Hello everyone !

Hermann Hesse is, without doubt, one of my favourite writers. Currently, I'm experiencing some health problems and it's a wonderful comfort to open one of his books, to lose myself in its pages and perspectives. And, every time I do, I can't help but sense a part of me within what I read. I love the expression: "the reader half writes the poem" and so it is very true.

I was happily surprised to discover this forum last night. And, so, for argument sake, I thought I'd share one of my Siddhartha stories with you all. When I was still working, I taught senior high school English, in Niagara Falls, Canada. One of my students was/is a very bright girl from Denmark. I lent her a copy of Siddhartha, thinking that she'd relate and enjoy the work. Initially she said she thought it was wonderful. Then, out of the blue, she said: "There's only one problem with that book, it completely lacks the female perspective ! " I didn't know what to say, but it did make me think.

So, instead of sharing how I view her criticism, I thought it would be a great idea to ask you all how you'd respond ?

Good to meet you all !

John

Hi Hi !
infact Iım male and I canıt say much about what a woman feels while reading that book
I think the novel , like most of Hesses work deals with the problem of finding yourself and building your true character .
And in my opinion you come to a fulfilled charakter when it
comes to a confusion of your male and female charactaristics or when you integrate male and female power
and qualities .
and I would not devide between male and female perspektive in the question of finding your Buddha nature .

ciao
macke

macke,

that's an excellent response and explanation. I agree with you ... but, then, again, I'm also a male and so I don't know how a woman would perceive the story. All I can say is that I'm in agreement; enlightenment, I would think, is beyond sexual differentiation ... but, we have to accept the possibility that the roads for the two are likely different ones and perhaps this is what she didn't like about "Sidhartha," that his road was not one that she could relate to.

Now, to come clean, my response to the student was more like that of the others, that have read the post, without responding because when she said it, I was knocked off balance and honestly didn't know what to say without upsetting her. My feeling was the same as your's ... but, I took the cowardly or enlightened way out ...... silence.

Thank you for responding ... I wasn't sure anyone would.

Sincerely,

John

I AM a female reader. I have just finished Siddhartha as part of my summer search for new material to teach in the fall. I agree with Annonymous who answered your post that the novel has to do with the cycle of life and "finding one's self." Most novels DO have a feminine or masculine point of view or perspective, but I think that in this novel, the perspective is human period. The primary female character Kamala was also on a "search," but I think her path was not delineated because the bulk of the focus was on Siddhartha. And, in the end, I think she found a "peace" similar to that which both Siddhartha and Govinda found. My answer to your student would have been that Siddhartha's experiences were universal and not so much based on sexuality.

K

HOW ABSOLUTELY TRUE. HESSE WAS THE SENSAI OF THE ROMANTIC. HE WAS ABLE TO PEER INTO OUR DEEPEST YEARNINGS AND CREATE POSSIBLE AND HABITABLE WORLDS, HOWEVER PARADOXICAL THEIR RULES. MAGISTER LUDI THE PRIME EXAMPLE.

IT IS TRUE THAT HE FOLLOWED A MALE STAR, THAT MOST OF HIS FEMALE CHARACTERS PLAY MINOR ROLES, BUT THAT WAS A PRODUCT OF HIS LIFE AND TIMES. I AM NOT SURE WHO IS THERE NOW TO TAKE HIS PLACE AS A FABULIST, AND CONSTRUCTOR OF DREAM PALACES, BUT HIS GENTLE AURA ALLOWS ALL WHO DARE TO ENTER HIS HEAVENLY REALISED REALMS.

It's interesting to hear from a female (kws) that Siddhartha encompasses the female perspective as well. I, as a male, would have assumed otherwise, but then again, I guess I am biased. However, I would have made the comment that a male point of view does not take away from the value of the work. After all, much of Hesse's writing was in some way autobiographical, and thus, such a perspective would be natural. I think that it is important to realize that not every work of art or literature has to necessarily be universal, but can still be appreciated within the confines which it sets for itself. Siddhartha, though, does seem to reach out to quite a large number of people.

I would say that if all great novels had to include the female perspective, or male for that matter, they would cease to be what they are. Siddhartha is one of my favourite short reads - I've read it dozens of times. The book is about his own quest for fulfillment, not anyone elses. At the point in the book where he 'screws' (sorry for being crass - but that is what it is) her, the reader does not need to know her feelings. The reader (if most are like me) is being enlightened as to how one singular individual treads the road leading, for him, to inner peace as a ferryman, with the river as teacher and friend. I think anyone looking for a "female perspective" (or any other perspective other than "Sid's") is missing the point of the book.

The first thing that occurred to me wasn't Hesse's Siddhartha, which may have all male characters, but Steppenwolf where Hermine and Hermann are part of each other. It strikes me that Hesse sees both male and female in each of us. In Siddhartha it was the river where the noises and pictures all flowed together into one and eventually 'Om'.

I find this surprising because "Siddhartha" is a revolutionary work in its Eastern-influenced combination between the masculine and feminine. Obviously influenced by the yin/yang balance, it was a brave and new thing to consider. It only seems particularly masculine due to a very modern and ignorant perspective, one that has taken the feminine revolution for granted.

I believe that "Siddhartha" is the next step from "Steppenwolf", creating the actual androgynous mind from the split fantasy. In her novel "A Room of One's Own", Virginia Woolf discusses the androgynous mind, which is the supreme artistic mind. It's a combination of both male and female characteristics; the true artistic voice combines both so equally that it's almost impossible to distinguish between either. It's interesting that both were published during a similar time period.

Siddhartha may seem masculine because of Hesse's writing style and adaptation of the Bildungsroman, but not because of its content. The content seems more masculine, but that's only due to a sexuality and eroticism that is necessary to the novel. It's part of the realism that distinguishes Hesse's adaptation from the story of the actual Siddhartha Gautama.

Also, these kinds of judgments can't really be made without a good understanding Hesse's actual text. So many things are lost in translation and misunderstanding of Hesse's German, which is quite beautiful, tranquil and transcendent.

I still think it is missing the point to look for an insight into any other character in this wonderful story other than Siddhartha's own. Are we supposed to understand his lover's or his father's viewpoint? His friend's?His lover's? - It is unnecessary to understand what led her to be his sexual initiation? We are not following them - they are a different story.

We are following the life of one person as if his path were our own. In his place we could only guess or sense the feelings, motives and state of being of anyone else he encounters. We are not supposed to have any divine insight to the other characters; rather I believe Hesse desired the reader to acknowledge that ones own self is the most important entity to understand. We are not meant to possess the eye of god or have the gift of glimpsing others' souls. The story is a simple one. The message in this book (for me) is that human contact (speech/friendship/sex/kinship etc) are only true pleasures if there is a thirst for knowledge of one's self alongside them, because if we abandon that quest for self knowledge (actualisation?) then all else in life is ultimately meaningless?