What is the most boring book ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtbag

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...legiate_11.jpg

But the tenth one was just as bad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynne50

Dirtbag, I just purchased the M-W dictionary! I wished I had seen your 'review' before I spent my money. Could you please elaborate why you dislike it so much? Thanks

So far I haven't found anything objectionable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

The chapter on 'C' is very tedious.:lol:

---

The ninth was overrated, idk why people liked it so much. :lol:



Moving on: Idk why, well okay I do, but I don't know why people find Samuel Beckett's plays, expecially Waiting for Godot, to be boring. I mean I know where you're coming from, but how can you not be intrigued by the plays language, characterizatoin, absurdism. Yes the play is about waiting indefinitley and how we are to fulfill our time prior, some people may find that boring, I find it fascinating. To paraphrase a critic at the time of the play's debut, "Waiting for Godot achieves a theoretical impossibility in which nothing happens, and yet is completely able to hold our attention. And since the second act is merely a reflection of the first, it's a play in which nothing happens, twice."

Candide was terrible; the plot lacked spice and was perpetually mundane. Sorry Voltaire.

Pride and Prejudice was a bore. I respect Jane Austen's body of work, but, you couldn't add more spice to Pride and Prejudice? I saw the plot events coming 100 pages in.

xxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jermac

I cannot believe that someone made the statement that "most serious critics think Beckett was one of the greatest playwrights ever." On the contrary.

---

Oh come on. He is neither one of the greatest playwrights ever nor one of the worst. But he is certainly the greatest playwright of the post-War period and the greatest of the minimalists. But, everyone has there own tastes. Just don't put words into critics mouths (and I don't just mean you Jermac).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForKnowledge

david coperfield only read about half of it, havn't been able to finish any of dickens books.

---

Ouch, that's one of my favourites.

I quite like Beckett's plays too, I tend to agree with that "nothing is funnier than unhappiness" line from Endgame.

I had a rough time getting through Henry Fielding's Tom Jones.

Hmm, I just thought of this: Nobody in their right mind could call any of Dostoyevsky's works boring I can tell you that :nod: That's how I see it.

He is neither one of the greatest playwrights ever nor one of the worst.

Is that a fact? How did you come about excluding him from the ranks of the "greatest playwrights ever"? Certainly he is not equal to Shakespeare or Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides. Perhaps he pales before Moliere, Marlowe, Goethe, and Calderón de la Barca and Lope de Vega (although I'll largely have to take the last two on reputation... good translations being slim to no-existent)... but how many other rank before him? Miguel de Unamuno? Jean Genet? Jean Anouilh? Carlo Goldini? Friedrich Schiller? Bertholt Brecht? Friedrich Durrenmatt? Max Frisch? A term like "greatest" is vague. Do we assume that being one of "the greatest playwrights of all time" is limited to only the top 3?... 5?... 10?... Where is the cut-off point? Personally I would count him as one of the great writers... one of the absolute central figures of the latter half of the 20th century.

How Beckett ever won the Nobel Prize for Literature is beyond me.

As is a good deal of modern and contemporary poetry by your own admission. Perhaps you shouldn't brag about it.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

He is neither one of the greatest playwrights ever nor one of the worst.

Is that a fact? How did you come about excluding him from the ranks of the "greatest playwrights ever"? Certainly he is not equal to Shakespeare or Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides. Perhaps he pales before Moliere, Marlowe, Goethe, and Calderón de la Barca and Lope de Vega (although I'll largely have to take the last two on reputation... good translations being slim to no-existent)... but how many other rank before him? Miguel de Unamuno? Jean Genet? Jean Anouilh? Carlo Goldini? Friedrich Schiller? Bertholt Brecht? Friedrich Durrenmatt? Max Frisch? A term like "greatest" is vague. Do we assume that being one of "the greatest playwrights of all time" is limited to only the top 3?... 5?... 10?... Where is the cut-off point? Personally I would count him as one of the great writers... one of the absolute central figures of the latter half of the 20th century.

---

I don't know why your quoting me because I never argued to the contrary.

I love every one of Beckett's plays. He's definitely one of the best playwrights, though as SL says he would be somewhere after Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Racine, Calderón, Seneca, Ibsen. He does sort of hover around that Brecht, O'Neill, Strindberg level though, while being above folks like Williams, Jonson, Webster, Wilde, Shaw, Albee, Miller; all able men.

Ack!!! How could I forget Ibsen... not to mention Checkoff and Strindberg. Seneca, on the other hand...? Well I've never been as enamored of the Romans as you... excepting Virgil, Ovid, Horace and a few others... Of course I was thinking of you as I intentionally left Racine off the list. I might note, however, that I've decided to give him another shot, and I purchased the Cairncross translations of Iphigenia, Phadrea, and Athaliah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Hmm, I just thought of this: Nobody in their right mind could call any of Dostoyevsky's works boring I can tell you that :nod: That's how I see it.

---

Consider me a nut then Daniel. I find Dostoyevsky incredibly dull. :brow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sixsmith

Consider me a nut then Daniel. I find Dostoyevsky incredibly dull. :brow:

---

Lol, you are offically commited :smash:

I found Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre incredibly dull in parts. I think it might be because I just didn't empathise with the existential philosophy. I do, however, like the quote in my signature, which is from Nausea.

I'd have to say Walden. My dad loved it, but I just couldn't get past the first chapter. Maybe I should try it again in a few years.

For all you Shakespeare and Jane Eyre haters out there... try cheating! I read sparknotes for all the Shakespeare plays I read in college, and it seriously helped me out. Once I had a good grasp of the plot, I was able to sit back and let his verse just wash over me; it was beautiful. Also, if you want to read Bronte, Austen, or Dickens, but aren't sure if you can wade through all that wordy prose, try watching the movie first. Once you no longer need to stare at a page for an hour trying to unravel who does what when, the descriptions flow better and become more beautiful. My rule of thumb is, it's not cheating if you do sit down and read the book at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Hmm, I just thought of this: Nobody in their right mind could call any of Dostoyevsky's works boring I can tell you that :nod: That's how I see it.

---

someone else here said that Doestoevsky saved his life or changed it, "the Brohters Karamozov did that for me. His argument on Christ seemed like he taken it from me, yet he wrote that long before I was alive. That thread of common humanity is gripping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

I'd have to say Walden. My dad loved it, but I just couldn't get past the first chapter. Maybe I should try it again in a few years.

For all you Shakespeare and Jane Eyre haters out there... try cheating! I read sparknotes for all the Shakespeare plays I read in college, and it seriously helped me out. Once I had a good grasp of the plot, I was able to sit back and let his verse just wash over me; it was beautiful. Also, if you want to read Bronte, Austen, or Dickens, but aren't sure if you can wade through all that wordy prose, try watching the movie first. Once you no longer need to stare at a page for an hour trying to unravel who does what when, the descriptions flow better and become more beautiful. My rule of thumb is, it's not cheating if you do sit down and read the book at some point.

---

Don't exaggerate... Shakespeare I can understand that some people get confused at, but Brontë? Austen? It takes a little bit of getting used to, that's all. If one does not have the stamina to do that, then what's the point in reading anyway?

Dickens though, I can come in with you, but it's mainly because he repeats himself.

Although, watching the movie, I wouldn't. You never know what they have changed or you have to pick the darling ones of the fans, like the 90s Austens. And then too there are minor changes that don't matter to the fans because the overall result was so good, but which aren't in the book and then you are exposed (depends for what you are trying to cheat of course). As for most of the later ones... There are very few that don't take an awful liberty with the original work, both in message and plot... Better read sparknotes then or a bunch of other articles. It will improve your understanding at any rate (and maybe you'll understand more than the average reader).

It is true that Austen is very readable, though personally I found Dickens easier :). I think I just liked his characters better. I was just shocked at how many people disliked Austen that I had to throw out there that there were some movies that might make the reader appreciate the book better.

With movies you do need to find the right movie to go with the book. I will say that watching the gorgeous A&E version of Pride and Prejudice (which is remarkably close to the book) turned me on to Jane Austen in the first place, but there are some horribly bad movies that aren't even close to the books.

And when I said "cheating" I said it tongue in cheek... I was actually recommending sparknotes and movies as a TOOL. In my opinion, if you have the time and energy to read sparknotes and/or watch the movie, AS WELL AS reading the book, you're a pretty good student/reader :).

Those at San Quentin would not have agreed with the criticisms of Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot on this thread. I personally think his work is brilliant. It is BRILLIANT. I do not enjoy the novels written by him though I try returning to them each year. In fact, I am due another attempt any day soon. But the plays...

The book I found most tedious almost to the point of tears: I apologise, but The Bible, (King James Version), slots perfectly into this category for me. It wasn't long after a reading of this fantasy-adventure novel that I became an atheist!

You and me both, wlz... I just didn't want to inspire a debate of epic proportions, being a newbie and all. But now that you've said it, I'll join in!

Many times I have told myself, I MUST read the Bible, at least to see what all the hype is about! However, after tearing several of the ultra thin pages because I drooled on them while nodding off, I decided I'd go get my revelations from Dostoevsky and Shakespeare instead.

And all in all, I think atheism is pretty cool. You get to believe in dinosaurs and sleep in on Sunday :D.

To me indeed James Joyce 'Ulysses. I loved the book and still I do love it given its majestic prose. The fact that it has always been best-rated yet though I made several efforts to read it I have to stop.

Everything of this book is beautiful,yet I cannot understand it and therefore I find it boring

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtpspur

I used to think Ethan Frome was the most boring book ever read

---

I could not stand that book either! Felt so cheated as I really loved Wharton up until that time.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

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.

---

You are a hypocrite because you criticize virginia woolfe.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

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.

---

Do you form your own opinions?

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.

Hands down the worst read of my life was "Sons and Lovers". Talk about dry literature, this novel was set on late 1800's around a mining community in Great Britain. It was about 500 pages of the worst Oedipus complex known to man and his divided nonchalance in two terribly dull women. Awful Read. A close second would be Jane Eyre...ugh

I loved Sons and Lovers, plus i was reading it on holiday and made friends with a girl who saw me reading it :D

I had no such luxury. :( It did occur to me, though, that if an intelligent woman would have seen me reading it, perhaps she would have assumed I have a great sense of romance. ha!

I am appalled that none of you have included Ayn Rand's "mesterpiece". The lugubrious tome Atlas Shrugged. It is an endless journey wandering through the catacombs of Ayn Rands objectivist mind. An avowed atheist, perhaps Rand was on to something, god would have spared us this pointless dreck. Her redundant rhetoric made my eyes water as I realized that I still had two-hundred pages left to read.

Moby Dick, hands down. I didn't read it as a requirement in any course I took. I read it because I wanted to know what all the hubbub was about and found that it was about a great be giant nothing.