What is the most boring book ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deguonis

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

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.

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.

Jane Austen's "sense and sensibility"

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love to Read

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deguonis

-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.`

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

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...

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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.

"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.

I didn't finish it. Obviously.

boredom by Alberto Moravia

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChicagoReader

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

I love absolutely Chekhov. Sublime stuff.

Definitely Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, no doubt about it

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Nevarc

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.lucifer

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

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.