Just finished Demian. I commited the mistake of googling it

>>8585158
>Whether Hesse intended this message is, in the end, irrelevant; the entire novel might as easily have erupted form his unconscious.

OP BTFO?

>>8585192
In this post you express a repressed interest in homosexual oral sex

Whether you intended this message is, in the end, irrelevant; the entire post might as easily have erupted from your unconscious

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that you are the son of sex workers. It is improbable that you would not have noticed parallels to the slang term "blowjob" in your post.

>>8585221
>In this post you express a repressed interest in homosexual oral sex

Wait, but this is true

>>8585192
desu that's pretty close to the old "if he didn't consciously mean it, then he unconsciously meant it"

>>8585158
I had the same impression while reading it, just didn't think he related it with Christianity but in general with spirituality. Which is neat. Was a neat book. I liked it.

>>8585158
>someone makes an assertion and finds textual evidence to back it up
>>scanning every fucking page desperately searching for something that could be interpreted as biblical imagery
Who's the unreasonable one here?

>>8585341
It comes off as confirmation bias

It's certainly one way to read the book, the problem is presenting it as the one "most likely" to be the author's intent, disregarding all other interpretations as shallow, and simultaneously having a cop out saying that maybe he didn't CONSCIOUSLY mean it you guys. Even more so for a book that is so incredibly steeped in mysticism

>>8585358
In all seriousness, I read some of it and while the reading obviously has something to it (the points about Max being supernatural were obviously right and intended by Hesse), it seems incredibly one-sided to me. Given that a huge theme of the book is the way that true spirituality looks like both sides of the coin to someone who's not initiated, it follows that a strictly Christian close reading of the text will get you to the idea that Max is a demon, and Max himself would probably agree with this, but add that to someone like himself or Sinclair) who is "initiated," these dualistic distinctions between demon and angel disappear. This sort of thing is brought up over and over again in the text, and the transcendence of dualities is thrown in your face with Abraxas, with the whole God + devil thing. You can get to a reading that focuses only on the devil, yes, but then you miss more than half the story. You could equally have a reading where Max is only an angel. but it would be an equally impoverished reading.

Also, the "Demian = demon" thing overlooks the fact that "daimon" is a lot more plausible reference for Max's surname, and a daimon is a guiding spirit that can be good, bad, or both.

>>8585158
Welcome to the humanities, OP