Mr Burgess wrote MF after reading Levi-Strauss's "The Scope of Anthropology", in which is discussed the 'incest-riddle nexus' that is to be found in Oedipus as well as in the folklore of some Amerindian tribes. The plot of MF, then, is based on an Algonquin myth in which a boy discovers his sister being raped by his (to borrow from another myth entirely) doppelganger. The boy kills the double, who, unfortunately, is the son of a powerful witch. When the witch comes looking for her missing son, the boy, terrified, pretends to be him, which he can do since his appearance is exactly the same. The witch's suspicions that the boy is not her son can only be allayed by his marrying his sister (the same sister he caught the witch's son assaulting). But even this marriage does not completely dowse the witch's doubts, and so she sets her talking owls to ask the imposter-son riddles, which he successfully answers.
MF follows this myth quite closely, and since it is set in the real world makes for a somewhat unlikely plot, to say the least. The unreal nature of the story is heightened by it being a 1st person narrative told by perhaps Mr Burgess's most sesquipedalian (and that's saying something) character. With the dense and allusive writing and the Caribbean, in which the book is set, being an unrecognisable construction of the writer's imagination, we are reminded of a later Nabokov novel, such as "Ada". Though it is, however, a most Burgessian novel in its earthiness and its feel of an over-spiced meal of pickles and strong meats; a banquet comprising of nothing but delicacies and missing the usual bland fare of English home-cooking. For this reason the novel is best consumed in small doses - this is one of those books that, while being a great read, is very easy to put down, as you feel a need for a breath of fresh air between chapters.
Also present is Mr Burgess's conflicting attitudes to life. On the one hand there is a great guzzling gobbling-up of life and history and all of mankind's achievements in literature, philosophy, art and languages, and on the other hand there is his curmudgeonly bile-regurgitating of his petty hatred of the quotidian disappointments and down-to-earth-with-a-bump frustrations. (This negativity of his used to mar his work for me when I first started reading him as an open-eyed late teenager; now I'm a disillusioned 30-something I find it not wholly unwelcome.)
On the whole, then, MF is an imaginative, picaresque, Joycean word-fest of a novel, and if you like that sort of thing, is as good as anti-real literature gets.