That's almost criminal. Siddhartha was quite a good book. I read him at a time in my life when his ideas were particularly appealing. I have not reread him since them and I should. I've been rereading much of what I remember so fondly from a long time ago, and now I read it so differently. But I do think of him as the layman's philosopher, and not at all in a derogatory way. His books were full of Nietzschean influences as well as Dostoyevsky, Spengler and Jung with a very westernized buddhist leaning. Demian, Steppenwolf, Narcissus und Goldmund were all fascinating books. The Glass Bead Game was more intricate and more esoteric, and a great read. That was his last novel I believe.
I'm surprised he's not being read much any longer. Is it the ideas that have fallen out of favor? Or is there just no interest any longer in that kind of personal exploration?
What I appreciated so much about him is that he did write interesting stories with fascinating characters, while still offering an intelligent and thoughtful, provocative, philosophical debate.
Any genre is capable of incorporating this kind of debate and yet most people don't expect it from Fantasy nor do they go to Fantasy to find it. The real question is do they resent it when it does raise its head? I don't think so, as the interest in Scott's books seems to demonstrate. I think that if this were the 60's Scott would probably be a cult classic by now much in the same way that Hesse was. I just wonder what the reader is looking for today with all these self-help books and how-to books dominating the charts. I know KatG that you will probably have all the stats to demonstrate that is not the case, but isn't it true that non-fiction is selling much more than fiction today? Is this something new or has it always been the case?