The Alchemist part II

I really enjoyed The Alchemist when I first read it, and I read it all even before we needed to finish the book because I enjoyed it so much.  But now I’m beginning to wonder if the opinions of others are starting to have an effect on me, especially after the debate when I had to be con to the novel.  Maybe the simple philosophies in this book are just that: simple philosophies, philosophies that are so obvious that in their simplicity why even acknowledge them?  The notions of everyone having a dream and trying to follow it no matter what are written in so many children’s tales; we all have grown up with the idea of the pursuit of a goal.  Coehleo also mentions in his interview at the end of the book that everything has a soul, and everything is interconnected (ie the Soul of the World).  I read the children series His Dark Materials, which includes The Golden Compass and The Subtle Knife, and these books described the idea of everyone and thing being connected, so when I was a young teenager I decided I believed this notion.  The fact is that I was young when I decided this and therefore it is a simple concept that even a child can comprehend.  Do we really need to hear these philosophies in a book that has such a thin layer covering it’s self-help genre?  I think if we can already learn these ideas as children it is a bit redundant to hear them again as an adult.  The only conclusion that I come out of my musings is that it definitely pays to be an aware reader and therefore realize that a book that may seem wonderful may perhaps not be quite so at a second glance.