What is the most boring book ever?

[Kafka's Crow]

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.

Don't worry about it. It was my mistake, answering a question about personal taste. I just can't read Dickens, simple as. Never tought people would start passing judgements on my reading ability, people who dare name Dickens, Kafka and Dostoevsky in the same breath (!!!), now I am speechless. Then there is that good old Bloom! His name has been dragged around on this forum as the last word on Literature. Sweet are the usese of being easy and accessible! The Dan Brown of literary criticism!

[mal4mac]

Has it occured to anyone that someone just might not like Dickens, Melville, Kafka and Dostoevsky?

That's fine. I like to hear good reasons why they don't like these authors. "I've an MA and Dicens isn't trendy in modern academia" is not a valid reason

Dickens ... he repeats himself too much (obviously to make more money out of serialising his things).

I don't find him too repetitive. Can you give an example where this was a big problem? I have a bad memory, maybe the repetition helps

If you want to see excessive repetition try Schopenhauer!

Kafka and Dostoevsky are another pair of writers that might not appeal to everyone. Too negative, maybe...

Schopenhauer wins there as well

[sixsmith]

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.

Thanks for that Mr Floyd. You've saved many of us a great deal of time and thought.

Originally Posted by kiki1982
Has it occured to anyone that someone just might not like Dickens, Melville, Kafka and Dostoevsky?
That's fine. I like to hear good reasons why they don't like these authors. "I've an MA and Dicens isn't trendy in modern academia" is not a valid reason

With respect, i don't think Kafka's Crow was saying anything close to that. He/she was simply suggesting, i think, that after a fairly extensive formal education in literature, he/she has not acquired a taste for Dickens. It's just another way of saying 'Having read and studied a great many books including the work of Charles Dickens, i find that i can't finish a work by Dickens. I don't like Dickens'. If Kafka's had said 'I can't finish Ulysses', no one would be accusing him/her of credential waving.

[Night_Lamp]

Have any of the Austin dissenters read: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

Although I greatly admire his craft, I will never, ever, unless forced pick up another Henry James Novels; but his ghost stories are some of the best I've ever read.

Again (I know, I know) with Evelyn Waugh:

"All of Henry James' novels are about the same thing: American innocence and European experience."

[kiki1982]

Don't worry about it. It was my mistake, answering a question about personal taste. I just can't read Dickens, simple as. Never tought people would start passing judgements on my reading ability, people who dare name Dickens, Kafka and Dostoevsky in the same breath (!!!), now I am speechless. Then there is that good old Bloom! His name has been dragged around on this forum as the last word on Literature. Sweet are the usese of being easy and accessible! The Dan Brown of literary criticism!

Well, there seems to be indeed a small difference between Dickens and Kafka and Dostoevsky, yes... As to Bloom, his quotes do not seem very convincing to me, so I can't say I value his judgment. Anyway, what literature critic dares to make a list of 'all time best' or the '10 best? It's an insult to those who are not on it. And is there anyone who can say with neutrality that Byron is a better poet than maybe Shelley? No, so do not do that then. It is all a matter of taste.

I don't find him too repetitive. Can you give an example where this was a big problem? I have a bad memory, maybe the repetition helps

Oh, please. I tried Little Dorrit last year, and that is my greatest experience with him. I stopped at chapter 36, I think. I can't even remember, so little do I care. In those 35 chapters, he had repeated himself sveral tims on the bosom of the wife of Mr Merdle, on Clenham's love that was not there for the daughter of Mr Meagles and on Mr Meagles himself. Not to speak about the Circumlocution Office. Now, at first this is funny (because it is brilliant in its satire), but a second time it becomes less so and a third time it is boring. Not even Austen is that boring, and nothing happens in her books. Who was it that said that Austen had the great quality of keeping the interest of her readers? Ah, yes Sir Walter Scott. I wonder what he had said about Dickens.

If you want to see excessive repetition try Schopenhauer!

Schopenhauer wins there as well

With respect, I thought we were talking about fiction here, not about philosophy. Philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone can understand it. Literature, per definition, is fiction and philosophy is not fiction, that is why it is not called literature, or they put the word 'philosophical' in front of it, lest someone mistakes the one for the other.
Philosophy is by nature repetitive because it is a kind of teaching. If one doe not repeat, one will never learn.

[mal4mac]

As to Bloom, his quotes do not seem very convincing to me, so I can't say I value his judgment.

What quotes are they?

Anyway, what literature critic dares to make a list of 'all time best' or the '10 best? It's an insult to those who are not on it. And is there anyone who can say with neutrality that Byron is a better poet than maybe Shelley? No, so do not do that then. It is all a matter of taste.

Looks like you're attacking a straw critic to me, can you name a critic who does this? Please don't say Bloom, if you actually read "The Western Canon" you will see he does not do this.

Oh, please. I tried Little Dorrit last year, and that is my greatest experience with him. I stopped at chapter 36, I think. I can't even remember, so little do I care. In those 35 chapters, he had repeated himself sveral tims on the bosom of the wife of Mr Merdle, on Clenham's love that was not there for the daughter of Mr Meagles and on Mr Meagles himself. Not to speak about the Circumlocution Office. Now, at first this is funny (because it is brilliant in its satire), but a second time it becomes less so and a third time it is boring.

I didn't find it boring. Maybe it's because I only read a chapter or two a day? So, in not reading 'til light's out, maybe i did find it boring?! But, if so, then I find everything boring I tend to only read any book for forty minutes then switch to something else. I'm usually most grateful when I get back to reading Dickens. So I probably find him less boringthan everything else. IMHO, you can't visit the circumlocution office too many times!

Ah, yes Sir Walter Scott. I wonder what he had said about Dickens.

He was (just) dead before he could comment, unless he caught some of his very early journalism.

With respect, I thought we were talking about fiction here, not about philosophy. Philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone can understand it. Literature, per definition, is fiction and philosophy is not fiction, that is why it is not called literature, or they put the word 'philosophical' in front of it, lest someone mistakes the one for the other.
Philosophy is by nature repetitive because it is a kind of teaching. If one doe not repeat, one will never learn.

The thread is "What is the most boring book ever?" Fiction books are not specified.

Philosophy is about wisdom, about finding meaning in life, about learning how to live. Unless you are perfectly happy with your situation, don't you need to attempt some philosophy?

"Philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone can understand it." is a philosophical statement. I would guess that most everyone can understand it. Therefore doesn't it defeat itself?

All the critics I know include some factual works under the banner of literature. Harold Bloom, for instance, includes Nietzsche's philosophical works, the histories of Herodotus, and Johnson's literary criticism, amongst many others. The distinguishing feature of literature is that it should have "aesthetic value", that is, give pleasure (partly) because of the way that it is written. So Bloom does not include Kant, who has written original & significant philosophy, because he can't write for toffy.

I agree the best philosophical writing makes judicious use of repetition as an aid to learning. But can you tell me how Schopenhauer's use of repetition is in any way an aid to education? Magee, a great supporter of Schopenhauer, criticises him for repetition, and has a really funny pastiche of his style in his book "Schopenhauer" (which is a great read for anyone, especially on this forum! Certainly both literature and philosophy, and about literature and philosophy, and readable).

[kiki1982]

What quotes are they?

If you read the entry on him on Wikipedia, you'll see what I mean, that is more than enough.

Looks like you're attacking a straw critic to me, can you name a critic who does this? Please don't say Bloom, if you actually read "The Western Canon" you will see he does not do this.

I am not attackng anyone, I am criticising. I do not see the need for reading The Western Canon either. I prefer to do my own research on things (also with university essays) rather than following one critic in particular for a start. Pronouncing one person (Samuel Beckett f.i.) to be 'the best writer around' is not on. Ok, there is crap and there is good stuff, but among the good stuff there is never 'the best'. You cannot say that between Wordsworth, Byron and Shelley, f.i. Why should you do that about contemporary work? At some point Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth were together on the scene. I wonder if Bloom (had he existed) had also made a bold statement about one of them. It is a question of opinion and he as a critic should know that critics do not express opinions but put forward theories.

I didn't find it boring. Maybe it's because I only read a chapter or two a day? So, in not reading 'til light's out, maybe i did find it boring?! But, if so, then I find everything boring I tend to only read any book for forty minutes then switch to something else. I'm usually most grateful when I get back to reading Dickens. So I probably find him less boringthan everything else. IMHO, you can't visit the circumlocution office too many times!

I tried that, convinced it would get better. One chapter a day, on the side of another book (which I liked definitely better), as if I was reading the episode in the newspaper every day. But it did not work. I guess I am not forgetful enough. As I remember too well what Dickens said in former chapters, I don't need to learn the same thing over and over again... As a result I get bored.

He was (just) dead before he could comment, unless he caught some of his very early journalism.

I should have said 'What would he have said.'

Philosophy is about wisdom, about finding meaning in life, about learning how to live. Unless you are perfectly happy with your situation, don't you need to attempt some philosophy?

Not as a major read, no. I prefer to research philosophy present in those works as I go along. It keeps me interested. I think enough on my own.

"Philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone can understand it." is a philosophical statement. I would guess that most everyone can understand it. Therefore doesn't it defeat itself?

It is not a philosophical statement. It says what it says: one can read philosophers, but has one understood them? There is a big difference. Not everyone can truly understand philosophy. I for one studied it for a year (compulsaory in Belgian universities), and I can tell you, the conclusions I drew from what it said in the course were different from the conclusions my professor drew. The words are on the page, yes, but have you understood what they truly mean to the philosopher himself? Because, you see (that is what I retained from my professor, and I hope I explain that right) philosophy is another language. It starts with thinking, but how does a philosopher express his thoughts? By writing them down, but language is more limited than thought and for certain concepts there are no words in the language available. So, the philosopher might use words that are in existence to explain a thought of his. You, as reader who knows the word can think that you understand it, but actually you have not really understood it.

All the critics I know include some factual works under the banner of literature. Harold Bloom, for instance, includes Nietzsche's philosophical works, the histories of Herodotus, and Johnson's literary criticism, amongst many others. The distinguishing feature of literature is that it should have "aesthetic value", that is, give pleasure (partly) because of the way that it is written. So Bloom does not include Kant, who has written original & significant philosophy, because he can't write for toffy.

And, may I ask what is the criterium for aesthetic vaulue? You see, there the problem starts already. Aesthetics is the science of what is beautiful, but that in itself is a contradiction in terms, because science is exact, beauty is not. One cannot discuss 'beauty'. One cannot say 'it looks like that'. It is impossible. What one finds literature depends on what one values as pleasurable and good writing. The discussion about Dickens should be enough indication to prove that point.

[Dirtbag]

But the tenth one was just as bad.

[afrohuman]

eva luna by isabel allende(it became bland when the guerilla guy came up)
to the lighthouse by virginia woolf
the dark tower series by stephen king
as you like it-it's probably the reason i didn't get full marks in my end-year exams.I hate all Shakespeare as a result.

[onioneater]

Virginia Woolf's "To the Lighthouse" made me want to never read again. I almost poked my eyes out after that one. Also, Henry James is so dull and blah for me. I also found Eco's "The Name of the Rose" pretty boring and stuffy.

[five-trey]

Willa Cather's My Antonia was dreadful for me.


I loved Moby-Dick, by the way.

[mal4mac]

If you read the entry on him on Wikipedia, you'll see what I mean, that is more than enough.

It makes me want to read wikipedia even less than I do! They have taken a smattering of his more extreme & eccentric statements and flung them up out of context. Typical Wikipedia. Try reading the opening chapter of "The Western Canon" to get more of a feel for what he's about.

I am not attackng anyone, I am criticising. I do not see the need for reading The Western Canon either. I prefer to do my own research on things (also with university essays) rather than following one critic in particular for a start. Pronouncing one person (Samuel Beckett f.i.) to be 'the best writer around' is not on.

If he thinks that why can't he say it?

... among the good stuff there is never 'the best'. You cannot say that between Wordsworth, Byron and Shelley, f.i. Why should you do that about contemporary work? At some point Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth were together on the scene. I wonder if Bloom (had he existed) had also made a bold statement about one of them. It is a question of opinion and he as a critic should know that critics do not express opinions but put forward theories.

Why not? Pele and David Beckham were both good footballers, but there is little doubt who was the best. Why can't it be the be the same for poets?

And, may I ask what is the criterium for aesthetic value? You see, there the problem starts already. Aesthetics is the science of what is beautiful, but that in itself is a contradiction in terms, because science is exact, beauty is not. One cannot discuss 'beauty'. One cannot say 'it looks like that'. It is impossible. What one finds literature depends on what one values as pleasurable and good writing. The discussion about Dickens should be enough indication to prove that point.

I wasn't using 'aesthetic' in a scientific sense, but in a Bloomean sense, where aesthetic value is an undefined experience of pleasure that comes from reading literature. Your final comments are similar, if less confrontational, than Bloom:

"Pragmatically, aesthetic value can be recognized or experienced, but it cannot be conveyed to those who are incapable of grasping its sensations and perceptions. To quarrel on its behalf is always a blunder." http://www.mrbauld.com/elegy1.html

This is one of his harsher statements! I don't think he means to imply that failure to recognize Dickens means total failure as an aesthete Elsewhere he hints that if you are incapable of grasping one author, you may still grasp others. And he worries that he can't grasp Larkin when most other critics admire him. I guess we all have our blank spots.

as you like it-it's probably the reason i didn't get full marks in my end-year exams.I hate all Shakespeare as a result.

Yup, failing the thing that really matters can do that to you. Repression is not the answer. The only way wean yourself from hatred is to read the complete works.

[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.

[Three Sparrows]

But the tenth one was just as bad.

I don't know why I find this so funny.

[kiki1982]

If he thinks that why can't he say it?

Because ciritcs put forward theories, they do not profess their own opinions on contemporary authors, whether they are the best or not. The best certainly in any art does not exist. There only exists good, and that is also a personal opinion

Why not? Pele and David Beckham were both good footballers, but there is little doubt who was the best. Why can't it be the be the same for poets?

That was not my point. If Bloom were a football commentator, he would pronounce one of the two the best footballer. Besides, that world, and alo the world of art, changes so fast that is is impossible to pronounce one the best, as one's opinion is already outdated. Translators do not work fast enough to enable the critic to form a founded opinion.

I wasn't using 'aesthetic' in a scientific sense, but in a Bloomean sense, where aesthetic value is an undefined experience of pleasure that comes from reading literature. Your final comments are similar, if less confrontational, than Bloom:

"Pragmatically, aesthetic value can be recognized or experienced, but it cannot be conveyed to those who are incapable of grasping its sensations and perceptions. To quarrel on its behalf is always a blunder." http://www.mrbauld.com/elegy1.html

This is one of his harsher statements! I don't think he means to imply that failure to recognize Dickens means total failure as an aesthete Elsewhere he hints that if you are incapable of grasping one author, you may still grasp others. And he worries that he can't grasp Larkin when most other critics admire him. I guess we all have our blank spots.

To add to my own observation: what one should find literature is also a personal opinion, as much as what one finds pleasurable and beautiful. But we still consider certain things literature, because they are pronounced it. Although I cannot find Dickens a very good writer, I still consider him literature. It is not about grasping, it is about general opinion. Yet to me, Dickens's writing is boring and uninteresting. So Bloom's theory does not hold up, as I do consider Dickens as literature, but cannot call him aesthetically very good.