Maybe once you eliminate one level of "boring" code, that just means parts of the next-higher level of code become rote and boring. It reminds me a little of Richard Gabriel's reply to Guy Steele, when Steele said something like "Lisp doesn't need design patterns; it has macros." Gabriel said "That just moves the patterns up a level of abstraction."
(I probably remember that story all wrong. But I like it anyway!)
One of the problems with (classic) Lisp macros is that they aren't first class, ie you can pass them around like you can do with functions (or numbers etc).
If only we had programming languages that didn't force us to write boring code in the first place ...