The association with the action, leaving Burgess free

use of Nadsat in A Clockwork Orange is significant.
On the surface, the most obvious reason is to allow the reader to empathize more easily with Alex, described as
“one of the most appallingly vicious creations in recent fiction”. Throughout
the novel, Alex enjoys committing shocking acts of violence upon innocent people, which would usually make it
difficult for us as readers to empathize with
him.  The use of the fictional language protects
us from the full horror of his violence by creating a  buffer between the actual events and what the
reader comprehends, because many of the words
no longer have the same connotations as they do in regular English. Burgess himself
said, “to tolchock a chelloveck in the kishkas
does not sound as bad as booting a man in the guts”.  Because these are new
words in which the reader has no existing emotional investment, the reader doesn’t have the same negative association
with the action, leaving Burgess free to have
Alex do what he wants without the reader judging him so harshly. By disconnecting
the emotive response to the words from their
meaning, nadsat creates a cushioning layer
between the acts of violence and how the reader
understands these acts. In A Clockwork Orange
Resucked, Burgess says “Nadsat, a
Russified version of English, was meant to muffle the raw response we expect from pornography”. He also points out that he was sickened
by his own excitement when he was writing
the rape scene. If we delve deeper into this idea, however, we reveal the possibility of more layers than at
first meet the eye. In Transformations of Language in Modern  Dystopias, David Sisk makes
the claim that Nadsat makes this perverse
enjoyment too attractive to resist and that it “titillates our morbid curiosity
and coaxes us into multiple readings”.
We as readers are tempted to re-read any difficult
or complex passages in order to more closely
and fully comprehend the Nadsat words, and
could inadvertently begin to immerse ourselves
in the violence of the scenes. We are then left with a choice, either we participate vicariously in the violence or we
choose to avoid it by leaving the Nadsat largely unknown but for its general meaning. Burgess
claimed that “this strange new lingo would act  like a kind of mist, half hiding the mayhem and
protecting the reader from his own baser 
instincts”, however, he did not realise the full ramifications
of his language: Nadsat is not a  buffer unless we choose it to be, and anyone who
desires to secretly respond to the violence is 
free to do so. Alex uses nadsat to
speak directly to his readers as narrator and treats them as friends, making us feel as if we are a part of his gang and
his subculture instead of condemning Alex for his
terrible acts of cruelty; their language includes anyone who uses it and
excludes all who don’t.  Our feeling of complicity
with Alex is further intensified by his use of “oh my brothers” when he speaks to us, a phrase one might expect to hear
between members of a union or resistance movement,
“thus uniting narrator and reader in resistance to the state”. Nadsat also helps prevent the reader from
thinking of Alex as unintelligent or crass, instead of as a “sufficiently intelligent young man”. If written in regular English or even an existing and readily recognizable
and comprehensible form of slang, the reader would have preconceived notions about the types of words used, who commonly uses them and where they are used.