Unrelated to anything: I finished listening to the unabridged version of "A Clockwork Orange," with the final chapter that U.S. editors cut from the original issue. Burgess was pissed, but having heard it now, I'm going to say: The editors were right. *no spoilers* /1
Burgess apparently felt that the U.S. ending - the version you see in the film - was incomplete and thus made the book a parable rather than a real novel. Far be it from me to disagree with a genius, but it seemed like a raggedy, tacked-on final chapter. /2
The U.S. editors felt the UK ending wouldn't fly with American audiences, and at least for me, it didn't. I can't see it really landing with anyone, but it seems anti-climactic. /3
The version I heard also included Burgess reading some of the chapters, and I thought: Some authors shouldn't read their own stuff. (Um, as I had just finished reading my own stuff. So I hope my reaction was just that an old man's voice sounded wrong for a teenage Alex.) /4
Anyway, if you're a fan of the book, try out the chapter you've never encountered before. It didn't work for me, but again, Burgess is a literary genius and I'm not; but I still think his U.S. editors steered him right. /5x

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tom Nichols

Tom Nichols Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RadioFreeTom

4 Jun
@dcherring I have Republican friends, too. It's easy to be sociable but as I said to a friend who quoted Hannity to me: You can believe me, or you can believe Hannity. But not both. And it's okay not to talk about it after that and move on to other stuff. /1
@dcherring In other cases - like with a longtime friend who has become an OAN zombie - I just said: "You're wrong. You're being lied to." (I broke off the friendship when I was getting swarmed on FB with threats and he basically said: Well, you know, you caused this.) /2
@dcherring I guess my point is: I don't treat their views as sacred. They wanna talk politics with me, they get what they get. When it gets crazy or I think they've crossed a line, I walk, but up till then, I tell them what I think if they ask me - and I don't care if they like it. /3
Read 4 tweets
29 May
So, to amplify on a point in my @TheAtlantic piece today. There are a lot of objections to my argument that whether you loved or hated what conservatives were back 40 years ago, they believed in certain things and reflected that in policy. /1
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I think this howling about the eternal evil of conservatives is dumb, and worse, it's myopic and misses the point about the danger of the GOP as it stands today. Conservatives are not extinct - nor will they ever be. But that's not what Trumpers are and that's not the point. /2
People keep raising comments by @SykesCharlie or @stuartpstevens to say "see, it was all just lying nonsense," but having read both their books, I think people misunderstand something they (and I) are saying, and miss something important about conservatism back in the day. /3
Read 10 tweets
26 May
I'm tired of Tom Cotton getting away with the motte-and-bailey maneuver he pulled.
People citing his Fox interview are ignoring Bartiromo, who said "bioweapon," and then Cotton carefully said "well, no one knows."
This was a "you think might that, I couldn't comment" moment. /1
Then, Cotton went on Twitter to list "possibilities," including a bioweapon. He put it out there, let others run with it, then said "well, it's not *likely*" - because Cotton knows exactly how the Fox and right-wing info swamp works. /2
This is a recurring tactic on the right. Imply it, let the echo chamber run with it, then deny it, then say you were right all along. Because the goal, as always, is to plant the idea in the heads of stupid people who will not bother with later nuance or explanations. /3
Read 5 tweets
25 May
Liberals are being too quick to apologize for not accepting the "lab accident" theory. While I am not a liberal, I accepted the lab accident idea as totally possible back in April 2020. But I warned at the time that people like Tom Cotton were poisoning the well. /1
"Oh, Cotton never said 'bioweapon,' his defenders said, but as I pointed out at the time, this was a motte-and-bailey maneuver, where he played along with Bartiromo and implied that "We have similar labs run by the military." Cotton knew exactly what he was doing. /2
And I was concerned at the time that making off the wall accusations (and quitting WHO) would let China off the hook and complicate our ability to investigate this was a lab leak. But yet, liberals were too quick to just take the opposite of whatever Trump and Cotton said. /3
Read 5 tweets
15 May
So, I'm so exasperated by the lack of logic around here that I'm going to present you all with a thought exercise and limit the replies because I don't care what your responses are. When people say "well, I'm vaccinated, but I'm afraid of the people who aren't," consider this. /1
Imagine you live in Russia and vodka is free and alcoholism reaches social saturation levels, and everyone is drunk driving. You stay off the road at night and in your house. It's a pain in the ass and keeps you from doing things; you drive rarely to avoid death or injury. /2
And imagine that the U.S. government ships you a car with a system that has nearly perfect ability to sense and automatically avoid collisions. As long as that's your car, you're safe. Other cars no longer matter. The system will engage and you'll be fine. You can go back out. /3
Read 8 tweets
13 May
Man, I am so tired of Twitter's idiocy on this that I'm going to post this screenshot, delete it, and then say it again in a way that will make you all just as mad, but maybe with less *willful mischaracterization* of what I said. /1
1. The CDC says that unvaccinated people are not a threat to you if you are fully vaccinated.
2. If you are vaccinated but say "but I will wear a mask anyway because of unvaccinated people" then you are not accepting this basic fact
3. Not accepting facts is irrational.

/2
4. No one is saying you can't wear a mask, and some people - with medical issues - *should* wear a mask, not just for COVID, but for any number of reasons.

5. But if you are doing it, fully vaxxed, because "someone isn't vaxxed," you're not "believing in the science."

/3
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(