Introduction
“Senseless violence is a prerogative of youth, which has much energy but little talent for the constructive.” – Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange
In the 1986 introduction to his most famous novel, Anthony Burgess explains why the American version of A Clockwork Orange – and consequently the movie – omit the final chapter: the American publisher wanted “a Nixonian book with no shred of optimism in it”[1] whereas Burgess’ twenty-first and final chapter sees the protagonist abruptly experience metanoia and reject the violence of his past. However, the exclusion of this closing chapter is, as Burgess explains, very problematic for several reasons. From a literary perspective, this final chapter “gives the novel the quality of genuine fiction, an art founded on the principle that human beings change.”[2] Beyond that, the final chapter argues for the cyclical nature of ultra-violence: Alex imagines having a son in the future and knows that there would be nothing he could do to prevent his son from engaging in the same violent activities of his past.[3] Is ultra-violence a natural stage of white male adolescence?
The book – and this paper – would argue yes, but it takes on many different forms in modern American society. Since President Trump’s election, the Internet has exploded with think pieces on toxic masculinity in white, suburban America and the perpetual violence from this community, making ultra-violence and toxic masculinity interchangeable terms in 2020. However, before “toxic masculinity” became a hashtag-able buzz word, adolescent white young men still dealt with the toxic emotions and committed correlative violent actions that are indicative of this American ultra-violence. It is, quite frankly, absurd that we have to keep reminding the American public majority that white supremacy, misogyny, racism, and toxic masculinity (and generally the inability to deal with people different from us, which is ultimately the seed of ultra-violence) are not just historical problems – that they do exist and will continue to exist without formidable cultural change. As it is, ultra-violence/toxic masculinity[4] either were or are present in almost every American subculture. In this paper, I will analyze a specific subculture – that of Slipknot through their first three mainstream album cycles – that exists within the notoriously toxic subcultures of early 2000s nu metal and, more broadly, heavy metal and examine how the band’s ideology and aesthetics dealt with this issue of ultra-violence. With their anti-mainstream American outlook and unique symbolism combining collectivism and horror genre aesthetics, Slipknot – one of the most successful and iconic bands of this era – succeeded in providing a positive outlet for redirecting the ultra-violence of their fans, a generation of oft-overlooked, angry young white men.