The Alchemist seems very inconsistent and shallow to me.

I read The Alchemist when I was a teenager and I thought it was philosophical fiction novel. Recently revisited it because of all the hype in my friend circle. What bothered me on rereading wasn’t the symbolism or spirituality, but the lack of internal consistency in the world the book creates. For most of the novel, we’re asked to take certain things literally: Santiago’s journey begins with a literal recurring dream. That dream is treated as externally meaningful, not psychological. Authority figures validate it as truth. Reality bends to confirm obedience to the dream. So far, fine — that establishes the rules. But then the book repeatedly breaks its own logic.

1. Literal dream vs symbolic ending The story urges literal faith in dreams, yet ends by revealing the treasure was where he started. If the dream was symbolic, the journey shouldn’t have been obeyed literally. If the dream was literal, the ending proves it was wrong. The book wants both positions without acknowledging the contradiction.
2. Power inconsistency At one point, Santiago can literally summon a windstorm to avoid execution — effectively commanding nature. That’s not “chasing a dream” anymore; that’s godlike power. Yet shortly after, he’s beaten up by random people as if he’s an ordinary powerless boy again. Once the story grants divine-level agency, ordinary threats lose meaning unless clear limits are established. They aren’t.
3. Genre confusion The book uses extreme mythic elements — omens, alchemy, miracles — but narrates them with flat, realist pacing. Mythic events are treated like calm philosophical exercises. Magic never introduces danger, doubt, or irreversible cost, so it flattens tension instead of heightening it.
4. Selective suffering Sometimes suffering is meaningful and necessary. Sometimes it’s arbitrary and unexplained. The universe intervenes when the message requires it and stays silent when it doesn’t. That makes the world feel convenient rather than coherent.
5. From pursuit to inevitability A “chase” requires resistance and uncertainty. Once the universe guarantees success for belief alone, the story stops being about effort and becomes confirmation. Destiny replaces struggle. I don’t think The Alchemist is bad because it’s symbolic or spiritual. I think it struggles because it borrows the authority of myth without accepting myth’s discipline — consistent rules, real cost, and genuine uncertainty. That’s why, for me, the book feels simultaneously preachy and hollow, mystical yet boring. It wants miracles without consequences and meaning without resistance. Curious how others see this — especially about the motivational and life changing experience aspect of it.