Printable View
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.
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.
For Whom the Bell Tolls was a snooze fest.
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.
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.
I could not stand that book either! Felt so cheated as I really loved Wharton up until that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtpspur
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.
You are a hypocrite because you criticize virginia woolfe.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
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.
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:
Though really I hope to enjoy as many classics as possible.
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.
Do you form your own opinions?Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
Kind of sounds like you like what people tell you to like.
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.
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:
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.