Blind but seeing

One of the final lines of the novel really interested me. On the last page after they all regain their sight, the doctor's wife asks her husband, the doctor, why they all went blind. He replied saying, " 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 feel as though this line addresses the major point that Saramago is trying to make throughout the novel. By taking away people's sight, Saramago demonstrates how fragile society and human nature really is and how blind people are to that. The city and its people completely break down during this epidemic and become animalistic and immoral; no different from animals. In the end, only the people who hold onto their beliefs and values, like the doctor and his wife, and the people who are willing to cooperate with one another and see each other through their blindness are the ones who escape and survive. In this way, becoming blind is what enabled some of the characters in this novel to truly see the world around them.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this book. Although the beginning was a little slow and the book itself is fairly dense, the topic that Saramago writes about is extremely interesting; he explores a topic that many others don't attempt to write about or imagine. However, I wish that the author created a different ending to the story. Yes, it may relieve some of the audience's anxiety that instant blindness will not occur, but after reading 326 pages of the novel and ending the way it had started, with people regaining sight, I was quite disappointed. I felt that I read all of the book only to come back to where I had started. It would have been much more interesting if Saramago wrote about how society adapts to blindness, whether society is strong enough to overcome an epidemic so devastating, or whether it'd collapse and people would live in an uncivilized and barbaric state like we once did thousands of years ago. This would be the ultimate test of human capabilities, organization, and progressive behavior that makes up our ever-changing society today.

The man with the eye patch

Near the end of our second to last section of reading, on pages 305 and 306, the old man with the eye patch declares his love and feelings for the girl with dark glasses. He says to her, "The monstrous wish of never regaining our sight...So that we can go on living as we are," and "the man I still am loves the woman you are," (306). When I read this passage, I admired the ability of the man with the eye patch to be able to fall in love with someone he barely knows and cannot see. In a way, becoming blind was a gift for the man since he was able to fall in love with someone whom he never would have been able to if they both had sight. He is able to see past all of the animalistic and grotesque experiences they've gone through together while transitioning into being blind, and hold onto both of their personalities and true selves.

Having escaped from the asylum, the doctor's wife and those who follow are in desperate need of food. They have not eaten for four days. As the wife is out searching for food, she comes upon a group of people and is finally told that, "everyone is blind, the whole city, the entire country, if anyone can still see, they say nothing, keep it to themselves" (Saramago 222). This line makes me wonder of how society would react if everyone were to become blind. In reality, people would most likely make everything accessible to those who are blind, further preparing themselves and society for the worst case scenario. Today, people are extremely progressive in technology and find ways to accomplish things that they would otherwise have a difficult time doing. However, in the wife's situation, it seems as though society is quickly falling apart, with people dying from hunger and living in conditions similar to those of wild animals. The wife is left with a difficult decision; should she help those in need, or must she focus on her own survival?

5/5/14

I've read up to page 114 and I decided I want to comment on the writing style that José Saramago uses. This is the third book I've read for this class that doesn't use normal format when there is diolouge in the book. I found it easier to grasp the style in The Handmaid's Tale and The Road, but I still can't read Blindness without having to focus really hard on keeping track of who is speaking. I suppose it's written like this to confuse us, because for all of the inmates, it's just as confusing. When they hear each other speak, they don't necessarily know who is speaking. In this way, we sort of get an inside look at their experience in the mental hospital. But at the same time, I actually find it really annoying because I can't tell which parts of the text are spoken out loud and which are just thoughts of the inmates.
-Ky

5/10/14

I saw something in a previous reading that I immediately bookmarked. It was on page 141, when the inmates were trying to decide wether or not to give up their valuables for food. It says, "We shall all give up what we've got and hand over everything, said the doctor, And what about those who have nothing to give, asked the pharmacist's assistant, They will eat whatever the others decide to give them, as the saying rightly goes, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". This stuck out to me for many reasons. First of all, this was the same phrase that was used in The Handmaid's Tale. In that novel, it was twisted into a manipulating phrase that was used to force women to become child-bearing slaves. In this book, it is used more correctly according to the phrase itself, but it still seems harsh. These inmates had no idea they would need valuables in order to obtain food once they were locked in the prison. In this sense, it seems sort or cruel that the ones who hadn't brought valuables wouldn't get to eat. It isn't until later that we see the valuables of the whole ward serve as payment for everyone in it, but it was interesting to me to see this phrase used again in a novel, in a different way but still in a way that wouldn't end well for everyone.

I am on page 149  and similar to Ky's post, I've also had some trouble deciphering who's speaking when and to whom because of the lack of quotations and formal sentences. Another style of José Saramago's writing that has interested me so far is the absence of identification in this novel. None of the characters are given actual names, instead its "the doctor" or "the doctor's wife." Additionally, the city in which this mass blindness epidemic is occurring is very vague and mysterious. As I think about it more, it seems as though Saramago chooses to leave out places and names to provoke thoughts in his readers that what is happening to the people in the city in this novel could happen anywhere, and to anyone. Saramago's point of how fear and tragedy can change people and turn them into animalistic barbarians seems to be well expressed through this vague style of writing.