Boring Book, Boring Reader

[The Comedian]

So, I hear a lot about "boring". Boring books, boring ideas, boring people, boring this, boring that. . . .

So regarding books, what makes a book "boring"?

EDIT: Personally, I think that "boring" is simply a mirror. That is, if we call a book "boring" it is only because we, ourselves, are boring. And in labeling a book as "boring" we are only seeing our own uninspired bored minds reflected back to us.

Others say that "long" descriptions of landscape, culture, or people are boring. Still other readers say that books without steamy sex or gruesome violence are boring. . . .

[Lokasenna]

I think it's just a matter of subjectivity: certain things appeal to certain people. I don't think anything is inherently boring - though certain things have a greater degree of niche appeal than others.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

EDIT: Personally, I think that "boring" is simply a mirror. That is, if we call a book "boring" it is only because we, ourselves, are boring. And in labeling a book as "boring" we are only seeing our own uninspired bored minds reflected back to us.
I'm not sure I follow. . . .

[Drkshadow03]

So, I hear a lot about "boring". Boring books, boring ideas, boring people, boring this, boring that. . . .

So regarding books, what makes a book "boring"?

EDIT: Personally, I think that "boring" is simply a mirror. That is, if we call a book "boring" it is only because we, ourselves, are boring. And in labeling a book as "boring" we are only seeing our own uninspired bored minds reflected back to us.

Others say that "long" descriptions of landscape, culture, or people are boring. Still other readers say that books without steamy sex or gruesome violence are boring. . . .

Problem with the boring as a mirror theory you proposed is that for every book a reader finds boring those same readers will find a different book entertaining. So I'm not sure then how a book we find boring reflects the fact that we're boring given that any given reader won't necessarily find any and all books boring.

[The Comedian]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: That boring is an emotional projection that readers apply to texts. They then see this emotional projection reflected back at them. Then they attribute the boring-ness to the book and not to themselves. Hence the false idea that "this book is boring". It's not. The reader is boring and is just seeing his/her own boring-ness reflected back at them.

I'm sorry if this is rambling. . . . I think I'm trying to figure out my own boring ideas here before I can fully articulate them.

[dfloyd]

not boring books equate to boring readers. I't's that many readers are not prepared to read books that are intellectually stimulating. When a well known classic is put down as boring, the reaon is the reader has not developed cognitively or experience wise to read that particular book.

[The Comedian]

not boring books equate to boring readers. I't's that many readers are not prepared to read books that are intellectually stimulating. When a well known classic is put down as boring, the reaon is the reader has not developed cognitively or experience wise to read that particular book.

I agree. But still the "boring"ness, due to lack of skills, is created in the reader's mind and is then (falsely) attributed to the book. This phenomena would lead our hypothetical reader to claim that the book is "boring".

EDIT: RAMBLE
There are boring people in the world, right? I know that I see them. And the one thing they all share is that they find their lives boring. They're bored by doing the dishes, bored with their conversations, bored with this, bored with that. Conversely, an interesting person seems to be interested in all sorts of things, novel things and routine things. . . . When I compare these sorts of people in my mind, I can't help but think that "boring" is a feeling that we (either consciously or unconsciously) project to our experience, coloring it, if you'll allow, with a boring haze that diminishes both experience and objects.

[AuntShecky]

About two decades ago I heard a teacher tell a particularly disaffected student that if he was "bored," then the boredom arose from one of two causes: either the material was too easy or that it was too difficult.

I would say, in the latter case, I would attempt to bring myself up to the level of the work rather than summarily dismiss it. In other words, give it a chance.

[kasie]

I long ago came to the conclusion that people who state something is boring are really saying 'I wish I were somewhere else, doing something different'. In other words they are not really engaged in what they are doing.

Sometimes that's just tough - what you are doing has to be done - washing up is boring, housework is boring, maths homework is very boring - get on with it, it has to be done, the sooner you start the sooner it's over and done with.

Sometimes it's a matter of taste - football is boring, motor racing is boring, but that's just my opinion. Do I want to become engaged with these activities? Not particularly, thanks, I can think of other things to do, if it's all the same with you.

It's a question of engagement - is the book/person/idea boring because you are not prepared to make the effort to become engaged? Or have you tried it and found it genuinely not to your taste? Or do you lack the knowledge/experience/skill to engage with the activity and become engaged so that you are enlarged by your participation?

As to what makes a book boring, I think it may be a question of previous experience. Are you engaged in the book? Is the subject matter of interest to you? Are you prepared to make that extra bit of effort to become engaged? Indeed, does you previous experience suggest that the effort will be rewarded? Have you learned to read? I don't mean just sound out words - have you experienced reading matter that makes sense to you, chimes with your experience, enlarges you perception, arouses emotion in you? Has anyone ever bothered to find out what reading does for you, tried to show you what reading can do for you? Part of the trouble seems to me that once children are classed as 'readers' - ie score the appropriate mark on the Reading Test - they are left to get on with it and expected to nurture themselves into becoming advanced readers. (I'm not blaming the teachers, btw - well, I am, but I used to be one and I know the pressures at this stage of the education process.) The joy of reading, the engagement with the activity, is as much a skill to be taught and practised as the initial acquisition of the skill and if it's not done at the right time then the new reader is left to flounder alone and books quickly come to be regarded as yet another chore, 'boring' because the reluctant and failing readers would really rather be somewhere else, doing something that engages them more deeply.

[billl]

I recently read an action/thriller from the 60's by an author whose first book I liked. Neither book would be "great literature" I guess, but I have to say that the third book by the guy couldn't hold a candle to the first two. He provided very blatant hints about the "unknown" familial connection between three characters over and over again, there was a bunch of wandering around looking for something, repetitive and predictable action sequences, all leading up to a crisply done final 40 pages or so (in which a number of completely expected "surprises" were delivered in a satisfying way, at least). The character development was akin to that seen in GI Joe cartoons and Harlequin Romance stories (not that I'm familiar with either of those)--par for the course in this type of novel, I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure I wasn't missing anything much on that score.

If I found the middle section of the book "boring", isn't it at least possible that I was "bored" while reading those pages, rather than being boring, myself? Frankly, I'm glad I read the book, I'm pretty easy to please when I'm reading genre (Pulp stuff, even), and part of the fun is going along with the clichés and mostly predictable action. Still, as much as I bend over backwards to appreciate these sorts of books for their predictable rosters of good guys, bad guys, not-sure-which guys, tough-but-troubled women, and messy triumphs--the middle of this book I've been talking about was a real slog.

Basically, I think that books (and amateur attempts handed to us by friends or anonymous, budding writers online) can sometimes be boring, and the blame can lie in the book/manuscript.

I do certainly think that there are cases where people don't give things a chance, and regard something as boring when, as the OP seems to suggest, it is the reader's lack of curiosity or something that is to blame. Sorry if I've taken a general frustration with "boring" students and gotten nit-picky or overly obvious or something.

[IceM]

The only books I find boring are for one of three causes:

1) The author's perspective on certain issues either is not pertinent to my life or is faulty and intangible.

2) An author's characters do not live realistic lives that accurately portray something of the "human condition" (I don't read sci-fi or fantasy, or I'd waive this complain for those genres).

3) The piece of writing is littered with unnecessary descriptions.

I usually find my justification to be the 1st and 3rd.

[Emil Miller]

Part of the trouble seems to me that once children are classed as 'readers' - ie score the appropriate mark on the Reading Test - they are left to get on with it and expected to nurture themselves into becoming advanced readers. (I'm not blaming the teachers, btw - well, I am, but I used to be one and I know the pressures at this stage of the education process.) The joy of reading, the engagement with the activity, is as much a skill to be taught and practised as the initial acquisition of the skill and if it's not done at the right time then the new reader is left to flounder alone and books quickly come to be regarded as yet another chore, 'boring' because the reluctant and failing readers would really rather be somewhere else, doing something that engages them more deeply.

I don't understand this concept. I learned to read at an early age and, as a child, never stopped reading. I was fascinated by the fact that the 26 letters of the English alphabet could be used ad infinitum to produce countless books and I became an avid reader without any adult instruction apart from my initial learning of the alphabet. I was not told what to read, I simply sought out what appealed to me and got through many books in the years that followed. There have been a very small number of books that I would call tedious and that I have given up on but, in general, my reading has been from cover to cover.

[Lover]

I don't view being bored with a book to be an intrinsic failure of the book or of the reader, just a mismatch.

A particular book will appeal to a certain person because there is a connection between the book and the reader, there is common ground, interest, attraction, something. All books, even those that are poorly written, will find a willing audience (if only made up of a single person). Books cannot be judged by how many people like them ( I know far more people who read James Patterson than James Joyce).

The reader may find a certain topic or style boring and be reluctant to read about it, while that does reflect a quality in them, it does not mean they are boring, just that they and the book don't jive.

I certainly consider myself a curious and interested person, but I do find some topics/activities boring, for examples sports, that doesn't erase my other interests. There are some who aren't intellectual types and that is perfectly fine, not everyone has a purpose of book learning, many people just aren't made for academics, just like I am not made for sports and the outdoors.

[Cunninglinguist]

If there is not much of a pretext onto which the reader can project (if the mirror is dingy, let us say) then I don't think you can blame the reader for finding a book boring. Certainly there are countless pieces of pedestrian grade writing like this, and it makes me quite impressed by teachers who can tolerate (or even find interesting) the stuff that 97% of their students dish out. On the other hand, if someone is finding Hamlet boring--and actually putting in a genuine effort--, which provides such a vivid reflection of human nature, then I think that reflects more on the reader than Bill. I think there's also a dimension of motivation that needs to be addressed - what if a student is just unmotivated to read?

[TheFifthElement]

EDIT: Personally, I think that "boring" is simply a mirror. That is, if we call a book "boring" it is only because we, ourselves, are boring. And in labeling a book as "boring" we are only seeing our own uninspired bored minds reflected back to us.


:D I think I know what you mean. I had a similar discussion with my son recently. He’s spent a lot of time complaining that ‘he’s bored’ and ‘x is boring’ (for example: ‘school is boring’) and I was getting a bit fed up of it. I told him that only people who haven’t got the imagination or intelligence to entertain themselves get bored. Suddenly he’s not so bored anymore :D I was being a bit glib (and appealing to his sense of vanity) but there is some truth to it. As you say, boredom is a mirror – not necessarily that the bored person is a ‘boring’ person, but that an expression of boredom is a reflection of your own state of mind rather than a reflection of the status of the thing. And I also think that most ‘boredom’ can be addressed with a little creative thinking – this is something both my husband and I have been trying to encourage my son to understand and apply, especially to school – so there are such things as tasks which will be ‘boring’ but the trick is to find something about them that makes them interesting. It depends what works for you. For example, in my job I have to do proof reading. I hate proof reading, I find it incredibly tedious, but it is a necessary and important part to my job. So knowing that I find it tedious I try to find ways to make it less tedious – perhaps by chunking it down or by ‘rewarding’ myself with a more interesting job (or a break!) when it’s done, and then there’s the pleasure of seeing the final, finished item pristine and beautiful and without error. They’re all tricks, but it does make the job easier and less’ boring’. I guess I subscribe to the Mary Poppins point of view ’a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, the medicine go do – own, medicine go down...’. Actually, thinking on, I really ought to get my kids to watch that movie :D

I also think that saying that something is ‘boring’ is a kind of abbreviation which has fallen into common use. In the same way as people might say ‘don’t’ instead of ‘do not’, people also say ‘this is boring’ when it’s truer to say ‘I find this boring’ or ‘this is not interesting to me’. In the latter expressions it is clear that the statement ‘boring’ or ‘bored’ applies to the person rather than the item/thing/subject about which they’re speaking and that is the truer picture. I tend to always try and say ‘I find this boring’ rather than ‘this is boring’ unless I’m being glib or silly or sarcastic or generally having a bit of an OTT joke. I think, also, that sometimes people prefer to think as boredom as something which is being done to them, and by definition it is therefore something outside of their control, because it is easier to think that than to get up off your a*se and do something about it. It’s one of the many forms of victim mentality which seem so prevalent these days (aka ‘I can’t help it, I have ADHD’, I am ‘depressed’ ( = meaning a bit fed up ), etc, etc) or perhaps have always been prevalent but not quite so well publicised and accepted.

That being said, I do get bored. Sometimes I have periods of terrible boredom in which I feel paralysed and incapable of doing anything about it and in those periods I don’t want to read or do anything but generally like to sit on the sofa feeling sorry for myself. But still, I always know that the answer is in me and if I can generate the willpower to do something about it then I can beat the boredom. But then I always think the answer is in me – because as my husband is always telling me that as a woman I ‘have the answer to everything’, and it’s true. So there :p

[MorpheusSandman]

There's a bit of relative muddiness in the use of the word "boring". I used to always associate the word "boring" with fiction that wasn't focused on events, in which not much happened--basically works that imitated something close to what we'd consider the extensional example of boredom in our own lives (lack of activity, mental fatigue, etc.). Yet to many "boring" has just become an adjective to describe their state of mind when reading a book, watching a movie, etc. Basically, anything they dislike bores them, and it doesn't matter what qualities these things have, all that matters is how they react to it. I've always found such a thing utterly useless as criticism as it tells us absolutely nothing about the object itself.

As for what causes, I think there are many things. Most frequently it's a hostile reaction against not being catered to, not having one's expectations fulfilled. I think it's possible to say that boring is a mirror in a sense, because to be bored indicates a certain inability to engage to begin with, and this usually isn't limited to one's inability to engage with art or literature. I know most of the people I know that most frequently use "boring" to describe art I also find quite boring in general. Of course, this could be my own inability to engage with what I perceive is as shallowness.

[kasie]

I don't understand this concept. I learned to read at an early age and, as a child, never stopped reading. I was fascinated by the fact that the 26 letters of the English alphabet could be used ad infinitum to produce countless books and I became an avid reader without any adult instruction apart from my initial learning of the alphabet. I was not told what to read, I simply sought out what appealed to me and got through many books in the years that followed. There have been a very small number of books that I would call tedious and that I have given up on but, in general, my reading has been from cover to cover.

I understand your lack of understanding, Emil - I too learned to read before I went to school and I grew up in a house with four adults, all of whom were avid readers and all of whom had radically different tastes so I was surrounded by many different kinds of books. I too was allowed to read (almost) anything I wanted and I discovered the joy of being let loose in a library at a very early age. But there was little competition - we had a radio but no television, there were no computer games, xboxes, etc, etc. But I did have adult input - I was told stories, had poems recited to me, later had long discussions over books (which went on for many years, I frequently phoned my mother with the discovery of a new author and she would always ask what I was reading and would she enjoy it too?)

Unfortunately, not so many children learn to read with the facility (and in my case, early help) that you and I seem to have done. For many it is a struggle, for a few, a pointless struggle, and unless they have a teacher who is attuned to the need to develop reading skills, these children may find themselves with only the most basic ability. These become, I believe, the adults who are counted as being unable to read - not that they have not acquired the basic skill, but that they have never developed it or extended it beyond the basics. To such a reader, books would indeed be 'boring' - the effort to extract meaning is not worth making. There was a time - and I'd like to think it is past but I'm not so sure - when 'teaching reading' was considered the job of the Infant classes and the Junior teachers thought they didn't have to do anything more about teaching reading. But I believe 'Reading' is a skill that develops well beyond the initial stages and needs as much careful attention as the basic skills.

[hillwalker]

There are books that are not deserving of the reader's time or attention - largely due to poor or sloppy writing, or the writer's self-indulgence. I can think of one or two where I ended up skimming through the book in order to keep up with the plot without the wish to plough through drivel.

Boring books are often those that dismiss the reader - books where the writer is 'getting off' on his/her own thing without much thought for the audience. Again I can think of one or two mainstream authors who suffer excessive verbosity on occasion - possibly because they have reached that elevated status where no editor is willing to tell them to trim their pieces down to something entertaining.

H

[Emil Miller]

I understand your lack of understanding, Emil - I too learned to read before I went to school and I grew up in a house with four adults, all of whom were avid readers and all of whom had radically different tastes so I was surrounded by many different kinds of books. I too was allowed to read (almost) anything I wanted and I discovered the joy of being let loose in a library at a very early age. But there was little competition - we had a radio but no television, there were no computer games, xboxes, etc, etc. But I did have adult input - I was told stories, had poems recited to me, later had long discussions over books (which went on for many years, I frequently phoned my mother with the discovery of a new author and she would always ask what I was reading and would she enjoy it too?)

Unfortunately, not so many children learn to read with the facility (and in my case, early help) that you and I seem to have done. For many it is a struggle, for a few, a pointless struggle, and unless they have a teacher who is attuned to the need to develop reading skills, these children may find themselves with only the most basic ability. These become, I believe, the adults who are counted as being unable to read - not that they have not acquired the basic skill, but that they have never developed it or extended it beyond the basics. To such a reader, books would indeed be 'boring' - the effort to extract meaning is not worth making. There was a time - and I'd like to think it is past but I'm not so sure - when 'teaching reading' was considered the job of the Infant classes and the Junior teachers thought they didn't have to do anything more about teaching reading. But I believe 'Reading' is a skill that develops well beyond the initial stages and needs as much careful attention as the basic skills.

Thanks for pointing out what I overlooked, i.e. the rise of electronic entertainment that has superseded books throughout the intervening years.
The problem with watching TV, for example, is that there is no way that a person benefits grammatically and, unless they come into regular contact with the printed word, he/she is likely to be relegated to the inarticulate, as TV tends to pander to the lowest common denominator.
There is no requirement to use one's imagination when watching a TV programme and this is another problem for children who rely on the television as a distraction. Televised versions of novels that are well done might lead some people to read the book, but this is more likely to be the case with adults who have seen stories such as those by Austen, Dickens and other notable writers. The pictures that are conjured up in the mind by well-written books are seldom matched by those reproduced on the screen and it's unfortunate that electronics is increasingly replacing ink, with the obvious exception of J K Rowling, Tolkien etc, as the preferred pastime of the current generation of children.

[AuntShecky]

I forgot to include this in my reply yesterday. An editor has shaped together the final ms. by the late David Foster Wallace. The theme of this posthumous novel is boredom.

You can read about it and also click on the imbedded link to an excellent review of The Pale King here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2291043/

[JuniperWoolf]

EDIT: Personally, I think that "boring" is simply a mirror. That is, if we call a book "boring" it is only because we, ourselves, are boring. And in labeling a book as "boring" we are only seeing our own uninspired bored minds reflected back to us.

You need to take a gander at my mother's accounting books.

[The Comedian]

You need to take a gander at my mother's accounting books.

ha! True, I'd struggle to maintain interest. But I'd place that deficiency squarely upon my own shoulders. Surely, accounting, keeping a balanced budget, and knowing how to keep records are viable and useful. I'd do my best to find a way to make that interesting to me. I mean, I don't want to be "boring" after all. :lol:

[MorpheusSandman]

The problem with watching TV, for example, is that there is no way that a person benefits grammatically and, unless they come into regular contact with the printed word, he/she is likely to be relegated to the inarticulate, as TV tends to pander to the lowest common denominator.
There is no requirement to use one's imagination when watching a TV programme and this is another problem for children who rely on the television as a distraction. Televised versions of novels that are well done might lead some people to read the book, but this is more likely to be the case with adults who have seen stories such as those by Austen, Dickens and other notable writers. The pictures that are conjured up in the mind by well-written books are seldom matched by those reproduced on the screen and it's unfortunate that electronics is increasingly replacing ink, with the obvious exception of J K Rowling, Tolkien etc, as the preferred pastime of the current generation of children.There's no need to vilify or demonize TV to elevate fiction; both have their audiences. It's true that most TVs inspire viewers to "zone-out", but there has been plenty of artistically substantial, challenging TV, and plenty of mindless literature. Something like The Wire will punish a viewer who turns their mind off for too long. Other than that, they're just very different mediums whose strengths and weaknesses lie in different places. You can zone out to TV, sure, but you can also zone out to film, music, and anything that doesn't require contemplation to enjoy.