CFP: Politics of Boredom – Amsterdam Institute for Humanities Research (AIHR), 20-21 September 2018


Call for Papers for a workshop at University of Amsterdam, organized by Aylin Kuryel, Adam Gisborne, Helen Weeres. 20-21 September 2018 Deadline for proposals: 20 May 2018. Confirmed keynote speakers Mieke Bal (University of Amsterdam) Michael E. Gardiner (University of Western Ontario)

The white suburban middle class housewives of the 50’s and 60’s, confined to the home, were overcome with a strong sense of boredom. The punk youth of the 70’s, with no prospect on a future, but with a fiery desire to reject, shouted “London’s burning with boredom” in unision with the Clash song. In the 2000s, the Apple factory claimed that the workers in China committed suicide “out of boredom”, even though their working conditions were “just fine.” The phones produced by these workers began to be considered the remedy eliminating boredom in their users. Boredom is a pervasive experience and theories about its causes and symptoms are as numerous as they are diverse.

In psychology, for instance, boredom has often been seen as resulting from a lack of stimuli and being stuck in routines, as a case that can be “treated” scientifically. It has been studied in various contexts, including the home, the factory, the university and the military. In philosophy and sociology, boredom is associated, at times, with depression, loneliness, and lack of inspiration. At other times, it is associated with artistic creativity or the will to venture out into new experiences and practices. Furthermore, boredom has been widely discussed as a defining feature of modernity and the modern urban experience, no longer confined to the lives of the rich with their abundance of leisure time. More recently, boredom has been revisited as one of the manifestations of marginalization and precarization in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

Such diverse interpretations reveal the productivity and versatility of boredom as a conceptual framework to unpack social critique. The workshop Politics of Boredom attempts to approach boredom as a travelling concept across different fields and contexts, aiming for an interdisciplinary analysis including media, feminist and literary studies, and affect and political theory. One of the aims of this workshop is to explore the cultural, political and affective environments that boredom is situated in and distributed accordingly. Another goal is to ask whether boredom may also trigger reorganizations of everyday life: Can it work as a collective force for creativity? Can it be an affective entry point to build new political subjectivities?

We invite papers and artistic projects that can help us to better understand different manifestations of boredom and to critically examine how we conceptualize it. Themes may include, but are not limited to:

  • Different conceptions of boredom in history
  • Boredom as a gendered, classed, racialized, sexualized, and/or affective state
  • Critiques of boredom and the critical potential of boredom
  • Boredom as counter-revolutionary
  • Economies of boredom – its relation to production, consumption and leisure time
  • Boredom as a luxury or as a symptom of precarization
  • Aesthetics of boredom: visual, literary, filmic, musical treatments of boredom
  • Boredom in relation to theories of anxiety, community and/or everyday life
  • Boredom in literature, literary boredom, boring literature

Participants are welcome to submit formal academic-style papers or to experiment with the form of presentation. We also welcome artistic responses to be displayed alongside the workshop. The workshop will be held in English. Please email an abstract of no more than 300 words and a short biographical note (100 words maximum) to by May 20, 2018.

International Interdisciplinary Boredom Conference, University of Warsaw – 14-16 May 2015

Large interdisciplinary academic conferences on the subject of boredom don’t just happen everyday, therefore it is exciting (honestly!) to discover that such a conference is due to take place in the Institute of Sociology at the University of Warsaw this May. Judging by the information provided on the conference website, this should be a fascinating and wide-ranging event involving scholars from many different fields both in the sciences and humanities.

The organisers explain the idea for the conference as follows:


The significance of boredom has been detected and appreciated by many artists but only few scientists. Boredom, or one of its counterparts, has been perceived in arts as an important phenomenon of everyday life, which can strongly affect one’s existence. Most academics have not taken this emotion too serious. As Josif Brodski said in his In Praise of Boredom: “Neither humanities nor science offers courses in boredom. At best, they may acquaint you with the sensation by incurring it”. Sociologists Donna Darden and Alan Marks in their article Boredom: a socially disvalued emotion suggest that it is more than just “the sensation”: Sociology has largely ignored boredom, although producing a rather large amount of it” (Darden, Marks 1999: 33). We suppose that sociology is not the only discipline that should be mentioned.

Boredom is definitely underestimated as research subject (maybe except psychology). As British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, indicates:

Boredom is therefore a vital problem for the moralist, since at least half the sins of mankind are caused by the fear of it. Boredom as a factor in human behavior has received, in my opinion, far less attention than it deserves. It has been, I believe, one of the great motive powers throughout the historical epoch, and is so at the present day more than ever (Russell 1970: 57).

Russell has not been the only one who think this way. French scientist, Emile Tardieu, who wrote at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, claimed that “all human activity is shown to be a vain attempt to escape from boredom, but in which, at the same time, everything that was, is, and will be appears as the inexhaustible nourishment of that feeling” (Benjamin 2002: 102).

If we assumed that these authors were right, it is obvious that academic milieu is infected by boredom as well. Listen to an anthropologist, Nigel Barley:

University life in England is founded upon a few unacceptable assumptions. It is supposed that who is a good student, will be a good scientist. Who is a good scientist, will be a good teacher. (…) In fact, none of these associations exist. Excellent students conduct disturbingly bad researches. Magnificent academics, whose names still appear in scientific periodics, teach so stultifying and boring classes, that students object and evaporate from lecture rooms like dew under the African sun (Barley 1983).

We perceive boredom as a vital social issue and one of many antinomies of university life. That is why we feel obliged to consider boredom in an academic way: not as an anecdote or joke but as a serious, rightful subject of scientific investigation. Boredom is a silent passion slayer and therefore it can even deteriorate scientific Berufung (calling). This problem often seems to be so shameful that many scientists prefer to ignore it as something painful but necessary. We state that science does not have to be boring to be scientific and we want to start academic, interdisciplinary discussion on boredom, not only an academic one. We hope that our Conference will be interesting and not-boring as well as scientifically satisfactory.

The conference presentations will be divided into a number of different sessions, covering themes and fields of research such as language, philosophy, literature, history, and sociology:


(definitions of boredom; boredom in language(s); general boredom issues)


(philosophers about boredom; ontology and epistemology of boredom; nature of boredom)


(boredom through the ages – ancient boredom, acedia, melancolie, ennui, spleen and other states related somehow to boredom; evolution of boredom discourse; boring history, boredom in history)


(boredom in arts – painting, sculpture, film, theatre, street art, comics etc.; boredom in pop culture)


(boredom in the world literature – topos of boredom and related states in literature of all epoches; bored writers and their conceptualizations of boredom)


(results of researches on boredom in psychology, neurobiology etc.; new research tools, theories of boredom and its influence on practice)


(boredom at school; children’s boredom; pedagogical point of view on boredom)


(boredom on war, soldier’s boredom, la cafard, war apathy; old and new examples of military boredom)


(bored natives; bored ethnographers; boring ethnography; boredom in native societies nowadays and in history of humankind)


(boredom in academic milieu; student’s and scientist’s boredom – inside or outside a lecture room)


(boredom in the sociological theory and practice; old and new research projects on boredom and connected phenomena)


(the main characteristics of post-modern boredom, changes in its perception; place of boredom in post-modern world and everyday life; epidemic of boredom – mal du XXI siecle?)


(more than the anecdote, research on possibility, characteristics and operationalization of animal boredom; is human being alone in boredom?)


(anything that was not mentioned above concerning boredom and related states; boredom of space; boredom and weather; boredom and moments of vision in labs; apathy of electrons; feel free to be scientifically imaginative)

215FW4V6A8L__SY344_BO1,204,203,200_The conference will feature a lecture by Professor Lars Svendsen (University of Bergen, Norway), whose book A Philosophy of Boredom is one of the most significant recent publications on the subject.

For more information, please see the conference website:

The flâneur

Procrastination: Cultural Explorations

Around 1840 it was considered elegant to take a tortoise out walking. This gives us an idea of the tempo of flânerie —Walter Benjamin

Flaneur 2 From Louis Huart, Physiologie du flâneur (1841)

Flânerie, the art of the flâneur, means strolling, loitering, sauntering with no fixed intent but simply looking. Is the flâneur an exotic cousin of the procrastinator? That depends where you stand, or wander.

Insufferable idleness

Vagrants and prostitutes (the other kind of streetwalker) were increasingly unpopular with the nineteenth-century Parisian authorities. Contemporaries were quick to suspect this new figure too. As one dictionary of ‘popular’ French usage from 1808 defines it, un grand flâneur is

a lazybones, a loafer, a man of insufferable idleness, who doesn’t know where to carry his trouble and his boredom.

From Physiologie du flaneur From Physiologie du flâneur

(We still see this today: the puritanical workaholics of the OED call him ‘a lounger or saunterer, an idle “man about town”.’ Ouch.) But…

View original post 931 more words

Dickens and Boredom

‘… our life here is so retired. . . .  I do not suppose we shall ever have visitors again . . . well, well, I will get you some medicine to make you feel better.  Your head aches, does it not? . . . We will not have any Dickens today . . . but tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that. Let us read Little Dorritt again. There are passages in that book I can never hear without the temptation to weep.’

Evelyn Waugh, A Handful of Dust (1934), Chapter Six

Charles Dickens reading 'The Chimes' to his friends in John Forster's chambers, Daniel Maclise pencil drawing, 1844. Doesn't Forster himself, far left, and Douglas Jerrold, second from left, look rather bored?

Charles Dickens reading ‘The Chimes’ to his friends in John Forster’s chambers, Daniel Maclise pencil drawing, 1844 (© Victoria and Albert Museum). Is it just me, or do a few of his listeners look just a little bit bored?

The end of Waugh’s A Handful of Dust sees his protagonist Tony Last (a twentieth-century ‘medieval man’) banished to a purgatory of, to misquote Philip Larkin, boredom and fear: stranded in the Brazilian rainforest, forced at gunpoint by his captor, Mr. Todd (‘Mr. Death’), to read the complete works of Charles Dickens, over and over and over again. Forever.

Funnily enough, I know a few people myself – medievalists too, most of them (you know who you are) – who would similarly consider such a course of reading to represent a fate worse than death. For such heretics there is clearly no hope. However, the purpose of this post is not to debate the question of whether or not Dickens is boring – but to show that he is a writer, rather surprisingly, with a keen interest in boredom itself.

Indeed, several critics on the subject (as well as Stephen Fry’s execrable television programme QI) have pointed to the earliest citation of the word given by the OED, which credits Chapter XXVIII of Bleak House, in which the novelist describes Lady Dedlock’s ‘chronic malady of boredom’. Fascinating: did Dickens then – the extraordinarily energetic man of business as well as literary phenomenon, the prolific author who ‘spoke from within a circle of stage fire’ (Ruskin) – really invent … boredom?

Gillian Anderson as Lady Dedlock. In 'the desolation of Boredom'?

Gillian Anderson as Lady Dedlock. In ‘the desolation of Boredom’?

Well: no, he didn’t. For a start, that OED entry has not been updated since the original edition was published by James Murray in 1887. What’s more, the example above isn’t the first instance of Dickens using the word in his writing. It’s not even the first occurrence of the word in Bleak House; that comes much earlier in Chapter XII, when Lady Dedlock, ‘bored to death’ with Paris and en route back to London, is described as being ‘in the desolation of Boredom and the clutch of the Giant Despair’. And yet this doesn’t have quite the same meaning. ‘Boredom’ here is a ‘desolation’; Lady Dedlock’s ‘chronic malady’ is imaginatively externalised as a sort of Bunyanesque, allegorised place (Dickens later writes of another character being ‘in the clutches of the dragon Boredom’). Dickens uses the word in a still different sense in a letter to his friend, the painter Daniel Maclise, from his Italian journey in 1844. He writes to Maclise from Albano describing the ‘silent, deep, profound effect’ of the intense blue of the Mediterranean sea on his mind as he gazes at it. He tells MacLise that nothing, no ‘picture, book, or verbal boredom’ ever had such ‘awful, solemn, impenetrable blue’ as ‘that same sea’.

‘Verbal boredom’. The meaning here takes a while to understand at first, but the connection between boredom and the ‘awful’ blue of the sea is illuminated by the phrase ‘blue devils’, a very common nickname in the first half of the nineteenth century for the state of boredom, weariness, or the ‘blues’ (‘blue devils’ occurs frequently in Dickens’s letters). However, ‘verbal’ boredom here again refers not to boredom as an inner experience, but as an external act or circumstance – something that is boring and monotonous. Another example from around the same period can be found in the now sadly out-of-print 1843 novel The Adventures of Ganderfield, The Bore-Hater, in which the first person narrator remarks of a dull and verbose acquaintance that ‘his boredom regarded me no longer’. Used in this way, the word has a distinctly odd ring to modern ears.

Edward Copeland's recent book on the Silver Fork genre (Cambridge University Press).

Edward Copeland’s recent book on the Silver Fork genre (Cambridge University Press).

This form of boredom (alternatively called ‘boreism’) is in fact the primary definition offered by the OED (‘the characteristic behaviour of bores; the act of being a bore’), and though it is now long obsolete it seems to have been the most common usage of the term until at least the mid-1850s, possibly later. The word in this form is first found in 1829 in a collection of stories, Romances of Real Life, by the ‘silver fork’ novelist Catherine Gore, and such novels dealing with the leisured lives of the British aristocracy (typical sufferers from ennui) provide the earliest records of the word, including, notably, Benjamin Disraeli’s 1831 effort The Young Duke. The future Prime Minister writes at one point of his titular character, the Duke of St. James, that ‘he had never been at so agreeable a party in his life: yet it was chiefly composed of the very beings whom he daily execrated for their powers of boredom’. It is in a similarly long-deceased work of fiction, Thomas Henry Lister’s Arlington from 1832, in which we find the earliest example of the word as we know it, ‘the state of being bored; tedium, ennui’. During a scene in which an aristocratic couple argue over the guest list for a dinner party, the wife, one Lady Berwick, attempts to veto ‘the Rochdales’ on the grounds that ‘they are such bores!’ Her husband Sir James counters that though they are indeed bores, they are ‘not active ones’: ‘Theirs is a state of passive boredom. They don’t inflict – they only suffer.’ Lister’s novel provides the earliest example of the modern definition, explicitly distinguishing passive from active boredom, the internal from the external connotation.

Around a decade earlier in 1823, Lord Byron published Canto XIII of his epic poem Don Juan, in which he mischievously quips that ‘Society is now one polish’d horde, / Form’d of two mighty tribes, the Bores and Bored’ (the verb and noun forms of ‘bore’ date from much earlier, to the 1760s at least). In the same section of the poem, he also muses on the then absence of an English term for what was widely recognised to be an almost peculiarly English complaint:

Richard Westall's portrait of Lord Byron: combining aristocratic ennui and Romantic melancholy. (© National Portrait Gallery, London)

Richard Westall’s portrait of Lord Byron: combining aristocratic ennui and Romantic melancholy. (© National Portrait Gallery, London)

For Ennui is a growth of English root,

Though nameless in our language; we retort

The fact for words and let the French translate,

That awful yawn which sleep cannot abate.

Byron in fact was only one of many writers since the early eighteenth century to comment on the lack of an English equivalent for ennui (such examples could be listed ad nauseam). And although the relationship between the French term and the English neologism is a complex one, this evidence from 1823 and the appearance of boredom in 1829 would suggest that we can be reasonably confident in dating the emergence of the word in print to this fairly specific period in time.

Several recent publications on the subject of boredom have made much (often too much) of the apparent coinage of the word in the 1850s, believing it to reflect the arrival of a new, ‘qualitatively different’ emotion entirely, one ‘peculiar to the experience of modernity’. In their book Essays on Boredom and Modernity (2011), the critics Barbara Dalle Pezze and Carlo Salzani claim that:

The invention of a new term evidently was needed to represent and express a new form of malaise, which older or foreign terms were unable to cover. A new social, economical [sic] and political reality engendered a new psychological situation which needed a new terminology and a new representation.

As attractive as this idea is, however, the linguistic evidence suggests that this is a drastically oversimplified view. Boredom did not spring into being to represent an entirely new form of human experience in cultural modernity; the emergence of the word in the sense we now use it was slow and gradual, with a considerable degree of overlap with older definitions and older terms, such as ennui. In any case, it appears that Adam Phillips’s observation on the subject – that ‘we should not speak of boredom, but boredoms’ – is indeed true for the nineteenth century.

But: – enough dawdling. Back to Dickens.

Even though he did not coin the word, Dickens was one of the earliest literary authors to make extended use of it, not only in his fiction but in his journalism too. Indeed, among the dummy books on the shelves of his study was one entitled The Pleasures of Boredom. But is boredom a pleasure in his books?

In Lady Dedlock’s case the answer would appear to be no. Her repeated complaints throughout the novel that she is ‘bored to death’ foreshadow her actual death near the end of the book, a result of the secret of her past she has been at pains to hide behind her outward manner of bored indifference. In the case of Lady Dedlock however Dickens’s understanding of boredom is more subtle and complex than what appears at face value. Her appearance of haughty weariness, of being impossible to please, are part of what put her at ‘the top of the fashionable tree’; her ‘exhausted composure, [her] worn-out placidity, [her] equanimity of fatigue not to be ruffled by interest or satisfaction’ are ‘the trophies of her victory’. Her boredom then is a badge of both rank and fashion.

There is more to it than this though, because as readers we of course know that Lady Dedlock is not as indifferent or superficial as her aristocratic hauteur suggest – she harbours a painful secret. Two scenes in the novel illuminate Lady Dedlock’s experience of boredom, both superficial and real. The first comes in Chapter II when the lawyer Tulkinghorn visits the Dedlock’s London townhouse to discuss the Chancery suit, a clear source of fatigue for Lady Dedlock. When she recognises the handwriting of her former lover Captain Hawdon on the legal documents however, she becomes animated, asking ‘impulsively’: ‘Who copied that?’ Tulkinghorn ‘stops short, surprised’ by (and also, we know, suspicious of) her ‘animation and her unusual tone’. Lady Dedlock quickly tries to assume her habitual ‘careless way’, and dismisses her enquiry with the excuse, ‘Anything to vary this detestable monotony. O, go on, do!’ The emotion is too much for her however, and she faints.

Hablot K. Browne ('Phiz'), 'The Young Man of the Name of Guppy'.

Hablot K. Browne (‘Phiz’), ‘The Young Man of the Name of Guppy’.

The second scene occurs later in the novel (Chapter XXIX), as Sir Leicester and Lady Dedlock sit together in their London home, in the very same room as in the previous scene. Lady Dedlock ‘as on that day … sits before the fire with her screen in her hand.’ Sir Leicester complacently reads aloud an article he approves of from the newspaper, written by a man with a ‘well-balanced mind’:

The man’s mind is not so well balanced but that he bores my Lady, who, after a languid effort to listen, or rather a languid resignation of herself to a show of listening, becomes distraught, and falls into a contemplation of the fire as if it were her fire at Chesney Wold, and she had never left it.

In other words, in the earlier scene Lady Dedlock is intensely interested, but puts on a pretence of boredom in order to try and hide the meaning of her interest (the secret of her past). In the later scene, she is genuinely, intensely bored, but has to feign interest in the tedious article her husband is relating to her. With the language here of ‘distraught’, as in the repeated ‘bored to death’, Dickens acknowledges something deeper and more worrying in Lady Dedlock’s psychic malaise: the tension – or deadlock – between what she feels inside and what she is able to express. Immediately following this scene, the officious clerk Guppy brings news to Lady Dedlock that her love letters to Captain Hawdon have been discovered – an event that precipitates her demise.

Dickens then understands boredom as a genuine, often chronic and dispiriting experience, but he understands it too as a pose, even as a defence mechanism. His next book after Bleak House, the ‘Industrial Novel’ Hard Times, features another upper-class character, James Harthouse, who seems to exist in a state of constant boredom and what Carlyle called ‘Idle Dilettantism’:

[Harthouse] had tried life as a Cornet of Dragoons, and found it a bore; and had afterwards tried it in the train of an English minister abroad, and found it a bore; and had then strolled to Jerusalem, and got bored there; and had then gone yachting about the world, and got bored everywhere.

'Post Prandial Pessimists', an illustration from later in the century in Punch. The figure of the idle, bored young upper-class male was a cultural stereotype of the nineteenth century.

‘Post Prandial Pessimists’, an illustration from later in the century in Punch. The figure of the idle, bored young upper-class male was a cultural stereotype of the nineteenth century.

Finally he decides to ‘go in’ for Utilitarianism, and finds himself visiting Messrs Gradgrind and Bounderby in Industrial Coketown, where, of course, he experiences a ‘considerable accession of boredom’. There is no real reason to doubt that Harthouse is just as bored and indifferent as he constantly claims to be, especially after he seduces and almost runs off with Gradgrind’s daughter Louisa for no other apparent reason than that he can. When he begins to doubt the success of his seduction however and grows agitated (‘[h]e several times spoke with an emphasis, similar to the vulgar manner’), the narrator writes that, ‘[i]n a word, he was so horribly bored by existing circumstances, that he forgot to go in for boredom in the manner prescribed by the authorities’. Dickens skilfully plays on the discrepancy between Harthouse’s habitual, well-bred outward manner of boredom and the annoyance he feels when his emotions are finally, genuinely engaged. Later in the same chapter after Harthouse is humbled and shamed into leaving Coketown by the ‘earnest’ appeal of the working-class girl Sissy Jupe, Harthouse reverts to the language of boredom (he telegraphs to his brother: ‘Dear Jack. All up at Coketown. Bored out of the place’) in order to cover up his genuine feelings of shame and embarrassment:

A secret sense of having failed and been ridiculous – a dread of what other fellows who went in for similar sorts of things would say at his expense if they knew it – so oppressed him, that what was about the very best passage in his life was the one of all others he would not have owned to on any account, and the only one that made him ashamed of himself.

Hard Times is a significant novel too for understanding another important dimension of boredom in the Victorian period: the working-class experience of boredom. Quite simply for most of the nineteenth century the working classes were not thought to experience it at all; boredom and ennui were associated with excess leisure, with satiety, with idleness – the first two of which the working classes scarcely possessed, and the last of which was considered morally reprehensible. An article in Fraser’s Magazine of 1851 for instance argues that idleness ought ‘to expose the poor man to punishment’. Largely due to such attitudes, the exclusive association between boredom, leisure, and the upper classes remained for most of the century.

From the early 1830s however, a number of commentators in debates over factory reform and the Ten Hours Bill, such as the physician Sir James Phillips Kay-Shuttleworth and the MP John Fielden, began to draw attention to the wearing and numbing mental effects of prolonged hours engaged in monotonous industrial labour. Engels too writes of factory labour as ‘not work, but tedium, the most deadening, wearing process imaginable … The operative is condemned to let his physical and mental powers decay in this utter monotony, it is his mission to be bored every day and all day long from his eighth year’. These writers began to associate a form of boredom arising from excessive, monotonous work and too little leisure, as opposed to too much leisure and lack of serious occupations.

Industrial Manchester in 1870. A scene of monotony and tedium?

Industrial Manchester in 1870. A scene of monotony and tedium?

Dickens was one among a number of writers sympathetic to this view of factory work, and while Hard Times does not explicitly use the words boredom or ennui in relation to working-class characters, his description of the monotonous appearance of Coketown operates as something of a pathetic fallacy for the spiritual poverty and mind-numbing tedium of life as a factory ‘hand’:

Coketown … was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves for ever and ever, and never got uncoiled. It had a black canal in it, and a river that ran purple with ill-smelling dye, and vast piles of building full of windows where there was a rattling and a trembling all day long, and where the piston of the steam-engine worked monotonously up and down, like the head of an elephant in a state of melancholy madness. It contained several large streets, all very like one another, and many small streets still more like one another, inhabited by people equally like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon the same pavements, to do the same work, and to whom every day was the same as yesterday and tomorrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next.

The emphasis, it is fair to say, is difficult to miss. Dickens argues in the novel for a larger amount of leisure time and activities in order to compensate for this grinding monotony of factory work: ‘I entertain a weak idea that the English people are as hard worked as any people upon whom the sun shines. I acknowledge to this ridiculous idiosyncrasy, as a reason why I would give them a little more play.’ Boredom then begins to become associated with overwork at meaningless tasks, and the desire for leisure, freedom, and enjoyment: ‘exactly in the ratio as they worked long and monotonously, the craving grew within them for some physical relief – some relaxation, encouraging good humour and good spirits, giving them a vent – some recognized holiday’. That Dickens sardonically describes such a view as a ‘ridiculous idiosyncrasy’ suggests the strength of opinion against such an idea of working-class well-being in the mid-nineteenth century.

Although Dickens did not coin the word boredom after all (I’m sure he can live without that particular honour anyway), his fiction appears to have done much to popularise the ‘modern’ form of the word as we know it today. It is also a major thematic, as well as linguistic, presence in much of his later fiction. Think for instance of Dickens’s later heroes, Sidney Carton and Eugene Wrayburn. From the late 1850s Dickens’s male protagonists take a distinctly melancholy turn, losing the earnestness and optimism of their earlier counterparts Nicholas Nickleby and David Copperfield, more typical heroes in the bildungsroman tradition. They become bored. Eugene in particular is almost Baudelairean in his indulgence in ennui and urban flanerie. As Bleak House and Hard Times show, Dickens was keenly attuned to the nuances of boredom, both as pose and as genuine emotion. And in his writing on the subject in the latter novel, boredom becomes a key part of his social criticism on the condition of the industrial working classes, an issue he was advanced in addressing.

Boredom then, for such an apparently mundane and quotidian experience, can actually tell us a great deal about Dickens’s work.