What's the most boring book you've ever read?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 

Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Good god! What a boring book. I did like the social criticism, like with the Summoner, nicely put Mr. Chaucer. But you could spice up the story a bit more.

The Name Of The Wind by Patrick Rothfuss is the most boring novel I've ever read. The book is padded to an even more ludicrous degree than most epic fantasy, and almost nothing happens. Massive stretches of this novel- literally hundreds of pages- could be excised without affecting the story.

I'm going to cheat and say any spanish to english text book I ever had in spanish class.

By the Valar, The Silmarillion is the most obtuse book ever written, with the possible exception of Paradise Lost.

The Scarlet Letter. Nothing happens in it.

antigodoflife:

Glongpre:
Life of Pi. I can't even explain what happens except that there was a tiger. And he was on a boat...

It wasn't a tiger... but there was definitely a boat. 1 out of 2 ain't bad though.

No? Am I going blind?

No but seriously, there is a tiger.
image

I'm going to go with The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks. It took me three tries to get through it. I just found it to be a boring slog through a generic fantasy world. And the reveal about the sword at the end is just the most ridiculous tripe ever. I liked the two sequels, though. They were pretty good.

It's too painful to read through 11 pages of crappy book citations but just in case somehow nobody's mentioned it yet:

War - and - Peace

The Lord of the Rings was heavily padded but still entertaining.
I thoroughly enjoyed Moby Dick and, although it isn't a proper book, read and enjoyed an english translation of Wagner's Ring cycle too.
In contrast, War and Peace was fucking endless and aside from being a smug, self-justifying wank-job, completely pointless.

Owyn_Merrilin:

RedDeadFred:
The Wheel of Time books. I read 5 of them before finally stopping. There's so many characters and they mostly do nothing except talk. That would be fine if the dialogue was top notch but it's mediocre for the most part.

Just checking, you read the first five, and not, like, 6-10, right? :P

I dunno, it was such a long time ago. Maybe I just couldn't appreciate parts of the books. However, once everyone was split up, it felt to me like it slowed down a ton. I may have enjoyed the first two or three but they definitely didn't leave a lasting impression.

I don't want to mention anything I've read for work or study. For leisure, the honour goes to Interview with a Vampire. It's the only book I've started and not finished, it's so boring.

Wuthering Heights. That book is the most boring, depressing piece of shit I've ever had the displeasure to lay eyes on. At the beginning of each school year I feel the psychic screams of agony as millions of children across North America are forced to read this bloody thing.

Charles LaRue:
By the Valar, The Silmarillion is the most obtuse book ever written, with the possible exception of Paradise Lost.

The Silmarillion was not written. It was compiled. It is a reference work, not a narrative. It's like saying "The phone book was the most boring book I ever read. It was just names and numbers cover to cover."

I found that some aspects of The Silmarillion help add meaning and depth to the content of The Lord of Rings. One of the things to appreciate when reading LotR is the sense of the weight of history a lot of the characters are carrying around with them, Aragorn being the foremost. Look at how the Elves are portrayed, as a race suffering from what is essentially terminal sadness. Why? The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings don't tell you. The Silmarillion does.

Other parts of The Silmarillion are Tolkien's own reference notes about geography and such that were never intended to be of intrinsic narrative worth. And thus they are slog to read through.

Definitely The Great Gatsby. Quality? Yes. Interesting? No.

keiji_Maeda:

adamsaccount:
I bought a copy of ayn rands "atlas shrugged" because it was what bioshock is apparently based on. Didnt realise it was a right wing greed is good type of thing, gonna try and give it a go though, though if anyone in the uk wants it ill post it to you for free as the fuckers thicker than harry potter Vii and the bible combined, and looks pretty out of place next to my collection of kesey, kerouuac, thompson and burroughs.

i went in here SPECIFICALLY, to find someone to agree with me.

I'm reading it to get a handle on liberalism, and it is pretty persuasive in a certain amount of it's arguments. But whatever Rand is, she was NOT succinct.

Beware, Atlas Shrugged isn't so much a book as it is a statement of belief. She ruins what could otherwise be an interesting story that gets her point across subtly with flagrant mult-page speeches decrying the evils of society imposing that the successful be philanthropic.

It's why I vastly prefer The Fountainhead as an interesting novel that she doesn't utterly ruin with her propoganda. Not that I'm saying her position is right or wrong, as "propoganda" might indicate, just that it hurt what people consider to be her best work (Atlas Shrugged).

wintercoat:
I'm going to go with The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks. It took me three tries to get through it. I just found it to be a boring slog through a generic fantasy world. And the reveal about the sword at the end is just the most ridiculous tripe ever. I liked the two sequels, though. They were pretty good.

THANK YOU. I tried reading it once, but I couldn't even get passed the beginning part where the drifter or whatever sits down on a porch and spills out a whole bunch of history and exposition I have been given ZERO reason to care about. I have no idea where these mountains are and I have no idea about this giant troll race, so why are you telling me they died out and why should I care? I don't mind history and such within a story, but don't go dumping 10 pages of history on me before I even understand how the world is in the present. Give me history if and when it's relevant, tell me about the past when it has some direct effect on the present or future. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.

keiji_Maeda:
I'm reading it to get a handle on liberalism, and it is pretty persuasive in a certain amount of it's arguments. But whatever Rand is, she was NOT succinct.

I think it's interesting that you would call Rand's objectivism "liberal," considering the main politician I can think of in recent memory who has proudly stated his admiration for Rand is Paul Ryan--whose hardline conservatism made Mitt Romney look like a wet noodle in comparison. Small government, focused on individual growth even if it's at the expense of the welfare of others, a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism...her views could be seen as conservative or libertarian, but I don't see how you can come to the conclusion her ideologies are "liberal."

Me again. How could I forget Cold Mountain? I very much disliked Cold Mountain. The chapters focusing on the two women at home were extremely dull.

Glongpre:

No? Am I going blind?

No but seriously, there is a tiger.
image

Though I haven't read it or seen the film, I read somewhere that the tiger is actually a visual metaphor for him himself. In reality, he was on a boat with other people, but he retold the story with himself as a tiger (to reflect the difficulty he had communicating, or somesuch).

I may be wrong. I may be very wrong. As I say, I haven't read or seen it.

I suppose that would be Infinite Jest. It seemed like one of these books that weren't so much a story as an excuse for the writer to write about things he likes. I wouldn't mind if i shared his interests but sadly the things he liked were mostly Tennis and drugs. It was over a thousand pages long and about a third of them consisted of footnotes with more information on bloody tennis and drugs

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics has to be the most boring for me. It's basically a book of definitions.

Crime and Punishment.
I found the entire novel to be dull, and interesting. The first few chapters failed completely in getting me even somewhat interested in the events, or in the characters. Just getting through those few chapters was a dull slog, so I refused to keep reading.

Had to read Beloved by Toni Morrison for a class. It was incredibly boring to read and it came off as one of the most pretentious books I have had the displeasure to be in the same room as.

Kenbo Slice:

Mine would have to be The Great Gatsby. I hate, hate, hate that book. It's boring and uninteresting. I didn't care for the characters at all.

Kind of the point. Don't think you'd get much out of it if you took it as its surface and only focused on its characters. Read it three times in a short space of time and enjoyed it more on each.

OT: Not the most boring book I've ever read but, in terms of renowned books I didn't get along with, I did struggle with Brave New World. Read it straight after 1984 when I probably should have put another book in between them. Wasn't particularly prepared for the sterility and I ended up drifting away from it not too far off the ending. Interesting counter-point to 1984 though.

Glongpre:

antigodoflife:

Glongpre:
Life of Pi. I can't even explain what happens except that there was a tiger. And he was on a boat...

It wasn't a tiger... but there was definitely a boat. 1 out of 2 ain't bad though.

No? Am I going blind?

No but seriously, there is a tiger.
image

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

The story Pi tells isn't the literal truth. The tiger is a metaphor for a brutish sailor IIRC

Silvanus:
Though I haven't read it or seen the film, I read somewhere that the tiger is actually a visual metaphor for him himself. In reality, he was on a boat with other people, but he retold the story with himself as a tiger (to reflect the difficulty he had communicating, or somesuch).

I may be wrong. I may be very wrong. As I say, I haven't read or seen it.

Short version: You're wrong.

Long Version: You're not wrong so much as not right. Read the goddamn book before trying to take apart the story and themes.

Axolotl:
Short version: You're wrong.

Long Version: You're not wrong so much as not right. Read the goddamn book before trying to take apart the story and themes.

The aggression is unnecessary. I wasn't trying to "take apart the story and themes"; I was simply replying to a question nobody else seemed to have noticed, and freely admitted my knowledge was limited.

Nuxxy:

Charles LaRue:
By the Valar, The Silmarillion is the most obtuse book ever written, with the possible exception of Paradise Lost.

The Silmarillion was not written. It was compiled. It is a reference work, not a narrative. It's like saying "The phone book was the most boring book I ever read. It was just names and numbers cover to cover."

I found that some aspects of The Silmarillion help add meaning and depth to the content of The Lord of Rings. One of the things to appreciate when reading LotR is the sense of the weight of history a lot of the characters are carrying around with them, Aragorn being the foremost. Look at how the Elves are portrayed, as a race suffering from what is essentially terminal sadness. Why? The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings don't tell you. The Silmarillion does.

Other parts of The Silmarillion are Tolkien's own reference notes about geography and such that were never intended to be of intrinsic narrative worth. And thus they are slog to read through.

I guess the best way to put it is, the Simarillion is the Middle Earth Bible.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked