This beautifully written philosophical novel, that like most of Hesse’s work explores the theme of individual search for self-realization, was a genuine pleasure to read as well as to reflect on later on. It is one of those books that stays with you. I read it ages ago, but I can remember it without making any mental effort whatsoever. It stayed in my heart and in my mind. The language used is fairly simple, but beautiful nevertheless and powerful in the messages it delivers. The story is quite easy to follow, which is logical because it is focused mostly on one character. As the novel has to do with his own personal search for beauty, it could be said that the story of his life (and all the events that take place) isn’t the focus of this novel. I mean there is a story to follow, as philosophical as it may be, this novel is never a mere collection of meditations and essays. There is the main character whose life story we shall learn and there are also other characters that matter, that aren’t only symbols, yet it is clear from the start that the story of the protagonist’s life isn’t the only thing that matters in this novel, that there is some deeper message to be found.

The novel is less focused on events as than on mediating about the meaning of live itself. It is about spiritualty? That depends on how you see it, how you define spirituality, this is not a book that will feed you any dogma or give you a set of rules to live by. Narcissus and Goldmund is a novel that doesn’t show you the meaning of life, for such a thing is hardly possibile, but what does this novel do is show you what such a search looks like. It is about searching for meaning. We are all trying to make sense of this world we live it. We do it in our own different ways, for we’re all endowed with different temperaments and characters. Hence, there are no easy answers. I see this book as a meditation on the beauty and the power of Art. Any flaws that appear in the narrative therefore I find to be irrelevant. I think that I didn’t even experience Narcissus and Goldmund as a typical narrative. It's more philosophical in nature, more a novel of ideas, more like reading a religious text than anything else, and that is the beauty of it... or at least that is what I have found in it. What a profound novel it really is!

I loved the contrast between the two main characters, Narcissus and Goldmund and the true friendship that exists between them. That was my favourite part of the book and I think it adds a lot of depth to the writing as a whole. The writer managed to create a wonderful character to contrast our protagonist. The friendship he described was very touching, but never sentimental. It is true emotional, pure and beautiful. I believe that such a friendship is a very rare thing. Perhaps what I liked most about this book is how it acknowledges the fundamental differences that can and often do exist between two people. So much more refreshing (and closer to truth) than saying we're all alike.
Just observing that delicate friendships that oddly sometimes exist between the people who see the world in completely different way somehow felt enriching. It made me rethink great deal of things. Not all differences are differences and not all the similarities, one could say. However, one might mean different things by saying this. The meaning of words is harder to pin down than we think. We're so used to thinking in a certain way, most of us anyway, that we fail to understand that there is always something more, something behind our words that we cannot explain. This novel did a wonderful job of capturing that and I love it for it.

Take for example this friendship between Narcissus and Goldmund. From a worldly perspective, these two man have nothing in common and yet on some higher level they feel a deep connection, the kind that most people never experience...and yet the similarity between them is as important as the difference is.

If I would care to, I could find a number of illogical things in this novel (unrealistic stories or plot developments, characterization of minor characters etc), small imperfections and weak points. However, I don’t want to. There is a reason why I don’t feel like doing it. The point is that this novel is a great piece of writing. I don't care to even notice those small flaws and the reason why I don't care to do so is because this is a work of art. Being what it is, in one way I really do feel that is perfect as it is. You don't dissect a work of art. This is a work of art, of that I’m absolutely sure.

Intellect and Passion
17 July 2015

tThis is the first Hesse book that I have read and I must thank my book club for selecting it for the June book. I have to say that I wasn't really sure what to expect – the only other German author that I had read that happened to be a contemporary of Hesse was Gunter Grass and his play The Plebians Reherse the Uprising was much more political in scope. However, with books like Sidhartha sitting on my shelf, I probably shouldn't be to surprised that Hesse tends to take a much more spiritual slant than does Grass.

tAnyway, the story is about this young boy, Goldmund, who is dropped off at a monastery by his father and meets the monk Narcissus. Goldmund, as it turned out, never knew his mother (apparently she was a prostitute) so never experienced the nurture that having a mother brings. As such he falls in love with Narcissus, but is rebuffed by him, and Narcissus ends up locking himself away in a room to meditate. Goldmund, meanwhile, goes for a walk in the country and encounters a gypsy woman who then makes love to him and as such he discovers the beauty of sex. Mistaking sex for love he decides to leave the monastery and to spend his time with this gypsy girl, however when he returns she tells him that she is married and must return to her husband. So instead of returning to the monastery he decides to wander the land where he sleeps with many, many women and comes to understand himself as an artist.

Sex
tAs I said, I wasn't really sure what I was going to expect from the novel and when it became clear that Goldmund was pretty much wandering around medieval Germany having heaps and heaps of sex I was sort of wandering whether this was little more than soft porn, or whether Hesse had an influence on Piers Anthony. In fact the one thing that kept on coming to mind was how would a feminist take this book. Basically we have this guy who seems to have a huge amount of sex-appeal to the point that women simply want to rip off their clothes and basically (pardon the French) screw his brains out. In a way it seemed to be little more that what I got from Bio of a Space Tyrant.

tHowever, the more I think about it the more I realise that this is not necessarily the case. Sure, the first girl he encounters wants to have sex with him, but at the time he was an innocent young man who had basically been tempted by a gypsy. As we progress through the novel we come to see that the women aren't necessarily all throwing themselves at him and that he must seduce them. This is the case in the knight's castle where he has to seduce Lydia, as well as the concubine at the end of the book. Also, not every girl is caught by his charms. Firstly, in the knight's castle, when Julia decides to climb into bed with him, while Lydia is also there, you are (or at least I was) expecting there to be a threesome, and just as it is about the begin Lydia storms out and tells her father (resulting in some bad things happening). Also, when he encounters the Jewish girl, she soundly rebukes him. I probably should also mention that at the end of the book, when he discovers that his favourite concubine has returned, when he encounters her she is no longer interested in him.

tThe other thing that is interesting is that Goldmund isn't actually a dashing young man – he is poor and homeless, much like this guy:



tThough we must remember that this is the medieval world as opposed to the modern world. Still, he is poor and he is wandering from town to town with no purpose and no goal. As for the girls that he ends up sleeping with, they aren't princesses, they are peasant girls, thought probably not like this one because she is somewhat idealised:



Purpose
tThe interesting thing about Goldmund is that he has no purpose in lif, and this is something that keeps on coming back to us. He is a wanderer, a vagrant, with no goal and no desire behind his immediate pleasure. This is something that he is confronted with at the beginning of the book since Narcissus has a goal but Goldmund doesn't. In a way the journey that he takes is a journey in search of himself and in search of goal. He does find one a couple of times, but once he has succeeded in this goal he is left, once again, to wander the world in search of meaning. In fact, even at the end of the book when he goes on his final, fateful, journey, it is clear that there is no real over arching goal to his life. Once he has completed his immediate goal he is left to wander a meaningless existence until he meets his fate.

tIn many ways this seems to be a reflection of our modern world. As a young person I had a goal, and that was to complete university. Once I had achieved that goal I needed a new one, and that was to get a job. Yet with many of us once we have that job that is all life becomes. Getting up early, going to the office, working, and then going home (in a way it seems that we live the existance that Bill Murray did in Groundhog Day). Okay, many of us get married, but that is another chain that binds us to a meaningless existence of work, sleep, work, weekend, and the occasional holidays (if we are lucky enough to get that). If we have to goal, once we hit the world of the worker these goals suddenly become out of reach.

tIn a way many of our goals are meaningless, and simply, like Goldmund, become a repetitive search for fleeting pleasure. However, what he comes to realise is that the fleeting pleasure is meaningless because what is more important is to leave a legacy. Many of us get to that point where we end up becoming little more than a shadowy existence – we are born, we live, and then we die. In the grand scheme of things our existence is little more than dust that quickly blows away into forgetfulness. Sure, there are some who have left a lasting impact, but how many of the wealthy elite of 19th Century England are still remembered today? Even more, who can name the CEO's of the major corporations back in the 60s, the 70s, or even the 80s. Sure, these people were rich and lived luxurious lives, but in the end they have been forgotten. In fact, who is even going to remember the name of the CEO of the Ford Motor Company ten years from now?

Art
tGoldmund's legacy turned out to be art, and Hesse's idea here is interesting in that he suggests that the work of the artist comes out of the artist's passion. The interesting thing about these two characters (and I will get to Narcissus shortly) is that neither of them are incredibly wealthy, but both of them left behind a legacy, or at least Goldmund did. In a way wealth isn't necessarily something that will end up creating a name for yourself, and in fact if we consider many of the people that did leave behind a legacy, none of them are particularly wealthy. Take for instance the guy who painted this picture:



tWe have all heard of Van Gogh, and many of us think that he was a brilliant artist, however not many people at the time he painted this painting thought all that much of him. In fact he wasn't all that wealthy either. Or consider this guy:



tSure, he wrote some incredibly popular plays and novels, such as The Importance of Being Ernest and The Picture of Dorian Grey but he died without a cent to his name. Also, despite what you believe, there is also this guy:



twho is apparently one of the most recognisable figures in Western Culture (though according Morgan Spurlock Ronald McDonald is much more recognisable, but that is beside the point) was executed of blasphemy and basically grew up as a peasant and spent the last three years of his life wandering around ancient Palestine as an itinerant preacher.

tI guess my point is, and the idea that came out of this novel, is that wealth doesn't necessarily leave a legacy, and in fact many of the wealthy people of times past are little more than footnotes in history (if that) yet many of the people who at the time were considered to be hopeless losers, never capable of amounting to anything, have left an enduring legacy.

Narcissus
tOne of the odd things about this book is the character of Narcissus. The name comes from an ancient Greek legend about this really beautiful dude who didn't realise that his was beautiful, but was then tricked into looking into a pond and ended up dying because he could not stop looking at the beautiful image in the pond. Hesse's Narcissus didn't come across like that. Rather, to me, he was one of those dry intellectuals that locks himself in his ivory tower contemplating the meaning of life. I guess the beginning of the book painted him as such when he withdrew from Goldmund simply because he could not handle the fact that Goldmund loved him. However it wasn't until the end, when Goldmund returns from his travels, and then leaves again, that he realises how much he admired the guy.

tThe suggestion is that Hesse is painting the picture of the passionate artist and the souless intellectual and how while both of them seem to be completely the opposite but in many ways are the same. I guess it isn't something that I really can equate to though, since after finishing this book, in a way I am both Goldmund and Narcissus – you could say a passionate intellectual.

Goldmund could not fit into the Mariabronn Monastery anymore than a square peg could fit into a round hole and soon left the cloister for the vagrant life. By sleeping in the woods, killing Viktor the thief, meeting the plague, studying under Meister Niklaus and romancing with Lydia and Julie, Lene and Agnes, he explored the sensual life as an artist. When Agnes rejected the old man that he was, he returned to the monastery to meet his friend and mentor Narziss before leaving the world.


Calw, Germany

On the other hand, at home in Mariabronn with the chestnut tree and knowing that his way differs from that of Goldmund, Narziss, isolated from the flesh’s pleasure and pain, lived out the monastic life, praying, meditating, searching for enlightenment through intellectual and ascetic disciplines. The way of the mystic was for Narziss as much as the way of the artist was for Goldmund.


Hermann Hesse

Hermann Hesse, throughout his life, sought Goldmund’s artistic way--the emotional, prodigal, active, and sensual path--but ended up with Narziss’s mystical way--the intellectual, disciplined, contemplative, and ascetic path.

I truly enjoy some of Hesse's poems. But I do not enjoy his (style of writing in) prose. He is quite different in his poetry. Usually, I do not rate novels by Hermann Hesse as it it not fair towards the author. I do not like the way he writes prose. And this is not the author's fault. I can understand why he is widely loved. For me reading Hesse just means strife. (I cannot blame it on the translation as I can read German.)

To me it always feels like a never-ending mandatory read in class at a too young age (when you can not quite grasp/appreciate it) at the wrong time and against my wishes. And I really want to skip pages as I struggle my way through the prose.

I have read 4 of his novels including this. All were 2-stars experiences to me. I really tried. I tried again because I felt there was a possibility that I would enjoy "Narziß und Goldmund" due to the truly interesting concept/subject matter.

The reason that I am rating this is to prevent a request for a Hesse-buddy read (other than poetry).

Ebba

A beautiful book. One to remember and keep close to you. I highly recommend it.

One day, in the coffee corner,
met the artist and the thinker;
Over cappuccino started again,
the perennial debate, 'Who's greater?'

"Knowledge is life's sole goal,"
said the rationalist.
"Life but beauty darker than coal,"
argued the empiricist.

"O' My dearest friend,
your comprehension comes as a pity;
It's only with knowledge,
that one truly appreciates beauty."

"Beauty in itself is complete,
who needs knowledge to analyze?
And if you still can't get it,
I suggest, go fly a kite."

"Beauty is a mirage,
that withers with age,
Ah! the big fool you are,
fails to see 'Knowledge is Power'"

"Don't you know that 'Ignorance is Bliss',
What values more, a scepter or a kiss?
'A thing of beauty is joy for ever'
A blind like you can understand never"

The duel continues
between mind and heart,
And the soul smiles,
enjoying both reason and art.

This was truly a magical reading experience for me. It came out of nowhere -- I'd never heard of this particular title before, despite my bibliophilic tendencies, and I had always avoided reading Hesse out of some nonsense premonition that I wouldn't enjoy his writing style. I was so wrong about that last part.

A dear friend loaned this book to me while I was hospitalized last spring. The hideous front cover was held on by a thread, and didn't even make it to the finish line. The pages were brown, marked up. It was slow-going at first, with all the endless conversations about monastery life, and I ended up putting it on hold. But at least I had enough sense to realize it was my less-than-ideal reading environment, combined with my slipshod state of mind at the time, to know that it wasn't the book itself, but the circumstances surrounding my reading of it.

When I picked it up again, my affection for Narcissus and Goldmund was almost immediate. Set in medieval Germany, this book is not exactly a fantasy, but it has that sense of timelessness that I imagine characterizes epic fantasy. It explores huge themes: duality, the human longing for purpose, aging and mortality, the nature of art, the conflict between flesh and spirit. (I'd probably be able to explain it better if I had read more philosophy texts in college.) The philosophical musings don't feel ultra-ponderous; they're luscious and they flow and they feel intrinsic to the story.

This whole book is sensual as fuck. Goldmund is a ladies' man, dedicating his young adulthood to the art of seduction and the pleasures of the flesh. The depictions of women are sometimes problematic -- although I do commend Hesse for never buying into the whole virgin/whore dichotomy -- but this was such a small grievance for me that it didn't ruin my experience.

I won't belabor my review with a plot summary. It's best to just dip your feet straight into the warm bath of its bewitching language.

Ich habe Hesse in Jugendjahren verschlungen und damals Narziß und Goldmund als mein liebstes Werk gekürt. Nun war ich gespannt, welche Wirkung es nach über 30 Jahren auf mich haben würde. Letztlich bin ich gefestigt in meiner Meinung. Ich finde, es ist eine wunderbare Lektüre, auch wenn Kritiker Hesse hier Mittelmäßigkeit, Trivialität und Romantisierung vorwerfen.

Das Buch spielt im Mittelalter in Süddeutschland, wahrscheinlich im 14. Jahrhundert aufgrund des Auftretens der Pest. Hesse wählt bewusst eine Sprache, die zwar altertümlich-romantisch klingt, aber keineswegs zeitgemäß bei Erscheinen des Buchs war. Ende der 20er Jahre schrieb Hesse diesen Entwicklungsroman in seiner neuen Schweizer Heimat, während die Weimarer Republik ums Überleben kämpfte und das Deutschtum sich langsam von seiner hässlichen Seite zeigte. In diesem Tohuwabohu setzt er diese romantische Erzählung als Gegenentwurf in die Welt, wo vieles „hold“ und „lieblich“ ist. Mir gefällt dieses gegen den Strom schwimmen von Hesse.

Sein Thema ist die Suche nach Vollkommenheit, nach dem Wesen des Seins. Narziß und Goldmund sind Lehrer und Schüler in einem Kloster zu Beginn der Erzählung. Narziß ist der Denker, der Asket, der Geistesmensch, die männliche Seite, der über den Intellekt sich auf der Suche nach der Vollkommenheit macht. Goldmund als sein Schüler ist scheinbar der Gegensatz von ihm, der Genußmensch, der Künstler, gefühlvoll und voller Wolllust und Liebestrieb, die weibliche Seite, der über die Kunst sich der Vollkommenheit nähert, nachdem er das Kloster verlässt und sich auf Wanderschaft begibt. Manche Reviewer kritisieren, dass die Beiden Antipoden sind, dass Hesse zu sehr schwarz-weiß zeichnet. Das sehr ich nicht so, denn sowohl in Narziß als auch in Goldmund steckt auch ein Teil des jeweils Anderen. Es gibt keine reine Ausprägung dieser Charaktereigenschaften und am Ende des Buchs, als die Beiden als alte Männer wieder zusammen kommen, ist Goldmund der Lehrer für Narziß, der inzwischen Abt Johannes heißt. Dieser erkennt, dass sich der Freund über die Kunst (Bildhauerei) viel mehr dem wahren Leben und der Urmutter nähern konnte. „Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach, in meiner Brust“: selbst bei Goethe werden die Kräfte, die in einem modernen, intelligenten Menschen ziehen, der Geist und Körper, thematisiert. Hesse hat die Antwort gefunden, in dem er den Weg Goldmunds trotz dessen Entbehrungen, der ständigen Begegnungen mit dem Tod und die Ruhelosigkeit als den Erstrebenswertesten darstellt. Mich hat das als Jugendlicher fasziniert, wie Goldmund für eine Sache brennt, welche Leidenschaft er an den Tag legt bei seiner künstlerischen Arbeit wie in seinem Umgang mit den vielen Frauen, die er in seinem langen Leben beglückt. Letztlich ist die Kunst das Bindeglied zwischen Geist und Körper. Eine Vorstellung, die mir nach wie vor gefällt.

The book is spectacular and extremely thought provoking. Out of all, probably the following paragraph left the adequate impression.

“All existence seemed to be based on duality, on contrast. Either one was a man or one was a woman, either a wanderer or a sedentary burgher, either a thinking person or a feeling person – no one could breathe in at the same time as he breathed out, be a man as well as a woman, experience freedom as well as order, combine instinct and mind. One always had to pay for the one with the loss of the other, and one thing was always just as important and desirable as the other.”

Is it then the futile attempt to balance between the two inner clashes, being the most difficult of all professions, a hypocrisy to an incomplete life?

... Artist, Smartist

“We fear death, we shudder at life's instability, we grieve to see the flowers wilt..., and the leaves fall, and in our hearts we know that we, too, are transitory and will soon disappear. When artists create pictures and thinkers search for laws and formulate thoughts, it is in order to salvage something from the great dance of death, to make something last longer than we do.”

Probably the most vivid contrast I've read between, on one hand, the beauty of the skin, visual art and sensual pleasures, and, on the other, the splendors of the spirit, stability, science and logic.

Herman Hesse's brilliant philosophical novel (1930) involves two friends in medieval Germany. Largely metaphorical, this has the feel of a cautionary fairy tale with no true compass as to geography or time. The story begins when Goldmund, a student, and Narcissus, a teacher only a few years older, become friends at a cloister school. At first, Goldmund earnestly focuses on his studies, but then a few fellow students invite him to go off campus, where he's seduced by a young Gypsy girl. From that day forward, his mind never wanders far from thoughts of women, their sheer beauty and the pleasures of the senses.



He leaves and on his journeys he has numerous affairs with women of all ages, statuses and sizes (similar to Wilt Chamberlain in legion and legend). All women find him irresistible. Yes, the novel is sexist. Goldmund falls for the first young lady to say no, loses her to the serpent of lust for her younger, prettier sister, and then travels far and wide. He settles to become a sculptor for several years, able to brilliantly capture the beauty he has seen. He becomes restless, continues his travels and runs into the unmitigated ugliness of the Black Death. I'll add no more so I don't spoil the story, except to say that when both Goldmund and Narcissus, now an abbot, are much older, they visit and converse at length with each other.

This is an excellent classic.

Free for Audible-UK-Plus member!!!!!!!
It might be free for Audible-US-Plus members too.
It’s very well read by Simon Vance, a favorite narrator of many.

********************

Having read books by Herman Hesse in the past and having been confused by them, I have avoided other books by the author. Recently told by Rosemarie, a GR friend whose opinions I trust, that this book was not confusing and had wonderfully descriptive prose, I decided to give it a try. For goodness sake, it’s now free, so why not?

This is a book about two men, Narcissus and Goldmund, friends of very different personality types and temperaments. One is a scholarly ascetic thinker, religious and analytical (Narcissus). The other is turned on by the sensory and the physical. This is Goldmund. He is intuitive, sensual and artistic. Women have a strong attraction for him. The two meet at a monastery boarding school for boys. One becomes an abbot. The other leaves the monastery to experience and live life to the brim. Both ponder life’s meaning. You might say, Goldmund lives life while Narcissus thinks about life.

The setting is German areas during the Middle Ages. We observe both how people behave during and after the years of the Black Death. Years pass. The two friends meet up again. What has life taught each of them? How do the two relate, now, so many years later?

The prose is beautifully descriptive, both in relation to people and places. At the start I liked the writing very much, but its freshness wore off for me. Goldmund’s flirtations and infatuations become repetitive. The manifest beauty of health, spirit and the desire to live to the fullest began to wear thin the further the book progresses. I found the ending trite. Goldmund, as he ages, is unable to deal with the loss of his virility and sexual attraction. When women are no longer turned on by him, but view him instead as an old man, he falls apart both mentally and physically.

The story becomes repetitive. Goldmund’s string of girls begins to blur. I began to forget exactly which woman was which. The female characters are not the prime focus, and as such, they are not fully developed.

The book started out strong but began to go downhill for me.

There are philosophical discussions between the two friends. Some captured my attention, for example the importance of having a goal In life and the value of art. Other discussions go off in directions that flounder. That images have no place in mathematical reasoning is not something I would agree with. The reasoning here is diffuse.

Simon Vance reads the audiobook. He’s popular, but he is not a favorite of mine. For this book though, his narration is very good. He captures mood well and how different characters think, feel and react. I have given his narration four stars.

So, what am I saying? The story and the prose grab the reader’s attention at the start, but both peter out the further one progresses. What at the start seemed worthy of five stars fizzled down to three. I express merely how I have reacted to this book.

n  "Noi pensatori cerchiamo di avvicinarci a Dio staccando il mondo da lui. Tu ti avvicini a lui amando e ricreando la sua creazione. Sono entrambe opere umane e inadeguate, ma l'arte è più innocente."n

Questo non è un libro che andrebbe letto a diciannove anni. Diciannove sono già troppi. Andrebbe letto prima, a quattordici o a quindici, quando il mondo lo si vede ancora in modo diverso. Io, da ragazzo, ci leggo qualcosa di diverso rispetto a quello che avrei potuto leggerci da ragazzino. O rispetto a quello che potrò leggerci tra venti, trenta, quarant'anni. Il mondo che vediamo attraverso gli occhi di Boccadoro è un mondo che sembra uscito da una favola. Sia nei suoi aspetti negativi che in quelli positivi. Tralasciando il fattore stilistico e le capacità di Hesse, proprio di questo stiamo parlando: di una favola. E la conseguenza è che una favola, bene o male, affascina e commuove. Una favola fa riflettere. Apre gli occhi oppure fa innervosire. E questa fa tutto insieme.

Boccadoro è una figura resa estrema e quasi buffa nella sua continua ricerca di piacere e di nuovo. Come il Lucio di Apuleio, Boccadoro si macchia - ripetutamente - del peccato di curiositas. Questo suo cercare nasce all'inizio del romanzo, quando l'amico Narciso prova a fargli capire quale sia la sua vera vocazione attraverso dialoghi che ricordano molto la contrapposizione nicciana tra spirito dionisiaco e spirito apollineo. Narciso e Boccadoro sono due facce della stessa medaglia: la vita. Essi rappresentano due condizioni esistenziali diverse, condizioni che possono e devono convivere.

"«[...] Non è il nostro compito, quello d'avvicinarci, così come non s'avvicinano fra loro il sole e la luna, o il mare e la terra. Noi due, caro amico, siamo il sole e la luna, siamo il mare e la terra. La nostra meta non è di trasformarci l'uno nell'altro, ma di conoscerci l'un l'altro e d'imparare a vedere nell'altro ciò ch'egli è: il nostro opposto e il nostro complemento»."

Vedete, la vita di Boccadoro è caricaturale perché Hesse doveva spiegare la fanciullezza e l'arte attraverso questo personaggio. Mi ha irritato sì, è risultato spesso ripetitivo e mi ha fatto capire che non vorrò mai scrivere un romanzo in questo modo, ma è anche riuscito nel suo intento, e per questo lo lodo. Hesse è un grande filosofo e un poco abile scrittore. Infatti mi è riuscito molto antipatico Boccadoro e tanto simpatico Narciso. Perché io ormai ho diciannove anni e non quattordici o quindici.

"Narciso lo guardò, grave: «Io ti prendo sul serio quando sei Boccadoro. Ma tu non sei sempre Boccadoro. Io non mi auguro altro se non che tu divenga Boccadoro in tutto e per tutto. Tu non sei un erudito, tu non sei un monaco... per far un erudito e un monaco basta una stoffa meno preziosa della tua. Tu credi che ti giudichi troppo poco erudito, troppo poco logico o troppo poco pio. No, per me sei troppo poco te stesso»."

Questa frase esprime splendidamente il concetto secondo il quale è importante, anzi, fondamentale, essere se stessi. O meglio: diventare se stessi. Boccadoro diventerà se stesso, sì, ma solo grazie all'aiuto di Narciso. Solo grazie alla sua illuminazione. Troverà l'amore e l'arte ma non troverà mai la felicità. Perché, in un certo senso, la felicità non è una delle facoltà dell'artista. E, in fondo al romanzo, capiamo che forse non è facoltà nemmeno dell'erudito, del pensatore, dell'uomo sereno ed equilibrato. Forse non è facoltà nemmeno di Narciso.

Io credo che regalerei questo libro a persone più giovani di me, sebbene non sarà mai tra i miei libri preferiti. Lo regalerei perché potrebbe diventare il loro, di libro preferito. Potrebbe dare una prospettiva di vita in un momento cruciale del proprio percorso, ovvero i primi passi nel mondo dell'adolescenza. E la risposta, queste persone a cui regalerei il libro, la troverebbero quasi sicuramente in Boccadoro. Io, che ho diciannove anni, non l'ho trovato né in Narciso né in Boccadoro. Per me questo libro non ha riservato risposte, ma solo altri dubbi. Una favola crudele. Nel bene e nel male, però, resta uno specchio reale dell'animo umano.