Blindness

Rating:
Summary: a disturbing, yet important book
Review: We read Blindness at a recent meeting of the book group I coordinate for the library where I work. I was grateful that others were reading along with me, because this novel, while beautifully written was disturbing and unsettling to experience.

Saramago understands and describes human nature in such a visceral and powerful way in this novel about a city confronting a sudden epidemic of "white blindness". When trying to survive and meet our most basic animal needs, human beings can be so cruel and indiscriminate in our behavior.

I felt much empathy for the anonymous characters in Blindness, especially for the doctor's wife who can see and acts as the reader's witness.

This novel provoked strong reactions in our book group--most disliked it, but for me it was an important book because it reflects the world as it truly is. We all have different reasons for reading--escape, leisure, insight. Fans of light fiction should stay away from Jose Saramago.

Rating:
Summary: Possible reflection of the human world
Review: This is one of those books that makes you think: What if this could happen in my world? And the scariest part is: In some sence it does...

Rating:
Summary: If You Love Literature...
Review: There is a big difference between good fiction and good literature and Blindness is a benchmark by which good literature can be ably measured. Like many other readers, I had a hard time adjusting to Saramago's lack of dialog punctuation. The fact that the characters were as nameless as the city they occupied was another challenge. In less able hands, these would be mere plot devices. To Saramago, they are a way to draw the reader into a similar blindness, to make them experience the difficulty and sameness of life for those struck blind by the epidemic. Once I adjusted to the format, the namelessness and the anonimity of place, I began to more fully empathize and share the panic, hopelessness, fear and humanity (or lack thereof) that the core group of characters did. At that point, I was sucked into the story and the work of reading and knowing who was speaking became a part of the experience, just as the afflicted characters adjusted and perservered.

Blindness is a well-told story that speaks to the very essence of what it means to exist in society and as an individual. It's about losing what we think is ours by right and how we respond to that loss and the challenge, both physical and mental, that it presents. As bleak as the story sounds, it is actually quite hopeful and Saramago does well to make us understand how much more is at stake than the ability to see with our eyes.

I was vaguely surprised and a little disappointed in the ending, but that's all that keeps this from earning five stars. More so, the four stars this book deserves makes me reconsider other reviews I've written and will set a standard of just what constitutes high quality writing. I highly recommend Blindness to anyone who wants to see beyond entertaining fiction into the depths of literature.

Rating:
Summary: Haunting, horrifying, maybe even hopeful¿.
Review: "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!

Rating:
Summary: Disturbing how fragile society is...
Review: Saramago's book is incredible. The style of not identifying the speaker took a little getting used to, but after a few chapters, it seemed natural. The book takes place in an unnamed city, in which an epidemic of blindness is sweeping through the population. It was remarkable to me how fragile the bonds that make up our society are and how much we rely on sight. The very things we need to live all depend on it and Saramago is able to make this come across in an interesting way. He does not hide the terrible or the beastly aspects of a society in chaos. It is also quite effective that he doesn't name characters, he simply describes them by occupation or who they are married to or simply by their physical description such as "the woman in dark glasses," - which becomes funny as no-one except for the narrator can see. I highly recommend this book to all. It has been a while since I have read a novel translated from another language, as often so much of the nuances and feel are lost, but this book is not diminished at all.

Rating:
Summary: What world do you see?
Review: It is good to see that in this novel Saramago has finally been able to completely dispose of the uncomfortable names for things which plague his earlier work. I only say this because he always sounds so uncomfortable having to name something in his fiction. I believe this is because the concepts he is working with are so specific that to name people and places generalise them. The opposite is usually true, but what I think Saramago is trying to do is write of preoccupations that are so personal they encompass the preoccupations of our entire society. What greater preoccupation can we have as a society but the extermination of the entire human population? Instead of approaching this subject by speaking of atom bombs or space monsters, he lays the destruction in our on hands (or eyes). Handicapped people rely on others to assimilate them to a society that is entirely functional, but what if the entire society becomes handicapped? The individual response is unable to support the society and destruction ensues. As the destruction unfolds we are able to get a harsh look at the many base injustices that continue to survive in our society unnamed. Yet, if what he is saying is such a strong critique of society than why is everything in the novel so personal? Despite the character's states of being nameless things with professions or roles only, you begin to acquire sensitivity for the characters of each of the people discussed. You forget that the group that bands together in the plague of blindness is a microcosm of society and are drawn into each of their complex psychological dilemmas that result as the illness. To survive you must accept things as they are. It is a fight for survival and you understand from reading the novel that you must become aware of your own blindness to things or you will be lost in the chaos of mediocrity.

Rating:
Summary: a harrowing and hypnotic novel
Review: Blindness is about the disintegration of the individual and society in the face of catastrophy. A man stopping at the traffic lights is suddenly struck blind. A "good" samaritan who stopped to help him is also blind a few moments later, as is the doctor who attended him and the doctors other patients and so on with the number of people affected multiplying in a exponential manner. Blindness describes the over-reliance of society on technology and on each other as one by one the essentials of modern living (running water, electricity, air traffic control) falls apart. Blindness resonates with the many modern catastrophies such as natural disasters, AIDS, refugees, and over-crowded prisons just to name afew. However, Blindness is not just a bleak parable; it is a lyrical novel written by a master writer. The stream of consciousness writing with page-long sentences absent of inverted comas is hypnotic. There is no complicated word or description. Jose Saramgo has managed to distill the essence of story telling.

Rating:
Summary: A surprise! ...a page-turner with brains and soul...
Review: For months I delayed cracking the cover of "Blindness." After all, based on the book's description, the white blindness at the center of the story was obviously an allegory for something or other, and Saramago won the Nobel Prize for literature. The two combined seemed a sure recipe for disaster, a guarantee that the book would be heavy-handed and awkward, top-heavy with political messages, and as wooden as a dime-store Indian.

But, lo! A surprise! Sure, blindness is an allegory; sure, the book is at times heavy-handed and awkward. But Saramago's passionate storytelling and aching humanity paces the book brilliantly. This is a page-turner with brains and soul, "Lord of the Flies" meets Virginia Woolf. If this book were a woman, she'd be a stunning organic farmer/carpenter with a mysterious past-a woman who drinks tea and bets the horses.

But I digress.

Saramago's prose structure, oft described as a handicap in reader reviews, is perfectly suitable to the novel. Saramago tosses quotes, names, and paragraph breaks overboard, which effectively throws a burlap sack over our reader's eyes, leaving us sightless in the midst of swirling, dangerous drama. You can hear voices, but you can't identify their origin. You can imagine your confines, but only after a serious amount of groping and blundering into sharp-edged objects.

But simultaneously, you are the doctor's wife's eyes, and you share her pain at being able to view the horror of the blindness. You witness the moral decrepitude of your fellow human being. You witness rape. You witness murder. You watch children crap all over themselves, and feel their burning humiliation.

Unlike "Lord of the Flies," even the most inhuman brutes in these troubled times show glorious rays of divinity. Even the big lug, the ringleader, displays his vital spark at the moment of his death-which occurs at the climax of a rape. The old woman who eats raw chickens and rabbits and leaves their bones scattered about the house like some fairy-book witch, is an object of pity rather than scorn, despite her vicious selfishness.

All in all, "Blindness" is a brilliant book. I plan to go out and read more of his work...

Rating:
Summary: A Book With Grand Aspirations
Review: The first thing I should mention about this book is that I am holding it up to a higher standard than that which I would hold a typical New York Times Bestseller up to. The reason for this double standard is that Blindness seems to avoid every trap that ordinarily dates your typical novel and thereby excludes that novel from the list of books that your great-grandchildren will be reading in college. In this book, no locations are given. There are no historical references, and there are no pop-culture references. In fact, there are no names in this novel. Saramago wants this story to take place everywhere and nowhere, and in no particular time period.

The plot centers around a small band of people who are caught in the midst of a Kafkaesque epidemic. There is a seemingly unexplainable blindness being passed across an unnamed nation. No one knows how this 'disease' is transmitted, and no one knows if it is curable. As you might guess, panic ensues. We follow the characters through their travails, and witness the horrors that they encounter.

I don't want to say too much for fear of spoiling the book, but it is fair to say that I believe this story about blind people is really about just that... people. The book may be titled "Blindness," but this epidemic is just the means by which Saramago intends to illuminate the human condition.

My one real hang-up with this book is Saramago's penchant for authorly expositions. The third-person narrator often digresses to make trite and obvious statements about love, life, death, and just about everything else. These statements are in no way enlightening (as are the asides by authors like Fitzgerald or Conrad), and for the most part serve to remind you that the events unfolding before you are make-believe. You are only reading a book, as you are repeatedly reminded. This style may work well for the types of stories told by the postmodernists, but for this type of story, a straightforward narrative would have worked better. I had a hard time empathizing with these nameless characters because I was never fully absorbed by the story. That may also be due to the numerous two-dementional side characters who primarily serve the function of fulfulling a "type" (ie--several bad people are completely evil without a shred of goodness in them, etc.). Nonetheless, this is a fine novel and does offer a great deal to think about.

On the side, let me disagree with the many reviewers here who say that Saramago's unusual disregard for the traditional rules of grammer is distracting. It is unfortunate that so many authors get caught up in the traditions of literature, and end up worrying whether they should place the comma inside or outside the quotation marks. Saramago writes dialogue the way he wants (it is not only understandable, but I believe that it flows quite well), he writes paragraphs the way he wants, and he writes this novel the way he wants. For that, I applaud him.

Rating:
Summary: The eyes are our souls
Review: That can be said when you finished with reading. Our entire civilisation seems so delicate and we can loose all our acquirements just in a moment. It is suppressing how little we need - only a lost of sight - to lose all our humanity and become just like animals. Because of that it seems that our souls and all the things that distinguish us from other living beings are in our eyes. It is very interesting that the main characters do not have first names. Their names are descriptive such as the girl with dark glasses or doctor's wife etc. This is understandable because animals do not need first names. Saramago's style of writing is a little strange - especially long sentences composed of some shorter sentences said by two or more people, without commas or full stops - but you can get used to. The idea of story is great! A bit depressive at the beginning but the last few chapters are very optimistic and give us hope that there are always some people we can thrust and will help us when we need them.