What is the most boring book ever?

Off the top of my head, The Tommyknockers by Stephen King (I never finished it) and Almost Adam by Petru Popescu. I never finished The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Red Mars by Kim Robinson either (I will probably finish the latter when I have nothing else to read, I don't know about the former).

I say that these novels are boring only in comparison with more interesting works of fiction but if I have nothing else to do, I can read any novel. I'll only stop reading a novel if there's something more interesting that I want to start. Unlike boring tv shows or boring movies, even boring novels require that you exercise your imagination in a way that tv/movies do not. This is why I love to read, it's my favorite past time.

a burden to read. I agree with Dark Muse. However, I got through it. Parts of it are good, but it is one of those books which should have been severly edited. See the movie instead; the older one which garnished an academy award for best actor for Broderick Crawford. It moves at a much faster pace.

Anything by Aristotle. His works are just too well inherited in the Western mind, that their influence drains out any sort of fresh feeling of knowledge. Plus, they are incredibly dry and repitious.

Plato would've been the same way if it were not for the charm of Socrates.

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

"Anton Reiser" by Karl Philipp Moritz.

Don't know if there's an english translation .. you wouldn't miss much though. ;)

Great Expectations. Puts me to sleep every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by African_Love

Off the top of my head, The Tommyknockers ...

---

Thanks for the reminder. That was so bad! Boring and really took the science out of science fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilde woman

Okay, I'll say it. Dickens is a boring writer to me. I can never get sucked into his novels. I was bored sick by Great Expectations in high school. I've started and stopped read Oliver Twist (which is, I'm told, his most accessible novel) at least three times. And I've never gotten past chapter three of A Tale of Two Cities. I just don't understand his appeal.

---

A Tale of Two Cities is his weakest novel in IMHO, but still worth reading and the other two are really great. Maybe reading good critics can provide a kick start? Like:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200212020040

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyrionforprez

Great Expectations. Puts me to sleep every time.

---

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.

I find George Elliott's books so boring that I've never been able to read any, except for Middlemarch (I liked that one).

The most boring book I've ever read was Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus. Aaaaargh! Of course, it was kind of interesting at the same time, or I'd never have bothered. :)

Quote:

---

The most boring book I've ever read was Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus. Aaaaargh! Of course, it was kind of interesting at the same time...

---

That was my reaction to it! This was the first book by Mann I attempted to read. I later read Buddenbrooks and found that not boring at all. With certain books by certain writers I think it's difficult to get anywhere without enough 'background'. I think Mann's Faustus might be one of those... How do you get enough background?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.