So I saw A Clockwork Orange in a bookstore and picked it up on

>>7585355
>17 years old
Concerns

>>7585483
Is that an indictment of my taste or are you talking about something else

>>7585355

I really hope this is elaborate bate

>>7585355
I like no wave

>>7585529
No I was being quite genuine. What have I said that gave you the impression I was baiting?

File: 1426040920635.jpg (489KB, 794x1079px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 794x1079px

>>7585536
The authors you spoke of don't fit the Patrician™ meme, so they think you're baiting, or a plebian.

Fuck that.

>>7585555
Hunted for you.
Check'd you son of a bitch.

>>7585555
Damn nice quad, you peculiarly nice anon you.

Really though, sad to see almost nobody wants to discuss these authors without resorting to base, trite memeing.

Pretty average book, thematically. It does have good style which proved its popularity for the masses.

>>7585605
I sound douchy here. I liked the style but felt the book didn't offer much otherwise. The author himself said he just wrote the thing to get some cash quick, which might explain it to some extent -- not that this takes away from what it is. He himself said some of his other works are far superior. Would anybody rec something specific for me?

>>7585605
Is it that popular? OP here, I'm Italian and I picked it up in the only English language bookstores in my city - so I'd like to know how many people have read it in the US/UK, since here nobody ever talks about it.

>>7585638
The movie obviously helped popularize it

>>7585638
I wouldn't know hot to quantify the amount of readers. But yes, it's a pretty popular book, it has even been taught in some schools. And then that Kubrick hack made a movie which would only increase its popularity even more.
I've actually seen this book discussed here quite a bit. /lit/ doesn't actually discuss anything that's not popular, to a small extent at least (philosophy excluded).

>>7585638
Use Goodreads as a measuring tool, anything with over 10 000 reads is insanely popular. Less than 1000 reads is where obscurity _begins_.

>>7585643
>>7585646
>>7585650
Fair enough. I do remember seeing it mentioned on /lit/ a few times, but I've never seen any serious discussion on its prose and language which is what I tried to encourage today but oh well.

the prose to me was kind of pretentious. well, at least alex's voice but I guess it's supposed to be that way for the vernacular. like Nabokov but self aware I suppose.

I liked clockwork orange a lot. the book is every bit as stylized as the movie which can be a good or bad thing depending who you are.

I'm glad you liked it, op.

>>7585355
J. G. Ballard

>>7585355
Wish I could feel your enthusiasm. For me, the movie will always sit on this book like a big turd.

>>7585355

Hey I'm not trying to be a memer or a dick but you should check out Thomas Pynchon. You have real similar tastes to me when I was first getting into literature and I'd say Pynchon is my current favorite author after Burroughs and completely revitalized my interest in literature.

>>7585355
>Every line positively bristles with raucous vitality and rhytm, reading it it's like dancing to percussive no wave ballads of batons hitting concrete.

see ya later kiddo

Don't listen to these pricks. Clockwork Orange is a great book inspired by Finnegan's Wake.

>>7585355

If your version of the book has a chapter 21, rip out the whole chapter and burn it. Do not read it.

as for recommendations, >>7586143 is a great choice.

Just read this as well, hated it. The language absolutely flattened the story, you could see it was a novelty to cover up the lack of content