There’s a passage in Brideshead Revisited just after Sebastian has unsettled everyone with another one of his drunken scenes, and Julia says to Charles, “what a bore he is!”, and soon thereafter, “how very boring!”
In the drunk scene, Sebastian verbally attacks the rest of his family in an aggressive way, which to my way of thinking, is far from boring. It’s certainly unpleasant to be harangued at by family member, but it’s far from boring. Depending on personality, to be on the receiving end instills fear, resentment, or anger; again, unpleasant but not at all boring.
Bore and boring, as I understand them, refer to people or things that simply fail to arouse one’s interest, in the case of media or presentations of any kind, either because the content is uninteresting or because it’s poorly presented. A boring person is uninteresting in a passive way, rather than someone who takes over the room by engaging in actively unpleasant, aggressive, or rude behavior. I think this is how the words are generally used in America.
I’m not familiar with Brideshead, but (as an English person) the usage seems reasonable to me (if I understand the context). Boring in the sense of tedious, as in Oh no, not again.
Oh Lord, Sebastian is at it again. Same thing, all the time. How tedious. How boring!
I’m with Treppenwitz: that’s exactly how many a family member, particularly that sort of family (and particularly female) would have reacted to another member (particularly male) ranting on about whatever their grudges are - and quite likely still do. Some might just roll their eyes, some nowadays might say “blah blah blah” or “yadda yadda yadda” - they’re all different ways of showing you’re not taking it seriously.
In British English there is a somewhat old-fashioned usage (perfectly exemplified by what you describe from Brideshead) where a bore is someone who is tedious or annoying. I tend to associate the usage with polite society (“posh” people), but that may be simply because a lot of historical fiction has this kind of setting.
It is a usage difference but also arises from Julia’s personality. She is a socialite who wants everything to be fun and light.
She wishes to convey that everything serious and unpleasant is of no interest to her and therefore “boring” not in the sense there is nothing happening but in the sense there is nothing happening in which she is interested. Or at least that’s what she wants to convey; in reality it’s probably an affectation.
It fits, sort of; however, my take on Julia is that ahe doesn’t much care for Sebastian, drunk or sober. Unlike their younger suster Cordelia, she doesn’t care at all whether Sebastian is around or not.
Its a key plot of the story… why Charles and Sebastian fall out of their relationship,whatever that relationship is…platonic or sexual ? , and how the relationship between Julia and Charles develops.
and why Julia is leaving her husband Rex Mottram … is it just a tick the box explanation … author thinks "Julia.bored wife… needs to be made more concrete with examples… insert some examples of her boredom ".
Even if Charles wanted to say “No, he’s angry , he is beligerent when drunk, but when isn’t he drunk… But not boring”, he doesn’t. He politely agrees. He’s forming a relationship right ?
"Sebastian’s family are Catholic which influences the Flytes’ lives as well as the content of their conversations, all of which surprises Charles, who had always assumed Christianity was “without substance or merit”.
He wouldn’t want to start either agreeing or countering Sebastion to Julia… its not like he’s going to defend Sebastion and try to sway Julia to be outspoken …
The novel “squarely identifies egalitarianism as its foe and proceeds to rubbish it accordingly” … Julia would find egalitarianism boring, right ? She isnt going to be thinking of morality and ethics,
she was born into wealth and rank, and that is why she has the right to ignore the boring topics.
At the end Charles does something Catholic as if he convered. Critics say that is poorly evidenced throughout the book,he can’t have converted,unless he had lost a third of his brain or something.
Exactly at this point, he may have been reminding Julia that she is catholic and what are they told to do, the irony, hypocrisy of calling Sebastian boring when he is fighting for the catholic cause ???
But no, he goes along with Julia … I think the author is ticking boxes… “appeal to the catholics better by converting someone”… Ok Charles converts at the end, well the explanation can wait for a sequel.
What I am saying is that the novel isn’t consistent, its a hodgepodge … its a soap opera storyline,
Charles goes to help Sebastion, but sebastion can’t actually be helped. Net effect, nothing happened. its really not well written to take much from a single word…
