Sign in with FacebookPatrick's Reviews > The Alchemist
The Alchemist
by Paulo Coelho (Goodreads Author)
by Paulo Coelho (Goodreads Author)
Patrick's review
bookshelves: books-read-in-2008
Sep 09, 08
bookshelves: books-read-in-2008
Recommended to Patrick by:
Sarah Otto
Read in September, 2008
Timing is everything. If I'd read 'The Alchemist' four years ago, I'm sure I would have loved it. It deals in big, bold pronouncements of 'follow your dreams' et cetera et cetera, and it certainly makes you think about your own life and the pursuit of your own "Personal Legend" if you will. But maybe I'm older and more cynical now, or maybe it's not cynicism so much as just seeing a reality that isn't so mystical and black and white as Paulo Coelho's, but in any event, I just wasn't buying what 'The Alchemist' was selling.
It's a good, quick read, I'll give it that. I enjoyed myself, and I definitely thought a little bit about my own life in the process, which I appreciate from my literature. And while I was more or less with it for a while, I just couldn't stay on board with an ending that left me saying, "that's it? Really?" Be forewarned, there will be spoilers after this point . The whole book Santiago is in pursuit of his "Personal Legend", which he is told is a great treasure found in the pyramids of Egypt. Along the way he befriends many people and makes a great sum of money, while also meeting a beautiful young woman who agrees to more or less be his life-partner, Romeo and Juliet-style (which is stupid in and of itself, but more on that later). It is at this point that he determines he has achieved a greater treasure than any he had ever dreamed of, and would go no further. Beautiful. Cue the music and themes of recognizing treasure in all its forms. Santiago has a wonderful, fulfilling life laid out before him, and would most likely die a happy man by the side of his lovely wife and adoring children, all while living comfortably as village counselor of a beautiful desert oasis. Sounds pretty nice, no?
Well, that's where the book lost it's footing. Santiago is urged, coerced even, into continuing to follow his "Personal Legend", leaving behind his "love" (who, it should be mentioned is a "woman of the desert" and so is completely fine being abandoned by her "love" and will simply wait and wait and wait for him, whether he ever returns or not) traversing the desert and (bizarrely) evading a hostile army along the way by turning himself into the wind (it makes about as much sense as it sounds). In the end though, Coelho reveals to us that Santiago does, indeed, reach his "Personal Legend" in a two and a half page epilogue, where it is shoddily revealed that Santiago's long-sought after treasure is...treasure. Literally. Buried treasure. A box in the sand filled with gold coins and diamonds and jewelry and crowns, and all the other cliche treasure images you can think up. What the hell?
So what message are we supposed to take from this book then? Money is the most important thing in the world? Women are objects meant to be seen and valued for their beauty, there to serve you and wait around forever while you go on wild goose chases across continents in search of money?
Obviously I'm being facetious, and Coelho intended to say that one should follow their dreams no matter what, even if it transcends a nice, content life, so long as you are in pursuit of a life that would be even greater than you can ever imagine, sacrificing what is good now for what can be great later. But he did so in an extremely simplistic way, and the revelation of the Santiago's treasure being literally treasure was a major disappointment.
The thing was, despite his simplicity, the book had a nice message going for a while. If Fatima was Santiago's treasure, that I could have gotten behind, even if it shows a good deal of contempt for the role of women in relationships (beauty being the most important factor in deciding on a mate, as Santiago is struck by her beauty and immediately professes his love; Fatima more or less acquiesces immediately and pledges herself to Santiago no matter what, even if he must travel the desert forever in selfish pursuit of his own dreams, with no regard for her), because that is something intangible that is meaningful and fulfilling, regardless of financial standing. But then Coelho basically goes on to say that that is just a roadblock in the way of real achievement, and that one should selfishly pursue their own dreams with no regard for those closest to them.
How a book can go on and on talking about seeing the everyday symbols and omens in life and taking heed of them, presumably leaving metaphors for life all along the way, and then have what was presumably the biggest metaphor of them all, Santiago's treasure, turn out not to be a metaphor at all, but just money? To me, that summed up everything. I suppose Coelho realizes this, as he begins the book with a brief fable about Narcissus falling into the river because he loved staring at his reflection, and the river's disappointment in this, as the river loved gazing into Narcissus's eyes and seeing the reflection of itself. This is a horrible little story implying that everyone is obsessed only with themselves, a sad, empty little thought that Coelho spends 167 pages endorsing wholeheartedly, under the guise of following your dreams.
I understand that other people love this book and find it inspiring, and I think I would have felt the same way years ago, when I was just out of college and it appeared I had my whole life ahead of me and a lifetime to live it. I'm older now, and I've found someone who I consider to be a real treasure, and while I still have dreams, I'm not willing to sacrifice the happiness that this life brings me every day in a single-minded pursuit of something that I want for selfish reasons (fame, fortune, etc.). If I was Santiago, I would have never left Fatima in the first place if she truly made me happy, as Santiago claimed she did. Perhaps that makes me a coward in Coelho's eyes, not unlike the Crystal merchant from the story. But it'd also make me not the sad Englishman, whose single-minded pursuit of his "personal legend" had cost him all his money, friends, and family and left him alone in an oasis burning lead in a tent in the vain hopes it will turn to gold.
I guess what I'm trying to say in this long-winded review, is that this book is all about being selfish and doing what you think will make you happy, regardless of everything else. I can see why that appeals to people, especially those who want to show the doubters and find their own treasure beneath a sycamore tree, but it's sad, in a way. We live in a culture where everyone wants selfish things like fame or money or power, just to satisfy some gaping hole in their own souls, ignoring the real problems that lead to these compulsions in the first place. To me, this book feeds and even encourages that misplaced ideal, and that's a shame.
It's a good, quick read, I'll give it that. I enjoyed myself, and I definitely thought a little bit about my own life in the process, which I appreciate from my literature. And while I was more or less with it for a while, I just couldn't stay on board with an ending that left me saying, "that's it? Really?" Be forewarned, there will be spoilers after this point . The whole book Santiago is in pursuit of his "Personal Legend", which he is told is a great treasure found in the pyramids of Egypt. Along the way he befriends many people and makes a great sum of money, while also meeting a beautiful young woman who agrees to more or less be his life-partner, Romeo and Juliet-style (which is stupid in and of itself, but more on that later). It is at this point that he determines he has achieved a greater treasure than any he had ever dreamed of, and would go no further. Beautiful. Cue the music and themes of recognizing treasure in all its forms. Santiago has a wonderful, fulfilling life laid out before him, and would most likely die a happy man by the side of his lovely wife and adoring children, all while living comfortably as village counselor of a beautiful desert oasis. Sounds pretty nice, no?
Well, that's where the book lost it's footing. Santiago is urged, coerced even, into continuing to follow his "Personal Legend", leaving behind his "love" (who, it should be mentioned is a "woman of the desert" and so is completely fine being abandoned by her "love" and will simply wait and wait and wait for him, whether he ever returns or not) traversing the desert and (bizarrely) evading a hostile army along the way by turning himself into the wind (it makes about as much sense as it sounds). In the end though, Coelho reveals to us that Santiago does, indeed, reach his "Personal Legend" in a two and a half page epilogue, where it is shoddily revealed that Santiago's long-sought after treasure is...treasure. Literally. Buried treasure. A box in the sand filled with gold coins and diamonds and jewelry and crowns, and all the other cliche treasure images you can think up. What the hell?
So what message are we supposed to take from this book then? Money is the most important thing in the world? Women are objects meant to be seen and valued for their beauty, there to serve you and wait around forever while you go on wild goose chases across continents in search of money?
Obviously I'm being facetious, and Coelho intended to say that one should follow their dreams no matter what, even if it transcends a nice, content life, so long as you are in pursuit of a life that would be even greater than you can ever imagine, sacrificing what is good now for what can be great later. But he did so in an extremely simplistic way, and the revelation of the Santiago's treasure being literally treasure was a major disappointment.
The thing was, despite his simplicity, the book had a nice message going for a while. If Fatima was Santiago's treasure, that I could have gotten behind, even if it shows a good deal of contempt for the role of women in relationships (beauty being the most important factor in deciding on a mate, as Santiago is struck by her beauty and immediately professes his love; Fatima more or less acquiesces immediately and pledges herself to Santiago no matter what, even if he must travel the desert forever in selfish pursuit of his own dreams, with no regard for her), because that is something intangible that is meaningful and fulfilling, regardless of financial standing. But then Coelho basically goes on to say that that is just a roadblock in the way of real achievement, and that one should selfishly pursue their own dreams with no regard for those closest to them.
How a book can go on and on talking about seeing the everyday symbols and omens in life and taking heed of them, presumably leaving metaphors for life all along the way, and then have what was presumably the biggest metaphor of them all, Santiago's treasure, turn out not to be a metaphor at all, but just money? To me, that summed up everything. I suppose Coelho realizes this, as he begins the book with a brief fable about Narcissus falling into the river because he loved staring at his reflection, and the river's disappointment in this, as the river loved gazing into Narcissus's eyes and seeing the reflection of itself. This is a horrible little story implying that everyone is obsessed only with themselves, a sad, empty little thought that Coelho spends 167 pages endorsing wholeheartedly, under the guise of following your dreams.
I understand that other people love this book and find it inspiring, and I think I would have felt the same way years ago, when I was just out of college and it appeared I had my whole life ahead of me and a lifetime to live it. I'm older now, and I've found someone who I consider to be a real treasure, and while I still have dreams, I'm not willing to sacrifice the happiness that this life brings me every day in a single-minded pursuit of something that I want for selfish reasons (fame, fortune, etc.). If I was Santiago, I would have never left Fatima in the first place if she truly made me happy, as Santiago claimed she did. Perhaps that makes me a coward in Coelho's eyes, not unlike the Crystal merchant from the story. But it'd also make me not the sad Englishman, whose single-minded pursuit of his "personal legend" had cost him all his money, friends, and family and left him alone in an oasis burning lead in a tent in the vain hopes it will turn to gold.
I guess what I'm trying to say in this long-winded review, is that this book is all about being selfish and doing what you think will make you happy, regardless of everything else. I can see why that appeals to people, especially those who want to show the doubters and find their own treasure beneath a sycamore tree, but it's sad, in a way. We live in a culture where everyone wants selfish things like fame or money or power, just to satisfy some gaping hole in their own souls, ignoring the real problems that lead to these compulsions in the first place. To me, this book feeds and even encourages that misplaced ideal, and that's a shame.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Alchemist.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-9 of 9) (9 new)
date
newest »
newest »
this is great, Pat! do you make appearances? Could you come tell off some religious zealots in Portland for me...
Patrick wrote: "Tekuamwork wrote: "The Alchemist is a great book that helps to strengthen one's relationship with God. The book seems unfinished, but we can finish it by ourselves because it is a lot related to ev..." The intention of my comment was not meant to say yours is that and...apologized.
Ahh...I think you are consumed by the invisible force that is described in the book, funny :) The older you get the less you believe in your dreams. You start to see "reality". You stop to become .. "naive"? You know, I believe in reality most of what people build around themselves is excuses. They still know, in the depth of their hearts that they are abandoning their dreams and so they exchange them for the grown-up causes that you can't really refuse or argue with(love for your partners or children). They make of it the either-or case. Don't forget that the book is allegory taken to the extreme, noone says you have to completely abandon everyone, life has more shades than black/white. You can work on your dreams at least bit by bit.
I also strongly believe in the "you come first". Selfish? I don't think so. I really think that you are doing GOOD to others by living this philoshophy.
Why? Well, this is explained in the book as well but you probably didn't get it(or didn't want to?:), as you prove in this paragraph:
"Santiago has a wonderful, fulfilling life laid out before him, and would most likely die a happy man by the side of his lovely wife and adoring children, all while living comfortably as village counselor of a beautiful desert oasis."
Thats what he thinks at first, but then the Alchemist tells him how it turns out - he gets bitter by not following his dreams, his wife sees it year by year. Because of that he stops to see the omens(the universe stops collaborating), he loses his counselor job in turn..
Not going to happen? Then look around. World is full of bitter parents who didn't realize their dreams for the "greater good of others". Now they transform their bitternes to their children, they try to throw their unfullfilled ambitions at them, sometimes quite heavily. If those people followed their "selfish" ambitions, they would be happy, fullfilled and they wouldn't use their children as a tool for their own goals or desires.
It's just one example, but in general, if I was listening what my father said I should study, I would never be sucessfull in the field tham I'm in now. It's because only YOU know what you want and whats best for you(and in turn, how you can benefit the others by doing so). If I wasn't selfish and if I listened to my father, I would be working in uninspiring job, I wouldn't contribute much really to the society because I would be quite lazy in doing what is uninspiring - that all because I wasn't "selfish" back then. Instead I was selfish not caring about what my father wanted and could create a thing that so many people around the world enjoyed few years later in turn. Is that still selfish, in the big picture?
And about the treasue - you have to understand that the treasue is allegory. The writer had methapore in his own career, where he did the opposite of what you are describing, he gave up his well-paying job as song writer and became a book writer, which was certainly not a clear pot of gold for him.
Now certainly your real dream might be as well to live a normal average life with people you love, nothing against that. Each has to decide, but I believe if you really want something you'll find a way, and if your peers really love you they will understand, sooner or later, otherwise it's all excuses - that's the message.
I think any parent who pushes their fallen dreams on a child has issues that go beyond their failed dreams. You clearly understand that every choice we make in life is our own, and we have to take responsibility for that. If someone chooses to start a family and become a businessman instead of an artist, that's a conscious decision. If he comes to resent that, he is resenting his own wants and desires, at least at a previous point in time.You have to appreciate the beauty in the world you make for yourself, whether that's making music that people enjoy the world over or working every day in an office. Let me ask you this--how many people selfishly pursue their dreams and don't make it? I'd venture to guess the majority of them. And do you think every one of them is happy and content with their choices, secure in the knowledge that they gave it their best shot? Maybe, but that can be cold comfort, can't it? Perhaps in another world you wouldn't have been so successful in your chosen field; perhaps you'd be a miserable failure and look back at your choices and say you wished you'd listened to your father and studied. Who is to say?
The point is that if you're unhappy with your life, regardless of the decisions you've made, you will have regrets about the road not taken. Whether you pursue your dreams or choose a different path, happiness is the only result that matters.
You claim this book is selfish and should not be selfish, but your whole review on this book was about the individual... YOU were in college, YOU are older, YOU are happy with your wife, etc etc...
Great review, Patrick. I was trying to differentiate the reviews. Many of them seemed to be angry at a "follow your bliss" premise (which is often misunderstood), rather than critiquing the book itself. From your review (literal treasure - really?), I'm convinced that the book probably went off the rails in both directions. Shame. Fiction has enormous potential to illustrate that the 'bliss' referred to by great teachers has nothing to do with princes, places or porches... or treasures in the dessert. I'll skip it, and keep looking for New Thought fiction I can actually recommend. Thanks for your help with that.
I don't even know what this comment means. Did you even read my review? I didn't say 'The Alchemist' seems unfinished, I said it was naive, selfish, and sexist. You didn't address any of those points. You just spun me some gobbledy-gook about God. No wonder you liked this book so much.