What is the most boring book ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

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.

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.

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-conte...-king-cell.jpg

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by den

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!)

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.

---

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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

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.

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

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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").

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!!!!!!!!

Mein kampf and The Origin of Species.

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).

Lasher - Anne Rice. Terrible.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grit

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.

The Pearl and Heart of Darkness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bibliophile79

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.

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

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 ...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Candide by Voltaire. I almost threw the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bookowskee

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...

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.

Emma and Atlas Shrugged

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lykren

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.