Blindness (Harvest Book)
by Jose Saramago
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.74 You Save: $7.26 (73%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Blindness (Harvest Book)
Book Review: Is "Blindness" good, or is Portugal just a small country?
Summary: 2 Stars
"Blindness" begins with an unexplainable outbreak of, well... blindness. Some guy is just driving around in his car and all of a sudden, he can't see. There is nothing physically wrong with him, but his sight has been transformed into a milky whiteness. The lack of vision is contagious and everyone that the first blind man comes into contact with (i.e. his wife, the guy who steals his car, his optometrist, the optometrist's patients, etc) loses sight. For some reason the eye-doctor's wife never succumbs to the white-death, but I wasn't smart enough to figure this part out (I also couldn't figure out why she didn't kick ass and take over the world). Anyway, fearing and epidemic, the government tosses the contaminated untouchables into a mental hospital guarded by the military. With the blind leading the blind, all hell breaks loose in this unsupervised ecosystem and we are witness to all manners of brutal degradation, violence, and rape. Most of the story describes how a small archetypal group, lead by the doctor's wife, band together to endure these hardships while attempting to salvage their humanity. When the inmates finally realize that their guards have abandoned them, they wander out into the city to discover that everyone has suffered from the disease and society has fallen apart. Then there's this sudden ending, but I won't spoil it for you.It doesn't take a Nobel Prizewinner in literature to realize that this whole story is one big fat allegory. In this allegory, Saramago employs blindness as a metaphor for both personal hardship and social upheaval. This much is certain. Borrowing from Camus' Plague (eh...eh... maybe college wasn't a complete waste of time!), the visionless collapse of civilization surfaces as an overbearing theme throughout the narrative. However unlike Camus' work, we are deprived of a socio-political construct to evaluate the author's meaning. As names carry no significance, the narrative identifies all the principle characters by role. Similarly there is never mention of the time period or the location. I suspect Saramago intended to express the timelessness and universality of the parable, however the absence of any anchoring philosophy leaves the allegory wide open to audience interpretation. I suppose you could say that everyone has an El Guapo. For some, shyness may be an El Guapo. For others, lack of education may be an El Guapo. But for us, El Guapo is a large ugly man who wants to kill us!
Like I said before, I may have missed something in the interpretation. Ole Jose Saramago wrote "Blindness" in Portuguese and the novel closes with a publishers note indicating that the translator died before completing his revision. Apparently, he kicked the bucket before inserting quotations marks, commas, and carriage returns. Okay, this was intentional. I'm just having some fun while gearing up for more intellectual sounding stuff. Saramago takes full advantage of his stylistic license to blend the narrative voice across characters. Maybe if I took more Lit classes, I'd appreciate that the form of the novel is designed to follow function. Sadly, I found this style aggravating because the author tends to obfuscate a definitive perspective by amalgamating his views with the players in the allegory. In essence, these one-dimensional thief, doctor, wife, whore, old man, soldier, and child roles assume the added but bewildered gravity of authorship. Saramago tends to manipulate these roles as Kafka-like puppets to the extent that, every ten or twenty pages, they become host to literary pontifications on the nature of humanity, the meaning of words, or the now beaten and bruised sight versus vision dichotomy. ..., I already read the Republic, ...! This is Plato's cave, this is Plato's cave on crack! As if this were not enough, Jose introduces a blind writer in the final act of the story. It wouldn't be so bad if the author's musings suggested broader interpretation or indicated insight, but they serve only to re-iterate the core themes of the narrative. In evaluating his reflections, I'd just like to go on the record as saying Blindness is not Gatsby and Saramago is not Fitzgerald.
So as you can probably tell, I wasn't very impressed with "Blindness". Sarmago's reluctance to commit his metaphors to a social or political context left the novel too open for me to garner any real sense of significance. While the absence of details or development detracted from my ability to empathize with the characters. If I wanted a descent into lawlessness, I'd re-read Lord of the Flies. If I wanted a breakdown of government, I'd take a spin Animal Farm. If I wanted some juicy political commentary, I'd tackle the Plague. Granted, I may be suffering from my own form of blindness (the metaphor practically writes itself) as I could have missed the entire point of this novel, but I don't think so. This is a highly praised book written by a Noble Prize winning author, yet for me it failed to say anything new that hasn't been said better before.
Book Review: Lost in a sea of disbelief
Summary: 2 Stars
In "Blindness" by Jose Saramago, the author describes what happens when an entire city's populace inexplicably goes blind. It is a "white blindness," meaning that the people only see a "milky" mist of white around them.
Only one woman, only known as the doctor's wife, can still see and is witness to this event.
She, her husband, the first blind man and later his wife, the girl with the dark glasses, the boy with the quint, the man with the eyepatch are all placed in a ward in an asylum by the government as are the rest of the suddenly blind at the beginning of the novel. The groups are separated into different wards: the people who have been exposed to the blindness and the actual blind, separated by a foyer and the gates to reenter the city are guarded by soliders who have orders to shoot anyone trying to escape at their discretion.
Within the gates of the asylum, it is a whole other world. I think one of the turning points in this first half is the shooting of a number of the blind as they are waiting for their food to be delivered by the soliders. One of the soldiers panics, thinking they are trying to escape, and shoots. Then all the soldiers shoot.
A number of the inmates (the leader with a gun) from another ward begin to terrorize the main characters by holding back food and making them "pay" for their food with any valuables they had with them (all their belongings) and then by raping the women.
I think the realization the government was not going to interfere with anything that happened in the asylum was the line drawn in the sand. With no repercussions, the criminal element was alble to gain control over the society in the asylum by fear.
For the first half of the novel, I was riveted to the text. Sure, people have debated Saramago's style of writing back and forth-his giant run-on sentences with no tagged dialogues definitively marked and paragraphs encompassing pages and pages. It took a bit of adjustment-but, once I did, the writing added another dimension to the story. It added confusion, disorientation, and a need to pay closer attention to detail for the reader. And, in these three areas alone, the writing itself was magnificient.
I read fast. Well, I read popular fiction fast anyway. By the way this book was written, I had to slow down and pay attention to every word, who was speaking, who was acting. And I honestly liked the effect Saramago's style had on the book.
For the first half of it, as I said.
Then the "inmates leave the asylum." Outside the gates, the city has fallen to pieces-the blind are wandering about, identity-less as well as homeless. They have all decided, because they are blind, names are of no consequence. With their eyesight left their individual identities.
It seems as though everyone has panicked and society breaks down. Property rights have disappeared-the blind move in wherever they can as they can't find their ways home.
We stop by the old flats where our characters lived before the blindness to discover the places are either occupied by others or in complete disarray. The world is dirty, filthy-the blind "do their business" in the streets without a care as to cleanliness.
I do not think people would give up their self-identity because they are blind. And while Saramago says that there is a piece within us that has no-name, I think the larger piece of us keeps us as separate identities. I AM Kari Wolfe. And while I am a part of the world, I still retain my own identity. My name is what identifies ME to others and, while it could be any name, this is the name I was given by my parents, the ones who created me.
While there are some beautifully written scenes within this half, I am pulled out of the fictional world because it's not realistic. If everyone within a city was to suddenly be struck blind, would society totally collapse in on itself? Honestly, I doubt it.
Saramago's lack of belief in human beings is disheartening.
Jose Saramago received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1998.
A recent novel adds appreciably to Saramago's literary stature. It was published in 1995 and has the title "Blindness: a novel". Its omniscient narrator takes us on a horrific journey through the interface created by individual human perceptions and the spiritual accretions of civilisation. Saramago's exuberant imagination, capriciousness and clear-sightedness find full expression in this irrationally engaging work. "Do you want me to tell you what I think, Yes, do, I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see."
I have to admit-I really wasn't that impressed.
2 stars out of 5. The story had possibility then descended into a chaotic mess, a story with no boundaries to hold it in.
Book Review: An apocalyptic tale that will open your eyes to a future not too far-fetched...
Summary: 5 Stars
Conceptually, `Blindness' is simple. An unknown city somewhere undergoes an epidemic of `white blindness', where the inhabitants all lose the ability to see, their vision glossed over with a think milky whiteness. What could have been nothing more than a unique chapter in the never ending catalogue of literary horror becomes so much more when Portuguese author Jose Saramago takes hold of the reins and steers us into this devastating blindness.
The novel opens with a nameless man behind the wheel of his car stopped at a red-light and then instantly he is blind. He cannot see anything aside from the milky residue covering his vision. This man is assisted home by a stranger who then proceeds to steal his car. When this mans wife comes home she ushers him to the ophthalmologist who is bewildered by this mans sudden blindness. Later that evening the doctor too goes blind. In fact all around the city people are going blind. In a state of panic the government locks the blind men and women, as well as those who have been in contact with them, away in an abandoned asylum where they will wait out their sickness. If and when they regain their sight they may be free to leave, but until then they are not to leave the premises for fear the epidemic will spread. If they try and escape they will be shot and killed.
But not everyone is without sight. The doctor's loving wife has faked blindness in order to accompany her husband to his prison, and this woman proves to be our eyes into a world so horrific, so grotesque and disturbing that she is forced to consider her sight an even larger curse than the world's blindness.
Saramago takes this prose and develops an intricate look into the mental deterioration of modern society. The actions of the government are rash and harsh; understandable within the realms of sheer panic yet detestable when considering the fate they are assigning innocent humans. As the living conditions for the ill worsen they soon begin to feed into the panic, their dealings with one another becoming rabid and fierce. They begin to turn on one another, taking advantage of others weaker than they despite sharing the same condition. Saramago marvelously brings these intense feelings of hopeless misery and dread to the reader in a way that evokes real human emotion. One wonders what would happen if anything to this magnitude were to overtake our country. One wonders if we would be reduced to the animals these one time humans have become.
Within this story lies the beating heart of a beautiful soul, the nameless face of the doctor's wife. This woman is truly one of the most well rounded characters I've ever had the privilege to get to know, to truly understand. Cursed with the ability to see the decaying world around her, the doctor's wife gradually shifts through emotions that we can relate to. There are such beautiful moments of understanding within this novel where we get a glimpse into the genuineness of her soul, the kindness that she possesses that contradicts the selfishness surrounding her.
Some have noted the way in which the novel is penned, and I'm happy to see that I am not the only one who made the distinct connection between the authors writing style and the overwhelming feeling of blind confusion. By writing in a way that distinguishes no one around you, you begin to feel as confused and as lost as the blind inhabiting this novel. With the expulsion of quotation marks and the minimal use of a paragraphed structure the reader can easily find themselves grasping for some clarity that is not to be found. This can deter some, but in my opinion it is a genius decision to bring the reader down to the level of those they are reading of. I often like to place myself within the characters mind myself (for instance I found myself only reading this book in the dead of night with no light but that of my flashlight so as to block out my surroundings and delve completely into their blindness) and so having this extra connective tissue made that transition all the more effortless.
`Blindness' is masterfully crafted and brilliantly written. It is as horrifying as it is mentally challenging. It is a novel that forces the reader to reflect upon their own reactions and truly causes the reader to question their views. The epidemic that accosts the characters in this story may seem far-fetched, but the eventual deterioration of civilization is not an aftereffect too far off from accuracy. As one reads `Blindness' they are stricken with pangs of panic as they consider these conditions forced up themselves; and what makes it all the more horrifying is that it doesn't seem too unrealistic.
In the end, `Blindness' has an effect quite the opposite on the reader; it opens their eyes and allows them to see the world in another light.
Book Review: Haunting, horrifying, maybe even hopeful.
Summary: 5 Stars
"Blindness" is the first book I have ever read by Jose Saramago (how did I miss him? was I blind?), but I'm sure it won't be the last. And even though by almost all accounts the English translation is top-notch, I still wish that I could read "Blindness" in the original Portugese. For one thing, I know from reading books like Camus' "The Stranger" ("L'Etranger") and "The Plague" ("La Peste"), or Sartre's "No Exit" ("Huis Clos") - all books which "Blindness" calls to mind, by the way -- in English first, and then in the original French, that it makes a big difference whether you read the original or a translation, however well done. And in the case of "Blindness," I think it's particularly important because in Saramago's book, the use of language - the exact choice of words, nuanced meaning, punctuation, grammar, etc. -- is absolutely central. But, unfortunately, I cannot read Portugese, and in a way that seems appropriate for "Blindness," because in some sense it makes me partly "blind" and reliant on my guide (my "eyes"), the translator, who can see AND understand in both languages. And isn't that - seeing but not understanding -- what the book is at least partly about? To quote Saramago, "I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see."Anyway, here are just a few thoughts, based on what I thought I was able to "see" - and hopefully understand - about this book. First, I agree with many of the reviewers here that Saramago's language/prose style in "Blindness" -- unquoted dialogue, unnamed characters, shifting tenses, limited punctuation, no chapter headings or numbers --at times can be confusing, even frustrating and uncomfortable. But, unlike some of these reviewers, I think this is a very clever and deft decision by Saramago, handled very well, and a perfect example of "form" matching "function." What better way to convey a sense of blindness than by making things difficult so that a reader finds himself navigating a passage, stumbling a little, doubling back, getting a little lost, then proceeding forward again? It seems to me that what is required in this situation is - just as if one were a blind person trying to find one's way down a street -- plenty of patience, and also concentration, and a belief that in the end, with luck and perserverance, the effort will be rewarded. Like Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" or James Joyce's "Ulysses," this is not an "easy" book in terms of language, but as in those books, it's perfectly appropriate and fitting for this Kafkaesque nightmare (i.e., "The Trial," "The Metamorphosis"), and actually now that I've read "Blindness" I can't imagine the book working better if it were written any other way!
Second, I also agree with many of the reviewers here that "Blindness" is not "easy" in an emotional sense either, with page after page of excrement, various varieties of violence (including rape and murder, among other things), all sorts of human degradation, plus a general, sometimes overwhelming feeling (reminiscent of accounts from the Nazi concentration camps) of disorientation and loss of morality, compassion, or anything positive for that matter. Thus we witness, once again in literature, the depths to which humans are capable of sinking once the "thin veneer of civilization" is stripped away. Is this an original topic? Not particularly. But is it a topic that has been exhausted, especially following what was arguably the bloodiest, nastiest century in human history? No, I don't think so! More importantly, does Saramago do a good job with this material? Yes, I think so!
Finally, it is important to emphasize that Saramago's "blindness" is not just the "normal" physical kind of blindness, but more a strange, metaphorical, allegorical, even spiritual kind. Statements like "we're blind because we're dead...we're dead because we're blind," "God does not deserve to see," "Only in a world of blind people would things be what they truly are," etc. all point in the direction of where Saramago is going here. Also, contrast the "normal" blind person, who becomes the thugs' bookkeeper; the ophthalmologist's wife (the book's fascinating central character), who can "see" but almost wishes she couldn't; the people who still can see but are terrified that they too will soon go blind; and the people already struck down with "white blindness."
In sum, this is very interesting, powerful material, well done by Nobel-prize winner Jose Saramago. I strongly recommend this haunting, thought-provoking book!
Book Review: A Great High-Wire Act
Summary: 5 Stars
Blindness is my introduction to Saramago. A good friend at Amazon suggested this writer to me. Though he'd won a Nobel, I'd never heard of him, which comes as no surprise as I've read only about half the Nobel winners' and am totally in the dark when it comes to about 15 names on the list.What strikes me most stongly about this book is the author's challenges he sets up for himself early on. As more and more characters are introduced, the challenge of keeping track of who is speaking and who is where mounts exponentially. I kept saying to myself "How's he going to do it when the wards fill up?" As noted throughout the reviews, Saramago does not provide us with the usual authorial roadmap.
What surprises me is that only one other reviewer (Michael Lima) mentioned that this stylistic maneuvering is a great metaphor for the subject matter. As readers, we are disoriented by the lack of accustomed punctuation, among other things. We have to pause sometimes to get our bearings. "Who said that?" we ask ourselves. It's exactly appropos to the way the blind characters react in the novel. Saramago wants the reader disoriented so that the empathy we feel for his characters becomes more pronounced. We share an awareness of what they are experiencing first-hand. We too have to grope our way in the dark, without the usual guideposts. The characters go unnamed. As one of the chracters thinks to himself,"names are of no importance here." We know them only as "the first blind man" or the "girl with dark glasses" or "the doctor's wife." One reviewer objected to this device, citing "the dog of tears" as an example of Saramago's ineptitude. I would counter that this is another intentional choice on Saramago's part to maintain the purity of his allegory. Characters in true allegory are never specified by common name. Just think of Spenser's "The Fairy Queen" or Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" and you'll see what I mean. Saramago's characters operate as universal types in large part because they are nameless.
Often, Saramago provides us with stunning imagery, as in this example when the opthalmologist first discovers he is blind: "He turned to where a mirror was, and this time he did not wonder, What's going on, he did not say, There are a thousand reasons why the human brain should close down, he simply stretched out his hands to touch the glass, he knew that his image was there watching him, his image could see him, he could not see his image."
My only criticisms of the work are minor. They usually have to do with suspension of disbelief. I had to wonder why the doctor's wife didn't seize the thug's gun for instance after he was down. Also, when she entered the basement of the store, why didn't she first get a flashlight? Certainly that wouldn't have been an item that would have been hard to find under the circumstances. I also had a bit of difficulty digesting some of Saramago's homilies and folksy philosophizing, as in "her fingers brushed against the dead petals, how fragile life is when it is abandoned," or later: "...but none of us, lamps, dogs or humans, knows at the outset, why we have come into this world." Not exactly the most profound material around.
I would also differ with those who maitain that the narrative is detached or distant. Sometimes I found it obtrusive, as in the narrator's description of a statement made by the girl with dark glasses: "...surprisingly, if we consider that we are dealing with a person without much education, the girl with the dark glasses said, Inside us there is something that has no name, that something is what we are." I would hold that this is a pretty condescending remark, intimating that a person with little formal education can come up with anything resembling profundity (which by the way, it doesn't anyway). There may be a hint of sexism creeping in here as well.
Please do not, however, let these few quibbles put you off from reading the book. It really does belong in the modern classical cannon along with Kazanzakis, the writer he most reminds me of. I have ordered The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, both on the strength of my response to this book, and because it came even more highly recommended by my friend at Amazon. I'm really looking forward to reading it.