That's why Shakespeare wrote scripts, not books. His stuff is meant to be seen, not read.
Most boring books
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
That's why Shakespeare wrote scripts, not books. His stuff is meant to be seen, not read.
2001: A Space Odyssey. BOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRIIINNNNNNG OH GOD it's so boring.
As to the original topic, I know I read a bunch of Dickens as a teen, but the only memory of his stuff that sticks with me is being unable to finish David Copperfield due to extreme boredom.
The book, or the film?
If you think the film is boring, Arthur C. Clarke's novel does quite a bit to pick up the pace. (AFAIK, the book and the film were basically done simultaneously. Meaning, Clarke didn't novelize the film, he worked on it at the same time Kubrick was making the film.)
Yeah, anything written by Thomas Hardy is really hard to get through. Strangely I enjoyed his biography.
Also Dune. I've tried 3 times to get through it.
Most recently I'd have to say Lisey's Story by Stephen King. I got about halfway through and had to put it down. I usually find at least some entertainment and finish even the weakest of King's books, but this one just about killed me.
Also Dune. I've tried 3 times to get through it.
Most recently I'd have to say Lisey's Story by Stephen King. I got about halfway through and had to put it down. I usually find at least some entertainment and finish even the weakest of King's books, but this one just about killed me.
Most boring movie? I'll second 2001. I do want to read the book, but man that film puts me to sleep every time I try to watch it.
Most boring book? A Feast For Crows. It took me nearly a year to finally slog through that damn thing and it was 1,000 pages of nothing happening. At least in Moby Dick things happen and people do stuff.
Most boring book? A Feast For Crows. It took me nearly a year to finally slog through that damn thing and it was 1,000 pages of nothing happening. At least in Moby Dick things happen and people do stuff.
If you've seen 2010: The Year We Make Contact, you'll have a pretty good idea what the Odyssey novels are like. That movie does a much better job of capturing the "feel" of Clarke's work; aside from sharing a basic story, the 2001 novel and movie are totally different beasts.
i actually stopped watching 2001 because it nearly sent me to sleep. the Discovery hadn't even left orbit when i gave up...
2001 is a movie I "casually" watch (or casually watched, I'm not sure if I'll watch it again). I.e., it's on in the background, but I don't focus on it. After he shuts down Hal, the rest is almost a complete waste of time. But there are some interesting moments and it's at least a culturally important movie in spite of its slowness and relatively thin plot.
I don't hold that against the movie, I just won't go see it. Doesn't make it objectively boring, it just makes it something not worth seeing.
I don't hold that against the movie, I just won't go see it. Doesn't make it objectively boring, it just makes it something not worth seeing.
Yeah really. How the heck do you make a ghost story boring? Henry James found a way.
Oh and on the 2001 thing... I encourage anybody who didn't like the movie to try the books. Same basic story, but it moves along much faster and is quite easy to follow. You won't be bored.
I agree that the movie is rather dull. I think it's wonderfully shot and I'm sure it's amazing for people who are really into the technical side of how movies are made. And it definitely has some iconic imagery with Hal's red glowing sensor and the monolith. I mean the whole idea of the movie is to show not tell which is interesting...unfortunately a lot of it is so vague it's a little hard for people who haven't read the book to follow what is happening, especially at the end.
I'll probably get smacked, but except for a couple of his horror stories, I find Edgar Allen Poe's work incredibly boring. My mind just starts to wander after the first couple of paragraphs.
For me, I pick two novels that I think are terrible: The Catcher in the Rye and The Lord of the Flies. I was introduced to these novels in high school. Why can't high school English teachers introduce students to literature that broadens and deepens their perspective, and encourages them to read other classics?
Well they DID deepen my perspective and encourage me to read other classics!
But I know some people would say the same about my "boring" picks, it's all a matter of taste!
Didn't much care for Riddley Walker. Even knowing the twist.
Then again, it's not as bad as Dust Lands: Blood Red Road, which is written in a similarly dumbed-down style, and actually gloats over it.
Then again, it's not as bad as Dust Lands: Blood Red Road, which is written in a similarly dumbed-down style, and actually gloats over it.
Last edited:
Wow! I'm surprised by that one, it's one of my favorite books of all time. I didn't have to read it for school or anything, I just found it on my own and was captivated by it.
I liked Lord of the Flies, but HATED with a PASSION Catcher in the Rye. Not only because it was boring but I just couldn't stand the main character and am still baffled at why people consider it a classic.
Similar threads
