BellaOnline Forums Books and Music Literary Fiction The most boring classic novel?

What is the most boring classic novel of all time?

Isn't that an intriguing question? It was on a 1950 Columbia University Press survey, according to columnist Jennifer Schuessler of the New York Times Book Review ("Inside the List," July 31). The top five answers? Quite a few allegories:

Pilgrim's Progress - John Bunyan (1678)
Moby Dick - Herman Melville (1851)
Paradise Lost - John Milton (1667)
The Faerie Queene - Edmund Spenser (1590)
The Life of Samuel Johnson - James Boswell (1791)

Possibly it's the didactic nature of allegories that ruins a good story. The survey was directed at teachers, librarians and booksellers - and they should know what they're talking about.

But what book would you choose? Send in your selection, and I'll compile a top five of our own for next week's newsletter.

One hears this about "Moby Dick" all the time.

When I first picked up this book in my late teens, I couldn't put it down, read right through it in a couple of days. I thought it was an exciting novel of adventure and the sea.

I seldom finish boring books - hey, they're boring, I don't care how they come out. That makes it hard for me to nominate a contender. I didn't finish "War and Peace". Maybe that's a boring book.

I did finish Dickens' "Bleak House", but I seem to recall that got a bit 'old' by the last few hundred pages. (Though I recall finding it interesting at the start (and after all, it is Dickens).

I personally think that 'The Lord Of the Rings' is completley boring. I couldn't even finish it.

'A Midsummer nights dream' I found really boring, plus I couldn't keep up with all the characters LOL.

And although this isn't a classic - I have a feeling that 'Twilight' may be a classic in the future - though I found that very dull. Perhaps not the most boring book ever though.

You remind me that I just could not get interested in "The Silmarillion" by Tolkien. read a few dozen pages.

I haven't read that particular Tolstoy or Dickens but have no plans to do so, as they do sound boring to me. I'm afraid I'm like that about sagas; my preference is for short and sweet.

As for Moby Dick, I've actually been "assigned" to read it � the unabridged version at that! And I'm way past the stage when an adventure on the high seas sounds exciting. But if you know of a good audio version, I'll quit stalling and put it on my real to-read list.

My version of a good audiobook is Kenneth Branagh reading Heart of Darkness � I could listen to him for days.

The Lord of the Rings � agreed! I finished all three volumes but was racing like Shadowfax through the last one, pretending I was actually reading the words.

A Midsummer Night's Dream � couldn't disagree with you more, but Shakespeare is not for reading in your head anyway. I've seen some fantastic productions, and I even like parts of the most recent movie version (Michelle Pfeiffer, Kevin Kline, Christian Bale, etc.). Maybe if you get some friends together and take on roles?

Twilight � a future classic? I haven't read it, but if you found it dull, I'm curious why you predict greatness for it.

Wow, there are SO many! I remember being endlessly bored in high school English class, then discovering classics on my own like Ivanhoe, Gulliver's Travels and The Once and Future King that made me realize classics don't have to be boring.

I remember not even making it through the Cliff's Notes of Ethan Frome. Silas Marner. The Old Man and the Sea. Anything by Hemingway, Austen or a Bronte.

There weren't even enough zombies in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies for me to get through it.

I liked Moby Dick.

But I couldn't read The Silmarillion, though I had read The Hobbit and the Rings trilogy.

Found Tolstoy hard going - War & Peace, Anna Karenina, but worthwhile.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is a play, not a novel, so no one should have to read it, except actors! Watch it performed by a good company and it's quite different. I can't read Shakespeare, but I've seen some performances that were engrossing, exciting and deeply moving. (Romeo and Juliet isn't one of them, as I saw the Royal Shakespeare Company do that and I still don't like it.)

I like ANY movie with Michelle Pfeiffer in - it's one of only a few of her films I haven't watched or don't own - so I might check out A Midsummer Nights Dream, simply to see Michelle The book wasn't that bad I guess, though I read it years ago.


I predict 'Twilight' will be a classic, because it sort of already is. It's shoved down our throats by the media. And people are always curious about something when it's so successful. Though I'm against anyone buying that writers work because she donates 10% of all sales to anti gay, hate groups. I've been told that by a lot of people anyway.

I have not read or seen any of the "Twilight" stories.

I read them described as being "young-adult" novels of high school romance and that they have won such awards as "Kids Choice" for best book..

I fear neither the category nor the award bodes well for future recognition as a literary classic.

I like to read Shakespeare before seeing a performance. I find it makes the language more reqadily understandable.

Without such pre-reading, it might easily take the entire prologue or more before I can pick up on the vernacular.

hundreds of childrens and teenage books are literary classics LOL.

LOL, Steven, LOTR is my single favorite book ever, ever, ever. I have read it dozens and dozens of times. Every few years I read it again. It's magnificent, and gets deeper with every re-reading.

I could not get into Count of Monte Cristo, or The Scarlet Letter, which i found disappointing. Maybe if i tried harder? Skipped the first half of the books or something?

I'm having a rough time getting involved with F. Scott Fitzgerald's Tender is the Night. Great Gatsby was no problem but Tender is moving a little slow.

I nominate "As I Lay Dying" by Faulkner. Thin little book that I tried to read because I thought I "should". and ugh! horrible.

I'm listening to Anna Karenina right now and enjoy it in that manner. It may be dull to read it, though.

I tried Brothers Karamazov and sometimes I was pulled into it, then bored out of it just as quickly - made it 1/3 of the way through that.

As for the twilight series... I'm a little grossed out by a 100 year old man hitting on a teenaged girl. My daughter, in her mid 20's, says it's everything you don't want to read... tons of teenaged angst ABOUT teenaged angst, and a girl who gives up everything she is for a boyfriend.... and an undead one at that... who is 100 years old... and has a thing for teenagers.

Grapes of Wrath...

I agree with you on the tomes, Debra, though not on Ethan Frome, which is on the short side, if not the sweet. Austen does write tomes, but I don't find her as ponderous as Melville or, say, Dostoyevsky.

Hemingway I still cite as one of my favorites, though I don't think I've actually read any novel other than The Old Man and the Sea. I do admire his short stories.

I didn't get past the first chapter of Tender is the Night either, Sandy. I figure, since Gatsby was his self-acknowledged masterpiece, once you've read it, everything else is obviously just practice or, in the case of Tender, all that remained of his talent.

Amy, I once tried to read Faulkner�s Sanctuary (didn�t make it to second chapter) and undeterred, on another occasion Intruder in the Dust (with the same result). I find him unreadable, but doesn't he have great titles!

I did � a long time ago � read The Brothers Karamazov and a several others of Dostoevsky�s works. I had studied philosophy and I liked the challenge of them. Don�t think I could do it again.

But Steinbeck, Alyssa. I�m a great fan of his. I�ve read The Grapes of Wrath more than once. But it�s not a cheerful read.

Jilly, yeah - I know lots of ppl that read 'Lord of the rings' every year - I just don't get it. Though I liked the cartoon and movies.

Amy, I completley agree with what you said about Twilight. I recently wrote an article about what a terrible role model Bella Swan is for young women and girls LOL.

If you want something really boring, try Rasselas by Samuel Johnson. I can't even remember what it's about and I only read it because Helen reads it in Jane Eyre. You'll probably find it listed on Project Gutenberg.

Also some of Louisa May Alcott (author of Little Women)'s other books are pretty hard going.

On another note has anyone read Anne Radcliffe? (Romance of the Forest, Mysteries of Udolpho and The Italian)

LoL Amy -- that was always my issue with Twilight, too. I tried explaining that to a friend who is a huge fan, and she cited it as romantic... and okay because he looks like he's a teenager.

Still creepy!!

Debra, I used to blog... One day I posted a picture of a man celebrating his 100th birthday... "This is what a 100 year old man looks like, without the whole undead thing going on. Imagine him in your history class!! What a hottie!!" I wrote.

I apparently am not THAT much of a romantic. :-)

The Inheritance of Loss by Kiran Desai. Although this female won some award for this book, I was yawning throughout the first chapter. I still haven't got around to finishing it!

A book recommendation from a fictional character � that's interesting, Gillian; I should start a forum topic on that.

I haven't read Anne Radcliffe, but she sure influence a lot of more famous writers: Austen and Poe, the Bront�s, the Romantics. Did you like her books?



Yes, I've heard this about this book. I usually avoid award winners or read them only after the furor has died down. I don't think I'll give Loss a try, though.

It's great to see so many responses to this thread so far! A dozen titles have been mentioned, but the majority of those were nixed by readers who enjoyed them So here are the ones that were seconded so far:

Tender is the Night
Lord of the Rings
Silmarillion

I should probably list Tolkien just once, poor guy � he really did create a world unto itself. Jilly, I don't think we need to try harder to be interested in classics that bore us; they just aren't perfect no matter how well they've stood the test of time. There are so many books whose idea or gist is better than the actual thing � Ulysses, anyone?

And speaking of Twilight, what about Lolita? It's not so much boring � though I haven't read it and don't plan to � as it's baffling to me how much acclaim it gets. The girl is twelve! Shudder.

LoL Amy - No worries, getting creeped out by the thought of a 100+ year old man and a high school girl doesn't negate your status as a romantic! It is a very Lolita type of thing... we see on the news stories about adults charged with inappropriate behavior toward those who are essentially kids, and I'm not sure it's all that great of an idea to idolize that relationship in a teen romance novel... vampire or no. My fanatical Twilight friend insists that it's okay because he's physically a teenager... but that totally doesn't matter! If that were true, teenagers who looked over 21 should be able to drink legally, right?

But back on subject, I totally agree that there are so many books out there whose storyline is amazing, but they suffer from a poor or dry telling. Or a telling that is so dated it fails to reach us any more. As much as I want to get through the Illiad -- I know it's full of adventure and intrigue and all the things I love in a book -- I just can't do it! Tolkien is a perfect example. I loved the movies, love the characters, the whole idea of the journey and the friendships that see them through... but I hit a battle scene and it's gone. Or Tom Bombadil.

I really liked Lolita, the reason being because the way he talks about this girl is complete OBSESSION. It's amazing how the characters words are so possessed by this girl.

I found the original film brilliant - I think it would be in my top 100 movies. The thing is, if you know the book - Lolita is the one doing all the using, she knows this guy is twisted and messed up. I don't know the name of the girl in the original movie, but she did a great performance, and it's so satirical, it's funny too.

It is twisted that book however - you can imagine how a peadophile would think the thoughts he has. Still, it's a very powerful book - for so many reasons.

Iliad � yes. So that's #3 (or 4?) on the list. The Odyssey is much better, especially the Robert Fagles translation, which is in non-rhyming verse and contemporary English. I especially like the audio version read by Ian McKellen.

Steven, I've just read your Twilight article and really enjoyed it. It's such a shame that Bella is such a beloved character, especially now that Kristen Stewart embodies her. I guess my response to Lolita runs along the same lines � there are precious few female characters in literature, so to have a sexually precocious nymphet occupy one of the top spots really grates on my nerves. And then there's Bella � good grief! where are the Harry Potters for the girls?

I've heard and read about the power of Nabokov's writing, but knowing that he wrote several stories featuring an adolescent girl traveling with her middle-aged sexual partner (of which Lolita is just one), well � I would just as soon read a boring classic novel.

There's a whole other interesting topic of discussion -- non-cliche, original female characters that are good role models!

I had a really hard time getting through the Grapes of Wrath -- John Steinbeck, Pulitzer & Nobel Prize winning author wrote this classic masterpiece & I absolutely hated it!

But I LOVED Moby Dick! Also, C&P by Fyodor Dostoyevsky which a lot of people do not like. Guess I march to the out of tune beats of my own drum :-)

Yes, definitely, Debra! Stay tuned for that thread �

Thanks for your contributions, everyone. So here's the official BellaOnline Top Five Most Boring Classic Novels of All Time:

(Drum roll � )

Silmarillion � J. R. R. Tolkien
Tender is the Night � F. Scott Fitzgerald
War and Peace � Leo Tolstoy
Iliad � Homer
Grapes of Wrath � John Steinbeck

Sorry about the last one, Mona � it got a second vote at the last minute Luckily there are thousands of great books out there still, and I'm sure some of you are struggling, like me, to keep your to-read list manageable.

Happy reading!

Just thought I'd drop by and say I've finally finished Anna Karenina via audiobook. There were two times that I was a little bored and must admit to hitting the fast forward button for a few minutes.

There was a time that I felt as though I could kill Anna myself and put her out of MY misery as she neurotically went back and forth between loving/trusting Vronsky and seeing betrayal in every minute word or expression - thinking her suicide would punish him.

I was surprised her husband took the baby girl from Vronsky, but then I suppose I don't understand Russian society and culture of that time.

All in all - I'd rather listen to the book than read it. It's wonderfully charming while you're cleaning the house or driving, but I think it would become mind-numbingly dull to read.

Thank-you so much, I really appreciate that. I think it's such a shame.

There's a huge difference actually there - I've only read Lolita out of Nabokov's books. She's a very strong minded character and completley gets all her own way, and not even using her sexuality - Lolita's a very complex character - I ended up loving her and hating the lead.

I agree, there's not enough female leads - but I have to point the fingure back at girls. I remember on watching nearly all the Harry Potter movies in the cinema that when Emma Watson came on the screen (my favorite character) - every time apart from the last two movies, a hoard of boos would go up against her from other young girls, which I was really shocked by, as she's intelligent and usually gets them out of the scrapes they're in - I love Hermionie.

Nancy Drew is still the only one I can think of for teens, that I feel is a positive role model.

LOL, I know what you mean, Amy. She's like Hamlet that way � such a modern character, annoyingly unheroic and neurotic.

Audiobooks are definitely the answer to some of the classics we've mentioned here, because at least you can spend your "reading" time engaged in something productive. You still get the benefit of the whole text and the ability to use your imagination, so it's not like just watching the movie version. Plus, the fast-forward button helps move things along!

Well the Anne Radcliffe books are actually quite fun in their way but she does have a habit of building up climaxes and then nothing happens and then eventually you get a climax where something does happen and you've got a bit fed up! There's some beautiful descriptive writing though which is reminiscent of a Canaletto painting. I'd suggest starting with The Mysteries of Udolpho or The Italian and perhaps then give Romance of the Forest a try if you like the other two.

I know people just love this classic 'Wuthering Heights' but I found it extremely boring in the beginning, so didn't even complete it. Just read like 20-30 pages

I read a classic called 'North and South'and it was so boring. I can't remember the author though.