Scan barcode
A review by doctorlaurentius
The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
1.0
The ‘characters’ speak exclusively in pseudo-philosophical soundbites. This might be acceptable practice in a story if those sound bites were remotely profound. They are not.
It pains me partly because this book is so anthropocentric - it thinks the universe only exists for humans and our personal satisfaction. It’s grim, individualistic twash that posits that we exist exclusively to fulfil our own goals, but dressed up in a way that sounds dreamy and airy. At its core, it’s a deeply egocentric philosophy.
Like ‘The Secret’, it’s a pretty vile premise if you think about it more deeply than its surface level, but at least that book had the decency to be an openly ‘self-help’ book - rather than dressing itself up as a novel…
Basically, Disney movies have been peddling a much better version of this philosophy for decades. The difference is they tell an actual story alongside it, and the message isn’t a ham-fisted soapbox of a thing. Moreover, they show how important other people and animals are to our world, and that achieving our personal dreams should be set alongside helping others. That only happens in ‘The Alchemist’ if it benefits the protagonist directly.
Then there’s Fatima, whose ‘personal legend’ is just to be with the main protagonist, whilst she only makes up a small element of his. The wider philosophical statements only refer to ‘men’ and the male pronoun ‘his’, so we can only assume women aren’t supposed to have ‘personal legends’ beyond finding love.
Philosophies like these fall at the first hurdle because they ignore systemic issues. If a person lives in poverty, then surely they just need to *want* to leave that life enough? The universe will conspire to help them, right, if they just desire it will all their heart? Well, no. Because the universe doesn’t exist just to help individuals accomplish their goals, otherwise it could be argued it’s helping the people keeping those in poverty through exploitation just as much as it helps those in actual poverty.
It would support the oppressor as much as the oppressed - it’s just about who *wants* it more, who listens better to their heart?
Again, if you want something more inspiring in a similar (but infinitely more accomplished) vein: choose Disney.
It pains me partly because this book is so anthropocentric - it thinks the universe only exists for humans and our personal satisfaction. It’s grim, individualistic twash that posits that we exist exclusively to fulfil our own goals, but dressed up in a way that sounds dreamy and airy. At its core, it’s a deeply egocentric philosophy.
Like ‘The Secret’, it’s a pretty vile premise if you think about it more deeply than its surface level, but at least that book had the decency to be an openly ‘self-help’ book - rather than dressing itself up as a novel…
Basically, Disney movies have been peddling a much better version of this philosophy for decades. The difference is they tell an actual story alongside it, and the message isn’t a ham-fisted soapbox of a thing. Moreover, they show how important other people and animals are to our world, and that achieving our personal dreams should be set alongside helping others. That only happens in ‘The Alchemist’ if it benefits the protagonist directly.
Then there’s Fatima, whose ‘personal legend’ is just to be with the main protagonist, whilst she only makes up a small element of his. The wider philosophical statements only refer to ‘men’ and the male pronoun ‘his’, so we can only assume women aren’t supposed to have ‘personal legends’ beyond finding love.
Philosophies like these fall at the first hurdle because they ignore systemic issues. If a person lives in poverty, then surely they just need to *want* to leave that life enough? The universe will conspire to help them, right, if they just desire it will all their heart? Well, no. Because the universe doesn’t exist just to help individuals accomplish their goals, otherwise it could be argued it’s helping the people keeping those in poverty through exploitation just as much as it helps those in actual poverty.
It would support the oppressor as much as the oppressed - it’s just about who *wants* it more, who listens better to their heart?
Again, if you want something more inspiring in a similar (but infinitely more accomplished) vein: choose Disney.