Burgess should have been publicly shamed for writing such vomit. ” Nor was Brent: “A sloppily-written, half-assed, woefully-conceived agenda piece. This Book has nothing, i repeat, NOTHING to do with 1984. Daniel was not pleased: “Geesus Christ!! Was that a richful Fucking waster.
Scholars seeking to fact-hoover might wish to read the first half and skip the head-scratching politics of the second.
And as with most Burgess works, the end product is bursting with erudition and entertainment regardless. As with most Burgess satire, his stance as an old Thatcherite curmudgeon tends to diminish the social comment, and nix the serious intentions. The second half is a ludicrous and offensive comic send-up: Burgess repositions the novel from a right-wing perspective, spoofing the vituperative trade union movement of late 1970s Britain (UK is now TUCland), a world where mindless work and strikes are the oppressor, and art and education are the providence of the outcast proles, some of whom speak perfect Latin. The second half is a ludicrous and offensive comic send-up: Burgess repositions the novel from a right-wing perspective, spoofing the vituperative trade union movement of late 1970s Britain (UK is now TUCland), a wo The first half contains provocative essays and self-interviews, waxing Burgessly on the parallels between 1948 London (the original title for the novel was 1948) and the famous ur-totalitarian state familiar to most literate mammals, making the case for the humour in Orwell’s vision. The first half contains provocative essays and self-interviews, waxing Burgessly on the parallels between 1948 London (the original title for the novel was 1948) and the famous ur-totalitarian state familiar to most literate mammals, making the case for the humour in Orwell’s vision.
0 kommentar(er)
