What is the benefit of reading a boring novel?
- inconsolate61Lv 64 weeks ago
Whats boring or interesting is a matter of personal preference or taste. Novels are an entertainment. Not textbooks. If you learn something from one,, or become exposed to a new idea, philosophy, viewpoint or interest in so doing, good for you.
- SpikeLv 71 month ago
One MIGHT get something out of it,like learn and understand stuff. Beside being boring to you and NOT liking the story and subject.
Say for example these novels:
Empire Falls by Richard Russo
Fail Safe by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler
Agents of Innocence: A Novel by David Ignatius
The Company: A Novel of the CIA by Robert Littell
Know This Much Is True by Wally Lamb
The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger
The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck
Gone With The Wind by Margaret Mitchell
The Winds of War by Herman Wouk
The Odyssey by Homer
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
- LoganLv 41 month ago
No benefit. If you're bored when you're reading you're not taking in the story or its messages.
- Midnight BluesLv 71 month ago
If it's for a class assignment then the benefit is your grade. If it's leisure reading then probably no benefits. If it's leisure reading then find something else that would interest you. As for me there's a lot of novels I've stopped reading and that includes novels from my favorite author. They're not all winners.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 month ago
If you do not get sleep, read a boring novel
- MarliLv 71 month ago
Thinking about why you find it boring. You'll likely tell yourself, "I can write better than that!" So think through what was boring and then what you would've done had you written the story.
- AndrewLv 71 month ago
That really depends on what you're looking to gain from reading it in the first place. If you're the type of person who finds reading boring in general, then you likely won't benefit from reading any novel. Novels differ from non-fiction in that to understand the themes and the symbolism, you have to read between the lines. If you're not an active reader with strong analytical skills, a good memory for keeping names and places straight, and you don't become immersed in what you read, then there's bound to be decent works of non-fiction that explore the same themes that will be a lot easier for you to get through and to understand.
But if you're the type of person who can distinguish between a good novel and a poor novel, between an exciting novel and a boring novel, and between a novel that's engaging, interesting and rewarding to read and one that isn't, then why bother reading any novel that you're not keen to read? If it's been assigned to you and you don't have any choice, then you do what everybody does whenever they're obligated to do something, you do it whether you want to do it or not, that's precisely what being obligated to do something means. But why read any novel that you don't enjoy, that doesn't grab you, that you don't feel you'll benefit from reading?
Essentially, there are only three ways that a reader is going to feel about a novel: the reader could have a positive view of the novel, the reader could have a negative view of the novel, or the reader could be indifferent to the novel and feel that it wasn't good or bad, but human nature compels us to categorise things, so most of us would likely be driven to decide whether it was 51% good and 49% bad or whether it was the opposite.
I've read heaps of books that I thought were awful, many of them well-known and well-respected works. Whenever people tell me that they loved "The Catcher in the Rye" or "Crime and Punishment" or "Don Quixote" or "Les Misérables" or "The Phantom of the Opera", I always wonder what sort of delusion that person might be suffering from. Whenever someone tells me that they think that Faulkner or Conrad or Twain or any of the Brontë sisters were geniuses I wonder whether or not the person has read any real books.
There are so many wonderfully exciting books out there - books by authors like Raymond Chandler, Graham Greene, Jack London, Cormac McCarthy, that there's no reason to read boring books.
And even authors who write boring plots but exemplify electric prose are better than writers who try to be exciting, but couldn't write their way out of a burning building. Henry James, Proust, we're not talking about edge-of-your-seat type excitement from blokes like that, but stylistically, they're terribly exciting. Both could say more in a sentence than some imbecile like Camus or Kerouac could in 200 pages.
Unless you've read at least 100 novels in your life - which is nothing, by the way - you're not qualified to talk about what's "boring."
- Zac ZLv 71 month ago
I can't really see much of a benefit, other than perhaps that it will make you appreciate the next, non-boring novel more.
Sure, some people might find pleasure in bragging to have labored through [insert boring high-brow novel].Personally, I don't give a hoot what other people think. You think an educated person needs to have read Ulysses by James Joyce? Go and read it, be my guest. I'm good. I'd rather read an interesting genre novel that you find below your standards. I can live with that. I'd rather be well-entertained and enjoying my reading choices.
- JimLv 71 month ago
It will help you fall asleep at night.
- MetalplanttagLv 71 month ago
Gaining knowledge or the bragging rights to say you read it.