[quote=“Stanton, post:520, topic:1204”]Kubrick’s film is a satire and every character in the film is a caricature.
The last chapter of the book is one which was not in every edition of the book. Kubrick only knew the book without that chapter, and couldn’t believe later that Burgess really wrote such a last chapter, which is some kind of happy end in a skewed way, and of course he preferred his ending with Alex remaining violent, but now with the approval of society.
Mickey, I don’t know why you think the writer is homosexual. He was married before, and the mere existence of this body builder guy does not necessarily mean that he is his lover besides being his aid.[/quote]
Didn’t know about different editions of the book, thanks for the info. I know that it was supposed to be a satire and by employing some caricatural features in the case of the film’s characters, Kubrick contingently intended to make amends for the linguistic exuberance of the book. I’m just expressing my first and only viewing experience - I’ve seen this movie only once, perchance being excessively swayed by the book.
As for the homosexuality of that body builder, I found some strong homosexual undertones while watching the scene. Well, Kubrick might have striven to exhibit the writer’s sexual metamorphosis entailed by her spouse’s rape. Possibly recklessly, I just assumed that the body builder appears there as the exemplification of the writer’s struggle to surmount his traumatic experience through his foray into homosexuality - I suppose there is some point in exploiting that character and he isn’t one of directional furnishings. It might be that sex with a male helps him to forget his wife’s sufferings and his own psychological anguish.
As regards the happy ending, which the writer preferred, I conjecture Burgess endeavoured to signal that the streak of debauchery perpetrated by Alex was a creation of immature mind and once his putrid acts don’t slake him anymore, he comes to the conclusion that he can’t carry on being a thug forever.
I’m currently revisiting the CROW series written by Laurence James. Never a meaner gunfighter than Crow. Highly recommended to lovers of spaghetti oaters.
I’ll be finishing a very short book which arrived by mail today, which is basically a transcribed conversation with Dominik Graf. You can’t go wrong with “listening” to Mr. Graf and imagining his clear voice and intonation. ;D The man is truly a gift to every interviewer.
Just finished reading “Doctor Sleep”, which is Stephen King’s sequel to the Shining.
Excellent read and it does a good job of connecting with the first novel, which is one of my all time favorite books. It revolves around an adult Danny Torrence coming to the rescue of another kid with the shining ability. My only criticism is that the villains are too cartoony and not scary enough.
[quote=“Marvin W. Bronson, post:534, topic:1204”]DOCTOR SLEEP was okay. It was King, so I automatically read it. Not as good as THE SHINING, but a decent companion.
Really looking forward to MR. MERCEDES and REVIVAL later this year![/quote]
What are your favorite King books Marv?
I actually hope he goes back to writing more of those short story compilations that I love so much.
finishing Neal Stephenson’s Anathem, which was very big book and it took some time to read it
after this, i’ve prepared some more Neal Asher’s sf novels, Susan Clark’s Jonathan Strange & Doctor Norell, Limit by Frank Schatzing (even bigger book than Anathem) and Francis Scott Fitzgerald’s The Beautiful and Damned
Ha, I’ve read only one of your Top 5 King novels Marvin, and it’s been almost 20 years, though I’ve read some 30 books by King. ;D Don’t know if I should pick up Doctor Sleep, as i was never a fan of his Shining book (though it did scare the shit out of me).
