The Alchemist, by Paulo Coelho

[Amos]

It's two in the morning, I just finished a coffee (stupid thing to do at this time, really), and I just realised that this thread needs to be created so that we can discuss the book. Those of us who have read it, I mean, as a part of Non A Libri Dolus, or whatever our book club is called.

First I have to confess that I never got around to doing anything more than looking at the cover. But hey, I've already read it three times, so I don't have to.

Now that that's out of the way.. I don't know. Did you guys like it? I love it. I think my favourite part has always been the very beginning: Santiago sleeping in the church with the sheep, and musing about his relationship with the sheep. I could have read a whole book just about this lonely shepherd with his books and his animals, wandering the fields, fending off wolves, and pining for a pretty girl in some distant town.

The only thing I could never make sense of was the prologue. Why Narcissus? I know Coelho subverts the tale, and it is lovely, but it still feels unnecessary. It doesn't offer any insight into the nature of the Alchemist (the person) and there's no follow-up on the theme of narcissism. Anyone have any insight as to why he might have put it there?

[Jennifer]

What happened to my reply!? *grr*

Anyways, I think maybe the whole Narcissus thing was alluding to obsession. The boy was obsessed with many things throughout the book...his sheep, the village girl, his personal legend, the desert girl, his personal legend again...
Narcissus was only obsessed with himself, but obsession is obsession, and it can be very consuming no matter what the subject.

That being said, I've just come off a 40-something hour straight shift and THEN I went for some drinks, so my thoughts aren's super-coherent. And I haven't quite finished The Alchemist (I'm close though!). So hard to split time between it and AFFC!

[dark fuschia]

I finished it a while back, and while I didn't mind it, I must say I found it simplistic and overly contrived. I didn't like how it wasn't really grounded in any sort of reality... (like how the boy turned into the wind) so in that way I could not relate it back to myself. The book spoke of how everyone has their own personal legend, and the world makes way for those who follow it, to the extent of the impossible becoming true. Translation: It was just a disney in novel form, but it lacked the charm of disney. There wasn't even a talking animal. I felt ripped off.

hheh Maybe my expectations were too high cos many people have told me what a great book this is.

[Amos]

lol. You can't relate to it because of the unrealistic elements, and at the same time you criticise it for not having talking animals?

For me, the supernatural aspects of it aren't necessarily something you're supposed to relate to. Like in "One Hundred Years of Solitude" when Remedios the Beauty ascends to heaven with the sheets from the washing line. It's just beautiful in itself (like an animal that doesn't talk) and not something you can really explain with words. I don't know, maybe I'm just ignoring certain things in the book to compliment my more romantic view of it. I do that sometimes. Okay all the time.

Anyways, I think maybe the whole Narcissus thing was alluding to obsession. The boy was obsessed with many things throughout the book...his sheep, the village girl, his personal legend, the desert girl, his personal legend again...
Narcissus was only obsessed with himself, but obsession is obsession, and it can be very consuming no matter what the subject.

That sounds pretty right to me. If I was his editor, though, I would have said, no way, that is so not going in there, you hack. And then he would have found a new editor.

I seem to be feeling terribly cynical now. Why must you say such extravagant things Wendy?

[Buck]

The night I got this book, a couple weeks back, I sat down and started to read it. The opener was ok, nothing spectacular, but I figured the prologue was a metaphor and a forshadowing of the point of the book.

I read on and it was going well until the page where the boy was told about Personal Legends (page 20?). I rolled my eyes and groaned at that point.


To me the book seems to want to convey some sort of deep understanding to the secrets of living life to the fullest, yet does it so woefully mundane and dopey like it leaves me sighing. I havent finsihed the book, and only cause the cliches are killing me.

That and I dont like the boy. He is way too full of himself.

I'll probably finish reading it later this week, I left it back home and I am still visiting my family for the holiday weekend.

[dark fuschia]

oooh actually amos, I think I am not usually so cynical, but possibly I was threatened by this book because I feel I am not following Coehlols idea of a personal legend. When I realised what the book was about I wanted it to give me some answers. But really all it told me was even if you are lucky enough to know your personal legend (the boys was the treasure) then its the pursuit of it that gives you all the rewards, not the goal itself. (on his journey he found proffesional respect (the crystal dude), glory (from his predictive dreams in the oasis), cultural experience (from all his travels), a wife (why did she like him so automatically? he really was a bit too perfect and lucky for my liking, but then, it was a fairy tale, so of course she returned his affections fully). Still he had to achieve his goal before he could appreciate all his real rewards.

I think maybe I believe in the concept, that we all have opportunities to make of our lives what we will, and that we all have gifts and abilities to gain SATISFACTION from our passions if we'd only try. However in this age we are told (you know, by THEM) that we don't want satisfaction, we should want domination, wealth, admiration and status. We all live in something quite close to a meritocrasy. Where our status in life is supposed to be a direct reflection of our merit and accomplishments.

Of course I think sensible people know that it is not true. Class has not been erased, and not everyone is ambitious in the same way and not everyone has the same opportunities no matter how much we would like to think they do.

And yet we are plagued by thoughts (both sub-conscious and conscious) that we should be doing better somehow. That if we are really as worthwhile as we'd like to hope or think, then shouldn't we have achieved fame and glory by now? Or at least, shouldn't we have scraped ourself out of debt and found a nice spouse by now?

And thus there are the many who, knowing they have aspirations, talents and ambitions, and still finding themselves working mundane jobs, who feel a terrible burden of anxiety, that perhaps they are not the possessors of the gifts they would wish to explore (rather than their photo copying skills), and they lose their personal legend. And they lose their self worth.

so I guess this book might speak to a nation such as america, a nation of kids who are told they can be whatever they want to be, who have grown into a nation of souls with burdensome mortgages unhappy home lives and tedious jobs with long hours.

This book once again (disney style) tells them they can be whatever they want to be and do whatever they want to do. That the universe itself will make way for them. But can they? What about the runner who loses his legs in a car accident, how is the universe helping his personal legend? A book like this suggests well oh it wasn't his personal legend in the first place. Or maybe he needs to find a new one? Maybe the universe was directing him to his real personal legend by depriving him of his false one? (I mean it could be, you hear about peoples who's lives have been enriched in unforseen ways by disaster)

I dunno is this book about destiny? *scratches head* How can we all have a specific personal legend if it's not about destiny?

It just seems all a bit of a self-contained philosophy that is all very lovely, but I don't see how it applies to everyone.

[Dregs]

A true story: When I was in the US, I really wanted to drive around and see a whole bunch of National Parks and animals etc. I tried unsuccessfully to buy a car, much too pricey. Then, as I was coming to the end of my contract, I ski instructor asked me what I was doing after the season finished. I said I wanted to go on a road trip, and I knew he was going to sell me a car so i could do it. He sold me car, I had my road trip, and it was awesome. Which is prolly why I think the Alchemist is a shit-hot story.

The End

[Eyreplenh]

hheh Maybe my expectations were too high cos many people have told me what a great book this is.

I came at the book at a very different angle. I too have had people recommend this book to me several times, but I've always pushed it ahead of me before, mostly due to my job. Two and a half years ago we had a real Coelho boom up north here, and The Alchemist was naturally the biggest seller. I never took to the hype and didn't read any of his stuff, and felt I was doing the right thing when he made a fool of himself a couple of times on Norwegian television. Even more so I was put off by all the people oohing and ahhing the book, pretencious and slimy people who never ever read a book, but decided the name Coelho would look good in their bookshelves. Then some time passed, and one evening at work there was this woman, buying all of his books for her sister, praising them as she went along. A little bit baffled, and with a seed of doubt born about my judgements I picked up "Handbook for the warrior of light" and read it on the bus home. I was not impressed. I also recently read "Road to Santiago" (or is it called The Pilgrimage in english?) because the publisher gave it to me, and was equally not impressed. So, when I started reading the Alchemist, I didn't really know what to expect, but I was somewhat negative towards the whole Paulo Coehlo experience.

The Alchemist though, I think is a nice book. I don't so much mind the clichees, or the "profoundness", or lack thereof. I just think it is a beautiful read, quiet and harmonic imagery and a poetic approach to language (or has the norwegian translator just done a great job?). I don't feel like I can identify much with his thoughts and musings, but I still find them intriguing and beautiful. It would be nice if it were true, no? Being rewarded for fulfilling your dreams as well as being aided on the way.

And then there is the question whether being able to identify yourself with the story is necessary. Myself, I liked the book being a spectator. Some places though, I nod to myself and say, yeah, this is true. That's much of the core of it, I think, in how I relate to this book. I look at some of the natural, simple truths he presents and is envyous because he wrapped those words in such a way to make him rich. I could have done that. Er...

All in all I think it was definitevely worth both the money and time spent. I'm not looking at Coelho like som kind of guru or something (the man is almost worshipped around here ), but I enjoyed reading the book. A book about, in my opinion, the simple things in life. I do realize that if I'm going to add anything to the discussion I probably will have to read it over again. But yeah, overall this is how I feel about it.

[sir archely]

So, i haven't responded yet because i think that what wendy said the first time around is about how i felt about this book as well. though, i don't think i had any pre-conceived notions about it going in. i honestly hadn't heard of the book, so i guess i'm living under a rock. a big one apparently.

i thought it was a nice little simple story, but too preachy. i thought that the story suffered for his preachiness. i'd have rather seen the same story, but without the pounding emphasis on the point. let it be a subtext and give your readers some credit. part of the reason i was sort of meh on it was that i don't like/agree with the idea that everyone has a personal legend that if they don't go after and succeed at, their life is subpar. or maybe par, but subspectacular. whatever. that just smacks of ...

so I guess this book might speak to a nation such as america, a nation of kids who are told they can be whatever they want to be, who have grown into a nation of souls with burdensome mortgages unhappy home lives and tedious jobs with long hours.

and that's where i think wendy really hit it on the head. i think the whole culture of "you can do whatever you want" or maybe more relevant here "you are destined to do something great" is misleading, wrong, and frankly, cruel. it inspires so many people to not be happy with the life they have, constantly long for that other side of the fence, and not enjoy where they are. so we keep telling kids to do whatever they want, and be whatever they want to be, and then (i think it really hits in high school) we break them down, tell them they can't go to this school because they aren't good enough, can't get into this program, can't get this job, etc... and wonder why we have so much depression and debt. arg.

maybe more later.

[Amos]

and that's where i think wendy really hit it on the head. i think the whole culture of "you can do whatever you want" or maybe more relevant here "you are destined to do something great" is misleading, wrong, and frankly, cruel. it inspires so many people to not be happy with the life they have, constantly long for that other side of the fence, and not enjoy where they are. so we keep telling kids to do whatever they want, and be whatever they want to be, and then (i think it really hits in high school) we break them down, tell them they can't go to this school because they aren't good enough, can't get into this program, can't get this job, etc... and wonder why we have so much depression and debt.

as i read it, Santiago's "destiny" wasn't socially-constructed. if anything i would say the book speaks out against a system that tells us anything is possible but also tells us what anythings are possible. it speaks out against limiting ourselves, which is why Santiago's journey eventually takes him completely outside himself, when he transforms into the wind. Coelho stresses that contentment is one option, but that there are many other options as well, and that contentment can come at any stage in life. Santiago was just as happy working in the crystal store as he was with his sheep, and he had learned more about the world in the process of getting there. which for me is the real message of the book: that life is a process. it's also not just about getting what you want, but knowing what you want. maybe that's not the way things are in North America, but i'm pretty sure that this is what is meant in the book.

[dark fuschia]

That's an interesting take James, I like the idea more, maybe we are so used to interpreting stories like this in a certain way we are all highly suspicious.

Does everyone know what they want? What are the treasures we seek? Sometimes I think its true that its better just to decide on a goal arbitrarily than have none at all (but certainly not live for the completion of that goal) just because otherwise there is alot more static in the brain as you become somewhat unresponsive to the world around you. You become a mung monster! *nods as though this makes perfect sense*

I don't know what treasure I seek.

[Buck]

as i read it, Santiago's "destiny" wasn't socially-constructed. if anything i would say the book speaks out against a system that tells us anything is possible but also tells us what anythings are possible. it speaks out against limiting ourselves, which is why Santiago's journey eventually takes him completely outside himself, when he transforms into the wind. Coelho stresses that contentment is one option, but that there are many other options as well, and that contentment can come at any stage in life. Santiago was just as happy working in the crystal store as he was with his sheep, and he had learned more about the world in the process of getting there. which for me is the real message of the book: that life is a process. it's also not just about getting what you want, but knowing what you want. maybe that's not the way things are in North America, but i'm pretty sure that this is what is meant in the book.

I only read about half the book, and this exactly what I saw as the message of the book, and the main reason I didn't like it. I think the method he used to deliver this mystical message is too dopey for my tastes.


It would make a great Disney animated movie though, and is another reason why I can't stand this book.