Half way through project Alchemist.
So this one is tough for me to write about knowing that Fellow Francophile loves this novel (parable?) a whole lot. First let me say that I don't have any overall impression of the prose novel. At all. Part of this I think is by Choehlo's design. He specifically impugns the interpretation of text. This leads me to believe that aside from decoding the obvious metaphor we are to take the message of the parable at face value. To this end the very plain storytelling and cupidity of our protagonist made me blithely turn pages without divining any great weight from the moments in the book. This is not a fault of the story. It is a rare book that I can take at face value and glean any message. My struggle with the novel is the very purpose of the book which is to stress the value of a Personal Legend. I found myself pulled out of the story thinking about how society ultimately benefits from individuals serving their own goals. I understand that this is a reader fault and not a fault of the work so it left me conflicted. Is being conflicted bad? Probably not but I wish I were wrestling with the text rather than wrestling with my expectation of the text. I am hoping that the graphic novel adaptation sheds some further light on the text overall because right now I am sort of ashamed at my lukewarm response to what many of my friends have considered a life-changing work.
4 comments:
I was out for a walk yesterday, just through the neighborhood, but by myself with time to think.
When I first read this book, I really needed to hear a message about following one's heart and dreams. Now, however, I find life and the pursuit of one's Personal Legend a bit more complicated. (And dare I feel a bit jaded? bitter or even frustrated with my own life?) Do I sound like the Baker who wanted to save up some money before he traveled?
Where does sacrifice and generosity fit into an entire world of individuals all seeking their own Personal Legend... I can't help but think that sounds selfish to me. Or am I muddying up the waters wrongly so? I can’t help but agree with A.Hegg that the story works on one scale – a single person seeking out his/her own Personal Legend, but what if everyone was doing the same? Would the world be better off or am I just “ye of little faith?” Or do we have some flaw in the story that is akin to the apparent conflict between physics at the macro scale (general relativity etc.) and physics at the micro scale (quantum mechanics etc.) Is Coehlo taking a mere quantum physics perspective and ignoring or overlooking what Einstein, Hawkins and others have tried/are trying to do in the physics world?
On another note:
I have an addition of the novel that has a short introduction from Paulo Coehlo, written in 2002. He outlines four obstacles to realizing one's Personal Legend.
first: we are told it is impossible
second: love
third: fear of defeat
fourth: fear & guilt of success
Love!?!!! Really!???!!
I am on the fence.
On the fence because I agree with the way in which he frames the obstacle... "We know what we want to do, but are afraid of hurting those around us by abandoning everything in order to pursue our dream." Easier said than done buddy, but I give it to you, Paulo, this has been the cause of the hardest times in my life.
So what to do if one has gone astray? What ought the Baker do? Is it too late for him?
But here is my real issue with this whole Personal Legend business:
There are several unspoken assumptions:
What if you have more than one Personal Legend? & What if they are at odds with each other?
What if you don’t know what your Personal Legend is?
I fall into this camp. Boy what I would give for a nice easy to interpret dream that says go to the Pyramids and find your hidden treasure! Wow – cut and dry. Why did Santiago have such a hard time figuring out what that meant? And so what happens after Santiago finds his hidden treasure? Does one develop additional Personal Legends to keep oneself busy, or is he done for the rest of his life – all set and ready to retire?
Lastly
A.Hegg, please further describe what you mean by “the interpretation of text.” I am interested in your impressions and critiques of his writing. Are you talking about writing quality? If so, I agree with you, the writing is very simplistic and many of Paulo Coehlo’s other books have the same writing quality. I would also conclude that the Alchemist is intended to be a simple parable and not meant to be a great work of art, a masterpiece of writing, but I have no real way of knowing if that is what Coehlo would say about his own book. I value this book for the message that Coehlo portrays rather than the quality of his prose, but as stated earlier, I am having a harder time accepting that message on face value. I would love to hear about how this idea of chasing one’s Personal Legend resonates with you in your current position in life.
I feel like Coehlo is telling us to take the book at face value based on the interaction in the desert.I don't have the book at hand but I am referring to a specific interaction with the Alchemist when the idea is first put forward that the secret to alchemy is written on the face of an emerald and any attempt to further explain it muddies the water.
I love the idea that the truth of something can be so simple but we make it unnecessarily complicated by trying to interpret it. As such I feel very strongly that Coehlo wants the book to be taken straight as a parable and not expanded to some baroque statement.
I appreciate the four aspects of a personal legend as it solidifies my impression of what the text is saying.
As for his writing, I find it charming in its simplicity. I love Steinbeck and Hemmingway who are anything if not simple, straight to the point and incredibly effective.
The Alchemist for me suffered because I teach middle school and high school and I see so many kids disregarding others in favor of their own personal legend. That selfishness or narcissism isolates and makes them very lonely while they think they are doing great work for themselves. Secondly I have heard so many people who I greatly admire lionize this text as one of the most important books of their lives. I guess I just don't agree with the thesis enough to really get behind it. I am glad I read it, I don't want my time back, it gave me plenty to think about but its just not my deal.
As for my personal legend right now? We are about to have a baby any minute. Pretty much all I want to be is as good a dad as I can possibly be. As such I am going to have to shore up my game in other areas. To be the best dad I can be I have to be a better husband. To be the best dad I can be I need to be the best employee I can. In order to be the best dad I can be I need to be as fit as I can be and as emotionally stable as I can be. All of these things require me to be as open to others as possible. This is not to say that I am living my life for someone else, this baby who I haven't even met yet. This means that for me to be happy I must self-actualize as a good dad/husband/teacher/writer/director/actor. This is personally satisfying to me and as such is a personal legend but requires me to be a good person to those around me. So I cannot in isolation decide that to be the best husband I can be (in order to be the best dad I can be) that I need to go out and do a vision quest. This is because the state of 'husband' or 'father' necessarily requires an other to help me meet my goal.
I just feel this is muddled in the text because our friend actually finds literal treasure. Had he found self-awareness I bet I would have felt differently.
Sorry the above is a little muddled. I am in the early stages or writing the book for a musical and my head is totally in Daddy-land.
I haven't read it since high school or early college but I can go ahead with the impression it left on me since that is the current discussion. First, to the type of book it is and the target audience - I seem to recall a very certain type of book that interested me more in college than what might seem appealing now. The Celestine Prophecy comes to mind first. There have been phases in my life where intense searching, through the writing of others, followed by introspection was intended to help me find my way. Whatever that means. And I'm guessing if I read it again today I would have a much different feeling about it. Maybe I could interpret it in a different way and use it still but it likely would not leave me feeling the same way I felt when I read it a decade ago. And now I have no shortage of missions in my life - over the past 4 years I have come up with one thing after another that I could put my life into. And it's Love that's keeping me from getting very far into any of it yet. That's just one side of my love problem. Oliver takes so much time that my love for him could cause an exclusion of everything else if I'm not careful. But when considering that self-centered search that negatively affects others I almost see that as a right of passage for people (kids?) that really must happen for them to be productive and good adults. It took me until my late 20s to find myself. It just wasn't possible any sooner. Which brings me to my second problem of love. My husband hasn't had his realization yet. His quest is still quite active yet not terribly fruitful. And this is a problem in a 10 year relationship with too many other complicated pieces. So although it can seem negative and selfish in a teen, it might be a more ideal time to start the process than later in life - say, after you've had a kid, when people are a lot more likely to be hurt as you search for your true self. And maybe the text is so crucial as it can jump start the process...
I probably won't read it again but instead move onto the next book since I've missed so much already. Good luck with the new person in your life Adam!
Thanks for the well wishes Chelsea and I really loved reading your thoughts regarding The Alchemist.
One super weird thing that is happening with me and these 'magical realism' books is that I am finding their agendas frustrating. Since I became a reader (in my late teens and early twenties (long story))I have always loved speculative fiction. I think I am getting less and less receptive to some of it the more I teach. I teach theatre...so I should be all about magic. I think it is weird that I am not responding to these kinds of works recently but it could also be because I am dealing with super down to earth things right now too.
I am not going to freak out. One day I will be right back to loving this kind of fiction...just have some crazy blinders on right now.
Post a Comment