what if one is a really thick, dull dense , unenlightened individual - is it still best to crawl inside ones own tortoiseshell/???

I read Narcissus and Goldmund a couple of months after Demian. It was perfect timing for me.

to the person who suggested I not take this so seriously, I quite agree.

If one wanted to be a tortoise I presume one could withdraw into one's shell. But even tortoises are inherently smart enough to stick out their heads every once in a while, move a few feet, look around in the world, at least to find a tortoise delicacy to eat before going off to take their next nap and, if fortunate, dream about their experiences.

Regarding the post on reading order: personally I would recommend reading Demian before Siddhartha, as in general it may be best to read Hesse's books in chronological order. Hesse's books reflect his personal growth. You will notice that the endings of his earlier books are rather indeterminate, if not disappointing. Think of Hermann Heilner in "Beneath the Wheel" who goes on to a wonderful new life as an artist of which little becomes known, a wishful phantasy of Hesse's at the time he wrote the book. Think of the somewhat hopeful statement of Harry Haller at the end of "Steppenwolf" that sometime in the future he will learn to smile and not take himself so seriously any more. Hesse kept working at the solution as he inched closer to an answer, each book at a time. By all means read "Demian" before Siddhartha. You will find that the complexity and symbolism of "Demian" and its contemporary themes and style are mellowed in "Siddhartha" to bring out a clearer, more straightforward message. And see how dramatic the relapse is in "Guest at the Spa", "Steppenwolf", The "Cisis" poems. Hesse was reaching out in "Siddhartha", only to slide back down the mountain of gravel that he had been trying to climb. To realize Hesse's struggles brings one that much closer to fully appreciating his work and its significance.

i do not write so much english but i tell you that demian is the best book that i read it is very important for the tem and now i am more carefull about the religion .
i would want know to demian he is mi platonic love.

libia from peru

In response to the tortoise shell comments, I just became familiar with the works of Noguchi. His father said that art is a flower than blooms in solitude. Agreeing with that approach, I would say enlightened people ( whoever they are) spend a good deal of time inside of their shell. Of course, the shell is an illusion, from which it is necessary to poke one's head out from time to time in order to maintain life.
As for reading order,
I believe that I will ask for a copy of Siddartha and also Steppenwolf for Christmas presents, as my family celebrates that tradition even though I am not a Christian. I agree that it is best to read all works chronologically, although I think any order of reading could be enjoyable.
I'm sorry it has been so long since my last post here.
Hesse is still my favorite author.

I have read Demian and the most confusing aspect to me was the kiss at the end. the part where he kisses demian. what do you all think it means? also the picture he draws, i think it is of an egg or a bird, something like that. what do you think that means? i never thought that demian or his mother were not real. i dont know i would have to read it again to see. but that book really affected me iin the most important way i think, the way that is truly subconscience and in a way i have not been aware of. i think that book is my favorite do far. it was the first one i read of his. i have only read that one siddartha and steppenwolf so far. i loved the other two i read as well. but demian was just special to me for some reason, i dont know. anyway, tell me what you think the meaning of those two things is, and maybe further comment about demiain and his mother being unreal. thanx.

The people in "Demian" are important figures in the book and in that sense "real". One could think, however, that Emil Sinclair took real figures and made them into something they were not. Just think of your own experience: did you ever meet someone and idolize this person, bestowing all your wishes, hopes, and dreams upon this (perfectly innocent) individual, only to discover later that he or she fell very short of your high hopes and expectations. You had made him or her into something they were not, actually a great injustice to the real person, and in the worst case you might have vented your disappointment on them, just so you ddid not have to blame yourself for your own mistake. Max Demian became for Emil the ideal of a person who was "all together". Emil longed to be like him. After an arduous struggle throughout the book, Emil came close to meeting this challenge of coming to terms with his own life, his nature, his experiences, and being "on top of it" and managing his own life and conflicts well like Max Demian apparently had done. He became - as it were - that which he had always dreamed of, a "Max Demian" himself. The kiss at the end is just a symbol. The ideal, imagined figure merged with the real figure and became one with it. As Max put it: Emil does not need him anymore. It is very likely that the person who realized that he was being idolized by Emil Sinclair congratulated Emil for having "found himself" and withdrew gracefully, figuratively speaking. One must admit, Hesse acquitted himself rather well of the challenge of incorporating this in the story line of his book, even at the surface.

A human being consists of a number of parts; at a simplistic level at least a head, a heart and a body. Hesse, like the majority of people who frequent this forum was a head type, ie. their egos are based or built around their intellects. Hesse came to realize the limitations and problems arising from such a psychological setup (no pun intended) and tried to do something about it, in his own personal way of course. Hence his interest in Jung, Buddhism, the Tao etc. When a head type actually loves he or she is activating or accessing the emotional part of their psyche which is usually repressed into their unconscious by their ego. By accessing the unconscious they are at least moving a bit closer to "God", if we wish to use religious terminology. The question is; To what extent did Hesse actually practice what he wrote about or was he like Wolfgang Pauli who loved to discuss such matters with Jung but refused to enter into analysis when Jung gave him the opportunity?

Da mein Englisch sehr bescheiden ist, werde ich in Deutsch antworten: Ihre Beobachtung ist v›llig richtig. Die Gestalten in Siddhartha, Unterm Rad, Demian, Narziã und Goldmund (und anderen Werken Hesses) sind androgyn. Das híngt mit Hesses fréher Biographie zusammen, denn die erste Liebe seines Lebens galt einem Mitschéler im Internat in Maulbronn. Hesse schreibt als erwachsener Mann daréber: "Es war die gr›ãte Liebe meines Lebens". Es drehte sich dabei wohlgemerkt um ein Geféhl, nicht um Sexualitít. Da diese Verbindung zu dem Schulkameraden erzwungenermaãen beendet wurde (Hesse hat darunter sehr gelitten), wurde dieser Lebensbruch zu einem der bestimmenden Faktoren in Hesses Schreiben. Diese "Liebesbeziehung" findet sich in den meisten Werken Hesses nur oberflíchlich verschlésselt wieder. Ein deutscher Germanist hat deswegen zu Recht festgestellt, daã dieselbe Obsession sowohl Hesse als auch Thomas Mann beim Schreiben angetrieben hat. Interessant ist auch die Reaktion von Andrà Gide auf die Lektére von "Demian". Unébersehbar ist in vielen Werken Hesses eine unterschwellige Homoerotik, die hoch literarisiert wird.