for that one.

Likewise as Jim mentions, our THIRD author participation book WHERE RIVER TURNS TO SKY will be starting in January and if it's anything like the last two you will want to be there, it's very gratifying.

MAY!!! How great to see you here!! Yes, reveal all, we're definitely at that stage. What did YOU think of the book? Back in a mo once I reread Jim's excellent post.

Ginny

Hi, May! It's good to see you in here. I'm still mulling over Jim's post. I loved it! I think you put it very nicely, Jim, about Red's ongoing purpose in the story. And I'm still laughing over your comments about the food. Believe it or not, my husband simply loved creamed chip beef on toast in the Army. He said it was one of the few times he felt free to go back for seconds.

Red’s importance to Janet becomes more pronounced on their return to England after their sight-seeing trip to the USA. That homecoming scene is hilarious, and I believe it will fit right into a movie. After Harold throws everybody out, Red tries to warn Janet about her husband’s increasing fixation on spending all their money, but she can’t or won’t understand. Later on, this naive, television fed young woman turns into a furious hellion as she attempts to save her own life—but more on that later.

Some more interesting statements about the author: “Burgess was not as famous as he deserved to be; and the fact that he was never awarded the Nobel Prize can be judged either a pity or a disgrace. And yet, one reason might be his carelessness with regard to his “career” as a writer–outraged by the fact that “sodomites” have appropriated the word “gay,” for example, and lampooning groups and nationalities in all directions with a deadly and hilarious accuracy. Just hearing his name might have made the Nobel committee nervous.”.-----------Jack Matthews, Professor of English, Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.

I thought my daughter had taken this book back to the library, but today I found it in the kitchen, so will take advantage of that fact and try to write some sort of post.

First, it would be interesting to do a study of Sylvia Plath, not in relation to this book, however. I had a special interest in her because she graduated from my alma mater, as did Gloria Steinem and Nancy Reagan, two very different kinds of women. When I read Plath's poetry years ago, I didn't like it. It might be fun to see how I feel about it now.

It is hard for me to analyze a book without trying to figure out what the author was trying to do. I'm not sure I agree that Howard took Janet to the U.S. and other places to show the emptiness of life. I rather think Burgess's intention here was to prove to Janet through Howard that wealth didn't make any difference at all; that one could be miserable, as Janet was with colic, and rich at the same time. Burgess also used the travel scenes as an eye-opener for Janet, whose view of the world was extremely limited. Bradstreet had little to offer, and the only outside influence Janet had was through TV and her sister, Myrtle, who in the beginning of the book was a good deal more sophisticated and worldly than Janet was.

Prior to the trip to the states, Burgess introduced Redvers Glass, who serves a very important part in this book. He was from a different social stratum from Janet and Howard, one Janet didn't know. He also was a self-proclaimed Bohemian, another facet of life with which Janet was unfamiliar. The reporter to whom Howard gave the thousand pounds plays a fairly important role, too. After all, it is through him that Redvers Glass receives the money and the address of his benefactor.

The development of Janet's character is crucial to this book, and Burgess does it well by using Glass as a standard of comparison with Howard and by introducing other countries to a naive young woman, who has no real idea what people and places outside Bradstreet are all about, even when they were as close to home as London was.

I don't want to discuss what led to the end of the book or the ending until more come into this discussion and say they've read it to the end.

Mal

A Christmas card for you from me!

 

Hello, 

My name is Howard Shirley, surely it is,  and I understand that 
you blokes have been talking about me based on information that 
my wife Janet has written for you. 

Janet is a nice girl but she doesn't really understand life as 
well as I do and for that matter as well as her sister Myrtle 
did. I realized her lack of true understanding when Myrtle took 
those pills only to be thwarted in her laudatory endeavour by 
Janet and others who have such a little understanding of  life. 

Perhaps you, too, need to be informed so you can fully appreciate 
the loving and tender way I tried to handle Desdemona's (sorry- 
Janet's) education and gently draw the curtain and "put out the 
light" on her final act (even choosing her birthday for the 
occasion). Not, of course, like Othello's actions but for purely 
logical and passion-free reasons. Not like the narrator of 
Browninmg's "My Last Duchess" or the Griselda of Boccacio, 
either. 

My mind is like that, filled with facts taken from the world of 
books from all ages. Just ask me a question about any of them- 
I'll gladly answer in a flash. I won't even have to think about 
it- the answer will be there- It always is. 

The truth is that there is nothing to live for in this modern 
world- the old world with all its values and meaning is gone- 
never to return, There is no reason to stay in it. 

When I first understood Janet's need for a better understanding 
of life I devised a plan to help her along. I would accumulate 
wealth and show her how useless even that was without the values 
of old. I did it with my brain- my marvelous memory. 

How grateful she will be, I thought, and how willing to join me 
in that beautiful last joyous release from chaos. 

But while my mind was filled with the truths from "Ecclesiasties" 
hers was stuck in the follies of "The Song of Solomon" and I had 
underestimated the task before me. 

Oh well, I am going now as I wished. Not quite like I wanted, 
though. I had hoped her departure ahead of me would help to gauge 
the proper and most efficient dosage for  a clean effortless 
ending, 

It may be  relatively clean - if she strikes just right there 
will be no messy blood splattered around. I suppose I should hope 
for that. Ignorant girl that she is, she'll just have to wait for 
the truth. 

Don't ask me for any information about the winner of the next 
Grand National- there won't be one, you know. The apocolypse will 
come with the millenium and  will bring you all to where I am 
about to go. Sorry that it won't be bloodless and painless- but 
in keeping with your world it will be a horrific ending- not at 
all like the one I had planned for Janet and myself. But then 
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang  aft-aft-oft- oft- oft- 
oft- . . . . .

A very fitting postlude ... I guess Howard was a loser, even if he won a lot of money...

Thanks, Jim.

Jim, that is priceless! I like the way you compare our Harold with Othello. Would that make “Red” his Iago?

We now come to the ending of this book, and what a shocker it is! I knew something was afoot, Harold kept dropping those ambiguous remarks about “not enough time,” etc. I never dreamed that Janet would “do him in,” as they say in England.

That mad scene where Harold tries to drag her upstairs are really funny, and I’m still laughing at Janet’s thought processes all this while. This is black humor at its best and I love it.

Poor Harold. In the end he got what he wanted—an end to a life he’d found disillusioning but, alas, the statement he wanted to make was lost in the clumsy way he died.

There are holes aplenty in the logic of Harold’s murder, but this is not a whodunit, and the witty way Burgess describes these last chapters overshadows everything.

What did you think of the macabre way they carried poor Harold all around Europe in the steamer trunk? Hilarious, I thought.

 

The aftermath 

I think one the weakest elements in the book (another was that 
ambiguous race betting ploy that didn't seem to say anything or 
get anywhere- but that may be there and I missed it) is the 
ending. 

I haven't read enough Burgess to be a good critic of his works 
but that was a weakness I felt as well in Clockwork Orange. His  
publishers felt that as well and  omitted the ending, chapter 21, 
when it was published here and it is also not in the film 
version.- 

Burgess was unhappy with that but he went along with both for the 
money- The publishers said it softened the book too much because 
it was at least a semi-happy ending as the hero (anti-hero in 
this case) finally comes to grips with the consequences of his 
actions and takes some responsibility for them, planning to 
reform his ways. 

Others say it was actually a "harder" ending as it forced the 
anti-hero into more difficult choices and realizations than he 
had made anywhere else in the book. 

Whatever- I just don't think Burgess did it well in that book and 
I agree Clockwork should have ended at chapter 20 with perhaps 
some modification. 

Whatever Margaret Mitchell's faults in Gone with the Wind, she at 
least had a good sense of how to end a novel. 

Clapping was very tightly written up until that desultory ending 
and I don't know how he could have filled it up to compensate for 
shortening the end.  Maybe a chapter on Redfers Glass back at the 
flat- but that wasn't possible given the first person narration. 

Be interesting to see how Coppola ends the movie version if it is 
made. It may well turn out to be one of those times when the 
movie version surpasses the novel as a work of art.

On the other hand, Lorrie's comments about the ending show how it does seem to fit into the general satiric tone of the novel.

She probably has a better read on it than I do.

I wonder how others feel about it.

First of all, Jim, I must tell you how much I enjoyed the Forsterian title of one of your previous posts.

After the scene which leads to Howard's murder, anything which follows would be anticlimactic, but the travels of poor deceased Howard in a trunk and later with a camphorwood trunk as his home are more than amusing, they make for a corroboration of his views and a granting of his death wish in a very funny, if bizarre, way. Perhaps some readers would like Janet to regret her deed and pay some sort of penalty for what she did. Nay, nay, that is not the fiction writer's way. As one of that breed, I have to say that Burgess's ending for this book is perfect in its ironic absurdity. I like it.

Mal

Mal, I have to agree. Any other ending, such as retribution for Janet for her dark deed, would tarnish the delicious humor of the whole thing. I learned a lot from this book. I already knew how very difficult it is to write humor, and even more so in an ironic vein, but I discovered a lot of very interesting facts about Anthony Burgess himself. Enough so that I'm going to request more of his books at the library.

Lorrie

I felt, for my own part, that the ending of the book was a let down. It's not that he didn't build up to it, the foreshadowing was intense. It was just that I thought it was too easy, too facile, and really didn't fit Howard's character, at least how I saw Howard's character.

As far as the elongated thing in the trunk, that was too too, just over the top.

I thought that Burgess started out with a good premise and just let it die (pardon the pun) at the end. Just didn't care enough about it to work it out satisfactorily.

Jim may be right (that was SOOOO cute, Jim, writing in Howard's voice) and the movie may well end differently, I hope it does.

I guess I personally think it's uneven, and possibly dosen't work well. But that's what we're here for, to give our own opinions, whatever they may be.

I'm not clever enough to suggest what another ending might have been. Perhaps Janet would discover a talent for remembering she didn't have, perhaps she could win something, I don't know. I believe that Janet was the progagonist and that it was her voice. I think I would have liked to see some more character development in her than his trunk trick, which didn't work for me. It just didn't work....for me.

Ginny

I think perhaps we've all tried to make too much of this book. It is not a major Burgess work, and I believe it was written more to entertain than to give the reader a message of any profound nature. To those who were close to the type of thinking Howard did and the Redvers Glass type of scene at that time, the satire is most amusing. I know the book did entertain me. It made me smile. What more can I ask? I liked it. Did anyone else? Like it, I mean.

Mal

I liked it, Mal. I thought it was amusing, a few laughs, a clever idea or really set of ideas, it was my original nomination, I enjoyed reading it but if I had to review it, it wouldn't win my vote.

A light, enjoyable, fey read. Slightly off center. Clever. But Cusk did it better.

Ginny

Lorrie says:

I already knew how very difficult it is to write humor, and even more so in an ironic vein, but I discovered a lot of very interesting facts about Anthony Burgess himself. Enough so that I'm going to request more of his books at the library.

I agree, I think humor is very difficult to write, especially good satire . My favorite current satirist is Carl Hiaason, the Florida based mystery novelist who mixes all kinds of current political and intellectual satire with mayhem and suspense and manages to pull it all off very well.

But I'm not sure that this form fits into the cinema very well. The one Hiiason novel that made it was "Strip Tease" and that ended up on the screen devoid of much of its satiric quality but filled with sex and mayhem which is, I guess, all that the modern decadent movie audience needs (now I'm thinking like Howard).

I suspect he read Clappin' at one time or another and took some pointers from Burgess.

I guess I would rate "Clappin'" higher than Ginny does.

But then the rating thing done by the bookclub here is not my kind of thing.

I'd rather just read, enjoy, and comment, and let history decide the ratings. So I'll pass on the rating thing.

It may have been a potboiler for Burgess with some of the boiler plate rivets showing, but it was good, and I think one can see in his narrative technique there the beginnings of the narrative style that was to make "Clockwork Orange" so distinctive.

I really enjoyed it, especially the memory trip back to that period that it launched for me. I suspect there is an age factor involved here somehow, and I will drop that topic at once.

If there were a sequel,I think it should have either dumped Janet or converted her into a hippie and concentrated on Red. Red along with his gang might have migrated to California and joined the intellectual hippie crowd there. There would have been motorcycle scenes (Zen and the Art etc.) Trout Fishing in America scenes (poetry reading scenes) Rock concert scenes- they may even have gone on a side trip to Woodstock. I would have enjoyed reading that one, too.

Yes, I liked the book very much, and as I mentioned, I intend to read more of Burgess’ works. I remember seeing “The Clockwork Orange” movie years ago, but I was either too dense or too young to grasp any political nuances that he was writing about. I think Burgess was a very interesting man. Much has been written about him, but the following comments by Professor Jack Matthews of Ohio University seem to stick in my mind. Matthews says: “Burgess was a writer who seemed especially created to confound committees. He wrote that ‘the serious artist does not satisfy needs—instead, he creates values. Values to the world at large have, alas, alas, and again alas—no value at all.’ Such cynicism is real, but it is everywhere enlivened by the joy and gusto with which Burgess played the English language, much as a great pianist plays the piano. His ironies are often self-reflexive, or else focused upon the general meanness, stupidity and vulgarity of our drab species in all its wild colorations. And yet, his idealism, though qualified, is everywhere manifest; and it is focused upon the power of art–--music, language and literature, perhaps in that order, if one understands, as he did, the extent to which there’s something like music at the heart of all three.”

That's really nice, Lorrie, thanks so much for all you've brought to this discussion. I'm still anxiously awaiting Waiting for Godot, it's supposedly on the way, hope it comes in the next day or so.

Ginny

This whole discussion has been a good one, especially the lively interchange between Jim and Mal. Jim, I chuckled over your "What if" possible sequels to the movie. I can visualize Janet and Red, without any trouble, as hippies somewhere in California. Zen followers, no doubt, but "poetry readings while trout fishing in America?" Why not?

I took note of the mention of Carl Hiaason, the Florida writer. I like mysteries, and this sounds like a writer maybe a bit outside the hackneyed plots. I've taken note.

Lorrie

Yes, I agree, am glad to have participated in this discussion, which was a bit like the book, off center but always interesting.

I have finally recieved WAITING FOR GODOT in the mail and read it this afternoon.

It seems very Gallic to me, seems to me that I keep seeing phrases where "tant pis" would more than suffice.

I'm so glad to have read it and now to know what everybody is talking about. Now I need to refresh my memory about what it has to do with this. I guess you could say Janet waited.

It's certainly strange, sort of the direct opposite, perhaps, of "they also serve who only stand and wait," or maybe not. I don't know, certainly in print didn't have the impact that I was led to believe it would. Perhaps on the stage it might be more effective.

Also, Gogo's full name kept reminding me of Estrogen and that did blunt the impact a bit.

Certainly a prime example of what is meant by the theatre of the absurd, I'm glad I read it. I didn't quite see the humor either, but some parts were slapstick, the exchange of hats, certainly that's "old hat," pardon the pun, in the 90's it's hard to understand Waiting for Godot in the time it was written, ONE HAND seems fresher.

I've enjoyed the discussion, too.

Ginny

Actually in rereading everybody's posts I see we are said to be rating the book but I haven't. Is anybody interested in giving our rating for this book or possibly writing up a review to be posted in B&N and Amazon?

We have done this in the past, don't know if anybody is interested this time. Sometimes we DO rate books here sometimes we don't.

Not sure that comments are ratings?

As some people have indicated that they are finished with their comments on the book and there are a few days left in the month, I'm wondering if those still looking in might be interested in a segue of sorts?

One of the perfectly neat things about the Book Clubs is the extra stuff you may get from reading a book, just LOOK at all we've added here to our knowledge: theatre of the absurd, etc., etc., I've personally learned a lot.

The WAITING FOR GODOT which I just read, however, brings up more questions than answers. I got up wondering if I am the only person on earth who does NOT find clowns funny?

In GODOT, the two main characters are tramps/ homeless persons wearing hats. There are only 2 other adult characters and they wear hats too, tho they are downtrodden, etc. There are two messenger boys, that's the cast. Although these men are not clowns they are clownish in many aspects, it's a tragicomedy, supposedly. Their costumes and behavior are alternately clowinsh and severe.

Naturally at one point they do the hat switch with two persons trying on three hats, you've seen it a billion times.

I got up wondering why it is that I have never found the "clown" funny? Do you? Even as a child the circus clown never appealed. In fact, you'll blanch to read this, I gave away an original watercolor which was given to me (while appreciating the thought) by Red Skelton, a man I admire, simply BECAUSE it was a huge clown, and I can't stand to look at them. I don't get the point of clowns.

Have not had any personal clown experiences, just don't find them funny.

How about you? Do you find clowns funny? What IS it about a clown that is supposed to BE funny? If you don't find them funny, what does that say about you?

Ginny

Clowns are a favorite Horror movie villian. It is not uncommon for people to find clowns "scary."

Ginny, I think there's something radically wrong with a person who doesn't think clowns are funny. Maybe we should consult our expert, Dr. Robby, on this. It might be that your serotonin isn't quite balanced. heh heh heh

Lorrie

Charlie, was it Stephen King who first introduced the clown as horror figure? Ronald MacDonald as the killer?

Lorrie, you must be joking! What's funny about them?

hahahaha

Ginny

Seiously, though, Ginny, I think I know what you mean. For some odd reason, when I was little clowns always mad me cry. I think it was that mournful expression that some of them wear, like a hound dog's. Then, the first time I heard "Pagliacci" and watched that clown crying while his heart was breaking, I knew I was right. Lorrie

Ginny, I think Lorrie cinched it. You've heard, no doubt, that all humor is based on tragedy - so, I guess it's an obvious sequitor that clowns are really tragic figures. Maybe most of us just see the surface, the supposedly funny antics, but your perception goes deeper. I find myself more in the middle, aware of the humor but also knowing that it's based on something else. Well, I guess now I'll have to read Godot too - you've wet my appetite.

Back to Burgess, anyone who is inclined to read another of his works, as I was, may I suggest, "The Pianoplayers". I'll only say that it's about a man and his daughter (wife/mother is dead). The man is supporting them both by playing the piano at silent movies. This is a light read, funny as all get out (but, of course, not without tragic happenings), and again reveals Burgess's love of music. He incorporates his musical talents in a most unusual way. Oh, and quite risque. I would think anyone who enjoyed One Hand would also get a kick out of this.

As for "Clockwork Orange", I've tried once again to get into this one and just can't. After all these years, I would have thought that finally this would come alive to me but guess I'll have to give it another try in, what - another ten or twenty years? But I am very glad to have discovered Burgess and his other books!

Diane, I'm glad you said that about Clockwork Orange. I, too, read it again and frankly, I didn't get any more out of it than I did years ago; at least I'm not alone. The Pianoplayers sounds like my cup of tea. It's on my list. When you mentioned about Burgess' musical background I was reminded that many people lose sight, because of his writing, of the fact that Burgess was a talented musician, and could very easily have made a career of that alone. A sort of a "One Man's Chorus" all his own.

If you want to know more about Anthony Burgess, read his Little Wilson and Big God.

Mal

Mal, here’s an amusing anecdote that might interest you, as a writer. At one time, Burgess, thinking of himself as a failed composer, wrote a novel, “The Worm and the Ring,” and submitted it to an editor at Heineman Publishingwho liked it but said it had the “quality of a second novel,” and then asked Burgess to write the “first.” He did as asked, submitted it to the same editor, who rejected it. Years later, as Burgess was achieving success as a writer, he submitted the same novel, unchanged, to the same editor, who called it “masterly.” (Moral for beginning novelists: take up golf!)

Yeah, play golf in between writing all those books. That's what writing is all about. Burgess's experience is not unique. The moral as I see it is: Try, try again.

Mal

It's amazing how many famous authors were rejected and several had to self publish first, you would think that good writing is good writing, wouldn't you? It's amazing that so many of them have the heart to keep on.

Pat: yes, Dick Van Dyke is funny, but he's not always in a clown suit. I think I'm thinking of those clowns who dress in clown suits.

Spent a good part of yesterday while preparing food for Christams thinking about what Diane said. First Lorrie said as a child they made her CRY!!

Why was that, Lorrie? Isn't that interesting? The circus clown, all dressed up, is supposed to make a person laugh, not cry. Wonder what you were picking up on?

Then Diane mentions the tragedy beneath and that we somehow have a perception of it, two levels.

What are the circus clowns supposed to be doing? Lampooing EVERYMAN? Are we laughing at ourselves like we do with Dick Van Dyke? Poor Van Dyke, another clown with a sad past, eh?

Can you name a clown that did NOT have a very serious side in real life? Costello was in life a very severe man, eaten up by demons of grief and hatred. Abbott was the gentle kind soul. Jerry Lewis is a control freak and very aggressive. Angry man. Poor Red Skelton, bless his heart, so sad. Jackie Gleason...I don't know anything about Charlie Chaplin, the original Little Tramp, did he have a not so happy side, too? Richard Pryor. Can you think of a comedian/ clown type who doesn't have a very sad or tragic side?

Wonder if children pick up on that somehow or understand that ridicule is, at bottom, not very nice?

Out of the mouth of babes.

Ginny