Compare And Contrast Siddhartha And This Is Water

Herman Hesse and David Foster Wallace were both born in different generations, to different families, and lived different lives. Hesse grew up in a family of missionaries, while Wallace was raised by a philosopher and a teacher. Even through these differing life paths, their works found a way to interconnect and flow with one another. Hesse was age 45 when he wrote Siddhartha, while Wallace wrote the famous commencement speech This is Water at age 43. It’s not just coincidence that these two entirely unalike men came to the same realization and had the same ideas around the same point in their lives. They were both at a turning point; usually known as a mid-life crisis. Although maybe not that extreme, they both came to ponder the real truths

But, even with the huge time-gap between the pieces, the ideas that Hesse addresses in Siddhartha are shockingly similar. A huge piece of advice that each author gives is to be without possessions and stray from materialistic ideals. Siddhartha reflects historically back on the most basic human personality trait; greed. This topic is also discussed in This is Water, which goes to show that greed is something that people will always have to deal with and that it isn’t going to change over a few centuries. Greed will always be in the way of people living selflessly and caring for others. Siddhartha said “I am without possessions, Certainly, I am without possessions. But I am so voluntarily, and so I am not in need” (34). While Siddhartha is not directly saying that he believes that everyone should be without material possessions, it is implied. Wallace doesn’t dance around the subject, and bluntly states that “If you worship money and things- if they are where you tap real meaning in life- then you will never have enough” (7). This direct approach differs greatly from Hesse’s writing style, and allows his message to be delivered in a more succinct and honest way. While Hesse makes the same points as Wallace, he leaves his message up to interpretation from the audience, and doesn’t bluntly state the morals in which he is trying to