What is the most boring book ever?

[Rogers_68]

I am not enjoying Les Miserables very much. I have about three hundred pages to go. I know some may think it is blasphemy not to just love it but I hardly even like it. I like parts of it but overall it's not something I want to read again.

[Vladimir777]

I've started on "The Shining" and it's boring the hell out of me

Ah, I loved this book growing up! I'm surprised you find it boring, maybe it's not well-written if you've read great literature, but I never found it boring. It scared the bejesus out of me back in middle school--I was nervous every time I took a shower for weeks.

[dfloyd]

Dostoevsky .... your age, reading ability, and assimilation of what you've read is showing. It's not that the books are boring, it's the fact that you are not up to reading such thought provoking literature .... and you may never be.

[mal4mac]

After a BA and two MAs in English Literature, I am ashamed to admit that I have failed to finish even a single novel by Dickens, not even for course-work. I just can not read Dickens. Give me War and Peace or The Brothers Karamazov (both of them huge books) and I would read them happily cover to cover, I can read Ulysses again and again (I have lost the count of the times I have re-read this one book) but I can not read Dickens to save my life.

Are you claiming that an extensive formal education makes one "too good" for Dickens? This doesn't wash because many people with far superior formal credentials than you (John Carey, Harold Bloom, etc. etc.) admire Dickens. So you need to produce far better arguments against Dickens than "credential waving" and irony.

[kiki1982]

Dostoevsky .... your age, reading ability, and assimilation of what you've read is showing. It's not that the books are boring, it's the fact that you are not up to reading such thought provoking literature .... and you may never be.


Are you claiming that an extensive formal education makes one "too good" for Dickens? This doesn't wash because many people with far superior formal credentials than you (John Carey, Harold Bloom, etc. etc.) admire Dickens. So you need to produce far better arguments against Dickens than "credential waving" and irony.

Has it occured to anyone that someone just might not like Dickens, Melville Kafka and Dostoevsky? Dickens, personally I find quite boring. Not to watch on tv (because his stories are definitely interesting), but not interesting for readng. He repeats himself too much (obviously to make more money out of serialising his things). Kafka and Dostoevsky are another pair of writers that might not appeal to everyone. Too negative, maybe, or too useless (if you see what I mean). George Elliot has also a few people who do not like her. Just because of her style. It has nothing to do with credentials whatsoever, just with what you like.

There are people who find Austen boring. I am the last to say that, but I can see what they mean. I never read Melville, but seem to have read somewhere that there is too much about whaling going on. Now, that sounds a little like the raving of Hugo on Waterloo and I can see where people are coming from when they say Les Misérables is boring. It is not the most exciting book, and I love it for its philosophy, but I do have to acknowledge that there are certain parts where you want to put it down for ever (Waterloo, Hougomont and Petit-Picpus).

There is no need to put likings down to age or ability, because that is just not true. Age could provoke a small evolution in styles you like to read, but it is not the only factor.

[Kafka's Crow]

Has it occured to anyone that someone just might not like Dickens, Melville Kafka and Dostoevsky? Dickens, personally I find quite boring. Not to watch on tv (because his stories are definitely interesting), but not interesting for readng. He repeats himself too much (obviously to make more money out of serialising his things). Kafka and Dostoevsky are another pair of writers that might not appeal to everyone. Too negative, maybe, or too useless (if you see what I mean). George Elliot has also a few people who do not like her. Just because of her style. It has nothing to do with credentials whatsoever, just with what you like.

There are people who find Austen boring. I am the last to say that, but I can see what they mean. I never read Melville, but seem to have read somewhere that there is too much about whaling going on. Now, that sounds a little like the raving of Hugo on Waterloo and I can see where people are coming from when they say Les Misérables is boring. It is not the most exciting book, and I love it for its philosophy, but I do have to acknowledge that there are certain parts where you want to put it down for ever (Waterloo, Hougomont and Petit-Picpus).

There is no need to put likings down to age or ability, because that is just not true. Age could provoke a small evolution in styles you like to read, but it is not the only factor.

Don't worry about it. It was my mistake, answering a question about personal taste. I just can't read Dickens, simple as. Never tought people would start passing judgements on my reading ability, people who dare name Dickens, Kafka and Dostoevsky in the same breath (!!!), now I am speechless. Then there is that good old Bloom! His name has been dragged around on this forum as the last word on Literature. Sweet are the usese of being easy and accessible! The Dan Brown of literary criticism!

[mal4mac]

Has it occured to anyone that someone just might not like Dickens, Melville, Kafka and Dostoevsky?

That's fine. I like to hear good reasons why they don't like these authors. "I've an MA and Dicens isn't trendy in modern academia" is not a valid reason :)



Dickens ... he repeats himself too much (obviously to make more money out of serialising his things).


I don't find him too repetitive. Can you give an example where this was a big problem? I have a bad memory, maybe the repetition helps :)

If you want to see excessive repetition try Schopenhauer!



Kafka and Dostoevsky are another pair of writers that might not appeal to everyone. Too negative, maybe...


Schopenhauer wins there as well :)

[sixsmith]

Dostoevsky .... your age, reading ability, and assimilation of what you've read is showing. It's not that the books are boring, it's the fact that you are not up to reading such thought provoking literature .... and you may never be.

Thanks for that Mr Floyd. You've saved many of us a great deal of time and thought.



Originally Posted by kiki1982
Has it occured to anyone that someone just might not like Dickens, Melville, Kafka and Dostoevsky?
That's fine. I like to hear good reasons why they don't like these authors. "I've an MA and Dicens isn't trendy in modern academia" is not a valid reason

With respect, i don't think Kafka's Crow was saying anything close to that. He/she was simply suggesting, i think, that after a fairly extensive formal education in literature, he/she has not acquired a taste for Dickens. It's just another way of saying 'Having read and studied a great many books including the work of Charles Dickens, i find that i can't finish a work by Dickens. I don't like Dickens'. If Kafka's had said 'I can't finish Ulysses', no one would be accusing him/her of credential waving.

[Night_Lamp]

Have any of the Austin dissenters read: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

Although I greatly admire his craft, I will never, ever, unless forced pick up another Henry James Novels; but his ghost stories are some of the best I've ever read.

Again (I know, I know) with Evelyn Waugh:

"All of Henry James' novels are about the same thing: American innocence and European experience."

[kiki1982]

Don't worry about it. It was my mistake, answering a question about personal taste. I just can't read Dickens, simple as. Never tought people would start passing judgements on my reading ability, people who dare name Dickens, Kafka and Dostoevsky in the same breath (!!!), now I am speechless. Then there is that good old Bloom! His name has been dragged around on this forum as the last word on Literature. Sweet are the usese of being easy and accessible! The Dan Brown of literary criticism!

Well, there seems to be indeed a small difference between Dickens and Kafka and Dostoevsky, yes... As to Bloom, his quotes do not seem very convincing to me, so I can't say I value his judgment. Anyway, what literature critic dares to make a list of 'all time best' or the '10 best? It's an insult to those who are not on it. And is there anyone who can say with neutrality that Byron is a better poet than maybe Shelley? No, so do not do that then. It is all a matter of taste.


I don't find him too repetitive. Can you give an example where this was a big problem? I have a bad memory, maybe the repetition helps :)

Oh, please. I tried Little Dorrit last year, and that is my greatest experience with him. I stopped at chapter 36, I think. I can't even remember, so little do I care. In those 35 chapters, he had repeated himself sveral tims on the bosom of the wife of Mr Merdle, on Clenham's love that was not there for the daughter of Mr Meagles and on Mr Meagles himself. Not to speak about the Circumlocution Office. Now, at first this is funny (because it is brilliant in its satire), but a second time it becomes less so and a third time it is boring. Not even Austen is that boring, and nothing happens in her books. Who was it that said that Austen had the great quality of keeping the interest of her readers? Ah, yes Sir Walter Scott. I wonder what he had said about Dickens.


If you want to see excessive repetition try Schopenhauer!

Schopenhauer wins there as well :)

With respect, I thought we were talking about fiction here, not about philosophy. Philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone can understand it. Literature, per definition, is fiction and philosophy is not fiction, that is why it is not called literature, or they put the word 'philosophical' in front of it, lest someone mistakes the one for the other.
Philosophy is by nature repetitive because it is a kind of teaching. If one doe not repeat, one will never learn.

[mal4mac]

As to Bloom, his quotes do not seem very convincing to me, so I can't say I value his judgment.

What quotes are they?



Anyway, what literature critic dares to make a list of 'all time best' or the '10 best? It's an insult to those who are not on it. And is there anyone who can say with neutrality that Byron is a better poet than maybe Shelley? No, so do not do that then. It is all a matter of taste.

Looks like you're attacking a straw critic to me, can you name a critic who does this? Please don't say Bloom, if you actually read "The Western Canon" you will see he does not do this.



Oh, please. I tried Little Dorrit last year, and that is my greatest experience with him. I stopped at chapter 36, I think. I can't even remember, so little do I care. In those 35 chapters, he had repeated himself sveral tims on the bosom of the wife of Mr Merdle, on Clenham's love that was not there for the daughter of Mr Meagles and on Mr Meagles himself. Not to speak about the Circumlocution Office. Now, at first this is funny (because it is brilliant in its satire), but a second time it becomes less so and a third time it is boring.

I didn't find it boring. Maybe it's because I only read a chapter or two a day? So, in not reading 'til light's out, maybe i did find it boring?! But, if so, then I find everything boring :( I tend to only read any book for forty minutes then switch to something else. I'm usually most grateful when I get back to reading Dickens. So I probably find him less boringthan everything else. IMHO, you can't visit the circumlocution office too many times!



Ah, yes Sir Walter Scott. I wonder what he had said about Dickens.


He was (just) dead before he could comment, unless he caught some of his very early journalism.



With respect, I thought we were talking about fiction here, not about philosophy. Philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone can understand it. Literature, per definition, is fiction and philosophy is not fiction, that is why it is not called literature, or they put the word 'philosophical' in front of it, lest someone mistakes the one for the other.
Philosophy is by nature repetitive because it is a kind of teaching. If one doe not repeat, one will never learn.

The thread is "What is the most boring book ever?" Fiction books are not specified.

Philosophy is about wisdom, about finding meaning in life, about learning how to live. Unless you are perfectly happy with your situation, don't you need to attempt some philosophy?

"Philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone can understand it." is a philosophical statement. I would guess that most everyone can understand it. Therefore doesn't it defeat itself?

All the critics I know include some factual works under the banner of literature. Harold Bloom, for instance, includes Nietzsche's philosophical works, the histories of Herodotus, and Johnson's literary criticism, amongst many others. The distinguishing feature of literature is that it should have "aesthetic value", that is, give pleasure (partly) because of the way that it is written. So Bloom does not include Kant, who has written original & significant philosophy, because he can't write for toffy.

I agree the best philosophical writing makes judicious use of repetition as an aid to learning. But can you tell me how Schopenhauer's use of repetition is in any way an aid to education? Magee, a great supporter of Schopenhauer, criticises him for repetition, and has a really funny pastiche of his style in his book "Schopenhauer" (which is a great read for anyone, especially on this forum! Certainly both literature and philosophy, and about literature and philosophy, and readable).

[kiki1982]

What quotes are they?

If you read the entry on him on Wikipedia, you'll see what I mean, that is more than enough.


Looks like you're attacking a straw critic to me, can you name a critic who does this? Please don't say Bloom, if you actually read "The Western Canon" you will see he does not do this.

I am not attackng anyone, I am criticising. I do not see the need for reading The Western Canon either. I prefer to do my own research on things (also with university essays) rather than following one critic in particular for a start. Pronouncing one person (Samuel Beckett f.i.) to be 'the best writer around' is not on. Ok, there is crap and there is good stuff, but among the good stuff there is never 'the best'. You cannot say that between Wordsworth, Byron and Shelley, f.i. Why should you do that about contemporary work? At some point Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth were together on the scene. I wonder if Bloom (had he existed) had also made a bold statement about one of them. It is a question of opinion and he as a critic should know that critics do not express opinions but put forward theories.


I didn't find it boring. Maybe it's because I only read a chapter or two a day? So, in not reading 'til light's out, maybe i did find it boring?! But, if so, then I find everything boring :( I tend to only read any book for forty minutes then switch to something else. I'm usually most grateful when I get back to reading Dickens. So I probably find him less boringthan everything else. IMHO, you can't visit the circumlocution office too many times!

I tried that, convinced it would get better. One chapter a day, on the side of another book (which I liked definitely better), as if I was reading the episode in the newspaper every day. But it did not work. I guess I am not forgetful enough. As I remember too well what Dickens said in former chapters, I don't need to learn the same thing over and over again... As a result I get bored.


He was (just) dead before he could comment, unless he caught some of his very early journalism.

I should have said 'What would he have said.'


Philosophy is about wisdom, about finding meaning in life, about learning how to live. Unless you are perfectly happy with your situation, don't you need to attempt some philosophy?

Not as a major read, no. I prefer to research philosophy present in those works as I go along. It keeps me interested. I think enough on my own.


"Philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone can understand it." is a philosophical statement. I would guess that most everyone can understand it. Therefore doesn't it defeat itself?

It is not a philosophical statement. It says what it says: one can read philosophers, but has one understood them? There is a big difference. Not everyone can truly understand philosophy. I for one studied it for a year (compulsaory in Belgian universities), and I can tell you, the conclusions I drew from what it said in the course were different from the conclusions my professor drew. The words are on the page, yes, but have you understood what they truly mean to the philosopher himself? Because, you see (that is what I retained from my professor, and I hope I explain that right) philosophy is another language. It starts with thinking, but how does a philosopher express his thoughts? By writing them down, but language is more limited than thought and for certain concepts there are no words in the language available. So, the philosopher might use words that are in existence to explain a thought of his. You, as reader who knows the word can think that you understand it, but actually you have not really understood it.


All the critics I know include some factual works under the banner of literature. Harold Bloom, for instance, includes Nietzsche's philosophical works, the histories of Herodotus, and Johnson's literary criticism, amongst many others. The distinguishing feature of literature is that it should have "aesthetic value", that is, give pleasure (partly) because of the way that it is written. So Bloom does not include Kant, who has written original & significant philosophy, because he can't write for toffy.

And, may I ask what is the criterium for aesthetic vaulue? You see, there the problem starts already. Aesthetics is the science of what is beautiful, but that in itself is a contradiction in terms, because science is exact, beauty is not. One cannot discuss 'beauty'. One cannot say 'it looks like that'. It is impossible. What one finds literature depends on what one values as pleasurable and good writing. The discussion about Dickens should be enough indication to prove that point.

[Dirtbag]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/61/Webster_collegiate_11.jpg/441px-Webster_collegiate_11.jpg

But the tenth one was just as bad.

[afrohuman]

eva luna by isabel allende(it became bland when the guerilla guy came up)
to the lighthouse by virginia woolf
the dark tower series by stephen king
as you like it-it's probably the reason i didn't get full marks in my end-year exams.I hate all Shakespeare as a result.

[onioneater]

Virginia Woolf's "To the Lighthouse" made me want to never read again. I almost poked my eyes out after that one. Also, Henry James is so dull and blah for me. I also found Eco's "The Name of the Rose" pretty boring and stuffy.

[five-trey]

Willa Cather's My Antonia was dreadful for me.


I loved Moby-Dick, by the way.

[mal4mac]

If you read the entry on him on Wikipedia, you'll see what I mean, that is more than enough.

It makes me want to read wikipedia even less than I do! They have taken a smattering of his more extreme & eccentric statements and flung them up out of context. Typical Wikipedia. Try reading the opening chapter of "The Western Canon" to get more of a feel for what he's about.



I am not attackng anyone, I am criticising. I do not see the need for reading The Western Canon either. I prefer to do my own research on things (also with university essays) rather than following one critic in particular for a start. Pronouncing one person (Samuel Beckett f.i.) to be 'the best writer around' is not on.


If he thinks that why can't he say it?



... among the good stuff there is never 'the best'. You cannot say that between Wordsworth, Byron and Shelley, f.i. Why should you do that about contemporary work? At some point Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth were together on the scene. I wonder if Bloom (had he existed) had also made a bold statement about one of them. It is a question of opinion and he as a critic should know that critics do not express opinions but put forward theories.


Why not? Pele and David Beckham were both good footballers, but there is little doubt who was the best. Why can't it be the be the same for poets?



And, may I ask what is the criterium for aesthetic value? You see, there the problem starts already. Aesthetics is the science of what is beautiful, but that in itself is a contradiction in terms, because science is exact, beauty is not. One cannot discuss 'beauty'. One cannot say 'it looks like that'. It is impossible. What one finds literature depends on what one values as pleasurable and good writing. The discussion about Dickens should be enough indication to prove that point.

I wasn't using 'aesthetic' in a scientific sense, but in a Bloomean sense, where aesthetic value is an undefined experience of pleasure that comes from reading literature. Your final comments are similar, if less confrontational, than Bloom:

"Pragmatically, aesthetic value can be recognized or experienced, but it cannot be conveyed to those who are incapable of grasping its sensations and perceptions. To quarrel on its behalf is always a blunder." http://www.mrbauld.com/elegy1.html

This is one of his harsher statements! I don't think he means to imply that failure to recognize Dickens means total failure as an aesthete :) Elsewhere he hints that if you are incapable of grasping one author, you may still grasp others. And he worries that he can't grasp Larkin when most other critics admire him. I guess we all have our blank spots.



as you like it-it's probably the reason i didn't get full marks in my end-year exams.I hate all Shakespeare as a result.

Yup, failing the thing that really matters can do that to you. Repression is not the answer. The only way wean yourself from hatred is to read the complete works.

[Lynne50]

Dirtbag, I just purchased the M-W dictionary! I wished I had seen your 'review' before I spent my money. Could you please elaborate why you dislike it so much? Thanks

So far I haven't found anything objectionable.

[Three Sparrows]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/61/Webster_collegiate_11.jpg/441px-Webster_collegiate_11.jpg

But the tenth one was just as bad.


:lol::lol:
I don't know why I find this so funny.

[kiki1982]

If he thinks that why can't he say it?

Because ciritcs put forward theories, they do not profess their own opinions on contemporary authors, whether they are the best or not. The best certainly in any art does not exist. There only exists good, and that is also a personal opinion


Why not? Pele and David Beckham were both good footballers, but there is little doubt who was the best. Why can't it be the be the same for poets?

That was not my point. If Bloom were a football commentator, he would pronounce one of the two the best footballer. Besides, that world, and alo the world of art, changes so fast that is is impossible to pronounce one the best, as one's opinion is already outdated. Translators do not work fast enough to enable the critic to form a founded opinion.


I wasn't using 'aesthetic' in a scientific sense, but in a Bloomean sense, where aesthetic value is an undefined experience of pleasure that comes from reading literature. Your final comments are similar, if less confrontational, than Bloom:

"Pragmatically, aesthetic value can be recognized or experienced, but it cannot be conveyed to those who are incapable of grasping its sensations and perceptions. To quarrel on its behalf is always a blunder." http://www.mrbauld.com/elegy1.html

This is one of his harsher statements! I don't think he means to imply that failure to recognize Dickens means total failure as an aesthete :) Elsewhere he hints that if you are incapable of grasping one author, you may still grasp others. And he worries that he can't grasp Larkin when most other critics admire him. I guess we all have our blank spots.

To add to my own observation: what one should find literature is also a personal opinion, as much as what one finds pleasurable and beautiful. But we still consider certain things literature, because they are pronounced it. Although I cannot find Dickens a very good writer, I still consider him literature. It is not about grasping, it is about general opinion. Yet to me, Dickens's writing is boring and uninteresting. So Bloom's theory does not hold up, as I do consider Dickens as literature, but cannot call him aesthetically very good.

[Swart Fedallah]

Uncle Tom's Cabin, very boring.

Moby-Dick was fantastic from the first page to the last.

[jocky]

Without a doubt the most boring book is Beckets, Waiting for Godot zzzzzzzzzzz.

[Dr. Hill]

That's a play, and it was fantastic.

[PeterL]

I am amazed that this string has continued so long. No one has ever read the most boring book, because it induces sleep after one paragraph.

[waterfallin]

I had to read "the homecoming" by Pinter and "Endgame" by beckett, as well as "brighton Rock" for my english class last year, and they were horrible. I guess there was probably some deeper meaning in it that i missed, but i just couldn't get into them. People in trash cans, men pimping out their wives to their families, and child murderers are obviously NOT my cup of tea. Bleurgh

hmmm, i also didn't enjoy catcher in the rye, i didn't like holden (is that his name? I can't remember)i just didn't understand where he was coming from or what he was supposed to be going through.

[prendrelemick]

Dirtbag, I just purchased the M-W dictionary! I wished I had seen your 'review' before I spent my money. Could you please elaborate why you dislike it so much? Thanks

So far I haven't found anything objectionable.

The chapter on 'C' is very tedious.:lol:

[ForKnowledge]

david coperfield only read about half of it, havn't been able to finish any of dickens books.

[Emil Miller]

I had to read "the homecoming" by Pinter and "Endgame" by beckett, as well as "brighton Rock" for my english class last year, and they were horrible. I guess there was probably some deeper meaning in it that i missed, but i just couldn't get into them. People in trash cans, men pimping out their wives to their families, and child murderers are obviously NOT my cup of tea. Bleurgh

hmmm, i also didn't enjoy catcher in the rye, i didn't like holden (is that his name? I can't remember)i just didn't understand where he was coming from or what he was supposed to be going through.

I am not familiar with 'The Homecoming' but I was once inveigled into watching a performance of 'Endgame' and was bored to tears. People sitting in dustbins talking nonsense is not my cup of tea either and the whole thing came across as pretentious rubbish. Perhaps that was the meaning of the dustbins. Some people may delight in trying to discover whatever obscure symbolism, if any, exists in such plays but I'm not one of them.
Brighton Rock, however, is a very British novel and is probably better appreciated by readers in the UK who can relate to the period in which it is set.

[mal4mac]

Without a doubt the most boring book is Beckets, Waiting for Godot zzzzzzzzzzz.

As most serious critics think Beckett is one of the greatest playwrights ever, there is some doubt...

[schnapps]

The most boring novel I've ever read was Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier. It just dragged on and on and on...

[DanielBenoit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/61/Webster_collegiate_11.jpg/441px-Webster_collegiate_11.jpg

But the tenth one was just as bad.


Dirtbag, I just purchased the M-W dictionary! I wished I had seen your 'review' before I spent my money. Could you please elaborate why you dislike it so much? Thanks

So far I haven't found anything objectionable.


The chapter on 'C' is very tedious.:lol:

The ninth was overrated, idk why people liked it so much. :lol:



Moving on: Idk why, well okay I do, but I don't know why people find Samuel Beckett's plays, expecially Waiting for Godot, to be boring. I mean I know where you're coming from, but how can you not be intrigued by the plays language, characterizatoin, absurdism. Yes the play is about waiting indefinitley and how we are to fulfill our time prior, some people may find that boring, I find it fascinating. To paraphrase a critic at the time of the play's debut, "Waiting for Godot achieves a theoretical impossibility in which nothing happens, and yet is completely able to hold our attention. And since the second act is merely a reflection of the first, it's a play in which nothing happens, twice."

[IceM]

Candide was terrible; the plot lacked spice and was perpetually mundane. Sorry Voltaire.

Pride and Prejudice was a bore. I respect Jane Austen's body of work, but, you couldn't add more spice to Pride and Prejudice? I saw the plot events coming 100 pages in.

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxxxxx

[DanielBenoit]

I cannot believe that someone made the statement that "most serious critics think Beckett was one of the greatest playwrights ever." On the contrary.

Oh come on. He is neither one of the greatest playwrights ever nor one of the worst. But he is certainly the greatest playwright of the post-War period and the greatest of the minimalists. But, everyone has there own tastes. Just don't put words into critics mouths (and I don't just mean you Jermac).

[OrphanPip]

david coperfield only read about half of it, havn't been able to finish any of dickens books.

Ouch, that's one of my favourites.

I quite like Beckett's plays too, I tend to agree with that "nothing is funnier than unhappiness" line from Endgame.

I had a rough time getting through Henry Fielding's Tom Jones.

[DanielBenoit]

Hmm, I just thought of this: Nobody in their right mind could call any of Dostoyevsky's works boring I can tell you that :nod: That's how I see it.

[stlukesguild]

He is neither one of the greatest playwrights ever nor one of the worst.

Is that a fact? How did you come about excluding him from the ranks of the "greatest playwrights ever"? Certainly he is not equal to Shakespeare or Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides. Perhaps he pales before Moliere, Marlowe, Goethe, and Calderón de la Barca and Lope de Vega (although I'll largely have to take the last two on reputation... good translations being slim to no-existent)... but how many other rank before him? Miguel de Unamuno? Jean Genet? Jean Anouilh? Carlo Goldini? Friedrich Schiller? Bertholt Brecht? Friedrich Durrenmatt? Max Frisch? A term like "greatest" is vague. Do we assume that being one of "the greatest playwrights of all time" is limited to only the top 3?... 5?... 10?... Where is the cut-off point? Personally I would count him as one of the great writers... one of the absolute central figures of the latter half of the 20th century.

How Beckett ever won the Nobel Prize for Literature is beyond me.

As is a good deal of modern and contemporary poetry by your own admission. Perhaps you shouldn't brag about it.:D

[DanielBenoit]

He is neither one of the greatest playwrights ever nor one of the worst.

Is that a fact? How did you come about excluding him from the ranks of the "greatest playwrights ever"? Certainly he is not equal to Shakespeare or Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides. Perhaps he pales before Moliere, Marlowe, Goethe, and Calderón de la Barca and Lope de Vega (although I'll largely have to take the last two on reputation... good translations being slim to no-existent)... but how many other rank before him? Miguel de Unamuno? Jean Genet? Jean Anouilh? Carlo Goldini? Friedrich Schiller? Bertholt Brecht? Friedrich Durrenmatt? Max Frisch? A term like "greatest" is vague. Do we assume that being one of "the greatest playwrights of all time" is limited to only the top 3?... 5?... 10?... Where is the cut-off point? Personally I would count him as one of the great writers... one of the absolute central figures of the latter half of the 20th century.


I don't know why your quoting me because I never argued to the contrary.

[mortalterror]

I love every one of Beckett's plays. He's definitely one of the best playwrights, though as SL says he would be somewhere after Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Racine, Calderón, Seneca, Ibsen. He does sort of hover around that Brecht, O'Neill, Strindberg level though, while being above folks like Williams, Jonson, Webster, Wilde, Shaw, Albee, Miller; all able men.

[stlukesguild]

Ack!!! How could I forget Ibsen... not to mention Checkoff and Strindberg. Seneca, on the other hand...? Well I've never been as enamored of the Romans as you... excepting Virgil, Ovid, Horace and a few others... Of course I was thinking of you as I intentionally left Racine off the list. I might note, however, that I've decided to give him another shot, and I purchased the Cairncross translations of Iphigenia, Phadrea, and Athaliah.

[sixsmith]

Hmm, I just thought of this: Nobody in their right mind could call any of Dostoyevsky's works boring I can tell you that :nod: That's how I see it.

Consider me a nut then Daniel. I find Dostoyevsky incredibly dull. :brow:

[DanielBenoit]

Consider me a nut then Daniel. I find Dostoyevsky incredibly dull. :brow:

Lol, you are offically commited :smash:

[Veho]

I found Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre incredibly dull in parts. I think it might be because I just didn't empathise with the existential philosophy. I do, however, like the quote in my signature, which is from Nausea.

[Katy North]

I'd have to say Walden. My dad loved it, but I just couldn't get past the first chapter. Maybe I should try it again in a few years.

For all you Shakespeare and Jane Eyre haters out there... try cheating! I read sparknotes for all the Shakespeare plays I read in college, and it seriously helped me out. Once I had a good grasp of the plot, I was able to sit back and let his verse just wash over me; it was beautiful. Also, if you want to read Bronte, Austen, or Dickens, but aren't sure if you can wade through all that wordy prose, try watching the movie first. Once you no longer need to stare at a page for an hour trying to unravel who does what when, the descriptions flow better and become more beautiful. My rule of thumb is, it's not cheating if you do sit down and read the book at some point.

[pjjrfan1]

Hmm, I just thought of this: Nobody in their right mind could call any of Dostoyevsky's works boring I can tell you that :nod: That's how I see it.
someone else here said that Doestoevsky saved his life or changed it, "the Brohters Karamozov did that for me. His argument on Christ seemed like he taken it from me, yet he wrote that long before I was alive. That thread of common humanity is gripping.

[kiki1982]

I'd have to say Walden. My dad loved it, but I just couldn't get past the first chapter. Maybe I should try it again in a few years.

For all you Shakespeare and Jane Eyre haters out there... try cheating! I read sparknotes for all the Shakespeare plays I read in college, and it seriously helped me out. Once I had a good grasp of the plot, I was able to sit back and let his verse just wash over me; it was beautiful. Also, if you want to read Bronte, Austen, or Dickens, but aren't sure if you can wade through all that wordy prose, try watching the movie first. Once you no longer need to stare at a page for an hour trying to unravel who does what when, the descriptions flow better and become more beautiful. My rule of thumb is, it's not cheating if you do sit down and read the book at some point.

Don't exaggerate... Shakespeare I can understand that some people get confused at, but Brontë? Austen? It takes a little bit of getting used to, that's all. If one does not have the stamina to do that, then what's the point in reading anyway?

Dickens though, I can come in with you, but it's mainly because he repeats himself.

Although, watching the movie, I wouldn't. You never know what they have changed or you have to pick the darling ones of the fans, like the 90s Austens. And then too there are minor changes that don't matter to the fans because the overall result was so good, but which aren't in the book and then you are exposed (depends for what you are trying to cheat of course). As for most of the later ones... There are very few that don't take an awful liberty with the original work, both in message and plot... Better read sparknotes then or a bunch of other articles. It will improve your understanding at any rate (and maybe you'll understand more than the average reader).

[Katy North]

It is true that Austen is very readable, though personally I found Dickens easier :). I think I just liked his characters better. I was just shocked at how many people disliked Austen that I had to throw out there that there were some movies that might make the reader appreciate the book better.

With movies you do need to find the right movie to go with the book. I will say that watching the gorgeous A&E version of Pride and Prejudice (which is remarkably close to the book) turned me on to Jane Austen in the first place, but there are some horribly bad movies that aren't even close to the books.

And when I said "cheating" I said it tongue in cheek... I was actually recommending sparknotes and movies as a TOOL. In my opinion, if you have the time and energy to read sparknotes and/or watch the movie, AS WELL AS reading the book, you're a pretty good student/reader :).

[wlz]

Those at San Quentin would not have agreed with the criticisms of Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot on this thread. I personally think his work is brilliant. It is BRILLIANT. I do not enjoy the novels written by him though I try returning to them each year. In fact, I am due another attempt any day soon. But the plays...

The book I found most tedious almost to the point of tears: I apologise, but The Bible, (King James Version), slots perfectly into this category for me. It wasn't long after a reading of this fantasy-adventure novel that I became an atheist!

[Katy North]

You and me both, wlz... I just didn't want to inspire a debate of epic proportions, being a newbie and all. But now that you've said it, I'll join in!

Many times I have told myself, I MUST read the Bible, at least to see what all the hype is about! However, after tearing several of the ultra thin pages because I drooled on them while nodding off, I decided I'd go get my revelations from Dostoevsky and Shakespeare instead.

And all in all, I think atheism is pretty cool. You get to believe in dinosaurs and sleep in on Sunday :D.

[blazeofglory]

To me indeed James Joyce 'Ulysses. I loved the book and still I do love it given its majestic prose. The fact that it has always been best-rated yet though I made several efforts to read it I have to stop.

Everything of this book is beautiful,yet I cannot understand it and therefore I find it boring

[Jeremydav]

I'm currently studying colonialist American literature and it can be rather dry. Though I've only read representative works by John Smith and William Bradford as of yet. I'm excited to move forward in the course and study the romantics and transcendentalists. I've always found their writings riveting.

[Eliot Rosewater]

Dracula, in my humble opinion. It started off interesting but tapered off then. I think the reason its still popular is mostly down to it being one of the first major works of that genre.

[spookymulder93]

For Whom the Bell Tolls was a snooze fest.

[dfloyd]

is said to be boring or uninteresting, it generally means the person criticizing the book didn't understand it, hadn't reached the level of intellectuality it takes to comprehend it, or just plain wasn't aware of the subtlties involved with the author's presentation. To criticize a classic which has been given that status by the many professional critics only reflects poorly upon the demeaner.

[mtpspur]

I used to think Ethan Frome was the most boring book ever read but upon reflection Ivanhoe by Walter Scott makes more sense to me based on its promise but failure to deliver. Came to the book expecting something along the lines of Prince Valiant instead being treated to a very hard luck knight who seems to spend most of his time on a sick bed. The final duel at the end is unsatisfying as well but to elaborate would be to spoil it.

[Scheherazade]

I used to think Ethan Frome was the most boring book ever read I could not stand that book either! Felt so cheated as I really loved Wharton up until that time.

[David Lurie]

Berlin Alexanderplatz: I have finished reading it last night and I can't remember the last time I was so bored, the most exciting parts were the listings of streetcar's stops.

[Mr.lucifer]

is said to be boring or uninteresting, it generally means the person criticizing the book didn't understand it, hadn't reached the level of intellectuality it takes to comprehend it, or just plain wasn't aware of the subtlties involved with the author's presentation. To criticize a classic which has been given that status by the many professional critics only reflects poorly upon the demeaner.

You are a hypocrite because you criticize virginia woolfe.

I guest JBI is a moron because he dislike 19th century america classic literature. Mal4mac must be dumb for disliking Ulysses, or for not being impressed by the novels of hemingway or nabokov. Brian Bean must be immature for finding samuel beckett, james joyce, or war and peace boring. He certainly must be intellectually lacking for finding kafka unimpressive.

Just because a book is labeled a classic does not mean one will be impressed by it.

[stlukesguild]

Who says JBI isn't a moron for disliking 19th century American literature...?:biggrinjester:



I'm kidding JBI... kidding. If I wanted to prove that you were a moron I could surely come up with something far more substantial.:D


As you... no doubt... could do with me.:shocked:

[Mr.lucifer]

Though really I hope to enjoy as many classics as possible.

[Isla]

I don't know about the most boring book ever, but recently I read The Far Pavilions and it really dragged. While M.M. Kaye's knowledge of India's culture and landscape is vast and her prose beautiful, the expository writing becomes tedious halfway through the book and made what could have been a intriguing story repetitive and monotonous.

I enjoy long informative reads that force my mind to slow down and think. I have a big heart for non-fiction as well, and can stand dry novels too... I guess the Far Pavilions wasn't so much boring as it was annoying because M.M. Kaye's voice overshadows her well-researched story.

With that said, I still find parts of the book brilliant and I can't just write her off completely because hey, she spent 30 years writing that novel and she has quite a large cult-following and so I respect her work. Even if it made me want to scream.

[spookymulder93]

is said to be boring or uninteresting, it generally means the person criticizing the book didn't understand it, hadn't reached the level of intellectuality it takes to comprehend it, or just plain wasn't aware of the subtlties involved with the author's presentation. To criticize a classic which has been given that status by the many professional critics only reflects poorly upon the demeaner.

Do you form your own opinions?

Kind of sounds like you like what people tell you to like.

[LMK]

Boring reads: Dorian Gray, Moby Dick, Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant, The House of the Seven Gables, Man of La Mancha ...are among those that stick out of my overindulged, yet clueless mind.

That is not to say that there weren’t parts of any/all that were enjoyable, memorable or easily forgettable, no editorial comment withstanding; however, for clarification, I say boring only to mean (to me) that it was not a read that was hard to put down, but rather sometimes had to tell myself, “just a few more pages” at a time, until I could be finished with it.

Perhaps a second or third read of any of these might be page turners.

[Petrarch's Love]

I just came across this thread and am cracking up at how typically human it is that we could all go on for nearly 22 pages about what bores us. :lol: For whatever reason I very seldom think in terms of a book being "boring." I may not like it, or I may find it frustrating or generally uninspired but I hardly ever experience a conscious sensation of boredom while reading literature. (Within the genre of literary criticism on the other hand...) I think I may have been more bored by some reading when I was younger. Perhaps it is that I have learned to appreciate a wider variety of styles. Or I suppose it could be that I've just read enough boring literature that I've build up an immunity, like a vaccine. :D I cannot help but suppose that all those on this thread selecting writers like Dickens, Shakespeare, Woolf, Hemingway or Dostoevsky have never been compelled to read all 306 of the religious sonnets of Henry Lok (a distinct exception to my general resistance to boredom). :as-sleep:

[aliengirl]

I found these two quite boring-

Middlemarch by George Eliot - I left it after just three pages.

A House for Mr. Biswas by V.S. Naipaul - If you have not read it, better forget about it. I read about half of it and resolved never to look at it again. Ughh.. it was sooo repetitive.

[brave new tony]

Hands down the worst read of my life was "Sons and Lovers". Talk about dry literature, this novel was set on late 1800's around a mining community in Great Britain. It was about 500 pages of the worst Oedipus complex known to man and his divided nonchalance in two terribly dull women. Awful Read. A close second would be Jane Eyre...ugh

[Tallon]

I loved Sons and Lovers, plus i was reading it on holiday and made friends with a girl who saw me reading it :D

[brave new tony]

I had no such luxury. :( It did occur to me, though, that if an intelligent woman would have seen me reading it, perhaps she would have assumed I have a great sense of romance. ha!

[Nathan920]

I am appalled that none of you have included Ayn Rand's "mesterpiece". The lugubrious tome Atlas Shrugged. It is an endless journey wandering through the catacombs of Ayn Rands objectivist mind. An avowed atheist, perhaps Rand was on to something, god would have spared us this pointless dreck. Her redundant rhetoric made my eyes water as I realized that I still had two-hundred pages left to read.

[EJMathews]

Moby Dick, hands down. I didn't read it as a requirement in any course I took. I read it because I wanted to know what all the hubbub was about and found that it was about a great be giant nothing.

[JZD]

Interesting that so many chose Moby Dick. It is a very unique work of art, to be sure. There's a block of about 200 pages in the middle of the book that is essentially a whaling textbook. This is extremely difficult to get through. However I think the book is brilliant and Melville's prose is still superior to any other English language writer I have read. His sentences, his vocabulary, are quite simply stunning. I can't count how many sentences I read in that book and realized that it would probably take me 20 minutes just to form a sentence this perfectly and lyrically. While reading that book, I was literally consumed by a feeling of disbelief that a single human being could sit down and create this from his mind. Genius. So don't look at the book as boring or exciting. It's a false and childish dichotomy. Look at conquering this book as an intellectual achievement, like working out your brain. Reading and understanding that book is something to be proud of IMO.

As for boring books, off the top of my head.....

I love Camus, The Plague and The Stranger are two of my favorite books of all-time, but I thought The Fall was oddly boring. I may have rushed through it and perhaps a second read would change my mind.

Recently read All The Pretty Horses by Cormac McCarthy and I thought it was far weaker than all the other books of his I've read. Probably 3/4 of that book was fairly unexciting.

Huge Kerouac fan, but I thought Big Sur was kind of boring, at least relative to On the Road and Dharma Bums.

[hazelk]

Jude The Obscure by Thomas Hardy. All of the main characters annoyed me. Jude was such a shallow person and Sue well say no more. The only character that I like was Jude's great aunt, and she up and died halfway thru.

I have always enjoyed Hardy's books, but not this one.
My favourite of his was The Mayor of Casterbridge.

[untroddenways]

Most any novel by Henry James. There are exceptions, of course.

And The Jungle, by God. I appreciate it... I respect it, but I will never read it again.

[Propter W.]

Well, I'm currently reading Moby Dick and I must say it is indeed very boring.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Great Expectations

or

Less Than Zero

[iamnobody]

I wanted to add something new here, but alas, it has to be Moby Dick. Hands down worst novel ever.

[Skia]

Has To Be, Hands Down, Twilight.
Eclipse, Moon, whatever they are called.

Pathetic

x

[Mr.lucifer]

I wanted to add something new here, but alas, it has to be Moby Dick. Hands down worst novel ever.

Please do not confuse what you consider boring to poorly written.

[Dodo25]

I think it is funny so many mention Moby Dick, because that was the first actual book I've read (I was around eight), so with hindsight, I guess I couldn't have picked it worse (apart from Ulysses of course). I actually liked it, but maybe that was due to the fact that before this, I used to read children books with severely retarded, childish plots..

I don't think I understood much of it though. I remember complaining that it takes more than 200 pages until they finally see that awesome whale! Drove me crazy, I wanted action.

I can't really say what book I've read is most boring, because there are countless books I gave up after a period ranging from one sentence to 95% of the book (whoever thinks that giving up after one sentence is unfair, you shoulda seen that sentence it was the dumbest most boring thing I've ever read. I'd post it but it's German).

I think most classics (especially German) are boring and I hardly ever finish reading them.

[the facade]

Though there are sparks of genius and chapters that I love, Jean-Paul Sartre's Nausea is excruciatingly boring.

[Propter W.]

I think it is funny so many mention Moby Dick, because that was the first actual book I've read (I was around eight), so with hindsight, I guess I couldn't have picked it worse (apart from Ulysses of course). I actually liked it, but maybe that was due to the fact that before this, I used to read children books with severely retarded, childish plots..

I don't think I understood much of it though. I remember complaining that it takes more than 200 pages until they finally see that awesome whale! Drove me crazy, I wanted action.

I can't really say what book I've read is most boring, because there are countless books I gave up after a period ranging from one sentence to 95% of the book (whoever thinks that giving up after one sentence is unfair, you shoulda seen that sentence it was the dumbest most boring thing I've ever read. I'd post it but it's German).

I think most classics (especially German) are boring and I hardly ever finish reading them.

I think there's a brilliant book in Moby Dick, there just happens to be a whaling manual and a whale encyclopeadia in there too.

I remember reading Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and I liked it, except for the discription of every single life form he encoutered under water.

[Serena03]

Despite its crucial contribution in American history, I am having difficulty finishing The Federalist, I started it over a year ago. Other books I could not finish: The Fall of Napoleon by Michael V. Leggiere, DaVinci Code, and above all, the Bible.

[ceelo]

Despite its crucial contribution in American history, I am having difficulty finishing The Federalist, I started it over a year ago. Other books I could not finish: The Fall of Napoleon by Michael V. Leggiere, DaVinci Code, and above all, the Bible.

The Da Vinci Code was not a good novel, but it was entertaining to an extent.

I found Washington Square pretty bad, but there are a lot of books i've yet to read so I can't say that it is the most boring.

[goatlips]

General Patton once wrote a book about his experiences in WWII and it was dreadful. I do not know why it was published.

[shantonu]

Well I'm new here, but I'm amazed that anyone mentions Moby Dick. Here's a selection of the "boring" part of Moby Dick:

Chapter xxxii - CETOLOGY

Now the various species of whales need some sort of popular comprehensive classification, if only an easy outline one for the present, hereafter to be filled in all its departments by subsequent laborers. As no better man advances to take this matter in hand, I hereupon offer my own poor endeavors. I promise nothing complete; because any human thing supposed to be complete, must for that very reason infallibly be faulty. I shall not pretend to a minute anatomical description of the various species, or - in this place at least - to much of any description. My object here is simply to project the draught of a systematization of cetology. I am the architect, not the builder.

[And Melville goes on for a while and concludes]

. . . . Finally: It was stated at the outset, that this system would not be here, and at once, perfected. You cannot but plainly see that I have kept my word. But I now leave my cetological System standing thus unfinished, even as the great Cathedral of Cologne was left, with the crane still standing upon the top of the uncompleted tower. For small erections may be finished by their first architects; grand ones, true ones, ever leave the copestone to posterity. God keep me from ever completing anything.

I admit that the first section is a bit strange, and nothing much seems to be happening. But the second? Is that really so boring? It seems to me one of the most exciting passages ever written. The whale is a mystery, and human understanding of the whale's body (which is a metaphor for both the natural world and the workings of God's mind) must always be incomplete.

[katelbach]

Christ, was going to start on Moby Dick the other day! Sack that off. For me there aren't many i found so boring - perhaps i'm just very tolerant. I found Erewhon by Samuel Butler really started to drag in the second half, but it was still interesting on the whole. I also realised recently that i had read Atomised by Michel Houllebecq a couple of years ago yet can remember ABOLUTELY NOTHING about it. Not a good sign. I remember being bored by Hesse on 2 occassions as well (Demian and Siddhartha), though again not entirely. Yet to find a completely meritless novel, but i will continue to live in fear.

[Kyriakos]

Ulysses, by Joyce. I read about half of it, then gave up due to the utter insignificance of it.

[wallflower5]

Cecilia by Fanny Burney. I could not concentrate while reading it. Fell asleep.

[Armel P]

In all honesty, the Holy Bible.

[cyberbob]

To me, most literature is boring, LOL.

I love non-fiction, but with fiction, I prefer short stories or pulp.

I guess the most boring I've read was Red Badge of Courage.

[mal4mac]

I read Moby Dick last month and find it a very interesting read, even the facts about Cetology! But, mostly, it's a great adventure story. I can't see how anyone could find it boring. I agree with the negative comments about Ulysses & The Bible! For me, they tie with Proust for 'most boring'.

[Tournesol]

Hands down: the most boring book ever: 'EAT, PRAY, LOVE'

I COULDN'T WAIT TO FINISH READING THIS NOVEL, AND THE MOVIE WAS EVEN WORSE!

[tonywalt]

Jack Welch's autobiography(former CEO of GE) was tough to get through. It was not necessarily boring, but he sure was. Endless stories of firing people who had crossed him in the past and talking of his greatness.

And, oh yea, alot of stories about how he thought he made a mistake, but then it turned out to be a great thing in the end.

It's the only autobiography that I did not finish.

[Seasider]

Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Totally pretentious and boringly macho. By the end I knew nothing more about Zen or Motorbikes than at the beginning. And was sick of the pompous twit.

[Buh4Bee]

Hands down: the most boring book ever: 'EAT, PRAY, LOVE'

I COULDN'T WAIT TO FINISH READING THIS NOVEL, AND THE MOVIE WAS EVEN WORSE!

I hated that book. I agree with you. I could brave the movie. Good to her it is as bad as the book. I'll avoid it.

[fb0252]

Tie:
White Noise--trash can after 70 pages
Of Mice And Men--that I was compelled to finish.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's truly sad to see how many people can't, or (probably more accurate) aren't willing to read and discover the beauty, intricacy, innovation, humor, and language that makes Moby Dick so amazing.

As for me, I find the Where's Waldo? series rather slow.

[Syd A]

Jack Welch's autobiography(former CEO of GE) was tough to get through. It was not necessarily boring, but he sure was. Endless stories of firing people who had crossed him in the past and talking of his greatness.

And, oh yea, alot of stories about how he thought he made a mistake, but then it turned out to be a great thing in the end.

It's the only autobiography that I did not finish.

Sorry, but it serves you right for picking that book off the shelf. Who would have thought that a Gordon Gekko facsimile could be boring and pretentious?

[G L Wilson]

Dracula by Bram Stoker is so absurd that it can't even be read for fun. You keep wishing for death while you are trying to read it and death never comes. It smells of rank undead Puritanism, but then all vampire stories do, yet what is really unforgivable is its religious tone. It is quite Victorian, it is quite stupid, and it is quite insufferable.

[kiki1982]

I never read it, but from the Gary Oldman film I seem to remember some really romantic anguish.

And, may I ask, what else is there to expect from something written so early apart from a lot of emotion? The Victorians were very much religion and morality oriented. I would say, stay away from anything 19th century if you don't want to be exasperated. Apart from Austen, then.

[G L Wilson]

I never read Dickens for the very reason I never finished Dracula, Stoker's The Lair of the White Worm is alright though.

[mal4mac]

Hands down: the most boring book ever: 'EAT, PRAY, LOVE'

I COULDN'T WAIT TO FINISH READING THIS NOVEL, AND THE MOVIE WAS EVEN WORSE!

This book is awful. Why did you bother finishing it, I gave up after thirty pages...

[Emil Miller]

Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Totally pretentious and boringly macho. By the end I knew nothing more about Zen or Motorbikes than at the beginning. And was sick of the pompous twit.

Well, you might of guessed that it was pretentious (Zen) and boringly macho (motorbikes) from the title. It used to make me laugh when I saw someone reading it as though it wasn't just another piece of 1970s nonsense with a catchpenny title.

[exodus238]

i'll go with skipping christmas. incredibly boring!! a couple choose not to have christmas.. so there they are.. not having christmas.. then their daughter says she wants to come home for christmas with her new boyfriend.. so.. oh dear.. theyve gt to have xmas after all.. so they go out shopping (yes, every shopping trip is explained in detail) and then they have xmas...
WHO CARES??
most boring novel on this planet!

[Emil Miller]

To paraphrase a critic at the time of the play's debut, "Waiting for Godot achieves a theoretical impossibility in which nothing happens, and yet is completely able to hold our attention. And since the second act is merely a reflection of the first, it's a play in which nothing happens, twice."

So if you didn't get it in the first act you won't get it in the second.

[KatnissEverdeen]

The Indian and the Cupboard.
It's so annoying.:out:

[G L Wilson]

So if you didn't get it in the first act you won't get it in the second.

In the meantime, while we are waiting for Godot, I assume life goes on.

[deguonis]

-Ask the Dust - JOHN FANTE

-The Bridge of San Luis Rey - THORNTON WILDER

[G L Wilson]

-Ask the Dust - JOHN FANTE

-The Bridge of San Luis Rey - THORNTON WILDER

Ask the Dust by John Fante - the most boring book ever? I think not, I disagree.

[deguonis]

Ask the Dust by John Fante - the most boring book ever? I think not, I disagree.

Right.

No. Not the most boring book ever but a true disappointment. Bukowski's review was quite appealing as he said "Fante is my God." So, although I hadn't read Bukowski prior to that date I envisioned "Ask the Dust" to be a truly good book. It was good. Just good. I expected it to be brilliant. That's why I say "a true disappointment."
Anyways, I'm beating about the bush.
Don't get mad, please.
Degu Onis

[G L Wilson]

Right.

No. Not the most boring book ever but a true disappointment. Bukowski's review was quite appealing as he said "Fante is my God." So, although I hadn't read Bukowski prior to that date I envisioned "Ask the Dust" to be a truly good book. It was good. Just good. I expected it to be brilliant. That's why I say "a true disappointment."
Anyways, I'm beating about the bush.
Don't get mad, please.
Degu Onis

Bukowski's a jam tart, soft in the middle and hard on the outside.

[Emil Miller]

In the meantime, while we are waiting for Godot, I assume life goes on.

Well yes it does but Beckett's obscurantism is a distraction too far in my view and if you thought that Godot was pointless, what about Endgame. I attach an extract from Wikipedia's summation of the play.

The implication in the play is that the characters live in an unchanging, static state. Each day contains the actions and reactions of the day before, until each event takes on an almost ritualistic quality. It is made clear, through the text, that the characters have a past (most notably through Nagg and Nell who conjure up memories of tandem rides in the Ardennes).

Whoopee! Book me two tickets.

[JeanWill]

Just joined this forum and was thrilled to discover that I'm not the only one who HATES Moby Dick! I love reading and it was books like this - forced, assigned reading in a college class - that suck the life and fun out of reading. This is the only book for which I bought the Cliff's Notes :-/ After reading endless pages on the tying of nautical knots in ropes, I was about ready to scream. If I wasn't being tested on the content of this book, I would have burned the thing.

I completely understand why anyone would identify Shakespeare in this list. But my main defense of Shakespeare is that he wasn't meant to be read, he was meant to be watched. I doze off reading Shakespeare, but I love watching any of his plays being performed, be it college productions, community theater, movies, what have you. The stories are timeless.

[Jurt]

Jane Austen's "sense and sensibility"

[Ome]

Il disprezzo by Alberto Moravia
Love in the Time of Cholera by Marquez
Martin Eden by Jack London
The Misunderstanding by Camus
Les Catilinaires by Notomb
Homo Faber by Frisch
Oscar and the Lady in Pink by Schmitt (hate him)
12 chairs by Ilf&Pertov (the other book The Little Golden Calf is much better)


Can't remember more...http://im-smiley.com/imgs/character/character063.gif (http://im-smiley.com)

[onioneater]

oh gosh. I just had to read To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf and The Portrait of a Young Artist by James Joyce for my Modern British Literature class and I hated them. I hated them with a passion. They were immensely boring, in fact so much so that I used them to cure insomnia. Okay I'll stop bashing them. I'm sure there are people out there who liked them. They simply weren't my cup of tea.

That sounds like the worst class ever! "To the Lighthouse" is the dullest, most pretentious and just plain shi@@y novel ever written. I hate it with all the passion of my heart. I have read a lot of classics and many of them tend to the dull side, but this novel is the worst reading experience I've had in my life.
And Henry James.....right up there with the most overrated writer Ginny Woolf.

[ariella]

George Eliot is kind of hard to read. I definitely wouldn't say it was the most boring writing ever though. But I have had to have a break from reading Daniel Deronda for a while, and read something slightly quicker paced, I'm just impatient.
I can't really say what I found the most boring book ever because I doubt I even bothered reading many pages to remember. Also too many books I haven't even tried reading yet.
jACKIE cOLLINS is pretty boring, if I wanted to read that trash I'd go on literotica or something. Also she seems to think the name Raphael is spelled 'Rapheal' - That's like spelling the name: Michael as 'Micheal' - which is apparently the most uneducated, low-class, inbred incorrect spelling ever, according to freakonomics and some people who know about word roots, anyway.

[larryF]

-The Bridge of San Luis Rey - THORNTON WILDER

Why was this boring? I have it sitting on my shelf and its such a short book that Ive been meaning to read it so I was just wondering about someone else's opinion on it.`

[TheChilly]

Some of these I can fully understand. I have yet to read any Joseph Conrad, but many, many people claim to find James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, and Charles Dickens very boring.
I love them all, personally, especially Virginia Woolf, but she wrote with so much empathy and far more passion than the average author, which, I think, could confuse many readers.
Some historical novels, yes, I can see the downside. I have enjoyed most of them, especially several Russian works, but, for example, I could never read Gore Vidal's Creation over again. :(

Even though I found "Great Expectations" to be rather dull (partly thanks to high school nightmares...), I'm giving "Bleak House" and "A Tale of Two Cities" a shot eventually. Hopefully, my opinion of Dickens will change...

[Melysnl]

Anything by Faulkner, Morrison, Dickens, and Shakespeare. With Shakespeare I can watch the plays but thank God I don't ever have to read any of it again.

[mona amon]

Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel. Had to abandon it half way.

[wordeater]

When you find a famous book boring (like "Moby Dick" or "Dr Zhivago") it's usually because you're too lazy to read it.

[SkyCetacean]

When you find a famous book boring (like "Moby Dick" or "Dr Zhivago") it's usually because you're too lazy to read it.
That's ridiculous. I call Argumentum Ad Populum. (Many people like a book, not liking it makes you lazy is a complete nonsequitur.)

Anyhow, let me think... I recall being fairly bored by certain segments of Crime and Punishment, but conceptually it was at least interesting enough for me to remember most of it... That's the thing about most boring books, if they're so uninteresting, what is there to remember about it?

[stlukesguild]

That's ridiculous. I call Argumentum Ad Populum. (Many people like a book, not liking it makes you lazy is a complete nonsequitur.)

There is a difference between a book that is "popular" and one that is recognized as a "classic." Of course we all like what we like... but there is something to be said for the ability to recognize that there is a difference between what we "like" and "dislike" and what is "good" or "bad." If we find this or that "classic" to be dreadfully boring it probably says more about us as readers than it does about the failings of the author.

[SkyCetacean]

That's ridiculous. I call Argumentum Ad Populum. (Many people like a book, not liking it makes you lazy is a complete nonsequitur.)

There is a difference between a book that is "popular" and one that is recognized as a "classic." Of course we all like what we like... but there is something to be said for the ability to recognize that there is a difference between what we "like" and "dislike" and what is "good" or "bad." If we find this or that "classic" to be dreadfully boring it probably says more about us as readers than it does about the failings of the author.
True, but the word used was "famous," which essentially means "popular".

I agree, though, that it's important to understand that personal taste and "objective" quality are not the same thing.

[JBI]

The early Chinese historical books like the zuozhuan and the book of documents. Dry as hell and so antiquated in language.

[Chris 73]

A collection of short stories by D H Lawrence. Yes the prose is at times lovely but by good did he labour the points he was trying to make. Completely tedious.

[Jackson Richardson]

"The most boring book ever" is a silly question. I haven't read all the books, so I'm not in a position to judge.

If the question was what is the most boring book you have read? I can make a stab at an answer. Mind you I'm quite capable of pushing on with a book that I find unengaging in the hope that it will click, and I will at least be able to say to myself that I have read it. Proust, Richarson and Joyce all come into that category, although I can see why they are admired.

I gave up on Tristram Shandy when I was a student, pushed myself to read it a few years ago, and then listened to it as an audiobook this year, and began to enjoy and appreciate it. Now I know the structure, I can browze it and enjoy it in bits.

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T E Lawrence was inpenetrable to me. I mean it wasn't in "experimental prose" like Joyce or Pynchon or Faulkner or even Sterne. But I was totally lost as to what he was talking about and I gave up.

[Ronald who?]

I didn't finish it. Obviously.

[MrBlue]

boredom by Alberto Moravia

[Clovis]

Intentionally intellectual and cold writing styles can be irksome to read, esp. when they're extremely long. But they have their benefits too, i. e. people interested in Vienna 1900's should read Musil's brick. It isn't to be so judgemental on my part, truth is there is much also to gain from reading such works, a spectacular stick-with-'it'ness if nothing else. Besides where would literature be without many authors who would be fitting the above mentioned, i. e. Dosteovsky?

I hadn't as of yet finished even the first volume of The Man Without Qualities, but I vividly recall the justifications of the crime by the killer on trail, very very hard to forget.

[ChicagoReader]

Quite sad to see Moby-Dick pop up multiple times. Maybe it's because I'm currently reading it for class with an excellent professor, but the novel is simply astounding. It requires a very close reading though, so I'd imagine I'd probably have a different opinion if I had to read it on my own without a professor to provide insight.

As for the most boring reads I've experienced: Jayne Eyre and JR. I'll admit that my problem with Jayne Eyre is mostly with subject matter, I'm a twenty-one year old guy and have no interest in that crap. As for JR, Gaddis just totally lost me with that one. I loved The Recognitions and even Agape Agape, but JR just seems so repetitive to me, I feel like you can take away everything important within half the novel, but then it goes on for another three hundred pages, random ramblings of amorphous characters.

[Jackson Richardson]

As for the most boring reads I've experienced: Jayne Eyre and JR. I'll admit that my problem with Jayne Eyre is mostly with subject matter, I'm a twenty-one year old guy and have no interest in that crap.


I'm a guy who finds Charlotte Bronte over-rated and Vilette one of the most depressing books I've ever written.

But you should be careful as dismissing Jane Eyreas "all that crap". If you're straight, you might well be interested at some time in what women find attractive in men, and what pisses them off.

If you're gay, you might well sympatise with Jane's situation, always dismissed as second rate and holding her integrity.

[The Comedian]

I don't know about ever, but I struggled to get through Persuasion by Jane Austen. I tried. I really tried to get into it this summer. But the only thing that got me through it was the idea that I could say I read the whole thing and didn't quit somewhere in the middle.

The whole match-maker plot weighs down on my eyelids like split-shot.

[Jackson Richardson]

I don't know about ever, but I struggled to get through Persuasion by Jane Austen. I tried. I really tried to get into it this summer. But the only thing that got me through it was the idea that I could say I read the whole thing and didn't quit somewhere in the middle.

The whole match-maker plot weighs down on my eyelids like split-shot.

What match-making? Aren't you muddling it up with Pride and Prejudice.

I have to admit I read Ulysses in something of the same spirit (I'm damned if I don't get through this b....r.) But I can glimpse why it's admired, even if it doesn't click with me yet.

[Genesis]

I may be wrong but "Cherry Orchard" by Checkov is really very boring.Not that its bad or without literary value but its just so boring.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I love absolutely Chekhov. Sublime stuff.

[aaron stark]

Definitely Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, no doubt about it

[WICKES]

The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath. Depressed people are always boring, however deserving of sympathy they may be. Unhappy people are usually wrapped up in themselves and can't think of or talk about anything but their own pain- and as we all know, people who are wrapped up in themselves are bores. To be fair, it's a book for young women and not for 35 year old men!

[Emil Miller]

The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath. Depressed people are always boring, however deserving of sympathy they may be. Unhappy people are usually wrapped up in themselves and can't think of or talk about anything but their own pain- and as we all know, people who are wrapped up in themselves are bores. To be fair, it's a book for young women and not for 35 year old men!

Thank you Wickes, another nail struck squarely on the head, but why only thirty-five-years-old men rather than men per se?

[Ser Nevarc]

The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath. Depressed people are always boring, however deserving of sympathy they may be. Unhappy people are usually wrapped up in themselves and can't think of or talk about anything but their own pain- and as we all know, people who are wrapped up in themselves are bores. To be fair, it's a book for young women and not for 35 year old men!

I will wholeheartedly agree with you that Plath's novel is slumber-incuding but I do not agree that "depressed people are always boring."

Come on, are Hamlet, Holden Caulfield, Manfred, Raskolnikov, Meursault (from Camus' The Stranger), Frankenstein's monster, anyone from Beckett and Kafka, and probably a truckload of others I can't think of right now, boring characters?

What makes The Bell Jar boring are the features and style of that particular novel. Not the depressed state the protagonist is in.

[Emil Miller]

I will wholeheartedly agree with you that Plath's novel is slumber-incuding but I do not agree that "depressed people are always boring."

Come on, are Hamlet, Holden Caulfield, Manfred, Raskolnikov, Meursault (from Camus' The Stranger), Frankenstein's monster, anyone from Beckett and Kafka, and probably a truckload of others I can't think of right now, boring characters?

What makes The Bell Jar boring are the features and style of that particular novel. Not the depressed state the protagonist is in.

It depends to what degree, if the protagonist's story is simply a litany of woe then it will be tedious to the reader. Personally I have found Meursault, Raskolnikov, Becket and Kafka boring but not necessarily because of their depression.

[Volya]

I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for saying this but...

I read the first chapter of the Brothers Karamazov, and I couldn't bear to read anymore. It was dreadfully dull.

[Emil Miller]

I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for saying this but...

I read the first chapter of the Brothers Karamazov, and I couldn't bear to read anymore. It was dreadfully dull.

Although it may sound patronising, at 15 it is unlikely that anybody is going to find Dostoyevsky interesting.
One thing to be aware of in relation to this web site is that many members are, or have been, students of literature who have been guided by their tutors to read the standard classic writers, sometimes to the students' dismay.
I have read a few novels by Dostoyevsky but, except for The Gambler, I did not find him in the least particularly readable and dullness seemed to me to be a hallmark of his writing.
Perhaps when you are older, you will discover the deep psychological inferences in Dostoyevsky or, then again, shrug your shoulders and leave them where they lie. I don't think you will be any the worse for it.

[Volya]

Although it may sound patronising, at 15 it is unlikely that anybody is going to find Dostoyevsky interesting.
One thing to be aware of in relation to this web site is that many members are, or have been, students of literature who have been guided by their tutors to read the standard classic writers, sometimes to the students' dismay.
I have read a few novels by Dostoyevsky but, except for The Gambler, I did not find him in the least particularly readable and dullness seemed to me to be a hallmark of his writing.
Perhaps when you are older, you will discover the deep psychological inferences in Dostoyevsky or, then again, shrug your shoulders and leave them where they lie. I don't think you will be any the worse for it.

I assumed that was the case :) I will attempt a re-read at some point. I don't think its entirely down to age though, since I've read other classics too with no problem.

[Emil Miller]

I assumed that was the case :) I will attempt a re-read at some point. I don't think its entirely down to age though, since I've read other classics too with no problem.

That would depend on which other classics you have read.

[Mr.lucifer]

I actually heard Dostoevsky is popular among young people. I heard thats why some people are annoyed by his popularity around. After all, Crime and Punishment was ranked number 1 around here. Really, most people would find Dostoevsky boring since they don't read real literature.

[SkyCetacean]

Most people would find Dostoevsky boring since they don't read real literature.

NOBODY UNDERSTANDS TRUE ART MAN.

Seriously, do you need to be so condescending?

[Mr.lucifer]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound that way. What I meant is that most would find any real literature boring since the most they read are conspiracy thrillers, wish-fulfillment romances, and teen fantasy series that got published because the companies want cash in on harry potter. Basically, everything you see at wal-mart.

[Volya]

That would depend on which other classics you have read.

Shakespeare, Robert Louis Stevenson, Tolstoy, and Tolkein are probably the most 'classic' authors I've read. I'm reading Anna Karenina at the moment, and I'm finding it a LOT more interesting than Dostoevsky.

[Emil Miller]

Shakespeare, Robert Louis Stevenson, Tolstoy, and Tolkein are probably the most 'classic' authors I've read. I'm reading Anna Karenina at the moment, and I'm finding it a LOT more interesting than Dostoevsky.

You are in the fortunate position of being able to read what you want rather than having your nose forced to the grindstone by a tutor. If by chance you should become a student of literature in the strictest sense of the word, you will not have that freedom of choice and you may be forced to read authors that you would otherwise avoid. Meanwhile, why not carry on reading books such as those you have listed without worrying about those that you currently find to be a slog?

[SkyCetacean]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound that way. What I meant is that most would find any real literature boring since the most they read are conspiracy thrillers, wish-fulfillment romances, and teen fantasy series that got published because the companies want cash in on harry potter. Basically, everything you see at wal-mart.

Okay, fair enough. I'd still contest the concept of "real" literature as it is vague and doesn't take into account personal taste, but I can understand what you're saying.

[Lisa-Marie]

hmmmm most boring book ever? Its hard to say because theres plenty I have read first and hated and then went back to and loved....I've got to say and i know I am crazy but I wasn't the most avid fan of James Joyce's Ulysses. I know it was a great contribution to literature and holds a lot of value. Espicially in Modernism but I wasn't keen. There's appreciating that he is trying to get the reader to work hard and then there's Joyce. Dubliners was much better.

[OrphanPip]

Although it may sound patronising, at 15 it is unlikely that anybody is going to find Dostoyevsky interesting.

I'm not sure about that, Dostoevsky tends to be very popular with teenagers. I read The Idiot, C&P, and The Brothers Karamazov when I was 14, and I found them fascinating at the time.

Anyway, I am developing an increasing antipathy towards anything written by Richardson.

[qimissung]

I loved The Bell Jar, although it's been years since I read it. I would have to go with Robinson Crusoe. It's a good story and it lures you in with its' intriguingness, and then hits you between the eyes with the antiquated language.

[Yankee]

The most boring/awful novel I have ever read is Cell by Stephen King (I never did finish it...ugly bad):

http://wwwc.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/stephen-king-cell.jpg

[ennison]

Oh I finished "Cell" and it is very bad. Chucked it in the bin after - but that was caused by a strange compelling message flashing up on my mobile. Cannot agree about Robinson C. I'd read it four times before I was ten (Ah life on an isolated island! We had so little fun!). Gerhardie's book "Futility" takes some beating in the boredom stakes but Svevo's "As a Man Grows Older" just pips it.

[Mason Pringle]

It was Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Gave up half way. Could not continue. It was just awfully plodding and pedestrian. I could fall sleep reading it


Well... the most recent borefest I tried to get through was Russell Banks' The Sweet Hereafter. Holy crap, couldn't stand it. I thought I would read the book before seeing the much vaunted movie. :-? A case of TMI and poor/lame/cliche/trite character development.

Russell Banks' Cloudsplitter was a great book. Read half of it in high school and could not finish because I had no time and the book was long. But would still recommend it (so that the impression of Banks on you could be redeemed!)

[kelby_lake]

That's ridiculous. I call Argumentum Ad Populum. (Many people like a book, not liking it makes you lazy is a complete nonsequitur.)

There is a difference between a book that is "popular" and one that is recognized as a "classic." Of course we all like what we like... but there is something to be said for the ability to recognize that there is a difference between what we "like" and "dislike" and what is "good" or "bad." If we find this or that "classic" to be dreadfully boring it probably says more about us as readers than it does about the failings of the author.


This, basically. As for Shakespeare, once you get used to the language, it really isn't hard to read (although you might get a bit lost in the histories with who is who).

If you're reading a classic book and hate it, it's at least worth thinking about why you didn't like it. You can acknowledge a book's merits and still say that you didn't like it. For example, I gave up on Moby Dick because of all those whale chapters. Personally I found those bits boring but I can see how they might be interesting. It's also quite long but I can see that it is intended as an 'epic'.

[Mason Pringle]

This, basically. As for Shakespeare, once you get used to the language, it really isn't hard to read (although you might get a bit lost in the histories with who is who).

If you're reading a classic book and hate it, it's at least worth thinking about why you didn't like it. You can acknowledge a book's merits and still say that you didn't like it. For example, I gave up on Moby Dick because of all those whale chapters. Personally I found those bits boring but I can see how they might be interesting. It's also quite long but I can see that it is intended as an 'epic'.

That's not entirely true. The definition of "classics" change through time. What one person consider classic may be garbage to another. For example, Petrarch's epic poem "Africa" was considered a great classic hundreds of years ago, but now nobody reads it. I read parts of it and still consider it to be a great poem, but literary critics/compilers today do not include it in any list of "classics". Back then the works of African-American authors are not included in the canon of classics, but now we are (correctly) more inclusive and have gone beyond the "dead white men". The works of Anne Bronte (I've not read any) may well be of very high quality and may well be even better than Jane Eyre/Wuthering Heights, but even readers of classics don't read them today - that doesn't mean they are not as good as the famous classics. So - yes, preferences have affected what are considered classic literature and what are not

[FenwickS]

It's not really a book, but a section of the book, which I found tedious, and that's Father Zossima's "rant" in the Brothers Karamazov. Because of my love for Dostoevsky's works I thought I'd push through it, and I eventually did, but man it wasn't easy.

[xtianfriborg13]

I haven't had any experienced any book that bored me to death. Lucky me!

[cacian]

On second thoughts I think I would say that if a book is boring then the writer is boring too.
Is there such a thing as a boring writer?

[kev67]

The most boring book I have ever read, and I have read some very boring books, was James the Brother of Jesus: the key to unlocking the secret by Robert H. Eisenman. I must have read it in 2001 or 2002. I decided to read it after reading the Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. That book may have been somewhat sensationalist, but it was very readable. They argued that St Paul was the "Spouter of Lies" from the Dead Sea Scrolls, among a lot of other allegations, and that the Catholic Church was blocking access to the scrolls to other biblical scholars because the contents would undermine Christianity. I started reading it at bedtime and didn't stop reading it till I had finished. Baigent and Leigh referred to a biblical scholar they had tagged along with, namely Robert H Eisenman, so I ordered his book, James the Brother of Jesus. This was a doorstop of a book, two or three inches thick. It might have been less than one inch if he had not kept on repeating everything again and again. For much of it, he was basically arguing how sometimes different names referred to the same person, while at other times the same name referred to different people. The more he repeated his arguments, the less clear they became. It must have taken me months of bedtime reading to get through. There were some interesting bits in the book. It just could just have been written much, much more concisely.

[davigalindo]

It was Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Gave up half way. Could not continue. It was just awfully plodding and pedestrian. I could fall sleep reading it

I love Pride and Prejudice. It starts quite boring, but once Darcy sends the letter to Lizzy, I can't put it down.

The most boring book I have ever read is "Senhora", by José de Alencar. It's a Brazilian classic, but even my literature teacher admits it's crap. I also find "Saturday" by Ian McEwan boring, but it's just because I prefer plot over style - I'm a slow reader, so reading the first pages of Saturday was like a torture to me. I gave up in the beggining because I noticed it wouldn't get better (and it's quite Ulysses, a "one-day plot").

[Goodman Brown]

I have a different opinion on boring and or bad books/ novels I've never read one! I think that if a book doesn't captivate me and forces me to continue reading it without wanting to stop ,,,well very easly I put it down forget about it,,,,a book has to keep me wanting to know whats next I've got to keep reading or I close it!!!!!!!!

[LaMaga]

Mein kampf and The Origin of Species.

[Inky]

Good lord...

The Mill on the Floss (I swear my eyes bled boredom with this one. Though I must admit, the ending was beautiful).

Moby Dick (How many pages do you need to describe a man's obsession with a whale. No really).

War and Peace (After a couple hundred pages I felt like I'd rather watch paint dry).

[Varenne Rodin]

Lasher - Anne Rice. Terrible.

Umberto Eco books. Heavy prose. Too heavy. Speaking a lot to say just a little. Sorry, nerds.

[Grit]

Sorry, nerds.

Haha that made me laugh. I just imagined how it'd be said out loud. Like denying a much-wanted sandwich.

Any book that's too outdated usually bores me. I don't read to decipher obsolete use of the English language, I read to escape.

[Varenne Rodin]

Haha that made me laugh. I just imagined how it'd be said out loud. Like denying a much-wanted sandwich.

Any book that's too outdated usually bores me. I don't read to decipher obsolete use of the English language, I read to escape.

:)

To escape. The same goes for me.

[Bibliophile79]

The Pearl and Heart of Darkness

[Darcy88]

The Pearl and Heart of Darkness

Nooooooo not Heart of Darkness! I've read that book at least a dozen times and still get something more out of it with each reading.

I found Return of the Native by Thomas Hardy to be exceedingly boring, same with A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. I don't think there is such thing as a most boring book though. Its a pretty subjective thing.

[Sorceress]

The Scarlet Letter - Hawthorne
Lisey's Story - King
Tess of D'Urbervilles - Hardy

[TinyMonkey]

Colonel Chabert by Honore de Balzac. I remember I had to read it for a class when I was a first year of high school. I tried very hard to read it, really. But each time I just fell asleep. I didn't even go over the second chapter ...
La contreverse de Valladolid (The controversy of Valladolid) by Carriere. I had to read it for French class for the part about slavery and it's just my worst memory about what I read at high school. But I read the whole book ... but I guess it was only because I was supposed to write an essay about it.
Othello by Shakespeare (I read it in English for a class). It was actually the first time I got to read Shakespeare and it was really a pain for me to understand and I'm not sure I did in the end ...

[hazelk]

I am sad to say my latest boring one was "The Burgess Boys" by Elizabeth Strout, I love this author so I persevered.

[mtpspur]

I have tried I really have but it's a tie based on what mood I'm in whether its Wuthering Heights or Ethan Frome (Frome was forcedon us in English class and well after 40 years cna;t get that stupid pickle bowl out of my brain cells. Wuthering Herights is just a book of very unpleasant people and scary girlfriends. Just saying--I'm a simple man at heart.

[kiki1982]

Wow, Wuthering Heights? I thought that read like a train, as they say in Dutch. I agree with you it is strange and scary at times (not realistically so), but I thought that strangeness bemused me so much it almost put a spell on me. Together with Persuasion it must be my fastest read ever.

Each to his own, though.

[Emil Miller]

I broke a cardinal rule of mine when I recently bought Greenmantle by John Buchan even though I suspected it might be a bit juvenile in its story of a dastardly German plot to stir up anti-British trouble in the Middle East during WWI. I have reached page 52 and cannot go on because the characters are pure cardboard and the plot-line as convoluted as anything I have come across. It bears resemblance to Erskine Childers The Riddle of the Sands, with dashing upper class Britishers foiling the evil Hun, but whereas Childers book is relatively well written, Buchan's is not. What makes it a boring book is the totally unbelievable situations that the protagonists get involved in and, even allowing that it's essentially a ripping yarn, there comes a point when the reader's credulity is stretched beyond any desire to continue.
It's ironic that Childers was executed by a British firing squad for running guns to Irish Republican rebels while Buchan went on to become Governor General of Canada.

[mtpspur]

I read The 39 Steps back in high school days during my secret agent period of reading and THAT book cured me of moving on Greenmantle--over the years I have snuck a look back at Buchan but never more then a page or two. so for spy novels I'll stick to Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm or Adam Hall's Quiller series.

[bookowskee]

Candide by Voltaire. I almost threw the book.

[Emil Miller]

I read The 39 Steps back in high school days during my secret agent period of reading and THAT book cured me of moving on Greenmantle--over the years I have snuck a look back at Buchan but never more then a page or two. so for spy novels I'll stick to Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm or Adam Hall's Quiller series.

This extract from Greenmantle highlights exactly why, except perhaps by an eleven-year-old schoolboy during the 1920s, a reader will encounter boredom, amusement, irritation or a combination of all three when attempting this novel:


I must spare a moment to introduce Sandy to the reader, for he cannot
be allowed to slip into this tale by a side-door. If you will consult
the Peerage you will find that to Edward Cospatrick, fifteenth Baron
Clanroyden, there was born in the year 1882, as his second son,
Ludovick Gustavus Arbuthnot, commonly called the Honourable, etc. The
said son was educated at Eton and New College, Oxford, was a captain in
the Tweeddale Yeomanry, and served for some years as honorary attache
at various embassies. The Peerage will stop short at this point, but
that is by no means the end of the story. For the rest you must
consult very different authorities. Lean brown men from the ends of
the earth may be seen on the London pavements now and then in creased
clothes, walking with the light outland step, slinking into clubs as if
they could not remember whether or not they belonged to them. From
them you may get news of Sandy. Better still, you will hear of him at
little forgotten fishing ports where the Albanian mountains dip to the
Adriatic. If you struck a Mecca pilgrimage the odds are you would meet
a dozen of Sandy's friends in it. In shepherds' huts in the Caucasus
you will find bits of his cast-off clothing, for he has a knack of
shedding garments as he goes. In the caravanserais of Bokhara and
Samarkand he is known, and there are shikaris in the Pamirs who still
speak of him round their fires. If you were going to visit Petrograd
or Rome or Cairo it would be no use asking him for introductions; if he
gave them, they would lead you into strange haunts. But if Fate
compelled you to go to Llasa or Yarkand or Seistan he could map out
your road for you and pass the word to potent friends.

[Snowqueen]

It was Areopagitica, a pamphlet by John Milton. Although there were some brilliant passages in it, but I was too young to enjoy them. I found it quite boring and tedious read back then.

[Jassy Melson]

The Life of Charles Wesley--it was so boring I forgot the author's name. He writes in a stilted style which I hate, and the events in the life of Wesley are really non-events.

[aaron stark]

Candide by Voltaire. I almost threw the book.
I'm not claiming it is among my fastest reads, but I did like the book and it did somehow read fluently. Especially during the passages that Leibniz's philosophy was being mocked...

[Lykren]

I nominate Tristram Shandy. I understand that the narrative technique was meant facetiously; I just thought the joke was insipid and poorly executed. Nevertheless, I reserve the right to read the book again and eat my words.

[hawthorns]

Emma and Atlas Shrugged

[Lykren]

Oh god, you did not just equate Austen with Rand! What was it about Emma you found boring?

[Cuppa' Tea]

I'm going to have to say Moby Dick as well as the OP. I couldn't even finish it, it was so boring. I was thinking about going back to reread it, as I usually feel a little guilt over not finishing a book, but this might be a special case where I just don't care enough.

[hawthorns]

Oh god, you did not just equate Austen with Rand! What was it about Emma you found boring?

Everything. Persuasion was her only novel I really enjoyed and didn't slog through.

[mona amon]

I never really 'got' Emma until I'd read it a third time. Now it is my favourite Jane Austen. It's not as witty or romantic as some of her other books but for me it is one of the most subtle, delightful comedies I've ever read.

[Buckthorn]

I have to vote for The Witches of Eastwick by John Updike. I hated every single word. Its the only book I have ever thrown in the bin. And I have read Twilight.

[bookowskee]

I'm not claiming it is among my fastest reads, but I did like the book and it did somehow read fluently. Especially during the passages that Leibniz's philosophy was being mocked...

To each his own then. I'll stick with mine. He attacked a lot of things in that book, but still I find his nihilism rather childish or cheap, at best.

[astrum]

I heard that Walter Scott's "Waverly" takes a while to get through.

[Maria May]

I don't know why,but I felt so bored while reading ''The Beautiful and Damned'' by F. Scott Fitzgerald...

[sonia bhardwaj]

“Great Expectations” by Charles Dickens is sooooo boooring. By comparison, “Moby Dick” by Herman Melville is a stay-up-at-night-page-turner

[mal4mac]

I heard that Walter Scott's "Waverly" takes a while to get through.

Don't go by what you hear and start listening to other people.

[mal4mac]

Oh god, you did not just equate Austen with Rand! What was it about Emma you found boring?

I liked Emma a lot, although it was a bit more long-winded than her other novels, so perhaps not the Austen to start with. In defence of hawthorn, he did not equate Austen with Rand, just nominated them for "most boring book ever". Maybe he has an Austen blindspot? Perfect sight for Rand though :)

[Indomitable]

I don't know why,but I felt so bored while reading ''The Beautiful and Damned'' by F. Scott Fitzgerald...

While it's not his best novel by a long shot, it improves upon the reread, as do the rest of his novels. I find that the characters become more interesting once you know the plot in its entirety.

[mal4mac]

While it's not his best novel by a long shot, it improves upon the reread, as do the rest of his novels. I find that the characters become more interesting once you know the plot in its entirety.

This was my experience with Gatsby, but why does it improve on a reread? My first read was so long ago I couldn't remember the plot! But I did remember there wasn't much of a plot, so I read it slowly, trying to appreciate the subtleties... beauty of language, characterisation,... anything but plot. That worked! I didn't find it boring second time through.

[Indomitable]

This was my experience with Gatsby, but why does it improve on a reread? My first read was so long ago I couldn't remember the plot! But I did remember there wasn't much of a plot, so I read it slowly, trying to appreciate the subtleties... beauty of language, characterisation,... anything but plot. That worked! I didn't find it boring second time through.

As you mentioned, I'd imagine it's because of the subtleties. Fitzgerald isn't a particularly 'tight' writer. He usually meanders and takes his time with description and characterization. Once you know what the actual plots and basic themes are of his novels, you can start appreciating the intricacies and detail of them.

[seaofmilktea]

On the Road. So very dull.

[Tobeornotobe]

Crime and Punishment. Yuk.

[Vota]

I think the most boring author I have ever read is Immanuel Kant. I've heard people praise him as the greatest thing ever, and while I admit the jargon is a slight pita to get down, his writing style is so damn dull I had to stop reading it entirely. Sometimes a work will be good, and then slog a little, so I'll carefully skim until something interesting is being mentioned. I only do this if it gets REALLY boring. I repeatedly had to do this with Kant's work until I couldn't take it anymore. The difficulty of the text was far secondary incomparison to the sheer tediousness of the writing style. That's sad considering I read his lectures were quite entertaining and alot more relaxed. Too bad he didn't use that kind of style in his writing.

[Prince Smiles]

It’s so subjective, age, education, gender, required reading, current emotional state, blah, blah, blah.

The book that you found the most boring?, would be a better title, or better still, ‘The book you found the most challenging’. or better, better still, ‘The book you found the most challenging, that scout’s honour, you read properly all the way to the end?’

5 books off the top of my noggin’ I found the most ‘challenging’:

Remembrance of Things Past, Pale Fire, Lord of the Rings, Moby Dee, Nausea

Remembrance: tough reading because the protagonist is such a weedy b*stard who needs a good kicking. Yes, everyone gets to the ‘Madeleine cake’, it takes true grit to get to the ‘water lily’! To anyone who got to and pressed on beyond the ‘water lily’, pm me and I’ll send you a case of Worthington Pale Ale.

Pale Fire: I remember thinking, well this isn’t a particularly thick book. It shouldn’t take long to get through this…………..Vladimir!

Lord of the Rings: Fantasy, what a second rate genre compared to it’s mighty cousin, Science Fiction. Science Fiction, a possible future for mankind. In. Fantasy, a long, long time ago in a distant galaxy. Out (Yaaaaawn). Hands on hearts, how many of you can honesty say they enjoyed reading this manure all the way to the end scene of scaling that slag heap to toss the ring away?

Moby Dee: Herman Melville was neighbors with Nathaniel Hawthorne, ‘nough said.
I’ve said this before, the book starts off like a rip roaring adventure tale and then Melville must have had a change of heart and decided to write a very, very different book. It all depends on how much time you have to invest in biblical referencing, U.S democracy, maritime history, and psycho-analysis. (Oh, and the fella who commented on this great work of genius on the strength of having read ’the children’s edition’ earlier in the thread needs life banning:smilielol5:)

Nausea: Nausea? The only motion sickness from this outing by Sartre comes from the movement of page turning at a rate of one page every hour or so.

[papillondemai]

I didn't bother to read any of them but I bet all of the Harry Potter books, and all of the vampire books belong on the list.

[The Highwayman]

It wasn't painfully boring, but Turn of the Screw was kinda tough for me to get through. I was hoping for a more intriguing ghost story. I do really like Henry James. It just seemed like it took forever to get through it.

[quidoftullamore]

Heart of Darkness was required reading for me in high school. I recall it making me sleepy and my classmates didn't seem to like it much either. Of course, opinions do tend to change over the years, so I hope to reread it one day and see if I can bring something new to the reading.

[Prince Smiles]

Heart of Darkness was required reading for me in high school. I recall it making me sleepy and my classmates didn't seem to like it much either. Of course, opinions do tend to change over the years, so I hope to reread it one day and see if I can bring something new to the reading.

Heart of Darkness, as with all Conrad requires commitment. If you find you would like more narration by Marlow try the earlier (1900) Lord Jim for kicks. it weighs in at 300 pages are apposed to HoD's under 100.

It amazes me students are asked to read HoD at high school. Yes, it has the adventure element that would appeal to teenagers, but the in depth psychological inquiries are not something teenagers can easily relate to.

It's the same with Lord Jim. Conrad could have written that book Ala Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island, pure adventure fiction, and it would be widely read as Treasure Island. It has a lot of action and as many exotic locations as an Ian Flemming novel, but one as to commit fully to the deep psychology with the book and have a slow pace of reading to fully appreciate Conrad's descriptive genius. Conrad would not have been Conrad if he had taken the straight forward story telling route though.

Other texts that are 'prescribed' in high school to youngsters who perhaps don't have the life experience to appreciate the content fully: The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Gatsby, and The Catcher in the Rye.

Maybe I a wrong, and kids need to be exposed to this great literature as an early age. On the other side of the coin, my cousin's daughter was reading Harry Potter at community college a few years back. It took all I could muster to not literally burst out laughing in front of her!

[papillondemai]

5 books off the top of my noggin’ I found the most ‘challenging’:

Remembrance of Things Past, Pale Fire, Lord of the Rings, Moby Dee, Nausea

I have to agree with Moby Dick and Remembrance. I am reading Moby Dick right now and it is just not wrapping me up into that world.

Years ago I told myself "well you have to read some Marcel Proust," and I chose Remembrance. I still haven't read Proust.

[pinkpanda1991]

Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne. I know a lot of people who love this book but I just don't know why. The entire book was so boring and the end so anticlimactic that I was just disappointed.

[pinkpanda1991]

Don't knock Harry Potter till you read it!

[WICKES]

Joyce's Portrait of the artist. Oh god I ****ing hate you James Joyce!!!! His works, along with Proust's Remembrance, hang over the head of every pseudo-intellectual (like me). I know it's my limitations as a reader that are to blame, and I do bow humbly to the superior taste and intellect of the professors who assure me that Joyce was a genius, but life is too short, Joyce is too long and there are far too many other books full of wisdom and beauty.