I am sure we have all heard that The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho is one of those life-changing novels I told you all to be wary of in another post (specifically my review of Greenlights, which you can find here: link). Last year, I set out to read it to see if my life would change in even a minute way. Well, it didn’t, and I remember feeling vaguely let down by the novel itself. I understood the stories and the metaphors, but they didn’t feel especially brilliant or eye-opening to me. I wondered what I was missing, and frankly I felt maybe I wasn’t smart enough to understand what was so special about this book.
Then, a few weeks ago, I stumbled across a reddit thread of unpopular opinions about books. One of the comments stated they thought The Alchemist was “just okay” and they couldn’t understand why everyone thought it so profound. I continued to read the comments until I got to one posted by somebody from Latin America. They said the author of The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho, is somewhat of a meme in their country. Then, they proceeded to call his novel a great view into “wine-mom spirituality” and noted how surprised they were to learn his book is revered in the U. S. and other places, when no one really takes it seriously in Latin America.
Okay, so “wine mom spirituality” is one of my new favorite terms. Also, is this true? I had to do some digging to find out. From what I understand, Paulo Coelho is, in fact, very successful in Latin American countries. Don’t despair, however, for our redditor did not provide me with false information. While Coelho is undeniably successful among Latin American countries, his home country of Brazil is pretty on the fence about him.
One article I read stated that Brazil has a history of being disregarded as a country from which great literary works are exported. The Alchemist didn’t help that reputation. It’s regarded as superficial and airy, rather than grounding and intellectual. Not to mention, the novel is not historically accurate and has very few allusions to anything uniquely Brazilian. Some felt this meant it shouldn’t be a famous “Brazilian” novel because it represents nothing of Brazil. I can see the idea behind this. There’s a novel your country is famous for, but that novel has little to do with your country itself, and you don’t consider it a very good novel to begin with. As a country known for their pride, this would be a pretty big insult.
There’s another facet to this issue that has to do with the language of The Alchemist. It’s much more nuanced than the other issues, so I’ll do my best to explain it. Please remember I am not speaking for the people of Brazil, I’m reporting on what I’ve read. Apparently, his Portuguese is not very good. Those of us who have read the translation wouldn’t know this. His grammatical errors aren’t egregious, instead they give a colloquial feel to the speech in the novel, but that’s still an issue for the Brazilian literary community.
Here’s where the nuance comes in.
One article I read described this as a “political” issue. From what I gather, Brazilian Portuguese has strict rules between written and verbal communication. They don’t write how they talk. There has been an inclusion, though, for colloquial speech in literature for writers who are praised beyond reproach. Essentially, colloquial speech can be a style choice, but only if you’ve proven yourself as a seasoned writer. By writing his novel in this manner, Coelho placed himself in the category of “elite” writers without earning the position first.
The critical response to his novels in Brazil are not very positive, either. Most of his novels are branded as “self-help literature” which is seen as beneath works of true, literary merit. I can’t say I disagree. Overall, it appears our reddit friend was correct. Coelho is quite controversial in his home country, and among true critics he’s rarely considered a literary maestro. Oh how we love a good meme here at The Lit Wiz.
Now, a plot overview. If you’ve never read The Alchemist, it goes something like this: link
For those of you who don’t want to read the Sparknotes version, I’ll give a (very) brief summary of my own. Santiago, our boy, is a shepherd who dreams of greater things. Literally. He has a dream of treasure and decides to go find it. I guess Matthew McConaughey isn’t the only one who follows his literal dreams, who knew? He embarks on this enormous journey meeting several people who represent things in life that will hold you back. One is a crystal-maker who represents fear, one is Fatima who represents love (and other stuff that we will talk about later), one is the alchemist himself who represents success, and one is the Englishman who is a skeptic. I think I covered the important ones.
Each person has his own role in Santiago’s journey, either pushing him towards or holding him back from his Personal Legend. For example, while with the crystal merchant Santiago reaches commercial success, but he eventually leaves after realizing his Personal Legend is more important. The same occurs when he meets Fatima. Santiago knows she is the love of his life, but his personal journey is the most important thing. As for the Englishman, he’s another person trying to find his Personal Legend, but he’s more skeptical of things than Santiago. Santiago, who is more open, meets the alchemist first. And so on. There’s also Melchizedek who represents… God? He’s a supernatural being whose job is to keep people pursuing their Personal Legends. Alternatively, you could refer to him as the world’s biggest hype man.
Eventually, Santiago makes it to the pyramids to dig up the treasure and guess what… It’s not there. In fact, the treasure is buried under a sycamore tree near Santiago’s home. After returning full-circle, he digs up the treasure and declares he’s going to make his way back to Fatima. Cool.
My only real problem with the book is Fatima. Everything else I felt “meh” about, but Fatima’s story (or lack thereof) is supremely irritating. She tells Santiago she’ll wait in the oasis for him to return. Does she not have a Personal Legend of her own? Also, this suggests the idea that true love will persevere through all things, which I’ve always felt was a weird lesson. If two people meet while pursuing their Personal Legends (we’re going to act like Fatima has some agency here), but their Personal Legends put them on different paths, it might be more reasonable for them to not end up together. If we think about Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling pursuing their Personal Legends in La La Land, they both achieve their goals, but they have to let each other go to do so. Are we to expect to find a significant other that will wait around for us while we’re out pursuing our dreams? That seems unrealistic.
Another alternative message could have been that they couldn’t be together in the moment, while they’re both exploring their Personal Legends, but they reunite in the end after they’ve each achieved their independence. This is truer to the actual events in the novel, except Fatima isn’t out exploring her own Personal Legend. She’s presented as waiting for Santiago to return, which gives the reader the idea that her life exists for him. Kind of a lame way to live, if you ask me, but what do I know? I’m twenty-three and have never had a serious relationship.
I’m aware if we look at Fatima as the embodiment of love itself rather than a person, the outcome is a bit different. In that case, Coelho is showing us that we can find love after discovering ourselves. It’s not necessarily that a single person will sit around and wait for us, but that love itself will wait until after we’ve lived out our Personal Legends. While we may find love along the way, the love we find at the end will be the truest. I will grudgingly allow this interpretation, but I don’t think that was his intention.
There are a few other life-lessons that can be gleaned from the protagonists journey. The thing about these lessons, however, is that they’re not for the general population. They’re for those who have time to think about following their heart. It’s difficult to follow your heart or find your Personal Legend when you have bills to pay, you know?
Let’s look at this within the context of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. We can only fulfill our self-actualization needs after we’ve fulfilled our basic and psychological needs, right? I would argue that while most of the U. S. might meet their basic needs (although many struggle to do so), there are few of us who have fulfilled our psychological needs and so on. Let’s take the test together.
Are you in a comfortable living situation (i. e. you have food, water, and shelter without having to worry about it)? Are you safe (i. e. you live in a safe neighborhood or household)? Do you have several intimate friendships or relationships with others? Do you garner a sense of self-accomplishment from your daily life? Do you feel you’ve reached your full potential?
If you answered no to any of those questions, The Alchemist likely won’t help you. One of the reviews on my library copy of The Alchemist was from Julia Roberts, and I’ve since found other mentions of the novel from the likes of Will Smith, Madonna, and Oprah Winfrey. These are the types of people who may benefit from a book like this. Oprah does not worry about budgeting for groceries, she has all the time in the world to follow her heart. I’m not saying her life is easy, nor that she has always had this status of money and fame, but with such a comfortable station in life comes the ability to think more in terms of desire and purpose.
The Alchemist tells us to find our Personal Legend and follow it, but most of us don’t have time to look for it at all. That being said, all hope is not lost for the average person. It’s possible to find your Personal Legend on a budget. It is possible to look at your life, realize it’s not what you want, and change that. That kind of stuff takes more than reading a glorified self-help book, though.
I will grant that for some people, reading The Alchemist might have been the spark that lead them to think about the bigger picture of their life. I’m not saying it’s a useless book. I would put it on the same level as The Secret. Then, I would tell you to watch this: link (spoiler alert: it’s Dave Chappelle. Slight NSFW)
If you loved The Alchemist, here’s what I say to you: great. Subjectively, you are allowed to feel any way you want about a book. These reviews aren’t meant to make anyone feel badly for liking a book that I didn’t like. Objectively speaking, though, some books have more literary merit than others. I am merely asserting that the literary merit of The Alchemist is overinflated, especially by those we deem influential. Some people will agree with me, and some people won’t, isn’t that amazing?
The Lit Wiz