New Theories on Boredom: Chapter 5 Summary and Key Takeaways

⚠️ Spoiler Warning: This guide contains detailed spoilers for the entire novel. Proceed only if you've finished reading or are comfortable knowing the plot.

Summary

The chapter opens with a childhood memory: the author was so bored at her parents' office that she made a deck of cards. She then recalls her brother's snake, which only moved when live crickets were dumped into its cage, and wonders what would bore a tortoise or how bored dogs might be. This leads to a broader meditation on the nature of boredom.

She notes that some people use two-star ratings to mean “I got bored and didn't finish it,” and she admits she doesn't trust books that aren't a little boring. The central distinction she draws is between “boring because simple” and “boring because complex.” The latter, she argues, isn't actually boring—it can be mistaken for boredom, much like a hangover can be mistaken for guilt. She calls this distinction banality versus tedium, or “good boring” versus “bad boring,” and points out that Kubrick movies are often great while also boring. Whether something is boring has nothing to do with how good it is. She coins the term “slow-interesting” for this complex boredom and asserts that all good poetry is slow-interesting.

The essay then shifts to everyday observations. She wonders why having a beverage makes a boring activity more interesting, and why we don't get bored in the shower. She references Michel Siffre, who lived alone in a cave for six months and became so bored he contemplated suicide. She also mentions a radio claim that lazy people have higher IQs because their minds are more active, but she doubts this. She observes people having a boring conversation about dogs, and notes that rain is boring—even joking about acid rain. She suggests that being so bored you cry must be a transformative experience.

She then makes a series of provocative statements: sex is not art, and once it's over, it's boring again. Civilization is in the bargaining stage and is bored with itself; we've evolved to find peace boring. She plays with the idea that you can only be bored almost to death. She includes a dialogue about how “this is boring” can be countered with “it interrogates boringness,” and wonders if poets can be bored by eclipses. She reflects on how boring it is not to have a crush, and how a bad kiss can make you feel like you're the bad kisser—linking this to how boring people make others feel boring. She suggests that you can trick people into being more interesting by being more interesting yourself, and recalls being bored around her parents, which made them seem boring, until she later learned she didn't know everything about them. Her advice: if you must spend time with boring people, try being dazzling.

The chapter concludes with reflections on dreams and media. In lucid dreams, her most common thought is “what a boring dream.” She appreciates that Andre Gregory knows the Andre character in his film is a “raging narcissist” bore. She imagines a TED Talk titled “Jiro Dreams of Sushi Is Not an Enjoyable Movie,” calling it boring and oppressive, a “fascist approach to sushi.” She considers After Hours the worst movie that's anyone's favorite, associating it with Joe Versus the Volcano as “angry boring.” She notes that it takes a special kind of mediocrity to be offensive and boring at the same time, and that if the language is boring, there should at least be emotions or ideas. She puns on “boring through” versus “thoroughly boring,” admits she was very boring today, and reflects that sometimes the dystopia was boring—at least everyone was bored at the same time about something inherently interesting. The chapter ends with the line: “Sometimes it feels like if I'm not fascinated, I'm bored.”

Key Events

Childhood boredom at parents' office, making a deck of cards.
Brother's snake that only moved when fed crickets.
Reflection on animal boredom (tortoise, dogs).
Discussion of two-star ratings as a sign of boredom.
Distinction between “boring because simple” and “boring because complex.”
Introduction of “slow-interesting” as a term for complex boredom.
Reference to Michel Siffre's cave experiment and his suicidal boredom.
Doubt about the claim that lazy people have higher IQs.
Observation of a boring conversation about dogs.
Rain as boring, with an acid rain joke.
Extreme boredom leading to crying as transformative.
Statement that sex is not art and becomes boring after it ends.
Civilization being bored with itself and the evolution to find peace boring.
Dialogue about “this is boring” versus “it interrogates boringness.”
Reflection on crushes and bad kisses.
Boring people making others feel boring; advice to be dazzling.
Lucid dreaming and the thought of a boring dream.
Appreciation of Andre Gregory's self-awareness.
Critique of Jiro Dreams of Sushi as boring and oppressive.
Critique of After Hours and Joe Versus the Volcano as “angry boring.”
Final reflection on dystopia being boring and the link between boredom and fascination.

Character Development

The narrator—the author's persona—undergoes a subtle but meaningful evolution across this chapter. Initially, she presents boredom as a childhood affliction, something to be escaped through making cards or watching a snake. As the essay progresses, she refines her understanding, moving from a simple view of boredom as a lack of stimulation to a more nuanced theory that distinguishes between simple and complex boredom. This intellectual development is mirrored by personal growth: she admits that she used to be bored around her parents, which made them seem boring, but later realized she didn't know everything about them. This suggests a shift from blaming external circumstances to recognizing her own role in creating boredom. Her advice to “be dazzling” indicates a proactive stance. By the end, she equates boredom with a lack of fascination, implying that her engagement with the world is the key to avoiding it. The chapter thus charts a movement from passive suffering to active interpretation, and finally to a personal philosophy of attention.

Themes, Symbols, or Motifs

Simple vs. Complex Boredom: The central theme, distinguishing between banality and tedium, and introducing “slow-interesting” as a positive form of complexity.
Boredom and Consumption: The motif of beverages making boring activities more interesting, linking boredom to sensory input and consumption.
Boredom and Intelligence: The radio claim about lazy people's IQs, which the author doubts, suggests a cultural myth that boredom is linked to mental activity.
Boredom and Emotional Release: The idea that extreme boredom can cause crying, framing it as a transformative experience.
Boredom and Sexuality: The statement that sex is not art and becomes boring after it ends, connecting boredom to desire and satisfaction.
Boredom and Civilization: The notion that civilization is bored with itself and that we've evolved to find peace boring, implying a cultural restlessness.
Boredom and Social Dynamics: How boring people make others feel boring, and the reciprocal nature of interest.
Boredom in Dreams and Media: Lucid dreaming, Andre Gregory, and films like Jiro Dreams of Sushi and After Hours serve as case studies for how boredom manifests in art and imagination.
Boredom and Language: The pun on “boring through” and the dialogue about “interrogating boringness” highlight the role of language in defining boredom.
Boredom and Dystopia: The final reflection that dystopia can be boring, and that shared boredom about something interesting is a strange comfort.
Boredom vs. Fascination: The concluding line ties the entire essay together, suggesting that boredom is the absence of fascination.

Why This Chapter Matters

This chapter is a cornerstone of Normal Distance because it articulates a theory of attention that underlies the entire book. Gabbert's distinction between simple and complex boredom—and her coinage of “slow-interesting”—offers a lens through which to read her other essays, which often dwell on mundane or overlooked subjects. By arguing that all good poetry is slow-interesting, she positions her own work as an exploration of the fascinating within the seemingly boring. The chapter also challenges common assumptions about boredom, such as the idea that it's purely negative or that it correlates with intelligence. Her personal anecdotes and cultural references ground the theory in lived experience, making it accessible and relatable. Furthermore, the chapter's final line—“if I'm not fascinated, I'm bored”—serves as a thesis for the book, suggesting that the author's project is to cultivate fascination in a world that often feels tedious. This essay is essential for understanding the book's central concerns and its unique voice.

Study Questions and Answers

How does Gabbert distinguish between “boring because simple” and “boring because complex,” and why does she argue that the latter is not actually boring?

Gabbert defines “boring because simple” as banality or tedium—something that lacks stimulation in a straightforward way. “Boring because complex” is a different phenomenon: it appears boring on the surface but actually contains depth or intricacy that requires patience to appreciate. She compares this to a hangover being mistaken for guilt—the feeling is similar but the cause is different. She calls this “slow-interesting” because it is interesting, but at a pace that resembles boredom. This type of boredom is not a flaw but a feature, as seen in Kubrick films or good poetry, which reward sustained attention.

What role do personal anecdotes play in the essay's argument about boredom?

The anecdotes—making a deck of cards, the brother's snake, being bored around parents, and the bad kiss—serve as concrete evidence for her abstract claims. They ground the theory in everyday experience, showing how boredom manifests in childhood, family, and social interactions. For example, the story about her parents illustrates how boredom can be a two-way street: her boredom made them seem boring, and only later did she realize she didn't know everything about them. This anecdote supports her point that boredom is often a matter of perception and engagement, not objective reality.

How does the chapter's conclusion, “Sometimes it feels like if I'm not fascinated, I'm bored,” synthesize the essay's main ideas?

The conclusion ties together the various threads by defining boredom as the absence of fascination. Throughout the essay, Gabbert has shown that boredom can be simple or complex, external or internal, and that it can be transformed by attention, beverages, or dazzling behavior. The final line suggests that boredom is not a fixed state but a signal that one's engagement has lapsed. It also implies that fascination is a choice or a skill—something one can cultivate, as she does by writing about boredom itself. This synthesis elevates the essay from a mere meditation to a personal philosophy, aligning with the book's broader exploration of perception and distance.