Talk:Narcissus and Goldmund

I think that the synopsis of the novel found in this article deviates from mere description and gets deep into the realm of interpretation. I think the interpretation is astute, but I wonder if this is appropriate for a synopsis. I'm not so experienced at writing Wikipedia articles, so I won't change it.

What is this (unsourced) claptrap?
"Many basic natural emotions we possess have been subdued over time because of our intelligence. But the Ecstasy/Pain spectrum is the one major thing that still connects us to the natural world, these pure animal feelings that no one is ashamed of."

No one is ashamed of, if there were one taboo, shame binding affair that would be ecstasy and pain.

"These feelings come from our nature, and all humanity will forever be attached to it because of our most important emotions, the emotions that form the basis of all other emotions, the worst, most intense pain and suffering, and the greatest feelings of elation and ecstasy we could possibly imagine. We will never be able to escape these physical feelings, no matter how advanced our science or subdued our natural instincts."

So which exactly are the feelings that DO NOT come from nature, but come from, uh, the great beyond say?

Narcissus?
In my version of the book, the title is Narziss and Goldmund. Why is this different? I have a UK version which it says is not to be distributed in the USA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I don't think you should read too much into this difference. In German the flower known as narcissus is called Narziss. Presumably the translate of your volume found it more appropriate to use the German term. (This is typical of the kind of trade-offs translators face).

By the way, neither Narziss nor Goldmund are common in Germany. In fact you would be quite unlikely to encounter someone bearing either name.

It is irrelevant how common the names are in Germany. They are the names the author choose to use. It is laughably illiterate that some choose to 'translate' the name of a plant, which just happens also to be the name chosen by the author for one of the protagonists of his novel. It would be as ludicrous as to 'translate' the name 'John' in a biography of John F Kennedy to 'Sean'. However, Wikipedia is often a showcase for US illiteracy, which gives much mirth to the educated, so perhaps best, i.e. more entertaining, to retain the crassness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.228.53 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

--Philopedia 04:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Obfuscating Terminology
While the terms Dionysian and Apollonian (used in the article) are quite poetic, I wonder whether they might not confuse some readers. Might it not be more to the point to talk about the contrast between a sensual and an intellectual nature?

--Philopedia 04:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Homoerotic
It might be worth mentioning the homoerotic overtones in this novel. Opinions?

--Philopedia 04:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the homoeroticism you noticed are not inherent in the novel but, rather, in your noticing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.226.146 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC) (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

After reading this, I came on here to see if it mentioned the homoeroticism I noticed. That would be helpful. -Clockwrist (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that it's not mentioned here or on the page for Under the Wheel, which has gay coming-of-age subtext. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.226.146 (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that in all of the Talk pages about Hesse's works this is the only time anyone bothers to point out any homosexual thread of meaning; I am disheartened to presuppose the justification for mentioning homoerotic overtone in this novel is the brief - albeit specific - mention of a kiss between two boys. Other works by Hesse also indicate nuances of homosexual proclivity, and probably much more powerfully so than Narcissus and Goldmund.  Mention of homo-eroticism in Hesse articles belies the larger themes which I believe the author is incorporating into his work.  I suspect reference to homosexuality in a Wikipedia article of Hesse's work would only be luridly distracting.IcehouseCover (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Interpretation of Themes
The Nietzschean dualist theme of the Apollonian and Dionysian is conceptually irrelevant and analogously incorrect to the story. Further, it is potentially confusing for a new reader unfamiliar to both Hesse and Nietzsche. The theme of the Apollonian and Dionysian belongs to the domain of the interpretation of art. Narcissus is certainly not representative of the Apollonian, as the Apollonian refers not to a "thinker", but the kinds of art forms that represent their individuated forms clearly: in prose and poetry, in spoken words, in sculpture or any kind of plastic craft. Narcissus, being a sculptor himself (a sculpture being the prime Apollonian art form) and spending most of his time as a wayfarer rather than in drunken orgies, is absolutely not the personification of the Dionysian. If we have to force the concept of Nietzsche's idea of tragedy into the story, Goldmund is manifestly the tragic character - one who imbues both the Apollonian and Dionysian in himself. A better analogy (if it is necessary to make one at all) is with Kierkegaard's Either/Or, the contrast between the aesthetic life (Goldmund) and the ethical life (Narcissus). Hesse, in Narcissus and Goldmund, seemed to have arrived at the different conclusion from Kierkegaard, which would have made for an interesting discussion. Bossmamajr (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)