I believe that this site offers a valuable opportunity to have an informative discussion on Hesse's works.

Any thoughts on this work?

(Please don't be afraid to speak up!)

How important is the concept of the synthesis of rationality and emotion is this novel's philosophy? ---The two were opposites and represented different spectrums of human capacity, but they were best friends and needed each other.

And how important is the concept of art as the ultimate creation of emotional expression?

---Duke

What do you think of this book, Duke?

For many people this is their favorite work of Hesse's, others don't seem to care much for it. I remember Ziolkowski in his study on Hesse pointing to the work as being structurally flawed, that the study of nature and spirit which Hesse was attempting was never that convincing. I feel the same way--the book focuses more on Goldmund and Narcissus' character never seems to undergo any convincing development; Narcissus seems almost too forced or too mechanical.

I had a difficult time reading this book when I was very young as I found it quite boring, and so I never got through it. However, I finally read it last year and I really got much out of it... I think one thing that I can recognize in this work is the fact that Hesse was a 'controlled rebel' and he favored a type of focused wildness -a positive outlet for the emotions. So with the balance factor, as far as Narcissus is concerened, yes, Hesse didn't do too much with him. However, I think if one were to examine Hesse's life and how he 'self-willed' himself (he wrote an essay on self will), to control his wild urges as expressed in Knulp and the early Goldmund, one would understand that maybe Hesse only intended Narcissus as an anchor -the exact opposite- for Goldmund. I don't think, philosophically speaking, the novel was meant as a treatise on art or intellectualism, but rather as a vote for a positive synthesis of both aspects of the individual and resulting in something higher than death and destruction, and or wasted energy.

---Because, from Hesse's life, he ran away from school and no one could tell him what to do, and out of that he was able to positively mold his own life to a greater good.

I just cruised in for the first time. I am certainly not afraid to speak up, but I'll control myself until I actully read the book, which i plan to achieve over this weekend. My friend just finished it, and still can't stop raging about it.
Talk to ya then

I fuckin' loved this book, but I couldn't finish it. After Goldmund's escape I couldn't read on... I knew what would happen next... They go back to Mariabronn, Goldmund carves and they die. The question for me is... did he carve another masterpiece to equal that of his 'St. John' ? Did he incorporate the face of Rebbecca the Jewess into that of 'The Great Mother'... Did the life he led (thru the Black Death) change him?

Hi guys!
I'm happy to have run across some Hesse fans.
I happen to be reading this book now.
I love it!
I love the lengthy desription of the artistic process.
Hesse's writings have given me a valuable understanding of myself and humanity in general. For that I love him more than any other author.

Duke,

your claim that: "if one were to examine Hesse's life and how he 'self-willed' himself (he wrote an essay on self will), to control his wild urges .... " is highly interesting, given that Nietzsche was likely a strong influence in Germany, in Hesse's day. If I'm not mistaken, Nietzsche's philosophy puts "will" on a pedestal ... hence the expression: "the will to power," but you seem to suggest that the self, for Hesse, was primary ... be it based on some personal existentialism or reason or some combination of the two. If this is so, and it seems to be (in the context of all his work), it is little wonder, then, that he wasn't comfortable with the social currents in his native land. In any case, I hadn't given any of this much thought, until now that you've brought it up .... thank you.

John