Susan Carruthers begins by comparing works that take place in a future year (George Orwell’s 1984, Kubrick’s 2001 and A Clockwork Orange). She then writes about Anthony Burgess’s novel and how it was inspired: four young men gang-raped his wife. She then summarizes the film, pointing out its inconsistencies with the book. She points out that American critics hated it while the British were more favorable. Tabloids created a self-fulfilling prophecy when they predicted copycat crimes, which indeed occurred. So, here, art imitated life (Burgess’ wife’s rape) and later life imitated art. Kubrick believed that film could have no effect on people’s decisions, although the movie makes the opposite point. Carruthers says it is hard to prove causation between on-screen violence and off-screen crime. Initially, Kubrick insisted his name was on the title, but then handed the title over to Burgess, who didn’t like the film anyway and later made a play that mocked Kubrick. Kubrick pulled the movie from theatres, believing his film caused copycat crimes and tired of criticism. It would not appear in England until after his death. Carruthers says that British censors, upon receiving the film for the second time, were more lax with the rape scenes than they would be with today’s films. Kubrick did edit the film for the MPAA to get an R rating, but not for England’s BBFC. However, upon re-release, critics ignored it and so did copycatters.