Anthony Burgess on Kipling and the imperial epic

[@Melvinshermen]

I think Said before that i found odd that Burgess want Ken Russell to do clockwork orange.

[@WKRPinCINN]

Kubrick and Russell are not that far apart as directors. Think of Russel as Kubrick with filigree.

[@Melvinshermen]

@@WKRPinCINNno for don’t know. one reason he was kinda skeptical having Kubrick was he sort rewrite Nabokov script or something. One reason Why Burgess did not like Kubrick Lolita. He just took nabokov script and change it. And for don’t Ken Russell i don’t about Ken Russell that mush but is was Altered States. And Ken Russell rewrite Paddy Chayefsky script or something

[@arronjameshook]

Whilst it’s not on the Tolstoyan level (I personally don’t think a non-Russian writer could reach that level anyway), wouldn’t Kim count as an epic of the Indian Empire?

[@InSearchOfAnthonyBurgess]

I think it most certainly should be considered as one.

[@InSearchOfAnthonyBurgess]

Not sure I really care.

[@InSearchOfAnthonyBurgess]

...whether he had the structural gift or not.

[@InSearchOfAnthonyBurgess]

Burgess writes: 'Kipling had much of the epic poet's equipment, but he could not write an epic. I don't, of course, mean a verse epic; I mean a great novel. The novels he did write are interesting, but they are structural failures: even Kim is pasted together. Kipling did not have the architectural gift.'

[@InSearchOfAnthonyBurgess]

It strikes me that Kipling will continue to be read long after those with 'the architectural gift' are forgotten.

[@briangarrett2427]

You've aged a bit, Geoff!

[@InSearchOfAnthonyBurgess]

Haven't lost the ability to wow the crowd with my speeches, though, Brian, you must admit.

[@briangarrett2427]

@@InSearchOfAnthonyBurgess God, no. They looked riveted.

[@InSearchOfAnthonyBurgess]

@@briangarrett2427