I think this is probably one of the best books I have ever read. It's a horrifying story, and yet the characters are so engaging and so real that you cannot put it down.

Jose Saramago won the Nobel Prize - and I think it was this book that got him there. I think they'll be reading this book in a hundred years.

So join me on November 1 for a discussion of a fascinating subject: what happens when the entire society goes blind?

Sarah - I have the book and WILL read it though I may be late to the party. Tell me this. Honest. Is it a HARD read? It sounds intimidating.

No, Charlie, it isn't a hard read. That's the beauty of it - a Nobel prize winner - AND a man who wrote a page turner!

Ok, I'm finally sold. I'll order it.

Charlie, whenever did a "hard" read put you off? (I may have answered my own question, though, as I just considered how many books I'm about to commit to.)

exactly!!
C

I'm here and really looking forward to this discussion. I'm a few chapters into Blindness and can tell already that the book is prizeworthy. (Also my daughter recommended it and hooked me by saying, "You're going to want to teach this one.")

What a gorgeous page, simply wonderful!

Maryal

I'm sorely tempted! Checking it out...

Linda

The library has provided me with the book and I am reading ... Looking forward to the discussion.

Traude

Glad to see you here, Traude! I'm halfway through. Anyone else into this book yet?

Linda

I read "Blindness" last spring, and thought how easy it was to accept it as happening within the latter two decades of the 20th century. What also occurred to me is that while it is similar to Camus' "The Plague" that the latter seemed clearly to be a book that fit the middle of the last century. I skimmed through Camus' book again, and felt even moreso that it's tone, or whatever, couldn't be transposed forward. It will be interesting to see if others are reminded of the Camus book.

A very interesting book for older people, I think, is Saramago's "All of the Names."

Jack

Betty, Hairy, Traude, Charlie, and a new poster, Kevxu. . .

WELCOME!!!

I think we have a wonderful group starting to assemble and I look forward to discussing this amazing book with you starting November 1.

I read this book a few months ago on the recommendation of a friend, and it blew me away.

I just finished it and I think I will be having "flashbacks" for some time!

Linda

I found this review of his book about names:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/10/15/reviews/001015.15irwint.html

And here is a quote from the article about the way he writes his books - the sentences, paragraphs, etc. this is something I've been wondering about.

"Saramago always sets out his novels in long paragraphs, composed of long, coiling sentences, heavy with parenthetical speculation, but oddly underpunctuated. He has no use for quotation marks, question marks, semicolons or colons. Everything has to be done with the comma and the full stop. I have never understood why he wants his readers to have to work so hard. "

If a book has been TRANSLATED from another language and even so reads easily and smoothly (underline easily and smoothly), the translator deserves no small credit.

I feel this is particularly true for BLINDNESS. The original translator, Giovanni Pontiero, died before the job was completed. Margaret Jull Costa finished it.

She is also the translator of a new work by Jose Saramago, titled ALL THE NAMES. The book is being "processed" by the trusted local library now and I am number one on the list.

I am over-committed as usual but hope to finish BLINDNESS in time.

What about the writing style, the modified stream of consciousness/interior monologue, pages of text without paragraphs, and commas and colons as the only punctuation marks ?

Happy reading ! Traude

Now Traude, don't finish too quickly! I'm thinking we'll take the book section by section as we did with The Human Stain. Hairy, please hang onto the book!!

I agree with you Traude that the book was a breeze to read. When an author is quirky with punctuation and the like, I usually find that it's hard to read at first, but once I get used to the style, I hardly notice it!

Ok - some questions.

How would you propose we conduct this discussion? I said section by section above, but that's just my thought. We could discuss the book as a whole, or divide it into characters, or talk concepts. Anything goes. Just let me know your preferences.

Maryal, Charlie, Traude, Hairy, Kevxu, Betty - and others - do you have any feelings about this?

I've been having trouble getting into the conversations here because I read the books too soon. Anxious, I guess! I am going to try and read along as the schedule is set from now on, if I can...beginning on whatever book I decide to read with you next.

For White Teeth, I took tons of notes - but they get cold and when you are here in the heat of discussion I can't bring back the feel of the chapter or that part of the book. I think I may do better having it fresher in my mind. And I just don't have the time to write much ahead of time. I'm lucky I can eke out the time to read the books in the first place.

With Blindness I took no notes but wrote in the book here and there since I bought it and could mark to my heart's content.

You should see Prisoner of a Red-Rose Chain! I highlighted, underlined and wrote everywhere until I got to page 233 and realized there was a page missing and 3 more farther on into the book. I wrote to Amazon, where I bought it, and they immediately sent me another, but want the first one back so they can get credit for the book!! Oh, no! All my notes...and the chat for that book is in December. Aargh!

Also, I really enjoyed Prisoner.

Blindness was interesting. Very dark and heavy, and thought-provoking. But, unfortunately I may have read it too soon. I hope I can re-capture what we are discussing. Thanks for being patient with me.

Traude - the nytimes review posted a few posts ago is of the book All the Names. Linda

Linda. Belive me - you're not alone. I've been reading here for oh, almost 2 years soon? And I still don't have the right pattern of reading ahead of time or just in time down exactly. It's a real balance because the immediacy starts to fade real fast for me, too. I know what you mean.


Charlie

And so do I, know what you mean, Linda. It's not that I'm getting better at the balance between being finished reading and being ready to discuss, it's that I'm getting used to the challenge/frustration. Charlie's reminder-comments on large sections of White Teeth have helped me more than anything to recapture where we are. That's an enormous amount of work for a discussion leader, so I appreciate it even more.

One thing, Sarah, that I find frustrating is discussing a book while knowing that not everyone is finished reading it---I mean, within reason, like after the first full week. Staying within a discussion schedule is fine---and works well---but not being able to write ANY whole-book, general comments RELATED to the specific section being discussed is wrenching for me. As Charlie has noted often, the discussion schedule posted is not (necessarily) a reading schedule. If we have to leave ALL whole-book comments until the last week of discussion, I fear we'll miss some really wonderful thoughts from many. What say you?

Yes, it is hard to bite my tongue (keyboard) and not say something that might spoil it for another who hasn't finished the book yet. Perhaps we should try a book sometime and take the whole book and discuss themes in the book, ironies, characters, whatever, as a whole.

Thanks guys, I feel better. Charlie, you do a marvelous job putting it all together for us!

Linda - Right, and I saw too late that I should have done this very thing in White Teeth - that was an ideal book to take one character at a time! Why I didn't see that I don't know.

Betty, Hairy, Charlie - all great comments. I thought I was the only one who struggled with reading according to a schedule. It's hard!!

I think this is a book that doesn't have a deep secret surprise within it that we'll ruin by skipping ahead. Therefore, while I think we should discuss the book by sections - Hairy let me know if you agree - we should also allow comments after the first week that relate to the entire book. That is, as we discuss the sections, people can also reflect on what comes later and its relationship to the sections we're discussing.

I don't know that this particular book lends itself to discussion of characters. Themes might work though. Any thoughts on discussion themes rather than what I suggest above?

I'm open to your suggestions - they really help!!

I'm still chuckling over the image of you biting your keyboard, Linda (Hairy).

Sarah, I haven't begun reading the book yet, so I can't answer about themes. Let's do it soon for SOME book, though.

A few days ago Sarah asked, thoughtfully, how we might "lay out" the discussion of BLINDNESS when the time comes. A most important question. Timely too.

Perhaps each book, as it is chosen, requires (demands ?) its own specific consideration and resists a formulaic approach, especially when there are no clearly marked dividing lines in the form of chapters.

For all too long I have enjoyed (or not) the SOLITARY enjoyment of any given book (with the occasional cocktail company reference to "have you read ...") and then let the experience "gel".

To be NOW actually able to share the reading in progress (heavily underline reading in progress) is a singular gift.

In this particular case each of us may have to formulate questions beforehand ...

Traude

I read Blindness quite some time ago, and hadn't really planned on participating in the discussion, despite the fact that I thought the book was one of the most arresting I've read in ages. (Since then I've gone one to read other works of his, and parts of his journals in Portuguese.) However, folks here seem as I "hooked" as I was and I think I'll give it a quick skim before the discussion starts, so I can at least follow what people are talking about.

Jack

Kevxu (Jack)----well, cool! Always glad to have another join in. I haven't started reading yet, but I just got my book this morning.

You read Portuguese? And other languages? Our gathering of readers here is so sophisticated, lately, I can hardly stand it!! (That means I love it!!)

I know this is not about Blindness, but I wanted to let you know that Time Magazine has ranked SeniorNet as one of its top ten websites. Pretty snazzy!

Take a look

http://www.time.com/time/digital/thelist/

Sarah, have just read of this well-deserved encomium for SrNet.

But where exactly in TIME can it be found ?? What issue ? Number ? Page ?

I am a long-time subscriber and must have missed something ...

Traude

Traude, I am too, a subscriber and it's in something we were supposed to get, but I have not, called Digital? A supplementary magazine? I didn't get one but am happy to read it online.

I loved your comments, all of you, it's rich reading here just reading the posters comments!

TIME magazine just entered my "never drop subscription list" hahahaha

They are SOOO right.

ginny

I just realized that I had totally missed reading TIME's DIGITAL Supplement. THAT was my problem !!! Over in Celebrations the link was supplied, and then I finally (!) "got it" ! Oh well, better late than never.

For the pleasure of your company and the continuous inspiration all of you provide, I say thank you

Traude

Back atcha, Traude! It's wonderful to have new people here, and I truly look forward to discussing another book with you.

for the discussion and hope to be ready by Nov 1

By all means, count me in, ready or not ... Traude

I have not read it. Just recd a used copy from half.com. So I will be one who is reading along.

Such neat comments - I have just been reading some of the previous posts - I was reading a little ahead in "White Teeth" (because I was so enchanted with the book) and thus had trouble posting to the week's schedule but I like having some parameters within which to think. I believe different people have different needs - so varying how books are read would be good.

~Marj

As Traude says above....

Perhaps each book, as it is chosen, requires (demands ?) its own specific consideration and resists a formulaic approach, especially when there are no clearly marked dividing lines in the form of chapters

Me, either, so what did you all decide? Should I read it all first in a rush or.....?????

I don't like to read too far ahead but I just noticed it's NOT ahead. hahahaha

ginny

For this book, we'll go section by section, I think, with the proviso that people can add things they know about later portions of the book into the discussion of a particular section.

Great, thank you VERY much, Sarah, that's a big help, to me, what should we have read for November 1??

ginny

Read Ch. 1 (at least) for November 1. Fortunately, the chapter is in the heading. It's quite short, but really gets you into the story.

Think about the following discussion questions:

1. Do you find yourself gripped by fear of a similar epidemic affecting our society?

2. What, besides the literal effects of blindness on a society, is Saramago trying to convey?

3. Saramago doesn't name his characters. Why not? Does it hamper your reading? Make the characters all the more memorable?

4. Why is the blindness a white blindness and not a black blindness (as I've always imagined blindness to be)?

oooooooooo, this is GOOD, Sarah, as per usual with one of your Book Discussions, oooo.

YAY

Ginny

Hello Sarah - How can anyone stop after reading just one chapter? I got the book at the Library yesterday and started while I was eating lunch. After reading three chapters, I must finish it but I'll have it with me when the discussion begins. Those are excellent questions you have started us out with; am looking forward to this group's answers.

"What, besides the literal effects of blindness on a society, is Saramago trying to convey? "

Very good question, Sarah!!

Sarah, excellent questions. They should get us right to the core of things.

Anticipating the discussions with special pleasure. Traude

In parentheses only, for the aficionados :

The trusted local libr. has just supplied me with a copy of this book by Jose Saramago. It was published BEFORE the author was nominated for the Nobel and is now available in English. The translation is by Margaret Jull Costa, who worked wonders also with the translation of BLINDNESS when its original translator, Giovanni Pontiero, died before it was completed.

On leafing through the book, the reader notices the same characteristics : page upon page without paragraphs; punctuation limited to commas and periods. Yet the text reads smoothly, naturally, and that is always a credit to the translator. I'll read it AFTER I finish BLINDNESS, of course.

If I may I would like to share (eventually) two pieces of information that might be of general interest, one having to do with the reaction by a Portugese friend to Sr. Saramago's winning the Nobel, the other with the translation of books from another language. Happy reading, Traude

Ella - you are so right about this book being hard to put down, and a single chapter being not nearly enough to start with. Several readers have finished the book.

Let's start with the first chapter just to get things started, but we'll quickly move through the book (as if we could help it!)

Traude, Hairy, Ginny - so looking forward to your participation. It's tortuous to wait to discuss a great book such as this one, isn't it??

Traude, I will be very interested in your information. As you may recall, kevxu is living in Portugal now, so I'd also be very interested in his input.

Betty, Charlie, Maryal, MarjV - are you all still there?

4 days and counting down!!

Here's an excellent review of the book I found this morning. It really speaks to question 2 in the heading.

http://www.salonmag.com/books/sneaks/1998/10/16sneaks.html

Yes, Sarah, I'm still here---I've been hanging around in the welcome folder, giving updates of (general) reactions to this book.

I just finished reading it this afternoon. Oh, my. No wonder he was considered for and won the Nobel prize. I'm crazy about this book. Barbara, if you're lurking, go buy this book. And anyone else. The center of the book is awfully dark, as Sarah has said, but keep going, it will be worth it.

I think I needed to read something like this, now.

I can't think of a better book that lends itself to discussion. No telling WHERE the discussion will lead. Saramago, differently from other authors, so obviously is offering us meaning. It will be so interesting what we decide the meaning is.

Betty:  Isn't it a griping novel?  There are few books that are "keepers" on my shelves, they always seem to find their way to others, but not this one.  Where  indeed will this discussion take us? Such anguish, terror and grievousness  experienced in this novel  will accentuate opinions, assumptions and sentiments that we all have.
Sarah:  Thank you for that URL, it's awesome to read exactly what  one wishes to say.
Traude: It is our pleasure to have you join us.  I , too, searched the web after reading this story and had no idea what a prolific writer JS is.  I want to read another selection of his.
Kevxu:  Please, please, please join us here for this book.  Your living in Portugal is a bonus for us and perhaps a gentlemans point of view will lend a different perspective.

I am enjoying the read. For me it reads very smoothly once I got the rhythm. And as for the lack of specific names... I think that helps the rhythm. I don't get hung up associating a name with a person or character somewhere in my past history.

One of the book cover critics names it a parable. And I can't think of a parable in the NT where a specific name was used. That popped in my head.

A terrific book.

And the thought of an epidemic like that is terrifying to me. The feeling of absolute helplessness. I did not like that feeling and it came very strongly in the first chapter.

Off to read the Salon magazine link.

~Marj

Well - I finished Chapter 1...... .
Charlie

Hooray, Charlie. Look at all these raves for this book!! And from readers with such wonderful taste - betty, ALF, MarjV. You simply must continue reading.

The story is weird and unbelievable, but I can't put it down.

We will be swimming in the "Oceans of Suffering."

Read the Salon review and thought it was quite good. I find that the "politeness" that the reviewer remarked upon is a very interesting device. I am curious too to hear what people will have to say, if anything, about the author intruding himself into the narrative. This latter peculiarity of his is quite pronounced in "All the Names," and in "Balthazar and Blimunda" it seemed even moreso.

I don't know if the following comments are appropriate or not at this point: In "All the Names," much of the story takes place in the dark, in places where the protagonist is unable to bring a light because his presence will be detected by the authorities. In "Balthazar and Blimunda," the latter character, a woman, has the ability - if she does not eat - to see everything that is going on inside other people, i.e. thoughts, bodily functions, etc. It also takes place in a blindness/prison setting in that the historical setting is that of the Inquisition. Jack

Kevku: I am delighted to see you here. Your comments about those two books just encouraged me to run to the library to check out more of JS stories. How interesting! The woman has to make the choice to ustain herself with food OR to see within the thoughts of others.

I think I should have made the burden of Blimunda's gift in "Balthazar and Blimunda" clearer. Since only she has this special kind of sight to look into people and see everything that they are about - relative to her - everyone else is blind, or at best gifted with only the most primitive version of sight. Thus, she is in a position rather like that of the doctor's wife in "Blindness." The Balthazar of the title, by the way, is her husband and, therefore, parallel to the doctor in "Blindness" in some ways.

Jack

kevxu - thank you for that information. I am SO glad you'll be joining us. I love this book so much - and now I realize there are others of Saramago's with similar themes. I, like ALF, will be running out and getting his other books.

And Pat W is here. Hooray! Welcome - so glad you'll be joining us too.

Two days and counting down!

Hello!

I just discovered this discussion, and will dash to the library in the AM with hopes that they have it.

Just reading the intro had me fascinated, and after reading everyone's posts...I am salivating!

Nettie - so glad you found us! You came in at a perfect time, too - the discussion will get started the day after tomorrow. I'd love to hear your perspective on things. Take a look at the questions in the heading - they'll get us started, but I'm sure the discussion will take on a life of its own. With this book, how can it not do so.

Everyone - give a big SeniorNet welcome to Nettie!!!

Nettie, glad to see you here!!! Hope your library has the book! At any rate, Chapter 1 has a link in the heading, so anyone can join us on the first day of discussion. This is going to be a fascinating discussion!! So glad you're here!!

It is quite appropriate to mention especially this book here; the form is similar, the same long sentences, pages without paragraphs, punctuation restricted to commas and periods. Both book have to do with sight or the lack of it, and both portray people that are not given names. There is a reason, I firmly believe. But we won't begin until Sarah gives the official word.

By contrast, the protagonists of Balthazar and Blimunda and The History of the Siege of Lisbon DO have names.

Saramago seems to be especially concerned with the period of the Spanish Inquisition.

kevxu --- SO interesting with the similarity I see where you have told us about the other novels by S. #51 thanks I will want to read them sometime.

I didn't pay very good attention and thought we were starting this discussion on this past Sunday. That is why I mentioned about parables in the New Testament not using specific names.

~Marj

Welcome Nettie!!! I am here, SarahT. Just forgot to subscribe. That's all. I will do better in future. Tomorrow, we begin.

Maryal

It may be the middle of the night, but it's 1 AM, Nov. 1st, where I am, so I'm jumping in.

I wonder how odd some of my reactions to the book are. At the first of the book, when people were beginning to lose their sight, not once did I begin to think, oh, wow, what if this really happened. I was completely hooked with the story, but never thought---what if. Since I already have major physical limitations---and know that the world doesn't come to an end---I guess I didn't fall into the fear of what if.

The next reaction---Sarah's third question above---did the absence of names bother me? This is sooo weird. I was only a 4th of the way through the book, but until Sarah posted that question, I did not realize there were no names!! Isn't that odd that I didn't notice?

Well, that's enough for now. I'm too sleepy to think, anyway.

It's three a.m. for most of you, dunno about New Zealand; but, still someone beat me!

The lack of names. It occurs to me that there have been times when someone has told me tons of anecdotes about someone, yet never mentioned their name. "My boss" said this, then he did that, now he's going to.....and so on. Then one day "my boss" becomes "Joe" and from that point on he's in a focus for me. The name gives me a handle and from that point one I can - I don't know - personalize Joe beyond what my friend's anecdotes actually say. In a sense, I think I begin to create a Joe the Boss that's a little bit fictionalized by this process, whereas "the boss" was always in the controller of the person telling me the stories.

I got used to the lack of names quite quickly. And I think the lack of names served the author well. I couldn't really take the characters and run. Had the doctor become "José" I think that would have happened almost automatically. Whereas this way, without names, I was always a little on edge waiting for news of Doctor, the Doctor's Wife, etc. and of course in a sense this gave me sort of reader's blindness. I never imagined what the doctor's wife looked like, nor how she would dress and so on. Is it too much of a stretch to suggest - given that we are reading on a white page - that Saramago has contrived a kind of white blindness for us. Jack

All I want to say at this point is that I feel like the taxi driver...you know - the guy who can no longer see to drive. Sarah, of course, is the Doctor's wife - so LEAD ON, Sarah. Lead on!

C

Betty: Isn't that astonishing? I, too, never realized that our characters remained "nameless", until I reviewed Sarahs questions. Once that was pointed out I felt an even greater sadness. Why does society continue to distinguish people with a moniker:"the boss, the writer, the guy up the street, that teacher or Sally's aunt?" We catagorize others by their professions, accomplishments and relationships to others more often than we do by their given names. I began to wonder- did JS intend these victims to be indistinguishable like their disease of "blindness"? It makes sense, doesn't it to be an obscure being here, an unknown, so to speak? Is he saying to be nameless is akin to being unidentifiable,incognito or unrecognized? The more I deliberate the more I get lost in these thoughts.

Before the official beginning of this discussion, may I apologize for one word in an earlier post, the word "Spanish". My fingers simply ran away and took my mind with them, apparently. Sorry.

Will return later T

Sarah T. What, besides the literal effects of blindness on a society, is Saramago trying to convey?

---

Saramago to me is trying to convey helplessness. Ginger

These characters have lost everything, their visual understanding of the world, their freedom, their Names. I think the lack of names universalizes the experience, identifies characters by their profession or connection to someone else, and depersonalizes them at the same time. It must have been difficult for Saramago not to use names since characters are forever talking with each other. But in the world of the blind, it is voices that distinguish and not names.

I love this book.

Maryal

The book begins with a profusion of color and even exotic images in a very ordinary setting:

The amber light, the red light, the green man, the black asphalt that looks like a zebra, the cars that retreat and advance like nervous horses.

We also begin with the trivia of everyday life:

Impatient motorists, a traffic jam, delay at a traffic light.

It's hard to imagine that such a routine setting would mark the beginning of the end of the world in this city.

That's what makes the story so scary, I think - it seems so real. What if this happened to you in the middle of an intersection? It sends shivers down your spine.

And then, our first case of blindness. And the reaction of the bystanders gives us some indication of the chaos to come: other drivers beat furiously on the closed windows of the car. It gives one the sense of the tenuousness of the order that exists in urban society. One thing out of order, things quickly break down.

Some initial questions - in addition to those in the heading:

1. What do you think of the proposition that society (especially urban society) always teeters on the brink of disaster, and that one small event can throw things completely off balance?

2. Is there any other disability as profound as blindness? Would society degenerate in the same way if people were afflicted some other way?

3. Have you ever thought of something like an epidemic of blindness happening in society? Does it surprise you how quickly society breaks down? Or is this something you would have suspected?

4. There is something very intimate about reading this book. It feels like a nightmare - and nightmares are never shared. Do you find it different to talk about this book with others than to experience it on your own?

------------------

I'm on the West Coast, so for me, it's morning! But thank you all for jumping in.

Morning, Sarah T---It's morning on the EAST coast too, still!

What intrigues me about this blindness is that it is incredibly catching. All you have to do is be near someone who has it and boom, blind.

Maryal

This taking them all to a building to isolate them reminds me when I was a small child there was a big building called Firland's sanatorium and that was where everybody was taken that had TB. Does it seem we try to isolate something we don't understand/?

In answer to your questions, Sarah, no, I was not gripped by panic that this could happen to our society - it's a story, a captivating story, that held my interest to the end. I had the main characters named in my mind before they were ever quarantined - they were "the man at the red light, the car thief, the goodtime girl, doctor, etc." and shortly thereafter JS described them in his own words for me. Actually, they did have names in a way - their names were descriptions - "girl with dark glasses, boy with squint."

I just finished the book last night and as yet have formed no opinion as to why their blindness was white (shock value perhaps), or what JS was trying to convey. That will take a bit of meditation. There is much more in this book than their blindness and I'm sure we will have many opinions to ponder. It's an excellent book, even though you gag over some of the descriptive passages.

My first question is could JS have written the story without the woman who could see?

Maryal brings up a point that is left unanswered in this novel.. This white blindness disease has no etiology. From whence it came? what caused it to leave. Ella also raises the point of the quarantine of things we do not understand. It's like "out of sight out of mind." Isn't that another form of blindness ? A careless, inconsiderate prejudice! Questions like these are questions that arise as we read the story. Why must it take a tragedy for us to contemplate or be observant of, the richness and the meaning of our own lives.

Hi Alf: Before I leave the computer for awhile, I saw your post and must repond to the quarantine question you posed. I did not see your interpretation of "quarantine" as I was reading. Perhaps you are not as old as I, but the Health Department used to quarantine homes where people had contagious diseases. There would be a large sign placed upon their door that said "Quarantine" and no one was to go in or out of that home, only health authorities. This was before the days of the current vaccinations children get and it was just sensible of the local government to do such things in order not to spread contagion. It was not, as I remember it, a shameful thing as everyone understood it as something "caught" from other people.

More on question #2 above: what, beyond literal effects of blindness, is Saramago trying to convey. Regarding only the first of the book, he has taken away how we make sense of the world, literally and, in a larger way, spiritually (but not in a religious way). I think he is saying that we don't see, so he has the characters (and us) not see.

We construct our world in various ways---physical sight is an enormous part of that. One example---so many people worry about how they look to others: weight, baldness, straight teeth, beauty or lack of it. Without sight, a huge part of how we construct our life goes away. Sitting here thinking, what's the most important thing we see (still thinking literally)---it's the face of another. Is he paying attention, is he bored, interested, tired, angry? The face of our child---how could we convey love with the same intensity without sight?

Beyond the literal, though, and I'm sure we'll come back to this throughout the book, Saramago must believe that we either don't see or have stopped seeing. That we are blind.

-----------------------------------------------

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do worry that something simple could throw the world into chaos. Corruption of our computerized power stations could do it.

To answer Betty's last remark first.

Yes, I too can well envisage at least the possibility of massive chaos in today 's world - for a number of reasons. The prospect is frightening to me - and I am not inclined to be paranoid.

This is my partial answer to question # 1. But we also have to think about the term "epidemic".

It is my impression that the mysterious physical malady described in this book has much deeper origins.

On question # 3, Saramago MUST have had a reason for presenting his protagonists here with only external characteristics but without names,

could that have been perhaps to better point to the UNIVERSAL applicability of the "problem" as it spreads and intensifies ?

That brought to mind the most famous of the medieval morality plays, EVERYMAN (and no, I won't go into that, not now).

Much more to consider.

On the lack of names. Kexvu says so insightfully: "I think the lack of names served the author well. I couldn't really take the characters and run. Had the doctor become "José" I think that would have happened almost automatically. Whereas this way, without names, I was always a little on edge waiting for news of Doctor, the Doctor's Wife, etc. and of course in a sense this gave me sort of reader's blindness."

That is so true. The fact that we knew very little about these characters - not even their names - made everything seem even more haunting and surreal.

ALF captures this same feeling:

Why does society continue to distinguish people with a moniker:"the boss, the writer, the guy up the street, that teacher or Sally's aunt?" We catagorize others by their professions, accomplishments and relationships to others more often than we do by their given names. I began to wonder- did JS intend these victims to be indistinguishable like their disease of "blindness.

This makes me wonder about whether JS intended us to make judgments about these characters based on what they do. We expect the doctor to be a benevolent leader. We expect the thief to be dastardly. They are more roles than people.

Each character could be an Everywoman or Everyman.

And the ease with which the blindness was contracted frightened me - that total feeling of helplessness. I do not like it, not one single bit. I'm sure everyone has experience helplessness or the feeling of it at one time or another.

could that be part of the "blindness" he wants to bring to surface - How we categorize people from their position. How often has a doctor (as mentioned above) or a pastor/priest been epitomized as perfect.

And the wife - she is the wife - love must be her vaccine. In the sentences of the first chap she does all in a loving manner.

Great Posts~ Marj

The contemporary English philosopher Bernard Williams is noted for his consideration of what he calls "moral luck." (Perhaps he didn't originate the term.) And his writings have generated a great deal of discussion. Put very clumsily what he is talking about is the idea that our individual morality may in part be illusory, and we are in some moral simply because we are fortunate enough not to have encountered situations that challenge it.

I wonder if Saramago isn't working the same ground, but through literature rather than philosophy.

P.S. Up to what point are we to have read by now? How many chapters?

Jack

On the idea of being close to chaos--Yes, I think that any number of causes could throw a community into survival mode which would be chaotic indeed. The one I think of, perhaps because I have seen Disaster people all suited up, is biological warfare of some kind. Perhaps only one city would be a target, but it would spread rapidly and people would panic.

We all have a thin veneer of "civilization" garbing us, but how easily we could revert to more savage ways.

There are several good eyewitness accounts of the 14th century Plague, the Black Death. One of the more famous is that by Boccacio. He describes how quickly a person could fall ill; a man who was well at breakfast could be dead by the evening meal. People left the city if they could. There were not enough people to haul the dead away. Funerals were abandoned. Fear reigned everywhere.

Maryal

White and black, it seems to me there is something about the color chart which should be commending itself to us at this point, white and black are always what you never think they are, in the world of color. I wish I could remember WHAT. Do we have any artists here who could explain?

ginny

One of the purposes of the characters having no names is perhaps something similar to what happens in a military situation. Basic trainiing. Everyone has a number and the name becomes unimportant. It's depersonalization for a purpose: to break everyone down to a basic level and rebuild them back-up, to "mold" them into a unit with common purpose. Perhaps Saramago has some of the same purpose here: to show us our basic unadorned selves, the bodily functions being what we DO rather than our "occupations". We all have in common the necessity to eat, sleep and excrete our bodily wastes. So that's US - for starters anyway. Like dogs? From pg 52:

"we're so remote from the world that any day now, we shall no longer know who we are, or even remember our names, and besides, what use would names be to us, [JS continually references the "use" that names have - or do not have] no dog recognises another dog or knows the others by the names they have been given, a dog is identified by its scent and that is how it identifies others, here we are like another breed of dogs, we know each other's bark or speech, as for the rest, features, colour of eyes or hair they are of no importance, it is as if they did not exist..." [all emphasis mine]

It is interesting too that the doctor's wife (pg 53), wishes that she too might become blind so that she could "penetrate the visible skin of things and pass to their inner side, to their dazzling and irremediable blindness." To see things as they really are! To JS we are, in a way, blinded by what our senses tell us - we are blinded by the light - the 'white light'. Later, she even feels "contemptible and obscene" (pg 59) for having sight amongst the sightless.

When new arrivals come, the first thing they are told is "our names, what do names matter." Rather than names they announce their occupations, while those who have already been there think of them, as number 1, number 2, etc. In fact "Number one...was about to give his name, but what he said was, I'm a policeman, and the doctor's wife thought to herself, He didn't give his name, he too knows that names are of no importance here." [emphasis mine]

Not only are they persons with no names - they are persons with no homes: "here, each person's real home is the place where they sleep." Again - the bodily functions of eat, sleep, eliminate are the important factors - the binding factors, the common factors. The factors that make them brothers. The real "affinities" that they have in common (beyond the affinities of "connection" which JS muses about on page 55. Odd that I just mused about this same subject regarding the ending of White Teeth, our recently concluded discussion).

That's what binds us together. As Alf says: I believe it was purposeful to make the characters as indistinguishable as possible - at least from the beginning. As kevxu says, he knew someone as "the boss" and then later as "Joe" - a more complete picture to be sure. And a picture that further differentiated Joe from the bosses of the world. I liked that "readers blindness" kexvu mentions. Very apt. And kexvu mentions never imaging what the characters looked like. True. And this is something I always do! The one exception for me, at this early stage (and I'm only 70 pages into the book) was the prostitute. And I believe that is because of the dark glasses prop that she wore. Something about those dark glasses distinguished her from the others - besides the fact that they obviously covered up her "blind" eyes.

---

TERRIFIC SCENES 1 (pg 7): When the doctor was lying on his couch in a waking dream with the flowers on his lap asking himself "what am I doing here with these flowers on my lap" and he wakes to his wife asking him the same question. This is a perfectly pitched and perfectly real. Who has this not happened to?

TERRIFIC SCENES 2 (pg 27): When the doctor wakes up in the morning after his first night of blindness and goes into the bathroom and touches the mirror: "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." An extremely poignant scene. It's just after this that he tells his wife that he is blind.

TERRIFIC SENTENCES 1: "That night the blind man dreamt that he was blind."


Charlie

It is hard to conceive of any affliction worse than blindness. Consider the extent of its metaphorical meaning : blind hate, blind terror, blind love.

An aside : Charlie, I admire your (and anyone else's) ability to produce larger-size type, in color yet (!), to outline paragraphs and to even underline. I still cannot accomplish anything of the kind and, for emphasis, will have to resort to capitalizing = the ONLY means at my disposal.

Much more to say. Later, T

A comment about vision deficits. From those that have written about blindness, it is known that isolation from the rest of the seeing world is one of the toughest challenges---the feeling of isolation as well as true isolation. It's so interesting, then, that Saramago's story is about groups of people who are blind and (at the first of the book) about a group of people who are imprisoned together with almost no outside help. So, the circumstance is something alien to human experience. Only the historical treatment of people in "insane asylums" would compare in horror.

Food, getting it, waiting for it, dividing it---Saramago really captures this reduction to primary needs perfectly. Bodily functions, as Charlie wrote.

Oh, it's just occurred to me that prisoner of war camps would compare.

Betty - so many great points. I thought especially about your statement that you have physical limitations - so becoming blind perhaps isn't as scary to you as it would be to others.

I suspect that blindness is one of the scariest things for people to imagine befalling them.

One sees a blind person in the street, and immediately sees her vulnerability. There is an implicit compact that one hopes everyone will observe: respect that person's space, stay out of her way, don't try to take advantage. Usually, people can be counted on to observe these unwritten rules.

But then, as Betty notes, we have a whole society of people that becomes vulnerable. Virginia and MarjV talked about this book being about helplessness, and they're precisely right. These people are utterly helpless.

How can there be this unspoken compact when everyone has the same vulnerability? How can you give the next person space or stay out of her way when you don't know where she is?

And Betty also talks about the importance of sight in so many other ways: in judging people by their looks, in seeing the look on their faces and gleaning their true feelings from that.

All wonderful points.

Kevxu, to answer your question, we're still in Chapter 1, but will quickly move on. We'll get to the issues of bodily functions - and I don't think I've ever had them described quite so vividly - shortly.

Quick random thoughts.

Ella - I had no idea the quarantined were once seen as innocents, and the process of quarantining a benevolent one. How different things once were. Quarantine always strikes fear into the hearts of the sick. Think of the proposals to quarantine people with HIV several years back. It was terrifying.

Ginny - Isn't white the combination of all color? Or is it black? Does the answer influence your response to question 4?

Traude - please say more about blind hate and blind love. What do those phrases truly mean? And how does the fact that they carry those meanings affect your reaction to Saramago's use of blindness as the affliction in this book?

Maryal - I'm with you. I think we do teeter on the brink of disaster. While some events might not push us over the edge, others easily could do it. One of the things that amazes me about humans is our ability to adapt so freely to change. This isn't always a positive thing: our ability to adapt can also turn us quickly into savages, can't it?

Ginny asked a question earlier today about light and dark and an artist's reaction. Sorry not to have answered when I first saw it. Certainly meant to.

Ginny, if you are you thinking of CHIARO-SCURO, THAT would be a very good comparison - literally. In art it connotes, I think (and I am not an artist) the subtle interplay between light and shadow.

Now, before I log off, I would like to share 2 thoughts : 1. Isn't the unnamed city in BLINDNESS under siege, really ? From what ? By whom ? Why ? 2. Let's watch the Doctor's wife, she is important.

T

Traude- thanks, but you precise and clear comments need no such fancy footwork.

betty- one thinks of leper colonies also.


Charlie

I want to "report" on some things, but if you can imagine that I don't have much emotion invested in these things, then I'd appreciate it. It will drive me crazy, though, unless I say that I'll bet there is a review or two sitting somewhere that takes Saramago to task for these things:

(1) stereotyped sex roles---the man is the doctor, the woman is the "doctor's wife." The doctor's wife is the only one who sees---I suppose this could be seen as a powerful role for a woman, but maybe not---in that she takes care of everyone.

(2) I feel pretty certain that the community of people with vision impairment would be very upset with this book. (I thought about this quite often while reading and not that much about the sex roles.) I can imagine that a reviewer (with vision impairment) might say, let me get this straight---people go blind and the civilized world as we know it falls apart? The reviewer might say, "Within a day or two, these people who go blind are turned into animals who fight over food?" The behavior in the middle of the book (won't say what yet) would be the most offensive, I'm sure.

At any rate, I do believe (right or wrong) that Saramago has taken massive liberties with his characterization of this disability.

I still loved the book, but this niggling thought about how people with vision impairment might respond to it bothered me some.

I can imagine blind people finding the book offensive, but that doesn't mean that Saramago's use of blindness is necessarily off base.

Considering the stunning rapidity with which this plague of blindness spreads, and the fact that its victims are shunted off to quarantine in ill-prepared conditions and are clearly feared and loathed by those not infected I cannot imagine that anything other than chaos and, unfortunately, some animal brutality would result.

We are used to the blind being treated with a good deal of consideration, and under these conditions most blind people live lives in other ways comparable to their sighted fellows. They do this, however, in large measure because the sighted choose to treat them as individuals to be cared about. The blind in our society can thrive and excel because they are helped to do so.

Jack

Actually, Jack, the reactions of horror and fear (in the book and from us) are just a part of the distance felt between sighted people and people with impaired sight. The reason his book "works" so well comes from taking advantage of the horror we feel about this disability. That's terrible.

On Sarah's question of what is the worst physical limitation, there are really interesting studies that show that whatever disability someone has---sight impairment, paraplegia, hearing impairment, quadraplegia, AIDS---when asked what disability each would rather have than their own, people usually say, "I'll keep my own. I'd rather be blind than have paraplegia," or "I'd rather stay in this wheelchair than be deaf." That's not unusual when you think about it, because whatever disability is unknown to you calls up a certain fear.

We are the nuclear-age generation and lived with fear of total annihilation for well over 40 years and methinks this book, which is fiction, should hardly throw anyone into "panic." Our government printed and distributed plans for bomb shelters that one could build in their own backyard, and today we read daily of the possibility of impending disasters, but we do not panic. We have had countless books and movies portray the end of the world as we know it and this author has given us a different version of it - day-by-day portrait of a terrifying scenario.

However, I cannot believe that people would react in such a deplorable manner as described by this author. These folks certainly didn't sleep 24 hours a day and why could not they do a bit of planning, such as digging latrines in the courtyard after the toilets gave out. They did dig graves for a few people who died early in the book. It is unbelievable to me that civilized people could act in such a beastly manner. I think of the victims of the Holocaust being led to the death camps, and although I know the sudden blindness is different, the isolation from their known world is the same.

In all, how long were the people quarantined - 3-4 weeks? During the first two weeks the guards were providing them, as I remember, with food and any supplies needed. Am I correct? They must have received water from the guards for drinking purposes and quite possibly for washing? Of course, it makes a better story to have them completely helpless and acting as animals; however, people are above that species in intelligence although the author would have us believe they were not.

Yes, Betty and Kevxu, I've also thought a lot about the correctness of assuming blindness is a horror. I don't believe it alone is. It's the epidemic nature of the affliction - whether it be the Plague, HIV, Ebola - that brings out what is ugly in the human condition.

That said, I often wonder, as does Ella, why the people in the book didn't band together in an organized way to keep things orderly. I think it goes back to something Kevxu said awhile back (I think it was you, Jack): we think we'll act appropriately in a crisis. In mini-crises, many of us do. We band together and help one another. But I remain convinced that there is a certain threshold that, once crossed, drives us into anarchy.

Where's Hairy? Where's Nettie? Hellooooo??

Sara, I recieved my book from the library today and know that I will enjoy it so much. Thank you for picking this one to be a discussion leader in.

Jack and others that put there name at the bottom of your post I thank you from all the new people who may join us as I remember being new an had to scroll up to find out who's post that I wanted to answer. I hope to start reading tonight.

Blindness and isolation now that would scare anyone and it would certainly me.

Think of all the Blind, deaf, etc. that are in just this situation to day in our institution's and know that there is rape etc. there as I know because my sister was in one in Ill. Her problem was she was deaf and was not taught sign language due to the deppression. We tried to keep her here but it was to late as she did not understand what a knife or a hit on the head could kill some one (how could she know how dangerous this could be). When she was upset she just let her feeling be known.

Enough Now but feel that this book will be very special to me and try to get out of being so silent. OK. Ginger

I also think that it is not the blindness alone but the suddenness of its appearance and the rapidity with which it spreads.

I admire the doctor's wife for her ability to conceal her sightedness and the subtle way that her actions show how very important just a little vision can be. If all are not blind, order is more easily restored. I read a chunk more pages this afternoon and am really enjoying this book. The only problem is that if I stop midchapter, I have to make a tic in the margin or I'll never find where I was.

Maryal

As I read your posts I am thinking that the blindness is not as horrible as the cruelty of the sighted toward them. I guess it was fear that led them to put them where they were and to be so controling. I kept thinking as I read that this couldn't happen in our country. And I was wondering where this took place. He never really says, does he? I can't imagine a city being so cruel to its citizens.

And the cruelty of the next large wave of blind that came. Oh my!

The woman who could see was one of the few who showed any kindness and was not self-serving. I grew fond of her and her husband to some extent. She shows the humanity that all should have. And I think she brought it out in others.

I wanted to get back to a couple of things Charlie said. First, he talked about the nameless characters being harder to visualize than they would be if they were named:

And kexvu mentions never imaging what the characters looked like. True. And this is something I always do! The one exception for me, at this early stage (and I'm only 70 pages into the book) was the prostitute. And I believe that is because of the dark glasses prop that she wore. Something about those dark glasses distinguished her from the others - besides the fact that they obviously covered up her "blind" eyes.

First - do you find you usually can visualize characters? I found it interesting to find out that Charlie does, because I never do. I can visualize place vividly, but faces never come to me. I became curious about this after Charlie said what he did.

Second - it dawned on me: how interesting that we're talking about visualizing characters when we're reading a book about blindness! Maybe Saramago didn't want us to be able to see either. He wanted us blind just as his characters were blind.

Charlie also talked about the poignancy of the statement "That night the blind man dreamt that he was blind." It's terribly frightening to wake up from a nightmare and find that what you dreamed about is actually TRUE. It's one of the worst things imaginable, I think.

I still remember being in a war-torn country in the early 80s. I had a nightmare about a bomb going off - and I woke up to learn that a bomb HAD gone off. It was terrifying.

Has this happened to you?

The other thing about the quote from Charlie is its relationship to Question 7. This book is as close to a nightmare as a book can get. That's what I'm trying to convey in # 7: I can imagine having this book be my own nightmare. To have the rest of you have the SAME nightmare is fascinating.

Virginia - that is terrifying about your sister. I hope she's in a safe place. Are you saying she is not? And you raise a very salient point about how our most vulnerable citizens - be they disabled or elderly - fare in large institutional settings.

Kevxu, have other Saramago books focused on institutionalization and the horrors that can be perpetrated - either by the staff on the patients, or by patients on other patients - in such a setting? I'd be curious to know if this is a recurring theme of Saramago's, and if so, what inspires him to write about this subject.

Maryal - you said succinctly what I took far too many words to say: the suddenness of this epidemic is what caused the greatest amount of breakdown in civility and mores. People were taken unawares and they panicked. For the same reason, I've always thought that natural disasters that one can prepare for are easier to bear than those that strike completely without warning.

(Of course, I live in earthquake country!)

Can someone tell me what Saramago is referring to when it speaks of the philosophers of the Quaternary (p. 16)?

Finally, did you agree or disagree with the thief's logic: "When all is said and done, there is not all that much difference between helping a blind man only to rob him afterwards and looking after some tottering and stammering old person with one eye on the inheritance?

Doesn't that statement press some buttons!

Hairy - you're here! It sounds as if you don't believe something like this actually could happen? But if the blindness was catching - as it seemed to be - isn't it conceivable that people would panic and lose their humanity toward others?

Sarah:  You speak of the unfortunates banning together under such  a difficult hardship as Blindness.  Since Plato the highest ethical good is the same for all.     Many believe that the "highest good for each individual is to find their own unique path, choose ones own way" as the Dr.s  wife did;  a nurturer, she feigned her blindness to enable the blind to see.  JS tells us the "voice is the sight of those who can't see."  Our heroine , a witness for  us, too, speaks of  the horrors she  sees  as the "sub-humans" accommodate themselves with indifference to others.  Ignoring their own imperfection of Blindness, they capitalize on the other's fear and bewilderment.  There is no such thing as superman but there are sub-humans and we meet them in this novel.  They thrive on the misfortune of others sufferings.  This entire story is a progression of fear and indignation . As the degradation increases , so does our characters and the readers trepidation and horror progress.  JS tells us it is a "fine and useless enterprise trying to fix destiny" and we feel ourselves being propelled into this nightmare.<hr>
Interesting thought, Sarah, how one reader "sees" the characters and the other does not. Did JS want us to be "blind" to these characters?   See!  Even as a reader, I had formed a perception (an opinion) of WHAT they should look like and how they should   accommodate themselves to their situation.  Did anyone else here find themself closing their eyes to the light , imagine their horror and attempt to  "identify" the next move??

Hariy - re #95. Your post about the loving wife. Yes, that is what I was thinking about when I posted earlier that perhaps the love she contained was a vaccine for her. ?????????

Sarah - I think I"'ve been visualizing the characters based on my walk thru life. Take the doc for instance - saw him as white coated, dark hair, probably a composite of docs, slender (can't remember if that was in his desc - but that is what I 'saw').

And I am still thinking about the thief's statement re inheritance and robbing. Intent is in there. Interesting that he has a proper noun for name - Samaritan. Is that making fun of people acting as helpers without really having it in their heart?????

As to Q.7, I think, --- no I probably would not continue reading if I wasn't discussing the book. Makes it more interesting to read other's thoughts and also to figure the symbolism. Symbols having different meanings to each of us - regardless of their conventional meaning.

Alf - I like the term 'subhumans'.

~Marj

From: Merrian-Webster online Dict.

Main Entry: 2quaternary Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries Date: 1880 1 capitalized : the Quaternary period or system of rocks 2 : a member of a group fourth in order or rank

Main Entry: 1qua·ter·na·ry Pronunciation: 'kwä-t&(r)-"ner-E, kw&-'t&r-n&-rE Function: adjective Etymology: Latin quaternarius, from quaterni four each Date: 1605 1 a : of, relating to, or consisting of four units or members b : of, relating to, or being a number system with a base of four 2 capitalized : of, relating to, or being the geological period from the end of the Tertiary to the present time or the corresponding system of rocks --

My book is waaaaaaaaaay downstairs so can't relate it to pg 16.

!Marj

I have just begun reading the book, so I am not sure how my perspective will or will not work out as the story progresses.

I think that blindness here is metaphorical, referring to spiritual or moral blindness. Does anyone remember anyone else in history or fiction that was struck by blindness without any apparent physical cause? The only one I can think of is St. Paul on the way to Damascus. He was spiritually blind in his persecution of the followers of Jesus and then became physically blind. Could Saramago be saying that all of us (I think that his lack of names for his characters means that they represent all humans.)are spiritually, morally blind. This blindness results in all kinds of evils. As for the doctor's wife--I like the idea that her love is a kind of vaccine; she sees with the eyes of love and, thus, is not blind.

I am going to keep this idea in mind as I read the book to see if it seems valid as the story works out.

Artemis: St. Paul's blindness is an excellent point, as the one thing that is not mentioned in this book is the subject of faith. To my recollection , nowhere is there an indication of prayer, entreaty or an appeal to a higher power for ones sight to be returned to them. The only time I saw any reference to God was the quote that "God doesn't punish us he just lets us live long enough to punish ourselves." (Paraphrased.) Isn't that strange that such a disaster could ensue and not one blind victim is drawn to a higher power for courage, acceptance or strength? Is this intentional?

... jogging breathlessly along. Re nameless :

Sarah, as I said, the reason for the "namelessness" of the characters in BLINDNESS may well be Saramago's intention to convey his concerns to ANY, even moderately receptive, reader ANYwhere, and to point to at least the possibility (and the danger) of a sudden, unanticipated calamity of massive proportions. Is it really all THAT far-fetched ?

What would peole DO ? How would they BEHAVE ? Well, we see an example in this book. As for civility : It is surprising how thin the veneer of civilization can be in a real crisis.

In every book we read, we empathize with the characters (some are perhaps more memorable or endearing than others) and, under the best of circumstances, we come to care for them. That's when a book will be a success.

Those criteria do not apply to BLINDNESS because it is a novel of ideas, of concepts, about life, suffering and enduring; in other words, about our collective experience.

About Saramago's I have a few stats and will share. Later Traude

Traude wrote:

"Those criteria do not apply to BLINDNESS because it is a novel of ideas, of concepts, about life, suffering and enduring; in other words, about our collective experience."

Along this line...I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned that in Portuguese the book is entitled: Ensaio sobre a cegueira/Essay about blindness.

Obviously the book is a novel, but it is interesting in light of what Traude is saying that he has given it a rather didactic sounding title in his own language.

Jack

Artemis, I had a similar thought about biblical stories (and others from literature??) whose characters experience tragic, life-altering circumstances in order for them---or all of humanity---to learn a great truth. The great flood comes to mind. St. Paul's blindness, perfect example. Seems like famines and other physical afflictions were always somehow connected with eventually "seeing" the light.

Which, by the way, is why I think Saramago creates a white blindness, instead of a dark blindness. There's even an expression "blinding light" which conveys white light.

-------------------------------------

Sarah, it's difficult for me to imagine that you don't imagine the physical look of a book's characters. I always do. The images were more generalized for this book because I had less to work with, but my mind's eye definitely "sees" something when a character is in action or is speaking. For example, the doctor's wife is slightly shorter than he is. I picture the firm but calm set to her shoulders as she weathers each development, as she pretends not to see. The doctor's face is showing more anxiety than hers, but he, too, is relatively calm in his movements. The "first blind man" and his wife have younger looking bodies and look terribly anxious, just as Saramago has written their behavior. The woman from the hotel kept a blank face, kept her distance and her secrets.

Doesn't a nuclear blast cause blindness? That would probably be a white light also. Again, we cause our own blindness with our warring technology. On the Beach comes to mind and another horrifying situation. T.C. Boyle in A Friend of the Earth speaks of man having to live with all of the repercussions of what we are doing to the earth now. There are just a few books coming to mind that deal with horrifying situations and how people try and survive.

I like what Marj said about the doctor's wife's love being her vaccine. That's really nice.

And Traude's remark about how thin the veneer of civilization can be. Well said.

But, I still think, would it really be that thin? Would so few people be kind? Would the government and the soldiers be so cruel? Have we not learned from WWII? Good grief!! Are people basically selfish or are they basically good? I can imagine this perhaps happening in some countries, but not in most.

Am I living in a daisy world?

Absolutely. There is no doubt.

Blindness is one of the worst, if not THE worst affliction that can befall us. There are telling references in the language, as in "love is blind" and "turning a blind eye".

Isn't there also a saying " .. none are so blind as those who don't WANT to see ? "

If we are given a message (as I think we are, here, if veiled, as in his other books), what exactly is it that we should see and don't ?

Jack, thank you for providing the Portuguese title of the book. I will explain presently why this is important to me. Thank you.

Here is what I know about Saramago. He was born in 1922 in Ribatejo, the poorest region in Portugal, a country to which democracy came late. He began writing when he was in his fifties- no whippersnapper, he ! To understand "where he is coming from", to use a popular phrase, perhaps we must look at Portugal's history.

to be continued. Traude

Hairy wrote:

"But, I still think, would it really be that thin? Would so few people be kind? Would the government and the soldiers be so cruel? Have we not learned from WWII? Good grief!! Are people basically selfish or are they basically good? I can imagine this perhaps happening in some countries, but not in most."

Though I had a conventional religious upbring and a mainstream American education, both of which taught that mankind is motivated by a basic goodness, it is my own conclusion based on the experiences of my life that people are neither basically good nor basically bad. It is my own feeling that a great many of life's disappointments and ills come as a result of trying to impose one scenario or the other on the motivations of human beings. I'm not sure what Saramago thinks. He was a rather idealistic and critical Communist, and he exiled himself for a period from Portugal. Makes me think that in some senses he had a belief in human pefectability in a Marxist sense and was unable/unwilling to accomodate himself to the flow of his country's history. I expect Traude may have more precise and revealing things about what S. himself thinks on this subject.

How to be brief? As to the question could this really happen? And here (the U.S., I guess that originally meant)? This never occurred to me as I read. As far as my life experience is concerned, I saw the dress rehearsal and I have absolutely no doubt that it could and probably would. When I read the book I didn't say, "Oh, no!", my reaction was "Of course."

I lived in a NYC neighborhood that used to have a fair sized gay male population, several of my best friends were among the first people infected with AIDS and for ten years I spent virtually all of my free time working as a volunteer with people who had AIDS - mainly gay men at first, but later heterosexual men and women and children.

There are "doctor wives" out there of both sexes, and without them the earliest days of the epidemic in NYC would have spun off into social chaos. The government, local nor federal, was not able - or in the case of the latter willing to cope; religious groups were hostile to the sick or at the very best aloof for many years. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General and one of the few bright lights of the early days, when asked about the homophobia of the Reagan admin. and its indifference to AIDS, replied that in the cabinet meetings he saw not homophobia, fear of homosexuals, what he saw was "hatred" of them.

It was truly inspiring and life-transforming to see who became the "doctor's wife" under these circumstances. But in the long haul it was horrifying to see at first hand - even after the passage of almost a decade - the number of people (home healthcare workers, hospital support staff, member of religous groups) being truly visciously, vilely and gratuitously *physically* and verbally cruel to the sick and dying. Physical abuse of the sick, petty theft from the sick and even looting their homes of food and furniture - these things were unbelievably common. And it occurred over and over and over again, and in most cases it was hidden by the people who were employers and supervisors for business reasons, or went unaddressed because those who cared were faced with an endless line of the sick and dying. In my experience an unfortunatly large number of people used the AIDS epidemic to vent their own pent up frustrations (on the defenseless ill), to loot, to advance themselves at the expense of others - and these were just garden variety "folks." Not the crazed hate-filled fanatics that popped up in the guise of religious or political leaders or spokesmen. And please be aware, I'm talking only of what I saw and know of from first-hand, not rumour or "urban myths." At the end of fifteen years for the most part the "doctor's wives" had vanished from the scene, and saner heads and medical science had slowly prevailed. And of course, in no way was the AIDS epidemic the wildfire of the blindness epidemic that S. sets up.

In order to quite literally keep my sanity in those years I picked up Defoe's "Journal of a Plague Year." I assure you, very little has changed in four centuries, and in some senses that prevented absolute despair. At least things weren't worse. On the personal level - as a narrative about plague at least - S.'s book is simply the other parenthesis.

Thus, based on my own experience (one which I realized is not shared by many people) Question 5 has already been answered. It takes no difficulty whatsoever for me to believe that the fiction of "Blindness" would become true life very quickly if an incurable epidemic were to break out among the general population of the U.S., Ebola for example. And if that epidemic were to establish itself among Hispanics or blacks, so much the worse. I now firmly believe that Bernard Williams thoughts about 'moral luck' are right on the dime.

In the end, these experiences played a major part in my decision to emigrate from the United States. Despite the fact that people are probably more or less the same everywhere, I preferred to grow old and die in a society free of reminders of that part of the past.

I find the closing paragraphs of the book extremely provocative. I'm not at all sure I know what Saramago meant for us to make of them, and I will be interested to see how other people here react/interpret them when we reach the end of the book. In the meantime, I am also interested in what Traude comes up with.

Jack

You make so many good points, Jack, that I don't know where to start. Your first-hand experience of the various kinds of hatred toward the gay people with AIDS---I wonder, did it confirm a long held belief or change how you believed---about the goodness of people question. That may not be important, but I was just curious. The story of your part in the care of those patients was very moving.

You may not see the connection, but there are thousands of women whose life experiences have eaten away their positive perspective of life. I'm thinking now of the current statistics of emergency room admissions or just the simple everyday fear of walking to a car after dark. Making sense of this world can sometimes be beyond maddening.

I wish I knew the source of my deep belief in personal wellness. It feels a little different than saying whether we are basically good or bad. Saying something or someone is "good" or "bad" always feels like a misdirected moral judgement to me. And there is little utility in it.

What makes more sense to me is that the capacity for wellness is in each of us, and is, in fact, ridiculously easy to access. I guess I mean the regular things---finding meaning in one's life with a certain level of personal happiness and generosity of spirit toward others, and a capacity to weather all the expected disappointments with perspective---learning all of it as we go.

I used to think that my longer than average list of disappointments/challenges would eventually finish off this positive outlook, that I would simply stop believing it. Now, I joke that I can't kill it, it refuses to leave. I've been depressd enough to have thoughts of suicide (well, who hasn't---thoughts of suicide are quite common), but even in the middle of the worst of the worst, I have thought, "but this is time limited, the body yearns to be back in balance and I'll come around soon enough," which, of course, is what happens. It's not that I see the glass as half full all the time, it's that I believe it to be true even when I'm down in the dumps.

Jack, I really liked your thought that "the doctor's wife" comes in both sexes. Adding together several others' comments on the doctor's wife (immunity because of love and her selfless nature), your comment made me think of both men and women who fit that.

I've only known one close person who died of AIDS, but have several friends who have had several people close to them die from it. It's amazing how many lives have been affected.

--------------------------------------------------

I feel more like Linda (Hairy) does than others on whether this fiasco could happen in the U.S (and other countries, too, but not all.) Chaos, yes. Panic, yes. But not the breakdown of human resourcefulness, of the particularly human trait of rising to extraordinary challenges. Within large groups, of course there would be a range of attitudes, a range of needs. The gay community is a good example. As thousands of people were dying, they finally emerged as one voice and got things done. Jews survived the camps---one wonders how. African slaves were separated from their husbands, wives, children, imprisoned by white owners. There just seems to be a survival instinct that emerges when needed.

Granted, Saramago has created a scene that adds together---serious illness, out-of-control illness, abusive treatment of patients----so I reserve a very small "maybe" in my thinking that things could fall apart, but it's not my gut level reaction.

I'm watching right this minute a speech by Al Gore and I quote, "People have both the capacity for good and the capacity for evil."

Jack - I am so glad I have met you. I am from San Francisco, and I too spent a long period of my life working with people with HIV. Your statement below, therefore, is all the more chilling:

"But in the long haul it was horrifying to see at first hand - even after the passage of almost a decade - the number of people (home healthcare workers, hospital support staff, member of religous groups) being truly visciously, vilely and gratuitously *physically* and verbally cruel to the sick and dying. Physical abuse of the sick, petty theft from the sick and even looting their homes of food and furniture - these things were unbelievably common. And it occurred over and over and over again, and in most cases it was hidden by the people who were employers and supervisors for business reasons, or went unaddressed because those who cared were faced with an endless line of the sick and dying. In my experience an unfortunatly large number of people used the AIDS epidemic to vent their own pent up frustrations (on the defenseless ill), to loot, to advance themselves at the expense of others - and these were just garden variety "folks."

Talk more about this. It's something that is so often unsaid in the "therapeutic" community.

--------------------

Artemis - WELCOME. So great to see you here. You and ALF make the point about the allegorical nature of Saramago's story. If, as kevxu states, Saramago at one time was a Marxist, I wonder whether he intended this story as religious allegory.

The reason this book works so well, in my view (I think this was also in the Salon review I posted awhile back) is that the story works literally as well as allegorically.

I wonder if our various reactions to this book - Linda's and Ella's of horror and disbelief that humans would act so vilely - Jack's and Traude's that such behavior is to be expected - and Betty's somewhere in between (sorry for leaving others out) - depend on our own personal backgrounds.

If we are city dwellers, we tend to have few connections with our neighbors. There is somehow less accountability than when you live in a more intimate setting. Our exposures to HIV or other epidemics might also affect our views. It may also be generational - the younger among us (relatively speaking) may have less faith in our fellow man than someone who lived through the depression and WWII. Do you agree?

Jack or Traude - what affected Saramago to assume humans would react in this way?

Let's move now to Chapter 5 (I believe - did you notice he doesn't use Chapter numbers either?), on p. 34. It begins "The suggestion (of a quarantine) had come from the minister himself."

Our key characters begin to arrive at the mental hospital. (Speaking of which, I found it interesting that of the choices - a new corporate trade center building, a supermarket, and a military installation - they chose the mental hospital). This would be the time to set things up in an orderly manner.

In some way, the doctor's wife's fear of revealing her sightedness keeps her from taking charge. Had she done so, things might have been more orderly. Instead, the first man's anger at the thief spills over into the ward - and the doctor aptly observes: "if your idea is to turn this place into a hell, then you're going about it in the right way. . . ." This is the beginning of the end, it seems. At this point, I think we all realize that things will not go well.

The thief then tries to touch the woman in dark glasses, and she kicks and injures him. This again foreshadows worse things to come.

What are your feelings as they enter the mental hospital?

MarjV - now that you've defined the term, what does it mean in the context of the story (jumping back in the book a bit):

The thief has just stolen the car. Saramago begins speaking of morality:

"The moral conscience that so many thoughtless peole have offended against and many more have rejected, is something that exists and has always existed, it was not an invention of the philosophers of the Quaternary, when the soul was little more than a muddled proposition."

Which philosophers is he talking about?

It's interesting that Saramago feels this way - that moral conscience exists in all of us, but that many "thoughtless" people offend against and reject it.

You'd think he felt differently: that we are by nature immoral, and that a few of us have moral conscience.

Where's Judy Laird? Pat W? Charlie? Ginger? Nettie? Ginny?

Come on back and let us know what you think!

The discussion thus far has made me very curious about a couple of points, and I wish there Senhor Saramago was here to be asked.

I wonder how much the view of life he presents here might have resulted from the experiences of post-Salazar Portugal. Saramago was (is?) a Communist. However, his "Communism" from what little I know of him seems to have been more for the ideals of Marx rather than the actual party that evolved from events in turn-of-the-century Russia. After the end of the Salazar regime Portugal turned very hard to the Left in reaction to the preceding four or more decades of a kind of softcore fascism. (The Salazar regime came about as a result of the failure of the democratic governments that followed the overthrow of the monarchy in 1910.) Communism and hardline socialism proved unsuccessful and Portugal moved to the center. Somewhere in this turmoil Saramago exiled himself to the Spanish Canary Islands. Was he bitterly disillusioned that Marxism did not bring about a kind of Brotherhood of Man?

And then there is bureaucracy. Portugal is notorious for bureaucracy. To many Europeans the Portuguese civil service makes the term Byzantine seem a synonym for drive-in banking in comparison. In all of his books I have read Authority seems to be remote, almost inert, uncaring. I know we all think that about our individual governments, but I have to wonder if S. intends the Portuguese system when he writes.

Jack

Jack - your post about New York brings tears to my eyes.

Betty - I appreciate what you said about poeple rising to the occasion.

I am still stunned.

kevxu- I can only say that rarely has anyone added so much to my visceral understanding of a book. Thank you.

Saramago reinforces the "epidemic" aspect of the crisis nicely with his numbering system. The number afflicted increase almost exponentially. One, then 2, then 4, them 40, then 200 - then 240 (in Chapter .

Saramago's politics are evident in many places in the book. The decision on the distribution of food is one such (but I'll hold off on that - Chapter 9),

Sarah talks about dreams and nightmares - and is interested that her nightmare is being shared with other readers. It can be said that the characters in the book are sharing the same nightmare also. Time has stopped in this story - making it take on the aura of an endless nightmare.

Forty persons were sleeping or desperately trying to get to sleep, some were sighing and murmuring in their dreams, perhaps in their dream they could see what they were dreaming, perhaps they were saying to themselves, if this is a dream, I don't want to wake up. All of their watches had stopped, either they had forgotten to wind them or had decided it was pointless..."

It is at this point that the "car thief" decides to end his life in a truly chilling scene.
Charlie

Jack - what a story you have to tell! You were so disillusioned with your experiences that you felt you had to move out of the country! That's a drastic reaction. Was that your only reason? Had you always wanted to retire to a European country? Do you speak the language?

Sarah - How did you pick this book for discussion? By the author alone or another's recommendation?

We all differ as to how we discuss a book - some like to finish the entire book and then discuss it and others like to take it a little at a time, chapter by chapter. This is one time I finished the book before I began discussing it and I should have put pencil marks in various places that "hit home." But I didn't. I'll review your chapter 5 or the one in which the first seven (was it seven?) were incarcerated in the abandoned mental hospital.

I'm still stunned by Jack's story! I feel so sheltered here in my home in the Midwest and I truly didn't feel that way before; however, I was not a sheltered child by loving parents. Far from it, so I know a little of how cruel life can be, how the absence of love can inflict pain.

Jack's experience with the AIDS patients is similar, but dissimilar in that the people in our book are ALL BLIND (with one exception)and it is the blind being extremely cruel to those with their own disability. In reading of the incident where the "bullies" (there must be a better word but it doesn't come to mind at the moment) extract all valuables from the weak, I thought - What do they think they are going to do with them? Who is going to buy from them? What exchange can they make? What purpose was served? What was the author's idea in writing this episode? Was it to show that there was still hope for a cure?

Later - Ella

Well here I am I don't post often, usually just open mouth to put foot in it.

Jack your posts are so good. You make me think about things that I never have thought about before.

I was just telling my DIL a few days ago that we are so insulated here by the life styles we have and the place where we live that we really have no idea of whats going on in the real world where some people have it so tough. This was in my standard lecture about her being thankful for all the blessings she has. hehe

As the story unfolds in the mental hospital I have trouble beleiving that people would behave in that way. If I was blind and locked up I think I would try to be friends with the people that were there and try to get organized. Isn't adversity supposed to bring people togeather??

Well, no wonder!! Saramago's background (thank you, Jack!) explains so much---especially his experience/view of authority and bureaucracy. Possibly even his view of failed social systems. There are two long paragraphs later in the book---one listing what he values and one listing what he must think blinds us to what is valuable. His background sheds light on both lists. Did we ever realize how many figures of speech relate to light and truth?

---------------------------------------------------

So......using Jack's thought, both Sarah and Jack have been "the doctor's wife" in their care of AIDS patients.

Sara, Here I am. Read a lot of the book and one of the things that stand out to me is the filth with no one to keep the place clean but no one wanted to catch the blindness I understand that. This story is of a truth, a nightmare. I am still reading it and will to the finish which is under 100 pages more. The people with Aids in this country now get alot of help to the best of my knowledge. But this Blindness you cannot even be a taxi driver as it seemed to just spread in the air like chemical warfare or something. I sure wish someone knew just made S write this story. I have no answers. ginger

Sara, Here I am. Read a lot of the book and one of the things that stand out to me is the filth with no one to keep the place clean but no one wanted to catch the blindness I understand that. This story is of a truth, a nightmare. I am still reading it and will to the finish which is under 100 pages more. The people with Aids in this country now get alot of help to the best of my knowledge. But this Blindness you cannot even be a taxi driver as it seemed to just spread in the air like chemical warfare or something. I sure wish someone knew just made S write this story. ginger

From Hairy's post - re thin veneer statement of Traude. "But, I still think, would it really be that thin? Would so few people be kind? Would the government and the soldiers be so cruel? Have we not learned from WWII? Good grief!! Are people basically selfish or are they basically good? I can imagine this perhaps happening in some countries, but not in most. "

An idea comes to mind. We keep having new generations that need to learn compassion, caring, empathy all over again as they mature. I agree with Traude.

And as I look at my neighborhood I see the same thing. People allow their dogs to bark and bark until the public safety must be called. They park their car (1 of 4) in front of my house untl I have to leave a note or file a complaint. The alarms on cars are loudly obnoxious. And I livein a "good" neighborhood.

The reference to "ON the Beach " is good.

Jack - your post was right to the point. Thank you.

~Marj

Sarah quotes from book... "The moral conscience that so many thoughtless peole have offended against and many more have rejected, is something that exists and has always existed, it was not an invention of the philosophers of the Quaternary, when the soul was little more than a muddled proposition."

I am guessing > when the theology of the soul began to be studied.

As to Quatenary - maybe refers to the 4th century?????

~Marj

The Quaternary is a subdivsion of geological time (the Quaternary Period - made up of the Pleistocene epoch and the Holocene epoch, the last 10,000 years). Essentially this period spans the last 2 million years (approximately) of the earth's history. As such, when JS refers to the "philosophers of the Quaternary" - he's referring to all of the body of thought of philosophy, and is saying that the "moral conscience" of man is something that has "always" existed and predates man's consciouss efforts to explain our exsistence.


Charlie

Some books we discuss incite our easily accessed attitudes and beliefs. This book, it seems, touches deeper, almost primal instincts. Almost all of us are talking about the most basic ways we construct our world. I can make my brain say yes to the separate arguments why this horrific scenario is possible or probable, but I can't make it add up.

I really do have faith in our resourcefulness and ability to do the impossible in impossible situations. I'll go a step farther. I think the worst scenario brings out the abilities not thought possible beforehand. Men fighting for their lives and country have been able to do this under formidable circumstances. And so have women who were held as prisoners. I think the instinct is to live and to help others live.

"Is the Blindness our own?" - some of you have said. Saramago and your posts seem to be pulling the cloth from our eyes and showing us what we have become without even realizing it.

This book seems to be a wake-up call for that moral conscience to be enlivened, re-instituted, re-taught as Marj says.

I watch the school children lining up for lunch, walking down the halls, and I see so many problems of pushing, needling others, saying unkind things and I think, "And the world will be more crowded as they grow up." Trying to teach manners helps; but there's an inward-ness that has to be inculcated - values, love, caring, sharing, a spirit of "we are all one family." I miss the way my grandparents lived. It was a somewhat simpler world. What have we done?

I think of going to a grocery store when I was a kid and the manners and niceties that people displayed. Today it does seem like a society of ill-mannered me-first people. The onset of having 2 cars began to change us and the TVs and advertising sent us out rushing around to buy things. Now we have road rage.

I'm getting a better perspective on the book, I think. Maybe I've been lulled into some kind of complacency thinking "it couldn't happen here."

Is he teaching us what we have become? What we are becoming? What we need to teach the younger set? As we grow more in population, we need to learn to stand in line and wait serenely and make polite conversation. Maybe our sense of humor has also become warped and bitier since earlier days.

This input from all of you is really sparking us! Thanks so much!!

Linda

i.e., JS says that "even in the most depraved souls" it is possible to find this "moral conscience", possible for our "moral responsibility" to win out over the baggage that "social evolution and genetic exchange" has brought us..


Charlie

"even in the most depraved souls"

Wow! And we do have them, don't we? The jails have been enlarged and are full. The news is full of horrific crimes - even within one family. Each one "topping" the other in gore, visciousness, and depravity.

All I can think of is I need to be kind, to do what I'm supposed to be doing every day, and step out and help others. The old axiom, "Kindness is Contagious" seems like a weak answer, but it's a start.

Linda

I do agree with that, Charlie. Capacity for health, is how I think of it.

But, Linda---what we see on television is the magnified percent of a percent of what's newsworthy--in other words, entertainment. We don't hear of the 99.999 percent of people's "good" that goes on every day. Look at your "kindness." THAT is more representative of average people.

Sorry not to have answered sooner, as was the plan. But we know what can happen to even the best-laid plans.

A simple mishap in my home yesterday had me contemplate the world from an ant's view. (After 3 hours the thought was almost amusing.) I simply could not pull myself up off the floor (severe arthritis and a torn tendon in one shoulder as yet unrepaired). To crawl to the phone took forever. Frustration. Despair. Concern for my beloved Greyhound waiting outside for her noon meal. But this was Saturday. Few people are home. Left an SOS on my son's machine. My neighbor across the street who works nights had the ringer off. Utter helplessnes. In the end I swallowed my pride and called 911. An indescribable joy to be in the upright position again!!! Nothing broken, just soreness, and a feeling of infinite gratitude for the rescuers. Forgive me for describing this incident here in such detail; somehow I felt it was permissible to do so.

As I said, I am having a hard time keeping up with all your thoughts. Will keep trying. Jack, thank you for sharing your experiences and your knowledge of Saramago. To be with people who listen and read (Betty) with their hearts is a rare privilege.

When we had the preliminary discourse on BLINDNESS, I mentioned a friend's puzzling reaction to Saramago's winning the Nobel, and wondered when and how I could introduce this into our discussion.

Now that Jack has given us background, this is the time to bring it up. When the winner was announced in '98, I called my friend who is a luminary in the sizable Portuguese-American community in southeastern Massachusetts and nearby areas of Rhode Island, a teacher of ESL and an interviewer of a TV program shown on local cable access stations called THE PORTUGUESE AMONG US. You must be excited, I said. Proud, I said. She had not heard of him. Soon after she called me back and said, dismissively, the man is a Communist and the award was political. I was stunned. In truth at that time I had no idea who Saramago was either -- all the pre-award speculation was focused on Antonio Lobos Antunes, his compatriot. So I decided right then and there to inform myself on Saramago's books and his background to the extent it was available.

I am still appalled by my friend's original statement, which I think, with all due respect, is uninformed. Her views remain unchanged.

Let me continue in a little while. T

Hmm - Traude - does this book lose its power because Saramago is a Communist? I really don't think so. Political systems of the left and right are capable of the misdeeds (the quarantine) Saramago portrays. I hope you're feeling ok after yesterday's mishap.

The prizes are always political to some extent. But I think they picked a winner with Saramago. No one seems to know this year's winner either, but I don't know that that diminishes the book.

Betty - I think part of my inability to see things with your optimism is that I have not lived through a true societal crisis. I haven't experienced first hand people's ability to band together for the collective good.

Rather, I see what Marj and Linda speak of - a fairly dog-eat-dog world. San Francisco in the time of the dot-com boom is not a pretty place to be. I've never seen so many homeless - not even during the 80s.

Thank you Charlie for assistance on the Quaternary. Was your addendum meant to suggest that Saramago actually thinks we all have the capacity for goodness and morality? If so, what causes some to exercise it, and others to ignore it?

Ginger mentions the filth in this book. I don't think I've ever seen bodily functions portrayed so vividly. Do you think the detail here is excessive? I found it sort of liberating - usually, when disasters are portrayed, no one ever talks about what people do about their own waste. I'm embarrassed to say I've dreamt in horror of some really dirty bathrooms (wonder what Freud would say about this!). Can we talk just a minute about this reality? How does all of this make you feel?

Ella - on why this book was picked. I had read it awhile back. A friend was in Portugal and in her honor I began reading another of Saramago's books, A year in the Life of Ricardo Reis (which I didn't like). To give Saramago another chance, I picked up Blindness. Another friend had raved about it.

I was blown away by this book. It's one of the few best reads of my life. The horror of it stuck with me. It's visceral, and stays with you (sort of like Jack's posts - SO glad you're here, Jack).

Sarah, no, I don't think the book loses its power because of the author's early Marxist leanings. Nor should it.

But that is precisely the reason for my friend's position, a position I sincerely deplore. She claims to have read all of Saramago's books -- which would be quite a feat.

Now Jack, if my rendition and understanding of background, personal and historical, are wanting or wrong, please do set me straight.

Saramago was born in 1922 in the Ribatejo, the poorest province of Portugal, a country to which the concept and the reality of democracy came late. One review in a Swiss weekly said, and I paraphrase, that Saramago, a member of the Communist Party for two decades believed he could improve the notoriously underprivileged status of the people in that region. (When I mentioned this to my friend, she protested, but they don't consider themselves THAT!)

The first Saramago book I got my hands on, thanks to the trusted local library, was THE HISTORY OF THE SIEGE OF LISBON. That threw me willy nilly smack down into Portugese history, WAY beyond what I remembered from school. (And it was an excellent one. Carved into the sandstone building was the motto NON SCHOLAE SED VITAE DISCIMUS = it is not for the school but for life that we learn; Latin was a required subject.)

Lusitania was an early Roman settlement on the Iberian peninsula and what eventually became Portugal had a glorious seafaring history. Vasco da Gama and the establishment of the East-Indian possessions and their eventual loss to the Netherlands are highlights. I won't go into any more details here, but it may be an interesting point of reference to note that the English under Wellington liberated Portugal in 1808 from Napoleonic occupation. The turbulence started in this century and Jack has eloquently described Salazar. What may have been ignored by part of the world is Portugal's active involvement in the struggles in Angola and Mozambique, the African "colonies". Those are reflected in he work of Antonio Lobos Antunes, Saramago's "rival" for the Nobel.

So much for an extremely abridged history. Small wonder then that a person as compassionate as I believe Saramago to be (on the basis of what I have read) writes from this experience, and emerges with a pessimistic view, which I believe it is. And yet, it seems to me that ultimately he believes in the solidarity of people of good will ... Before closing, a word about good and evil. Yes, we have the capacity for both, only in different proportions, if you will. To put it crudely, some people are more compassionate, some essentially indifferent, some plain selfish. Yet the true measure of a man, or a woman, comes out in moments of crisis and chaos. For I have been there. T You will be generous in overlooking typos, I hope.

HAIRY - your post reminded me of a book read many years ago but one I have never forgotten - Magnificent Obsession wherein "kindess was contagious" as you so eloquently stated it. Do you remember it?

TRAUDE - Gosh, I hope you are better! What an ordeal you went through and thanks for the information on JS and the history of Portugal. As readers we all know each of us have varying tastes in books. I found it difficult to finish this book but forced myself to in order to hear everyone's comments and, indeed, am enjoying the discourse.

Yesterday I read from pg. 51 to 69 - the first "day" of incarceration and, although I doubt that JS meant for the reader to count the days and weeks literally; however this does seem to be the first whole day in the lives of the original 5 that we follow through the ordeal. The first morning as the doctor's wife was waking up she had this thought"

we're so remote from the world that any day now, we shall no longer know who we are, or even remember our names, and besides, what use would names be to us, no dog recognizes another dog or knows the others by the names they have been given, a dog is identified by its scent and that is how it identifies others, here we are like another breed of dogs, we know each other's bark or speech……

JS is putting the idea into our minds here that they are on a level of animals and he continues with this theme throughout the entirety of the book. I don't believe it - I cannot believe people would sink to this level so soon. At one place in the early part of this chapter, the doctor thinks of getting order into their lives, but never proceeds to do anything. In fact, if this is one day in the lives of these people, all they do is find the toilets, get acquainted, eat two meals, listen as new arrivals get situated and then go to bed.

On pg. 71 as the girl with dark glasses is sobbing over the wound she inflicted on the hapless fellow who was shot, is this statement which is very biblical in origin - in fact it brings to mind a Bible verse which I cannot think of (perhaps some of you can?) about "by our deeds we are known:"

…that if, before every action, we were to begin by weighing up the consequences, thinking about them in earnest, first the immediate consequences, then the probable, then the possible, then the imaginable ones, we should never move beyond the point where our first thought brought us to a halt. The good and the evil resulting from our words and deeds go on apportioning themselves, one assumes in a reasonably uniform and balanced way, throughout all the days to follow, including those endless days, when we shall not be here to find out, to congratulate ourselves or ask for pardon, indeed there are those who claim that this is the much-talked-of immortality.

Wonderful discussion! So sorry to hear of your terrrible plight, Traude!

At the very beginning there is a quote. Forgive me, if someone else has mentioned it. I can't recall.

"If you can see, look. If you can look, observe."

From the Book of Exhortations

He is putting a mirror up to who we are inside. Or, should I say - who he thinks we are inside. In the very beginning chapter I remember seeing this thought of JS and thinking...ok, here it is - this is what he wants to say here: "Then, as if he had just discovered something that he should have known a long time ago, he murmured sadly, this is the stuff we're made of, half indifference and half malice."

Well, it shows a "half" pessimism, I guess. which means he is also half optimistic. But, during the rest, do we see much optimism? I think he is painting a picture for us and maybe we will see what we see - each of us.

And now I am going to extricate myself from the web I've entangled myself in by going in circles! Zowie!

Thanks for the encouragement, Betty! And all the information from Jack, Traude and Charlie. Where did you get those quotes of S's, Charlie? In this book?

Linda

Sorry bout the previous the keyboard slipped off my lap, I grabbed for it and zap there was a posting.

I lived on Madeira for several months. It is an island off the west coast of Africa and is an offshore province of Portugal, and a semi-autonomous region (as are the Azores.) I asked my language teacher, a young, college educated woman in her late 20's about Saramago. She had no opinion about his ideas, but raved like a madwoman on how his use of language was "hideous," and other similar adjectives. She said that few people read him for that reason.

I moved to mainland Portugal and live in the southernmost province, the Algarve. The reaction of another language teacher, a middle aged woman and one quite clearly more intellectually mature: Saramago was not and is not widely read by the Portuguese. First of all, there is a very small audience for literature as opposed to pop fiction; second, he is difficult to read in Portuguese. She also volunteered this:

(though we spoke only Portuguese and my ability to understand people when they speak on complex topics is *extremely* limited and that's being very kind to myself. I trust I have her jist here.) Her remarks:

Portugal was puttering along in the 60s vying with Greece for being Western Europes poorest country. Salazar's fascism was something on the order of almost an enervating nation habit, the country was stagnating economically and intellectually and emigration was a running sore. (The Communists and the Left in general were probably the strongest, if impotent, underground opposition to Salazar.)

The loss of the African colonies came after a series of costly campaigns to put down the rebellions, atrocities were committed, political opposition was more risky and the country went into kind of national schizophrenia over this last burst of energy from the tired right wing regime. Salazar goes into a coma, the old regime is eased out in a bloodless coup, the colonies are abandoned (not without an enormous sense of betrayal by those Portuguese for whom they were home, and who now returned to a homeland many of them had never seen) and the country spun into a series of Leftist governments and then gradually after massive popular reforms and reorganizations, more conservative influences took hold and though the country evolved into a democracy of the western type, many of the reforms that benefited the little guy were reversed and the old wealthy families (a combination of some of the nobility and wealthy industrial dynasties) regained control of much of the country. (Saramago must have been understandably crushed to see many of the same old wealthy families recovering their fortunes, and retaking control of the country's economic life.)

This has been a huge dislocation for the country as a whole and for the individual Portuguese person to take in, deal with and keep his or her head. Lots of mixed feelings. Antunes and Pires are more popular because their writing styles are much more accessible, and - for our purposes more telling (if I understood Maria Jõao correctly) -they tend to in a sense assign blame, both have written books directly pointing at readily identifiable political situations and events. Pires' book Ballad of Dog's Beach is "mystery" about a real political liquidation, for example.

Her point seemed to be that Saramago by choosing his kind of parable style in some books or dealing with the more distant past in others puts the reader into a more philosophically questioning realm. The reader cannot just sit there and feel self-righteous as he reads about the bad guys from bad ol' yesterday, and this is not the royal road to popularity or a big readership. Therefore, he was and is far less widely read. Antunes, by the way, has just won some big award and the papers here are filled with interviews and stories.

As I mentioned, I read some of Saramago's journals to practice Portuguese, and it is my impression most of his works have reached rather small audiences; however, even before the prize his plays were produced in other countries.

It sounds as if, from what the second teacher said, that Portuguese readers find the same challanges that were are. But it may be that given recent Portuguese history there may be something like a kind of national exhaustion when it comes to self-examination.

Jack

I have finished the book and am so glad I read it. I found it almost impossible to put down today, probably read the whole second half today as a matter of fact. I won't say anything ahead of where we are though so as not to spoil it for others.

On the reality of what happens--the literal level. It seems to me that what happens in the novel could very well happen. It is not that kindness does not exist but rather that it does not exist in all and certainly has trouble existing when terror is in control.

It is the astonishing quickness of the spread of the blindness along with the government's plan to control it without ever having made any plans for such an occurence that makes it totally believeable to me. The characters we follow, those in the first ward on the right, have an advantage in that they are the first internees. However, they are all frightened and do not know what conditions will be in the future. Someone asked earlier why they didn't dig latrines. In the first place, they didn't know that the facilities would break down and in the second place the ground in the courtyard was very hard.

But yes, it could happen. Someone else asked if we hadn't learned anything from the Second World War. It seems to me that older people may have learned something, but my students certainly haven't. They study it as remote history--it is not experiential for them. We learn and remember best from our own experiences, but we cannot expect younger people to have the same knowledge we do. Maybe that's why we keep on inventing the wheel. Experiential knowledge can be talked about, stories told and warnings given, but whatever the new crisis is always strikes those who have to deal with it as new, without precedent that they know of.

Besides, what would the knowledge of what happened during the second World War have to offer our internees? How would it help them to maintain their humanity?

Maryal

"Ensaio sobre a cegueira (1995) es una aterradora fabulación sobre la absurda crueldad y la insolidaridad en el mundo actual."

I'm assuming this is our book.

The historic and linguistic information Jack has provided is invaluable. "National exhaustion" seems an excellent term - given its reflection in my friend's adamant attitude (a kind of blindess ???).

I should have been more precise and said HISTORIC (not humanistic) pessimism. For I believe Saramago does hold out hope for mankind (humankind). However, the American reader must understand where Saramago "comes from", and appreciate the historic weight on him of Portugal's past glory, waning power and influence, tyranny, the end of the monarchy, revolution, the phenomenon of Salazar- not to forget the tentacles of an all-powerful bureaucracy and the utter powerlessness of the unnamed.

The even, measured tone of the narrative never changes even as the horror deepens and the reader swallows harder.

And yes, I believe that the veneer of civility is thin indeed, and there is no telling how soon anyone might revert to animal behavior - perhaps in the blink of an eye - given the "right" circumstances !

Considering the paranoid brutal reactions of the guards and their blind fear (aha, there is another one !!), the comparison made earlier to AIDS or HIV positive patients is very apt. Bless you for your work, Betty and Jack.

A question concerning faith was raised earlier. I have to think about that some more. Special thanks to Jack, my gratitude to you all.

T

Linda, the "even in the most depraved souls" quote was from pg 16. And yes, Sarah, Saramago is clearly saying that we all have the capacity for goodness and morality. What causes some to exercise it and other not? - I'm still reading, so don't know if this is answered. One can guess at the "usual suspects", but I'll defer for the time being.

Jack and Traude talk of "National exhaustion" - this is a recurring theme in post-colonial literature - most recently a part of our discussion of the Britain of White Teeth.


Charlie

Traude, I hope things are better for you today as that had to be nightmare for you.

Sarah, the blind people that I know would have been different as they are clean people and would know or learn to put there waste out in the yard even if not covered it would have been outside.

Today I look in the looking glass and am glad to be able to see my face.

Today I looked at people a little differently and thought of what they would do if white Blindness like the book has stated was to strike today, I cannot help but wonder what our true reactions would be.

I did not get to finish the book today and have a busy week ahead as do all of you but am anxious to get back to the book White Blindness. (white Blindness, huh could this be discrimantion) just a thought.

Ginger

Traude, your story of being on the floor certainly fit this book's story of helplessness. I've written in other folders of my personal knowledge of the floor and can add here that I'm close to being on a first name basis with the 911 folks. Last time I called, I said, "After Jim and his friends get me up, I'll put on the coffee." My sinking into embarrassment comes after they leave.

By the way, it was Sarah (not me) who worked with AIDS patients, as Jack did. I did do a therapy group once with AIDS patients and knew instantly that I needed help. I ended up being a member of a small therapy group for therapists working with people with AIDS. That was during a time when we assumed that everyone with AIDS would be dead soon. Later I led a group of therapists doing therapy with AIDS patients and admitted that I was better at helping them than helping AIDS patients. One other time I was a member of a support group of 4 psychologists, each of us with different physical disabilities, and we found out that, even though we saw a lot of patients with disabilities (other therapists invariably referred them), we had all had experiences of feeling out of our depth with a certain disability or two.

Thank you Ginger and Betty. Still a little shaky, sore muscles. Lying in bed, my favorite reading place, painful. Ordinarily I would not have mentioned the incident, except it was the perfect complementary example of hopeless helplessness.

Clearly, I wasn't "all there" when I confused Betty's name with Sarah's in acknowledging Sarah's and Jack's work in behalf of AIDS patients. I am sorry.

-------- The word "didactic" is important in Jack's describing BLINDNESS as a didactic essay, based on the original title. This tale is obviously meant to be instructive. The reader is to learn something. But I am afraid the answer may not become clear until the end of the book, if then. Usually a fast reader, I am only half-way there.

T

Jack and Traude - thank you for all the information on Portugal. What I'm missing is how Saramago's feelings about the country in the post colonial era influenced him to write a book of such horror about an epidemic of disease and society's terrible reaction to it. Does Portugal have experience with epidemics? Is Saramago's tale more about an "epidemic" of bad politics?

Betty, please talk more about the religious aspects of the story. Is the allegorical nature of the story a positive commentary on religion, or a negative one?

I'm wondering if the filth that Ginger alludes to isn't a metaphor in itself - of the evil within us. Isn't it the basest of human needs - to eat, void, drink, sleep, even have sexual contact - that cause society within the mental hospital to break down?

"Ensaio sobre a cegueira (1995) es una aterradora fabulación sobre la absurda crueldad y la insolidaridad en el mundo actual." This is Spanish, and means (I think): "Blindness is a terrifying fable about the absurd cruelty and lack of solidarity in today's world." All true of this book.

Maryal asks an excellent question - what about the WWII experience would have prepared us for an epidemic of blindness? The hysteria surrounding HIV at the beginning tells me - very little.

Ella - thanks for bringing us back to the beginning of our first group of characters' stay in the hospital. What might have worked better? How might these foundational characters (many of whom had goodness in them - doctor, doc's wife, woman with dark glasses, presumably the first man, and the boy) have set things up to change the outcome (if at all?)

Is Saramago's message about how badly things went from the start - starting with the woman with dark glasses injuring the thief with her stiletto heel - a lesson in how little it takes to cause society to break down? Again, we had a group of well-meaning people - except the thief. And yet, the thief's groping of her, and his battle with the first man, caused order to break down from the outset.

SarahT---I'm focusing on the woman with the dark glasses injuring the thief with her high heel when he attempts to grope her. It doesn't take much for the human body to break down either. A small wound, an infection, NO ANTIBIOTICS, and time. And then the thief is gone. How vulnerable we are, really.

I remember my mother who had Parkinson's disease. Toward the end of her life, she went out to dinner with my father and friends at the local mall. She was very frail at the time. As they were leaving the mall entrance, she slipped and sprained her ankle. So weak had she become and so frail that she had to be hospitalized and it took forever for the scrape on her ankle to heal. She went from the hospital room to a nursing home. She never walked again. She deteriorated and finally slipped away, her mind completely gone.

Traude--I am glad to hear that you finally got help and I'm sorry for your soreness now. I imagine a number of places on you got bruised.

Maryal

To my knowledge I don't believe that Portugal has had any experience with epidemics, other than what it may have experienced along with the rest of Europe in the Middle Ages.

On the other hand, there was the Inquisition, which came a bit late to Portugal but then lingered a bit long. It's closing years - the latter part of the 1700s believe it or not - were savage. One of Portugal's great men was the Marquês de Pombal, a man who outshone the monarchs he worked for and who was in many respects forward-looking and progressive. Unfortunately he hesitated to do no evil to accomplish his ends. The Inquisition lost any pretense of being an instrument of religious orthodoxy and became a weapon of terror used for strictly political purposes. One of Pombal's and the Inquisition's final horrors was to liquidate one of Portugal's great noble families, who had crossed him, in a spectacular public bloodbath in Lisbon. His historical legacy as a great progressive and a savage is a troubling one for the Portuguese.

The failure of Liberal politics (in the 19th century sense) and democratic republicanism following the overthrow of the monarchy led to a willing embrace of authoritarianism and decades of repression under Salazar. These tandem events are also embarrassing and troubling to the Portuguese.

So I feel quite certain that Saramago isn't drawing upon a historical memory of plague, but rather has social/political disease in mind from the start.

Jack

I found this character very interesting throughout. Her blow near the beginning of the book brings about disease and death to one of the first group's members. But then later, there is a scene with a mystery touching and how this relates to her and what it means was one of the books more memorable moments for me.

Jack

Occasionally in the book I have run across the expression "sterile whiteness" in describing their blindness and as it is in direct contrast to the filth around them, I wonder if there is a message there for the reader?

Also I am still asking could JS have written this story without the doctor's wife ability to see?

Kevxu - thank you. See, I knew you'd be integral to this discussion (as you all are). Let's weave together your comments about Saramago and Portugal with Ella's about the doctor's wife and her importance to the story.

If we take Jack's point that Saramago has social/political disease in mind in writing this story, what/who does the doctor's wife represent? The political dissident - the one among many who sees and acknowledges the truth?

If she's a dissident, why is she so quiet? Is she one of those "subversive" dissidents who try to change the system from within? What is the analagous role in politically or socially repressive regimes to a quiet, thoughtful person like the doctor's wife?

If this is a religious allegory, who is the doctor's wife?

Yes, Jack, I too found the woman with the dark glasses fascinating and complex. Saramago introduces her as a woman who has sex with men for money - but on her own terms. She is wonderful to the young boy, but without a moment's hesitation injures the thief - and, in effect, kills him, as Maryal points out. (How beautifully Maryal puts it: It doesn't take much for the human body to break down either. A small wound, an infection, NO ANTIBIOTICS, and time. And then the thief is gone. How vulnerable we are, really.) She has a white blindness, yet wears black glasses. Is she an embodiment of the good and bad within all of us? Of the weak and the strong?

In some Asian cultures, white is the symbol for death, not black. That's one of the reasons that provoked my question about why Saramago decided to make this a white blindness? Is the white to symbolize death - or goodness - or the combination of all things, good and bad (just as white is, I think, the combination of all color - or is it the absence of color?)

Could JS have written this story without the doctor's wife ability to see?

---

This is my answer.

I do not think so as with no explaination he would have had to reveal his real purpose as to why he wrote this book

---

If we take Jack's point that Saramago has social/political disease in mind in writing this story, what/who does the doctor's wife represent? The political dissident - the one among many who sees and acknowledges the truth? If she's a dissident, why is she so quiet? Is she one of those "subversive" dissidents who try to change the system from within? What is the analagous role in politically or socially repressive regimes to a quiet, thoughtful person like the doctor's wife?

---

My answer is

Yes I do think this is a social/ political type of book and the wife just is standing by for the right time to take control (maybe even the top position even if it was writen a little before this time, sounds a little like Hillary to me as the Doctor laid with the person with the dark glasses. Just a thought.

---

The girl with dark glasses sounds a little like Monica with the sharp heel to me and the boy she cares about seems to soften her some what.

WHO do you think the boy represents if this is a Politcial/social book.HR> Please vote so your voice will be recorded what ever your choice is.

ginger

The doctor's wife as a subersive/dissident? We don't get too much of a picture of her before this disaster, a bit before and a bit after. (The latter still something of a puzzle for me.) Do we have any indications before she is in the quarantine that she has this potential - are her actions prior to this those of anything other than a caring helpmate and a careful person? I don't think we can forget that she rises to the occasion not just because she may be a "good" person, but she is in this situation naturally skilled far beyond her companions. In a sense Nature/Fate has put her on the spot. Her biggest moral decision is to accompany her husband. I don't think we should forget that in the quarantine situation she is far better equipped than those around her. She is "naturally" superior in a physical sense, and she reacts in ways that I think are the norm for sighted people. (That she extends the use of her skills to others is of course another moral decision.)

Is it unfair to say that she is "better" - in part, to some unknown degree - simply because she better equipped by Nature to deal with this situation? She has not been tested as the others have. Maybe Saramago did not make a blind Doctor's Wife because he couldn't imagine this person performing as the sighted Doctor's Wife can, and chooses to do. Could a blind Doctor's Wife be this kind of leader/caregiver, on the same scale?

And what about the others as the story progresses? Do they remain moral reprobates, or less condemningly - disorganized victims? They remain blind, yet don't they begin to see, i.e. became concerned about others and acting together? Doesn't their "luck" improve and allow them to become better? Their luck, of course, being in large measure that there is a Doctor's Wife.

If she is a teacher/leader what does it say about that role in society if she is one leg up as the saying goes. It seems incredible that Saramago would propose this, but I will - isn't she a kind of Man on the White Horse, the Superhero, the natural aristocrat?

Also, isn't one of the basic tenants of Marxism that more is asked of those who have more? Would Saramago expect her to be better than the others because she has the equipment to be so? Is she perhaps in some way damned to duty?

No answers, but lots of questions.

Jack

Jack

Jack .

If she was such a person then why did she not try to keep things clean as most people would do.

---

Hillary tried to keep things as clean as she could and I think she would have as other presidents wives have done in the past but the press would not let her keep the secret hidden.

---

My book does not tell me when this book was writen but is seems to me it was writen recently. ginger

You asked me about the religious connections, Sarah. I'm inclined to put both hands up and say, no comprendable-able, je ne sais que, not me, sister. Beyond seconding someone's St. Paul---God struck him blind so he would "see" the truth---and suggesting that other biblical stories propose wild strategies for enlightenment, I'm not exactly the man for this job. But I'll see where this leads...

Intellectually, I see where your questions point. Some possibilities---

Saramago thinks stupidity (not seeing the truth) is contagious.

He thinks this blindness (stupidity) brings fear, degradation, social breakdown, moral breakdown. (Forgive me, those with vision impairment, the blind leading the blind?) (Does anyone understand how offensive these references are? Black humor, crippled economy, blind hatred.)

The doctor's wife is Saramago??, our narrator of truth??, or....... she is the truth deep within us that "sees" but who cannot bring influence to bear within the land of fear.

Or...The doctor's wife is (religiously speaking, maybe), the way, the truth, the light? Uh, let's see...she serves, she leads them to a promised land??? She (enlightenment) can feed them, keep them safe.

Jesus was a kind man. He brought enlightenment to those who were blind. He walked among the common (blind) people, did not announce himself until the right time. Maybe Saramago has designed the doctor's wife to be a Jesus-like person, someone who sees the way, can lead others to safety. Can "save them." Saramago's view of what would save society may (inadvertantly??) have similarities to this or other religious tenets, or saviors.

This is not really a story about politics but about humanity and perhaps intended to show how precarious man's fate can become under horrible unenvisioned circumstances never before experienced.

Nor do I see the manifestation of faith or religious symbolism. That would hardly be likely in view of Saramago's own Socialist/Marxist leanings (their tenet was "religion is an opiate for the masses").

While the infrastructure and all societal conventions collapse, the doctor's wife alone remains as the only beacon of hope, she is the focal point of the story, I think. That is why it's so important to watch her, as I had suggested. Traude

I'm inclined to agree, Traude. The religious stuff is easy, but doesn't necessarily fit.

Virginia wrote: If she was such a person then why did she not try to keep things clean as most people would do.

Didn't she? She found the bathrooms, she led people there, she bathes someone, etc. How much goodhousekeeping and toilet training can one person do in an environment of constantly increasing victims and when the controllers of the environment offer no support.

I think that the business of "poop" has distracted you from the enormity of the affliction. The reality here is dozens, and dozens more and then hundreds of people go through the shock and terror of losing sight, perhaps the sense we value most; then they are shut up in a totally strange environment with almost no attempt to aid them, and they are not being carried off in most cases as families or as part of a specific group - they are strangers to each other. It is like the Holocaust, but without the initial solidarity that the Jews and Gypsies had, but with the blight of sightlessness which they didn't have.

Even if most of these people initially preserve a desire for personal dignity, how many poop accidents does it take before filth is everywhere, on everything, one everyone. And what will happens to the intestines and bowels of people in terror - they poop; and to people not fed decently - they poop. I share your disgust with the thought of stepping in feces and being soiled with it, but given the incredible demoralization of these people and their disorientation I can't imagine them staying focused on the toilet for very long - which they didn't.

I can tell you that even in modern American hospital conditions the presence of a chronic pooper does not get the kind of attention you might expect it does. These people are diapered and cleaned once a shift, because no one wants to clean up feces more than once, and if the diaper leaks- they lie in excrement. And if you have two, or three or four of them in a unit, I can tell you they wallow in their own excrement for hours. And this is the finest of American hospitals, where poop-cleaning is supposed to be high priority. I've seen beds swimming in excrement over and over again in hospitals because even they could not deal with it.

I spent Columbus Day of 1988 from ten a.m. to 7 p.m. cleaning up a dozen bowel movements off of one patient, plus his bed, the floor and me - literally dragging him into the toilet. Two nurses attempted to deal with more than thirty additonal patients, two of whom were in their final death agonies, and many of the others defecating repeatedly. I'll spare you the description of what that unit looked like and smelled like in a few hours. And this was among the finest of hospitals. A situation supposedly geared to exactly this type of crisis level; however, it doesn't take much to push things into the territory of the undoable.

I wonder if we aren't underestimating what the doctor's wife attempted to do, as well as underestimating the psychological collapse that crippled many of these people.

Jack

Here is the one detail that continues to bother me, and makes it close to impossible to believe that this exact scenario could happen in the U.S.

The initial treatment of the blind people. That behavior doesn't ring true. The initial terrifying, abusive, authoritarian insructions over the loud speaker. The initial deliberate? insufficient food. Why?

In this country, at least initially, and out of curiosity, medical officials would flock to the (regional) scene of the mysterious illness and want to be included in the problem-solving to be done. The press would be reporting how much food, what kind of food, the intricate air shutes into which the food was transferred, the fancy silver suits designed for anti-biological-terrorism that was worn by those who delivered the food. Basic needs would have been attended to, initially.

And why such a big deal over a shovel or spade to bury someone? In the U.S., insulated burial suits for the dying would probably be dropped from a helicopter.

Even if things deteriorate later in my revised scenario, Saramago's initial part doesn't fit scientifically developed parts of the world. So, Saramago deliberately(?) makes this a science fiction nightmare. The nightmare begins at warp speed.

In talking to the woman with dark glasses about her quilt over hurting the thief, the doctor's wife said, "Don't blame yourself, it was a question of circumstances, here we are all guilty and innocent, much worse was the behavior of the soldiers who are here to protect us, and even they can invoke the greatest of all excuses, fear." Pg. 96. A story of unrealistic fear at the beginning, I would say.

Betty Gregory wrote: So, Saramago deliberately(?) makes this a science fiction nightmare. The nightmare begins at warp speed.

I thought this too as I read it. Camus' book, The Plague, has a more medically believable start and governmental response. I felt he was anxious to get to his story and telescoped the beginning events.

Jack

Hi, Everybody! Is it too late to jump in here and join this discussion? I finally got a copy of this book from the library and am only now beginning the first few chapters. Wow! What I've read so far is really gripping!

Lorrie

Lorrie---Welcome! Good to see you. Have a seat. Have some grog! On second thought, maybe grog isn't appropriate. Ooooops. I was really swept along with this book.

Yes, Saramago could have written the book without the doctor's wife having vision, but it wouldn't have been the same book. Because of the doctor's wife, we are closer to the story. She stands in the place of the reader, seems to me.

Maryal

Betty said that "maybe Saramago has designed the doctor's wife to be a Jesus-like person", but Traude does not "see the manifestation of faith or religious symbolism." And I agree that it would not seem to fit with Saramago's politics. But how to explain (and sorry, but I must jump ahead here for a moment) the doctor's wife 'purification ritual' when she washes the body of the dead woman (as she consecrates the "purified to the earth")? (pg 165) You can positively see the halo shining. Ok, I joke but…surely this washing of her sisters has serious religious overtones.

Betty protests that it can't happen here. Jack mentions Camus (wouldn't The Plague make a positively gripping follow-up? Makes me want to read it again) and I think also of Kafka. The initial treatment of the afflicted would not seem out of place in Kafka's world - but in Amerika? This is a particularly European novel.


Charlie

Well I just got to where the one who can see is doing a great job of taking care of the people with her. I went to vote and stood in line got thru that and went home to get the book to read as I stood in the next line and got to the part where she is taking control and it looks good so far, we shall see.

Hi Lorrie sure just jump right in but be careful where you step and please do no step on a human or the rest of the stuff. Ginger

3:15AM....or maybe not.

"I wonder if we aren't underestimating what the doctor's wife attempted to do, as well as underestimating the psychological collapse that crippled many of these people. Jack "

I say yes to Jack's statement.

I've stopped reading the book. Went to the last chapter to see where it finally went. I'll be reading the posts. The horror of the whole thing just became more than I wanted to read. My imagination and sensitivity get overworked! I do think there is a spirituality present in this work; ie. When she went to the church to find a place to rest...there was a temporary "rest" for her.

~Marj

Marj make that 2 I have also stopped reading the book, but am going to go to the last chapter and see how it ends. I want you to know I NEVER do that but I have read about more crap than I ever wanted to know.

I wish some of you highly educated people would tell me why anyone would write a book like this???? Ddid the book make me feel good, was it uplifting in anyway? Did I learn something? Did I go away with a good feeling??

JUst me ranting again Judy

First, good to see you, Lorrie.

There was a "connection failure" and I have to start over. What is so powerful in this story is the detached, dispassionate voice of the omniscient narrator, interspersed with a life's philosophy - observations well worth pondering, some worthy of an essay -, and the contrast to the intensifying horrors.

When the old man with the eye patch arrived with a new wave of blind people and (appropriately) joined the original group, events began to develop at a faster pace. The total number of people in the wards and lying in the hallway is variously given as 240, 250 and 300 (pg. 145); perhaps to cause the reader to think in abstracts rather than precise numbers. But if I may I would like to refer to some of the author's observations. I'll try this in the next post. Traude

... there is nothing in this world that belongs to us in an absolute sense ... pg. 128

... fighting has always been a kind of blindness ... pg. 120

... I have spent my life looking at peoples' eyes, it is the only part of the body where a soul might still exist ...

Two questions most asked of a wife : (1) where are you going (2) where have you been ? ...

... I am not entirely convinced that there are limits to misfortune and evil ... pg. 130

If you are so inclined, check pp. 144-146, "infamous tyranny" on pg. 145 and, way at the bottom :

... the authorities had no humanitarian scruples when rounding up the blind etc.... THEY EVEN STATED THAT THE LAW ONCE MADE IS THE SAME FOR EVERYONE AND THAT DEMOCRACY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

on pg. 148 : (on the uneven distribution of food among the inmates)... classic duties of solidarity (versus) the no less time-honored precept that charity begins at home ...

pg. 150 (on providing women) ... what one does on one's own initiative is generally less arduous than if one has to do something under duress...

... when the spirit is willing the feet are light ...

Quite a few of the author's musings have an ironic undertone, e.g. "the much lauded male logic", pg. 151

... human reason and unreason are the same everywhere.

... when someone starts making small concessions, in the end life loses all meaning, pg. 152

The reader is never told what time of year it is. It could not have been winter - the escapees walking barefoot with their clothing in shreds.

Have not much more to read. Will post when I have finished th

The message was incomplete but the meaning clear.

Just one more remark :

I remember being aghast on reading Emile Zola's GERMINAL and mildly disgusted by LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER -in fact, totally biased against Lawrence ever since.

Yet even though Saramago seems (excssively ?) preoccupied with man's physical functions, his descriptions, while perhaps indelicate, are realistic, brutally frank, in a word - entirely human.

Traude

Thank you all for keeping this marvelous discussion going. I've been very busy at work this week, but hope to catch up Friday (which I have off for Veterans Day)

Marj and Judy - I'm sorry this book has gotten the better of you. It is an intense story, and is not at all uplifting.

More later. My favorite line of this discussion so far has to be Jack's of a couple of days ago: "I think that the business of "poop" has distracted you from the enormity of the affliction." That does sum things up, doesn't it?

I imagine it's not supposed to make us feel good. I think it's supposed to tell us a few uncomfortable things about ourselves.

Charlie mentioned the quote about looking in the mirror and being glad to be able to see yourself.

Maybe we should not be looking at ourselves so much but at others - tending to their needs and thinking of them more than ourselves. We should be blind to ourselves. "Do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

He is also showing us how blind we are to others and their needs.

The doctor's wife is the "minister" here. Or the Christ or Saviour.

Linda

Linda (Hairy), or the doctor's wife is the best of who we are, regardless of what we do or have done. She is what we already know, even if we are currently blind to it. She is our capacity for good.

The truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.

Taken from our poetry folder where Jim is quoting Emily Dickenson---and I thought of this discussion.

Saramago knows that, as readers, we will have ready references in our memory to often-mentioned connections of truth and light, or more to the point, lack of truth and blindness.

Even though this disguise doesn't capture his eloquent but jarring realism, Saramago may be a Ralph Nader in literate clothing.

Yes Sarah: Jim's quote sure does sum up this "crappy" mess JS has put these folks into. Perhaps it is because of my nursing background that the desciptive topic of defecation doesn't bother me or perhaps I see it as basic & essential issue. It is the essence of what we are-- matter.

ALF and Jack - you both have described how mundane bodily functions become when you deal with them en masse every day. I think Saramago nonetheless touched a taboo for most of us in being so graphic.

I still get back to something I think Betty said early on about this scenario being entirely imaginable given the Holocaust. If you can believe a government would "quarantine" people so as to "exterminate" them, then you certain can believe it would quarantine them without enough food, inadequate bathroom facilities, and no medical care.

Not really, as Sarah has said.

I agree with Hairy that the book is not SUPPOSED to make the reader feel good. Quite the opposite.

I think it is supposed to make us t h i n k -- about ourselves, about relationships, familial obligations, loyalties, the present, the future, even the world perhaps - among many other things;

and the book is replete with pearls of wisdom in the form of epigrams. I have quoted some of them in a previous post because I felt them to be particularly remarkable insights, well worth being looked at independently of the book which, admittedly, has nary a plot and unidentified characters.

By the same token I do realize that the minutely detailed, ongoing graphic descriptions of the most elementary of our physical functions can offend readers' sensibilities.

Was this really necessary ? they ask. How could, and why would an author elaborate in such detail and to such a disgusting extent ? Clearly, only the author could answer those questions.

Now let me share the following with you : I may be squeamish, but I confess to still being uncomfortable when IN THE MIDDLE OF A MEAL a TV ad comes on promoting sanitary napkins, Preparation H or Immodium, etc.

Those messages address the very basic physical needs common to all humans and they bring in enormous amounts of money. Hosw come we tolerate their intrusion, at mealtimes yet ?

As for extreme conditions and scarcities : Our advanced meteorological system warns us e.g. of an impending hurricane or a snowstorm.

Even before the storm strikes, the grovery shelves are almost bare. Flashlights and batteries become precious commodities. (Why is Radio Shack chronically underprepared ? I wonder.)

As for the aftermath when there is no water and no electricity : Been there, done that. Lasted 3 days. Our supplies ran out just before power was restored. Fortunately we had enough sparkling water on hand.

Traude

Finished the book and like how the Drs Wife took care of things but the end left me Q

Finished the book and liked how the Drs Wife took care of things but the end left me

POO POO EDO, Ginger

Good place to come in the early morning when you decided not to lay in bed anymore!

Anyway, as T asks above, "were the graphic descriptions necessary?". I think in the author's opinion they were. He wants to startle. He wants people to think. If it was all soft mushy read we wouldn't even have considered the book.

~Marj

Marj: Yes, This story is startling, isn't it? I was left with a hollowness, a feeling of futility for these characters. I sensed a void, a carnage of all these souls. Experiencing blindness, did they see themselves "in a different light?"

Traude - Saramago really can make a point, and make you think, can't he? I love your list of quotations. For example: "human reason and unreason are the same everywhere." Now what does that mean?

What does this book tell you about the things Traude tells us Saramago wants us to think about?: "about ourselves, about relationships, familial obligations, loyalties, the present, the future, even the world perhaps - among many other things."

Ginger - I'm dying to know how the end of the book left you (see your posts above)! First you say - "left me Q." Then "just left me" Do tell!

ALF says: "I sensed a void, a carnage of all these souls." How well put. Interestingly enough, though, didn't all of our original characters perhaps improve as human beings by virtue of their plight? In their own ways, they rose to the occasion. Not only the doctor's wife, but think of the thief, who had moments of conscience just before being killed: "A blind man is sacred, you don't steal from a blind man." This is clearly something he was incapable of thinking earlier - had he thought this, he wouldn't have accompanied the first man home. The woman in the dark glasses also had deep pangs of conscience for her part in causing the thief's demise.

MarjV - you hit the nail on the head - the reason this book is so memorable is precisely because of its graphic nature. Have you ever read a book that so depicts the buildup of filth that is the natural result of so many people being cooped up without water or cleaning supplies? Would we think this book so unique and memorable without the graphics? I don't think a cleaner version of this story would have nearly the same impact.

Why was the doctor's wife so despondent at learning her watch had stopped? Presumably she could have estimated the time by the cycles of the sun. Was it simply losing the last remnant of civilization?

The other thing that struck me was how authoritarian the language of the captors was - something straight out of 1984, Newspeak if you will: After shooting several blind people dead: "The army regrets having been forced to repress with weapons a seditious movement reasponsible for creating a situation of imminent risk, for which the army was neither directly nor indirectly to blame . . . ."

Given Jack's description of Portugal during Saramago's earlier life, I expect he heard a lot of this kind of language - as did the people of Germany and Italy during WWII, and probably of the Soviet Union for decades. He is mocking this kind of obvious lie - clearly no one believes either that the army regrets what it did, nor that anything near a "seditious movement" was brewing. The political commentary here is razor sharp.

Blindness was described in this novel by JS as the "absence of light.." This white blindness swallowed up- rather than absorbed making things twice as invisible. Yet we are told that the light inside their heads was so strong that it blinded them. The one eyed man , removing his "blind, glass " eye thought this eye refuses to see its own absence. What a great thought.

Sarah:Yes, Orwells 1984, I was thinking more along the lines of the Nazis interring the Jewish families. I believe our author wishes for us to delve into the "animalistic" nature of man. Blind as bats the interness are cooped up, moving fearfully like hunted animals, as they crawl along the floor, on all fours, toward their food . they are swallowed up by fear when the regimental commander resolved to whip them into shape if needed. We witness the animal sex drive in full force, both consentual and beastly (the rapes ). The thieves were in packs like birdsof a feather. There are countless instances throughout the read and it is said by the commander "The rabies of a dead dog is cured by nature."

Sarah, my interpretation of this thought would be that anywhere in this world there is a dualism, opposing principles- if you will, e.g. wisdom vs. folly, cruelty vs. compassion. Acts of extraordinary kindness by ordinary people take place every day without anyone except those directly affected knowing about them. Good and evil exist side by side.

Why, even the hardened prison guard sergeant chose to fire in the air rather than at the inmates who could not retreat fast enough for the military. Not quite a kindness, perhaps a vestige of some decency.

The doctor's wife acted with extraordinary grace and efficiency in a virtual hell and led them to freedom - such as it was. But from then on her physical and emotional strength became noticeably weaker.

Betty, you and others mentioned spirituality before. That is much in evidence, even if not based on a specific church-anchored doctrine . And yes, the water - so essential to life - was purifying; it washed away the shame and the indignities. The doctor's wife might be considered a modern saint.

Ginger, I too have questions, and one concerns the blinded images in the sanctuary. I am not sure I understand the meaning or the implication.

In the end Saramago came full circle; the first man to go blind was the first to regain his sight; the others followed. What then are we to make of the ensuing blindness of the doctor's wife? Were all her energies spent ? Could one call her 'sacrificial' in any way ? Incidentally, on page 278 (half way down) the author enumerates some of the "virtues of the fundamental principles of the great aorganized systems ..." In that long list is also "... the price (or perhaps better, cost) of priests and funerals ..." (!)

Traude

I still haven't finished reading the book, and find myself going back sometimes to reread a passage or two. Saramago has inserted some really thoughtful comments in this book, like when the doctor says,"This is the stuff we're made of, half indifference, half malice." or "There are many ways of becoming an animal--this is just the first of them." That animalistic nature again, Alf! Because I haven't finished it yet, please don't tell me the ending. I hate it when people do that, and I'm finding this book to be quite suspensful.

Lorrie

Sarah,

I have completed the book and can not tell you what the author had in mind.

Thoughts are:

Learn to be happy And think of life as a terminal illness because if you do, you will live it with joy and passion as it ought to be lived. Ginger

Betty said several posts back that "the doctor's wife is the best of who we are, regardless of what we do or have done. She is what we already know, even if we are currently blind to it. She is our capacity for good."

Isn't that beautifully put? I especially love "She is what we already know, even if we are currently blind to it." I wonder what she was like before this all happened. I suspect she was a traditional wife, loving and giving, but perhaps without a sense of her own power. In some ways, the blindness around her made her see her own strength.

As Hairy said of the doctor's wife and the lessons of this book, "Maybe we should not be looking at ourselves so much but at others - tending to their needs and thinking of them more than ourselves. We should be blind to ourselves. 'Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.' He is also showing us how blind we are to others and their needs."

What do you all make of that: "We should be blind to ourselves."? That's certainly a religious lesson - we should put others before ourselves, be God-like.

Another thing struck me about the chaos in the mental hospital - aren't Marxists supposed to believe in the collective over the individual? And yet it's an individual - the doctor's wife - who is the voice of reason and humanity. Left to its own devices, the collective is a raping, pillaging mob!! What does this tell us about Saramago's views of Marxism?

Jack - we need your thoughts here.

ALF - yes! What a great job of picking out all of the animal references. It's odd - and I wonder if this is a cultural thing - I get the impression we have less disdain for animals and their behavior here in the US than Saramago exhibits. And yet, we certainly use all of the same pejorative terms you quote from the book. I have often thought that we'd be better off living as animals do.

Lorrie - I am so glad you've joined us. Welcome Welcome Welcome! You remind me that I've been remiss about the schedule. Here's a suggested discussion schedule:

November 11-13 - Up to p. 143

November 14-21 - Up to p. 215

November 22-30 - Through the ending

Does that sound ok? I don't like to drag things out needlessly, yet this feels like a book with enough to talk about to take us to the end of the month.

This is not a reading schedule - read at your own pace. It's merely a rough sketch of what we'll DISCUSS when.

for jumping too far ahead too soon. I am still very new here. Please forgive me.

Sarah, I think the doctor's wife embodies everything Saramago himself believes in; demonstrably the inherent capacity of ordinary women and men to accomplish extraordinary things under extraordinary circumstances.

There is more to that and I will try to formulate my thoughts more clearly later. T

Lorrie: END? what end? Who said that this age old story will ever end? I sadly fear that "blindness" will out live us all. The lack of sight, the unconscious prejudices, heedless remarks and the undiscerning masks we all wear remain with us . We just think that we can see, perceive and distinguish what is important.

Traude - please, no apologies!! I should have put the schedule up sooner.

Andy-ALF, oh, so very well said. My beliefs of our capacity for health aside, I sure do get weary/exhausted from those who stay stuck in their well defended astigmatism.

There are so many corrolaries to be made here, aren't there, Betty? It's no wonder that JS used the eyes (the windows of our souls) to make his point.

Yes, you're right, ALF, many. After I left the folder a while ago, I began thinking of the oddity we experience all the time of "viewing" the same thing differently. We see it, but perceive it differently.

Sorry to exit so unceremoniously. Fall begins a season of rains here, a time when I prefer not to drive. But the weather was so unexpectedly good I rented a car and drove to our west coast, which has a small population and little development, lots of beaches and cliffs; then across the serra and back home.

Picked up Publico off the news kiosk when I saw that it had an article about Saramago in its arts pullout section. Have scanned it twice, but the language is (for me) difficult so it'll take some reading. There is an article and an interview. The occasion being the publication of "A Caverna," the first book he has written since winning the prize. The interview is entitled - in quotes - Nao preciso de Deus/I don't need God; however, I still haven't found the quote in the body of the article.

One thing worth adding from this interview for those of you who are enjoying this book: ...Blindness, the work that opens, says the author an "'involuntary trilogy' which A Carverna comes to close - in the middle is All the Names - constituting a kind of vision of the state of humanity."

It appears that A Carverna is about a family of potters and takes place in a situation where they are behind high walls with windows that cannot be opened "to prevent inconvenient suicides."

The sound of waves has been so loud today that you could hear them roaring even in the center of town; now it is night and the clouds have parted to reveal a giant full moon and the surf is absolutely thundering. And so to bed.

Jack

If Saramago tells his "vision of the state of humanity" in that interview, Jack,......translate, translate! We'll wait!

I found a lengthy article by James Wood at The New Republic in which he discusses many of Saramago's books in some depth.

If you read my link from White Teeth that was so lengthy, this is the same "reviewer," if you can call him that. He is really much, much more.

A good article - worth reading. Some of you were wondering about his other books. This may clarify and illumine some of his works and perhaps induce you to read more. The Seeing

Thank you all for being here and being such wonderful posters!! I am agog at the depth of your perceptions and your ability to organize your thoughts and articulate them so well. SeniorNet is quite an education in many ways.

Linda

Hairy wrote: "A good article - worth reading. Some of you were wondering about his other books. This may clarify and illumine some of his works and perhaps induce you to read more. The Seeing"

Interesting article, think I'd need to read it twice. The author's reference to the saying: In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king, reminded me of something. In high school we read a short story, think it was called "In the Kingdom of the Blind," and in it a sighted man stumbles into a lost community of blind eople...somewhere in the Andes, I believe, not sure. However, contrary to the adage he does not become king in any sense, but is, rather, a disturber, a rule-breaker and at the conclusion, as I recall, he is being chased by the blind with the intention of killing him.

The doctor's wife is very concerned that her sightedness not be discovered. Perhaps this was a possibility she considered, as in the short story, I mean.

Jack

In this book, I was struck by the irony that, of all the doctors the author could have characterized, the one he chose to be a major one was an opthamalogist.

And what of the man with one eye? the one with the patch? It appeared to me that he was the most philosophical of that group, and I also found the the unlikely pairing of this man and the girl with the dark glasses quite touching. (Excuse the phrase)

The book is filled with long sentences, and the absence of named characters distracted me, at first, until I became used to it. Like blindness, we must rely on our imaginations and vocabularies to "see" what is front of us.

Lorrie

Linda Thank you so much for your clickable as I read every word and did so much apprieciate your sharing.

My Thoughts are: Learn to be happy And think of life as a terminal illness because if you do, you will live it with joy and passion as it ought to be lived.

I am told here by a senior neter that I think differently than most of you is this Good or bad in your opinion? Ginger

Ginger, I don't think it is either. Why would we all think alike ? I mean, do we HAVE to ? Is that required ? And how could we, coming, as we do, from diverse backgrounds ?

Thank you all. Your comments are wonderful. T

Ginger--I like difference of opinion. How else can we learn how others see things? I never feel threatened when someone disagrees with something I think, except sometimes in the arenas of politics and religion, but those are hotbeds of controversy.

Linda---Thanks for the link. I will read the article tomorrow and am looking forward to it.

Lorrie---I had to get used to the long sentences too (and I'm a Faulkner fan!) I think what Saramago is doing here with the prose is emersing us in the world of the blind. We hear voices, voices responding to other voices. No quotation marks, little punctuation. Just commas and periods. And it often takes a long time to get to the period. And lonnnnng paragraphs. It's all SOUND, flowing along and requiring us to read every word. If you don't, you get lost. As the blind people in the novel get lost. We have only the eyes of the author and the doctor's wife to guide us.

I looked briefly at ALL the NAMES, another novel by this author today in Borders. It is still under-punctuated, but the paragraphs are far shorter as are most of the sentences.

~Maryal

Oh yes indeed. I have already started ALL THE NAMES.

Hairy, thank you for that link to the valuable review by James Wood. I have printed it, (naturally) - I still believe in "having and holding", just so I won't miss even one word, and rereading.

T

Hiya, Traude, I see that we are posting at the same time!

Kindred souls ? For sure !

T

Traude, Maryal, Thank You for how you feel as you have lighten a burden. ginger

Lorrie wrote ---I had to get used to the long sentences too (and I'm a Faulkner fan!) I think what Saramago is doing here with the prose is emersing us in the world of the blind. We hear voices, voices responding to other voices. No quotation marks, little punctuation. Just commas and periods. And it often takes a long time to get to the period. And lonnnnng paragraphs. It's all SOUND, flowing along and requiring us to read every word. If you don't, you get lost. As the blind people in the novel get lost. We have only the eyes of the author and the doctor's wife to guide us. --

I've been trying to get into the Saramago interview in Público that I mentioned yesterday, but there is a ring of light fog totally enclosing the town, however we are in a gorgeous bowl of light, so it's difficult to keep my nose in the paper.

It's a little hard to quote from as if I quote too much it will be a spoiler for sure for those who will want to go on to read his new book, A Caverna, when it is translated. However, apropos what Lorrie has said, the interviewer characterizes Blindness thus, as part of one of her questions and Saramago accepts her comments on what he was doing: [the situation of Blindness] "a descent into the inferno...in which the author places us inside of the horror."

Trying to characterize the difference between Blindness and All the Names, the interviewer says: "As if your harsh and pessimistic vision might have softened?"

Saramago replies, "No, no I don't think better of the world than when I wrote Blindness, nor would reasons have existed for that.

When asked what he would propose to counter the illusion at the center of his new book, he speaks of his politics. What is the alternative he is asked?

Saramago: The route of participation, of indignation, an ethical insurrection. The political parties, particularly those of the Right, should put their programmes in a drawer and put on the table and in practice something so simple as a statement of human rights.

Interviewer: Does this include the PCP (Communist Party)?

Saramago: Certainly so.

Interviewer: (shortened a bit) It's your party lately that has been torn by internal debates about things so basic as freedom of expression.

Saramago: (shortened)...The Portuguese Communist Party is a party just like any other. But nothing out of the ordinary is happening, everything here has gone on in other communist parties. Things live, have a time of their own, decay, fragment. Unanimity is not possible. I am used to saying that I don't give my party the breaks that my party doesn't give me. (He goes on to comment that despite obvious shortcomings he doesn't see another party where he would be comfortable/find a place. This, despite the fact that the Communists, he says, have not always treated him well.)

Interviewer: You have felt for awhile that Portugal is not your home.

Saramago: No, it isn't my home, but it is my country. I feel I am Portugues, I pay my taxes here, if that interests anyone...what pains me is that this land might have been allowed to dream (I think he's saying allowed to have its dreams.)

Interviewer: Do you imagine yourself returning?

Saramago: No, I don't believe so. But now over there (in Lanzarote in the (Spanish) Canary Islands where he lives) things are no so easy. Now Canary natives from Africa are sneaking in and developing racist and zenophobic moviments which I have protested. The other day in Las Palmas there was a demonstration in which they shouted, "Saramago get out!" (I have no idea if the Canarias he refers to are blacks - I hadn't been aware that any of the original population survived - or right wing or separatist Spaniards who may have exiled themselves to Africa.)

Interviewer: And are you going?

Saramago: No. But I come here almost every month (Lisbon), and I'm not one of those whose going to live on. (He's almost 78, I think.) (He makes comments about some other older writers, and says that eventually you run out of the ability or desire to do things.) But I don't lack for things to do, and what satisfies me is writing in Portguese.

Interviewer: What are you writing now?

Saramago: I am writing a preface for one of the books of the Bible for an Italian publisher. For a Brazilian publisher I am doing a political history. There is still the Book of Recollections, which finally will be called the Book of Memory; I have returned to the Lanzarote Notebooks (his published diaries). (He goes on to say that in the past few days at home he has formed the idea for another novel, Voyage of the Elephant.) I don't want to say more than the title.

Interviewer: In regard to the Bible and your relationship with God...

Saramago: I have no relationship with God! I have a relationship with the text that is called the Bible.

Interviewer: Your peace of mind is such that you can talk like that?

Saramago: It is complete. I live peacefully with the Bible, as I live with the Koran, with the Vedas, with the Talmud - they are human works! (I'm abriding a bit here.) If one can consider it legitimate to say without the existence of proofs that God exists; then one can se as well without proofs that he does not. There are things that for me are basic: religion doesn't serve to bring men closer, quite the contrary; to kill in the name of God and to make God a murderer that's how things are done; if there were ever absurd wars it is the religious ones....(he goes on to say that if a God, but of course a God would be the God, should appear tomorrow what would he make of all these religions, denominations, sects, etc. Would he put the Catholics or the Muslims in first place and punish the others?) Everything that passes in the name of God is pure farce, pure scam, pure lying, no one is able to speak in the name of God. If God exists he didn't tell anyone anything. He said nothing. For me God does not exist.

Interviewer: And what do you think about death?

Saramago: We think about death while we are alive. What difference does it make what we think we believe death is or isn't?

Interviewer: For a believer death isn't the end.

Saramago: (deleting again) ...Life is the chemical operation of things and it began that way. The miracle...is that we have the capacity to invent everything. From this we make God...in my head there is able to be God, there can be the Devil. Here (pointing to his head) is the good, the evil, justice, the notions that move us, here! And take note, I'm not a bad person, I don't need God to be a good person, to try at least. And I haven't done so bad. ###

And NOW to go outside.

Jack

Great notes, Jack! Thanks.

~Marj

The information is invaluable. Without Jack's having posted it here we would have no way of gaining such direct insight.

Many thanks, Jack. T

Jack, you dear soul, for working to translate and bring us Saramago's words. Such provocative thoughts, goodness. There's a serenity in his certainties, but somehow mixed in with frustration? maybe? There is hopefulness in what we COULD be creating with our mind---he points to his head---but angst? with the "evil" we create instead. Makes me think of his "reason and unreason the same," Sarah.

So, I'm guessing, he would say any of us could be the doctor's wife in Blindness and any of us could be the worst of the worst characters. Our choice.

Interesting, too, that he thinks we waste our minds thinking up God.

There is sadness in his words, also. Maybe that, not serenity.

Jack - wow, you're such a mensch for giving us the translation of such an amazing article. I had no idea his convictions about God (or godlessness) were so strong. Traude is right - how else but through you could we have been provided so much insight into the character of this complex man.

You're right, Betty, I sense sadness in him. He's still writing and working on amazing projects - and dreaming up new novels at 78 - and yet his frustration comes through loud and clear. It can't be easy to live on an island where people want him gone.

What courage he has at 78, though. He pulls no punches, softens nothing. Amazing.

And Hairy - thanks for The Seeing - another great article. I am definitely inspired to read more Saramago - although Ricardo Reis, the first of his books I tried, was difficult for me. Jack, have you read it? I couldn't get through it.

I found especially thought-provoking the author's remark about Blindness:

"It is seeing others that makes us visible to ourselves, that reminds us that we exist."

It makes me think about a thought I had as I was reading this morning. The doctor's wife is considering revealing her sightedness to the ward. She is convinced she can help the others if they know she has sight.

How presumptuous! Why isn't it possible for blind people to help themselves? Why must a "benevolent leader" help the masses (sounds almost - dare I say - cult-like). Why must we be able to see in order to know we exist? How do blind people know they exist?

I was scrolling up at the top of the page and noticed something I hadn't noticed before - the publisher thinks Saramago tells this story with "humor." Humor? Where?

Ginger - So glad you are who you are. The others are right - we're all different. That's what makes these discussions so rewarding to me. You all make me "see" things I would never have seen without you.

Apropos of the presumptuousness of assuming the blind cannot help themselves is Maryal's wonderful observation about how Saramago writes:

"It's all SOUND, flowing along and requiring us to read every word. If you don't, you get lost."

How interesting - in a book about Blindness, Saramago tells his story with sound. Maryal's right - if you closed your eyes and heard someone read the story to you, the lack of punctuation wouldn't confuse in the slightest. You could HEAR the story perfectly well!

Similarly, Lorrie says that we must rely on our imaginations to see the story. We don't need our eyes - our minds do just fine. It's paradoxical that a story about blindness is so vivid, so visual. Who among us can't visualize the horrible ward and its wretched inhabitants?

I also liked your point, Lorrie, which I hadn't noticed before, that most of our original characters are visually impaired even before they become blind. Obviously, all of the people visiting the doctor are there because of eye ailments. The doctor himself lives in a world of the eyes. Is Saramago telling us something here?

Finally, I had to thank you, Jack, for the poetic descriptions of the place where you live:

"The sound of waves has been so loud today that you could hear them roaring even in the center of town; now it is night and the clouds have parted to reveal a giant full moon and the surf is absolutely thundering. And so to bed."

And this: "There is a ring of light fog totally enclosing the town, however we are in a gorgeous bowl of light, so it's difficult to keep my nose in the paper."

Beautiful! You have the writer's gift.

Sarah, if Saramago is saying that through our interactions with others, we are reflected to ourselves, I'd have to agree. As someone who has been adjusting gradually to fewer and fewer in-person social interactions, as my physical limitations keep me at home more, I've struggled to hang on to a stable view of myself. A therapist and friend suggested this many years ago when it was only a possibility. Recently, the whole premise of her idea has come alive for me. To reduce it to an over-simplified example, when I don't see my brother for weeks and only have a few short phone calls to assess "where he's coming from," I can begin to question myself, question who I am to him, to myself.

But I'm not at all sure Sarmago means "interaction." If he does mean that, it's less than clear. For the first time, I wonder about the translator's work. Think of all the ways language is used for sight, seeing, perceiving, etc.

When I read Blindness months ago, or more, I certainly could feel various "blocks" (not sure what to call them) fall into place as I read. I mean, the ones that say: Oh, yes it's about man's inability to *really* see; oh, yes it's about compassion and the duty of those who are more blessed, etc. etc. But - especially now that I'm rereading and listening to others who have also thought about this book - it's harder to keep those "blocks" in place. Saramago really does a remarkable job of making this nameless group of folks true individuals and not just stereotypes. And I think this throws my bigger picture out of whack. In some ways their foibles and idiosyncrasies mixed in with an increasing display of humble decency throws off the precision of the big picture. I remember feeling even a little bit of fellow-feeling I guess it was for the prisoner who was left on guard duty in the ward of thugs who stole the food. He didn't seem quite so monsterous standing there alone, doing his master's will, frightened, yet still with the thugs. Maybe in another ward he might have been a not-so-bad fellow.

All the Names is a far easier book to be certain about, and it's themes are clearer, though Saramago has deftly turned the ordinary surreal again.

I haven't read the Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis. This is somewhat surprising as I'm crazy about Fernando Pessoa. I think he wa an absolutely extraordinary writer, and a most puzzling human being. I have read Balthazar and Blimunda, which is played out against a very romantic sprawl of Portuguese history and even manages to include Domenico Scarlatti, the famous musician, as one of its characters in a striking way. In color, technique - in so many ways it is quite different from Blindness, however again it is about common folk struggling against a monsterously oppressive system.

I have my copy of Camus' The Plague out, and looking through it while it is surely a more conventional novel, at the same time it is far more of an essay it strikes me than Saramago's "ensaio".

Maybe it's today's fog, but after reading the interview with Saramago I'm wondering a little bit whether he's giving us a truly clearcut picture of his thoughts or more a dramatazation of his concerns. Perhaps the "message" isn't the terribly refined one as I had thought before. Maybe it's a picture of a message. Not making much sense. Perhaps I've been exposed to too much fog today, though in fact we remained within our bowl of light all day. The fog neither withdrew nor closed in.

Jack

Oh, you made me think, Jack---picture vs. clear message---that a drama "of concerns," as you put it, is often how each human agonizes. We can't put something into precise language, but we can play it again and again as a movie in our mind. Pressed to translate it, we fail.

However, I'm still placing the puzzle pieces (cousin to your block method), though, and had one fall into place yesterday when thinking about oppression begetting oppression---which we'll get to in the next section.

Thanks much, Jack, I certainly enjoyed reading the interview with the author who seems to be as confused about religions, wars, God, etc. as many of us. Furthermore, if I heard a crowd (or even 3-4 people) shouting for me to leave a country, island, city - wherever- I wouldn't hesitate, I'd be out of there. The world is so vast and one can live peacefully in many places; does not a man of 78 desire peace? It is my desire above most other emotions, at least peace in physical surroundings; perhaps it is asking too much if one desires peace within.

Sarah, several passages have an ironic undertone, to be sure but, like you, I fail to see any kind of "humor" in this book. Moreover, I don't think any humor was intended. But that may be my subjective impression.

Betty, interpersonal active exchanges with friends tend to change and become less frequent over time for one reason or another. But lasting bonds of friendship can and do extend over space and time- to that I can attest. Absent such bond we may have to take a (perhaps involuntary) step or two in the direction of possible interaction (I know I have); it seems to me that (such interaction I mean) has been attempted and accomplished right here, in this circle, where we read with care and listen with the heart, unruffled by the increasing clamor of the busy-ness around us.

Jack, I originally thought the author was presenting an apocalyptic vision and dreaded what might possibly be presented next in his cooly detached voice. I soon revised that idea and have not come to a definitive opinion - if it possible to arrive at on

... if it is possible to arrive at one at all. T

Betty and Traude - you make the point that interaction is (or is not) more intense when done face to face. That makes me think. Especially with the advent of e-mail, my relationships with so many people that I only "see" once in awhile have really intensified or been rekindled. I guess, Betty, you're talking more about being in each others' presence - rather than actually seeing one another? Very thought provoking posts.

Jack - you certainly hit the nail on the head. This book - which, on my first reading seemed so clear - becomes increasingly shrouded in fog the deeper we go. It's a real testament to rereading and a discussion such as this one - but it can be frustrating too. What was once so clear is now muddled. The reviews on the back of the book now seem terribly simplistic, don't they?

I'm with you, Traude, about the lack of humor in the book. The satire of dictatorship - e.g., the "Newspeak" language we talked about earlier - is certainly there, but I see no humor either.

Ella - welcome back! How interesting - you'd choose a peaceful place over inner peace? I too wondered about a man who has done so much and accomplished such great things but who would persist in living in a place where he is unwelcome. What motivates him to stay, I wonder?

A few new questions:

1. As the thugs take over and take valuables in exchange for food, several times Saramago mentions some inmates' resistance to paying for the rations of others. Those with much resist having their jewels pay for the food of those with very little. Isn't this a classic political/economic discussion of the haves' resistance to providing a "safety net" for the have nots?

2. In the same vein, what do you think of the inmates who held back items of value on the first go-around? Were they being prudent? Selfish? Stupid? It seems terrible to give in to such demands - why empower the thugs by doing what they ask? By the same token, the people who hold back are somehow hurting their fellow inmates. Is there an analogy to this situation in real life?

Sarah T writes: 2. In the same vein, what do you think of the inmates who held back items of value on the first go-around? Were they being prudent? Selfish? Stupid? It seems terrible to give in to such demands - why empower the thugs by doing what they ask? By the same token, the people who hold back are somehow hurting their fellow inmates. Is there an analogy to this situation in real life?

Isn't this situation similar to cheating on one's taxes in some respects? And I'm sure some folks would eagerly equate their government with the thugs, and especially so when it means handing over money.

Jack

Jack - isn't there at least a veil of legitimacy to the taxing authority that doesn't exist in this group of thugs. It's more like an extortion ring (althought that isn't apt either, as I think about it, because one pays an extortionist simply to protect oneself, whereas this arrangement has one paying to protect the entire group). Other analogies? I'm trying to get at who's right - those who give everything, or those who hold back in hopes of getting more food (for the group?) later.

I was rereading posts and came across Hairy's post of awhile back:

"[T]he blindness is not as horrible as the cruelty of the sighted toward them." And I wondered - who, in the end, is more cruel? The sighted who put the blind into confinement out of fear, ignorance, whatever - or the blind thugs who seem to know precisely what they're doing? Can it be said that the blind thugs are acting out of fear? Of ignorance? They may be afraid of going hungry, perhaps. But aren't they worse than sighted society? If so, what does this tell us about how cruelty affects the afflicted? Does it make them bigger monsters than the jailers?

--------------------

By the way: if you're reading along with us and afraid to jump in - don't be! Your perspectives are welcome - please join us!

Those who give everything or those who hold back. The sighted who are cruel or the people with blindness who are cruel.

This is making me think of the arguments and controversy of war. And of the saying, "War is hell." And then there is the old morality dilemma of whether to steal medicine for a dying child.

These are either my thoughts BEFORE trying to answer your questions, Sarah, or my final thoughts of "oppression is hell." Don't know. It's hard for me to begin assigning blame or making moral distinctions of behavior WITHIN oppression---I do it, of course, but there is always a look at context first.

Self preservation vs. what's good for all. I suppose we do have those everyday dilemmas more than we might think. Do I move away from where my not-so-well mother lives and take care of myself or do I stay put and fade away. Would I have held back some valuables like some of the blind people did? Maybe.

Help, help. I have a thread of an idea, but can't see the end of it. About your questions, Sarah, how do doctors and others who work with AIDS people or not----or doctors who perform abortions or, for safety reasons, have stopped---there's a connection somewhere (maybe? or not) about context of oppression and taking care of oneself.

What about lawyer thugs who are asking that you do something "for the good of your country."

T said:

Betty, interpersonal active exchanges with friends tend to change and become less frequent over time for one reason or another. But lasting bonds of friendship can and do extend over space and time- to that I can attest. Absent such bond we may have to take a (perhaps involuntary) step or two in the direction of possible interaction (I know I have); it seems to me that (such interaction I mean) has been attempted and accomplished right here, in this circle, where we read with care and listen with the heart, unruffled by the increasing clamor of the busy-ness around us.

I say I agree. I have had interaction. I see it and feel it even tho I stopped reading the book - but reading along with the posts. And I have had people's presence in e-mail. There is an ease of expressing without the physical presence and ramifications that go along with that such as "bad hair day", unbrushed teeth, someonoe in a hurry who doesn't listen or someone who can't/doesn't want to hear what you need to say. I have an e-pal with a distored face from cancer surgery and people are put off by her appearance.

So our "faceless" correspondences are deeper than exteriors.

As are the layers , like an onion, that are peeled as this book is pondered.

~Marj

Betty: I am not certain that I understand your question here? Is the question in regard to how we as caretakers take care of ourselves?

Help, help. I have a thread of an idea, but can't see the end of it. About your questions, Sarah, how do doctors and others who work with AIDS people or not----or doctors who perform abortions or, for safety reasons, have stopped---there's a connection somewhere (maybe? or not) about context of oppression and taking care of oneself.

OR are you asking about the ability to minister to and/or foster???

Marj: The peeling of one layer at a time entices me. It is a wonderful thought.. dare we continue to peel?

Alf, sorry for the confusion. I was just musing all over the place in answer to Sarah's question about those who gave everything and those who held back and didn't give everything---when the thugs demanded it. The intersection of taking care of self or others.

Sarah, Jack's tax example made sense to me because there is an adversarial relationship.

What about those in concentration camps who kept secret food for themselves, to survive.

Sarah, I know you have something, a wonderful example, in mind. What is it?

Betty: I know just what you mean. There is something pulling at my heart strings with this book and the closer it comes to the surface the more uncomfortable I am getting. I have not a clue!! I keep asking myself, are you surprised? Didn't you know that that is the way people behave? I think its the cynicism and the scorn that I am experiencing. It is a path I don't usually walk in public.

This section of the book, from pages 150 and on, is the hardest for me to read. The bestiality of the men in that 3rd ward who demanded women, is distasteful to read, and left me with a feeling of repugnance. Particularly the attitude of the men left behind when the women decide to volunteer to go.

I could read about the inhumanity of people suddenly blinded, as they deal with near starvation, disease, filthy living conditions, all the sordid aspects of their existence, without too much distress, but to read the part dealing with the animalistic lust of these men shocked and disgusted me. As far as I'm concerned, this part of the book is worse than any Stephen King novel, and I find it hard put to see any redeeming quality.

Lorrie

Sarah wrote: Jack - isn't there at least a veil of legitimacy to the taxing authority that doesn't exist in this group of thugs. It's more like an extortion ring (althought that isn't apt either, as I think about it, because one pays an extortionist simply to protect oneself, whereas this arrangement has one paying to protect the entire group). Other analogies? I'm trying to get at who's right - those who give everything, or those who hold back in hopes of getting more food (for the group?) later.

God forbid, I didn't mean that there was anything like a close fit between these thugs and paying taxes to a government, though I think one has only to read almost any newsgroup on netnews to find see that there are many people who do feel exactly that. However, I think the rationalizations we/other people (take your pick) use about cheating on taxes are sometimes rather similar, i.e. - there is some "they" out there that doesn't deserve my help, the government is a bunch of robbers, I really do need to have more myself even if it means cheating. In answer to your first question what might those who held back have been thinking, I was suggesting that it was probably something along these rather familiar lines.

Jack

Lorrie, The rape was very discusting to me also. Yes this was the horror story of all horror stories to me also. The whole book was, but it did show much of the animal part of the human race in it. It makes me think of the words, that you never know until it happens to you. Ginger

I don't know if this will help anyone, but the brutal rapes of the women have nothing to do with sex. There is nothing sensual, tender, mutual. It's not about attraction or passion. It is only about brutal power.

Of the several ways I've thought about this, one is the damage wrought by oppression. This is not an excuse for the behavior of the thugs (good word, Sarah), just a way to see how the behavior didn't just spring up from nothing, didn't begin in a vacuum. Basic freedoms were taken away from all who were incarcerated in the mental institution. This produced various reactions. Some of the men felt they could only retain a shred of personal power (over their lives) by oppressing others.

Most of the world values men above women (salary, respect, "natural" authority, etc.), so women were a "natural" target for the men in a chain of power. Why did certain men act like savages and others did not? If you know the answer to this, I'll send you $1,000.

Betty, I will not accept your money but as to your question.

Why did certain men act like savages and others do not?

My answer is because some men are just that savages and others are not. I am first so none can take Betty's Money. So There. Just maybe lunch when we meet.

Betty, Please understand that in our prison's are few not guilty people but then there are the savages that rape and even kill chidren and do other things to horable to mention.

Ginger

Virginia wrote: Why did certain men act like savages and others do not?

My answer is because some men are just that savages and others are not.

Perhaps in one way this is the "message" of the book, though not necessarily in a totally straightforward and/or didactic way. It strikes me, maybe be - is striking me - that Saramago has created a world in which we readers inside of as observer-participants. We are in some ways - as long as we continue to read - as helpless, maybe more helpless, than the blind people. They are capable of actions - good and bad - we can only look as long as we are there.

But what seems to be coming out of this is that most of us are having to deal with the bottom line as Virginia has stated it above. Why are some people doing X, or not doing Y. More and more we have to accept that some will do X, some not do Y, and move on trailing behind the blind. But this raises, obviously, very uncomfortable questions. I am only watching; it is easy to judge. What could and would I do in this situation; what would I refrain from doing? Having the comfortable supports of my assumed moral system undermined by those outside who impose certain condition, and those inside who react against those conditions by hurting, or at the very least often not helping me, what would I do.

But is it quite as easy as some men are savages, some are not? Or is it that some men (women too, of coure) are more savage at some times than at others, or some are less savage at some times than at others. Should we think that these rapists were rapists before they were blind? Do we know that they weren't good people? Of course we do know they are rapists at this moment. Does the before matter? How much and why? Saramago doesn't help us here. He is kinder with the small group we have been following. The sexually unfaithful doctor, has a whole background that allows us to see him in a more complicated way. He is not just an unfaithful husband. But what do we do (in our heads) about this infidelity? We forgive the little boy who pees on himself and the floor, because we see he is a frightened little boy. But we blame so many anonymous others for making a defactory mess of the place. Is it possible that there were dozens of frightened men and women, just as likable as the little boy, who also did not get led to the latrine? But we didn't make allowances for them.

If these circumstances and modifications are present in some cases, rather than a more black/white dichotomy; then can't we all be suspect? (And how do we ration out the moral "breaks"/sympathy we give some people?) Shouldn't we also, perhaps principally, wonder about ourselves?

When I have a bowel urge, I can easily go downstairs and use the wonderfully clean porcelein fixtures. Given sexual urges, in my world I must resort to courting, picking up, legalized prostitution or masturbation - all quite civilized avenues of "relief." But in a room of men raping? If "everyone" is raping...or stealing food...or defecating on the floor...how long would I/we follow the rules from outside our prison? Do we know? And if we think we do, how do we? When were these assumptions seriously challenged?

Intended by Saramago or not, and I suspect the former to a great degree, these unpleasantly confrontational questions may be the "message" of the novel. Perhaps the message is: Don't be *too* sure about yourself. Something like the highway sign, Slippery when wet.

Jack

Jack writes above---

Intended by Saramago or not, and I suspect the former to a great degree, these unpleasantly confrontational questions may be the "message" of the novel. Perhaps the message is: Don't be *too* sure about yourself. Something like the highway sign, Slippery when wet

Seems to me that is akin to acknowledging the shadow side of ourself. Risky business! A very scarey thing to do.

~Marj

Betty et al,

of course, rape is the most primitive tool for exerting absolute dominance over another; it is all about power.

And it has been used since time immemorial.

One early example comes to mind : the Rape of Lucretia. She was the daughter of a prefect of ancient Rome and married. After having been dishonored, she stabbed heself in the presence of her father, her husband and friends.

Her story has been dramatized in French in Arnault's tragedy "Lucrèce" (1792), in Italian by Vittorio Alfieri, and by several English authors, among them Shakespeare with his poem The Rape of Lucrece.

A much more recent horrifying example are the the calculated, methodical, repeated rapes of Muslim women on a massive scale as part of the "ethnic cleansing" effort in the former Yugoslavia.

Was the outcry against this unspeakable horror really loud enough, I wonder ?

Traude

Yes, Traude, and what comes to mind, also, is "The Rape of the Sabine Women." I have always loved the legend (or is it myth?) of Romulus and Remus, the twins, and the subsequent "rape" of the Savine women. But I don't see that as a comparison here. The Romans were attempting to propagate their numbers by sheer force, yet the "thugs" in Blindness seemed to be acting out of sheer animal lust.

Jack, you brought up a very good point. Were those men who so callously used the women, the same sort of men who may not ever have done anything of the kind before becoming blind? Who can say? Yes, we make allowances for the others but not these.

Lorrie

I would have to say no. A leopard does not change his spots. If one's nature is incapable of partaking in such a brutal, animalistic attack on women that was portrayed here, I can not beleive that a change of milieu or circumstances could alter ones' basic character.

Lorrie, it was not my intention to draw a parallel or make a comparison, only to point out that rape is an instrument men have used through the ages against women (and men as well) for a variety of reasons, lust being one of them.

That instrument is still used to this very day; its effectiveness undeniable. So much for our vaunted civilization.

In BLINDNESS, the ever more horrified reader is slowly but inexorably confronted with and made aware of the progressive, inevitable degradation of the blind in the asylum.

- An aside : that the blind and the contaminated were shunted into a former MENTAL asylum, which happened to be vacant, is intentional irony on the part of the author, I think, as is the medical discipline of the only doctor around, an ophtalmologist of all things ! BTW, we have not mentioned the contaminated before or their role. Perhaps I missed something. -

I believe the motivation of the thugs in the book had a lust component indeed, besides, the opportunity was there, what else was there to do but think of the most basic human needs, and yet the sudden urge to lunge for power must have been there as well.

The excellent question, as to whether the sudden blindness and the ensuing claustrophobic conditions caused or contributed to the sudden emergence of the most basic and violent of human instincts, is impossible to answer. We are meant, I believe, to search our own souls.

Is ANYONE capable of such ? Not necessarily. It depends.

None of us can predict how he/she would react or behave under the most extreme circumstances, as when sheer survival is at stake. But ...

The old man with the eyepatch definitely would NOT have succumbed; I see him as absolutely incapable of such bestiality.

Traude

Traude writes:

The old man with the eyepatch definitely would NOT have succumbed; I see him as absolutely incapable of such bestiality

Then what/who would he symbolize?

~Marj

Marj, he may be a beacon of hope in a spiritual wilderness, a sign that decency and reason still exist. In fact, he himself may be a symbol.

Consider how patiently he waited until the shoving and pushing of the second wave of blinded internees had ended--- then searched and found the door to the first ward on the right-hand side ... and asked Any chance of a bed here. (pg. 102)

He brings the latest news from the outside, and a (precious) radio, and he assumes the role of omniscient narrator for a while.

Incidentally, my Portuguese American friend left a file with clippings in my mailbox- none recent though, and the program of the Ceremony conducted at U. Mass Dartmouth (= University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth) on Friday , October 22, 1999, during which a Doctor of Humane Letters honoris causa was conferred upon José Saramago. My friend told me over the phone that she also attended a cocktail party in the author's honor. She said, "He is tall, charming - and he is married to a rich Spanish woman ..." I told her I would share the information with the discussion participants in this group.

Traude

I agree that the rape scene is horrible, but how wonderfully it is written so that we can hardly escape participating in the anguish of the women. I think the violence here is evident and made palpable by the description. These women have been totally depersonalized and turned into orifices. They have only their mutual understanding of what happened to hold onto.

Maryal

The rapes are clearly intended to shock and disgust us. I can't imagine any of us not being appalled by them.

Alf, Lorrie and Jack - you talked about whether the blindness, or the confinement, caused these men to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done. I think Saramago thinks it did. That is, I think he believes that oppression caused these men to oppress others, and that they wouldn't have done this in absence of their terrible situation.

There are what - 21 men in the ward who participate in the rapes? And a total of 400 people total in the mental hospital. Assuming an even ratio of women and men, there are 200 men in the hospital. I can't believe that 10% of all men are predisposed to be rapists. Yet, that's what we have here.

I really think Saramago is telling us that brutality and strife beget violence and lack of concern for our fellow man.

For example, in El Salvador during the 1980s, terrible things happened. People were routinely tortured. People showed up dead. I want to believe that the people were fundamentally good, but that the brutality of the military and the war caused ordinary people to do terrible things. Indeed, the rumor during the war was always that people used the existing brutality of the society to settle old debts. THey knew they could off their neighbor over an old squabble and the death would be blamed on the war, the guerrillas, the army, the death squads, whatever. I can't believe these people would have killed otherwise.

It may be that evil lurks in a large number of us, though, and that the right circumstances can bring it out. I just don't think that absent extraordinary circumstances such as those in the hospital most of those people's evil thoughts would turn to action.

In answer to Betty's question about why some acted savagely and others did not, Ginger answered: "My answer is because some men are just that savages and others are not." Do you really think 10% of all men are "savages"? I'm more inclined to believe we are all "savages" under certain terrible circumstances. I'm sure all men want to believe they would not act in this way if they were there. Or that no woman would want to believe she would act as a Nazi collaborator or guard at Auschwitz. And yet, people did this. Were they fundamentally different from the people who didn't do it? It's a question we can't know the answer to, I suspect.

Traude - how interesting that Saramago is married to a rich woman! Jack - doesn't that sort of cut against Saramago's Marxist purity? It's easy to be a person of radical ideas when you have a fancy life to go home to. That sort of diminishes him in my eyes somehow. I pictured him as an ascetic living in squalor on an island where no one wants him!

MarjV and Traude - I'm wondering if the man with the black eye patch is good BECAUSE he is missing an eye. If maybe the lack of two blind eyes is a virtue.

Think of it - all of our best characters were eye-impaired (or heavily "eye-involved" - e.g., the doctor) before the epidemic descended. Somehow, they are insulated from the worst of the barbarity. From what I can tell, the most depraved inmates come to the hospital with no preexisting problems.

Betty and Jack - thank you for your wonderful analysis of the dilemma of holding back objects rather than turning them all over to the thugs in exchange for food. This aspect of the book is so tough philosophically. Maybe those who held back things might be characterized as dissidents - those who refused to go along with their oppressors - or members of a resistance movement who sabotaged the oppressors' scheme by holding back, making due. And yet Saramago doesn't seem to THINK any of those who held back are good. I just don't understand why he'd celebrate those who turned over everything, who went like lambs to the slaughter.

Another question came up during the terrible thug scenes. Just prior to the beginning of the rapes, the people in the wards began exploring each other sexually, sensually - as if they were clinging to some last shred of hope and intimacy. I found that hard to believe - especially that strangers would come together knowing that rapes would follow.

What was Saramago trying to tell us with this period of "preparation"? It mystified me.

Hairy - I truly hope we haven't lost you. Are you still there

If you are new to this discussion - please, jump in. We are a friendly group that welcomes newcomers, differing perspectives, brief posts, long posts, brilliance, insight, smart questions, dumb questions - all of it.

You are welcome here. Many of us are new to SeniorNet's Books and Literature discussions. Others of us have been around a long time. What we all share, I believe, is an amazement at how quickly new friends become old friends here.

So don't be afraid to jump in midstream. The water's fine!

Sarah

Sarah, I gave no any percentage of people who are good,bad, etc.

Have you forgot to look into our world, our prison's to see the truth of rapist's, controler's etc in prison's. Ginger

Sarah writes: "Traude - how interesting that Saramago is married to a rich woman! Jack - doesn't that sort of cut against Saramago's Marxist purity?"

Heh, heh. Marxists can't fall in love with rich women? The Marquise de Lafayette had a noble title yet he is celebrated as a great hero of democracy. Etc. Isn't this something like guilt by association? What do we know about this, other than someone says he is married to a rich Spanish woman? I am looking at an eight inch carved ivory Chinese statue on my desk. It's worth over a grand. What could be made of that "rich Spanish lady"? I have heard Mother Theresa described as a "con artist" and a "sadist" because she collected millions and never gave a public accounting of her organization's finances; she as a matter of course did not stock strong painkillers in her "hospice," only common analgesics, and she described suppliant's screaming death agonies as "the fiery kisses of Christ." She's going to be a saint for millions to religiously venerate. Saint or moral pervert? Aren't all these possible conclusions the judgements of the partially sighted at best? What would we say of Saramago if he were a Portguese she married to a rich Spanish man?

"It's easy to be a person of radical ideas when you have a fancy life to go home to. That sort of diminishes him in my eyes somehow."

Do we know he has a fancy life and home? What do we know of his food, his drink, his clothing, his furnitue, his friends, his lifestyle or the house they live in? Anything? We have only someone's "rich Spanish lady." There was nothing in his diaries that suggested wealthy surroundings in Lanzarote, but I've never seen pictures of him at home only out walking in the countryside there, which is rather dreary and barren in my estimation.

"I pictured him as an ascetic living in squalor on an island where no one wants him!"

Let me tell you about a European doctor who lived surrounded by impoverished and diseased black African natives in the jungle while he played Bach fugues on an organ dragged into the heart of darkest Africa...imagine! Sounds like a Kurtz-like figure perhaps, but it is Albert Schweitzer.

I think it's possible that your disappointment is in an imaginary construct of Saramago. I'd never thought he lived in squalor, though he certainly did live in poverty as a child. I think the idea that nobody wants him in the Canarary Islands is probably a stretch. It seems there is a new "nativist" moviment there that has found him a target for some reason (though I haven't yet been able to find out about it), however I don't know that there is a widespread dislike of him. The problem in my mind would be that these fringe groups seem prone to resort to violence, and I would be afraid of being the victim of a couple of extremists some night.

I see that I mistranslated something he said in the interview. It was in the section where he was asked if he missed Portugal. He said, at one point, "...what pained me is that this land had given up dreaming." I gave it a different meaning.

Jack

I'm here, Sarah! Have been busy with report cards and lots and lots of parent/teacher conferences. Am de-programming today. Have been in and out here when I could. And, of course, CNN and lots of e-mail has caught my attention about the election. Thanks for wondering!! Linda

Sarah, Jack,

I can see that I need to elaborate more here, and I am trying hard to do so with caution and discretion. Let me clarify.

My friend's off-hand but clearly calculated remark left no doubt that her opinion of the man remains inflexible and she will not (or cannot) discuss the books. That remark reflects her thinking and her values (people's personal relationships and the size of their pocketbooks are tremendously important to her).

Who knows how she found out about this juicy tidbit ? Probably in the bosom of the tight-knit Portuguese American community in which she plays a not insignificant role. Who knows whether it is even true ? And if it is, so what ? Does it matter ?

We can assume that the author is comfortable in his own right from the royalties of his books. More power to him. He may support worthwhile causes from all we know ! But I believe that his personal wealth is not really a crucial factor in our discussion. As I said, my friend's clippings were stale and I sincerely doubt her understanding of Saramago's ideas or ideals and, if indeed she ever read them.

Will continue later. Traude

I was being tongue in cheek, but can see it didn't come across that way . . . . Uncle!!

Sarah, I am sorry if my candid "report" from the "overseas trenches" as it were was offensive in any way.

I value our wonderful discussions here more than I can say. Jack's insights and contributions are especially helpful because he is "in loco", i.e. right there ! (underline right there)

With gratitude, Traude

Actually, I, too, did a double-take at the "married to rich Spanish woman," and "tall," (I think)-----just didn't fit the picture I'd manufactured for this author. Hunched over, weary, beleagered. The anguish of the novel is so real that I had transferred that characteristic to the writer.

Sarah - Sorry, I just took what you wrote at face value. I probably should have asked, do you *really* think that? Maybe I'm getting to the point in my life/netlife where I need to be cued with smiley faces. Oh dear...or maybe I just need to keep coffee in the house and have cup before I sign on.

I was reading the Saramago article with a Portuguese friend, Ana, and as we were discussing it I came across a section of the interview, which while it is about his new book, A Caverna, is certainly a comment about his overall feeling and worth quoting, I think.

He says: (A Caverna, not incidentally, uses as its departure point Plato's metaphor of the cave from the 7th book of the Republic.) "...never have we lived so much in Plato's cave as now. I think that Plato wrote the seventh book of the Republic for us. The fact is, people are so content to be what they are...it's such a little thing (his latest book, A Caverna) that I don't believe that it's going to illuminate things for them. Probably what's necessary is a more violent shock, a shock to their personal interests. We live in a realm of the ego, and the egoism is not only that of the rich, but of those who affect the same attitudes. We are living in pretense/make-believe."

This got hairy to translate as he plays with the word "ego" and makes up a word we have translated as "realm of the ego", and he uses an idiom where we have translated "who affect the same attitudes." Something closer to "show themselves off as/make it look like."

Jack

Ah, so Saramago truly believes we are blind, that we are off on our unexamined paths to self-glory or self-service (accumulation?, fame?, station?), oblivious to the pain around us. That we (or many?) are lost unless shocked into seeing. Gentle reminders won't do the trick.

He must feel that those who award literary prizes have heard him.

There are pieces of his story (Blindness) that don't ring true for me, but I am not in the author's shoes, have not seen what he has seen, and those pieces do not detract from his plea for us to wake up.

I believe the exponential dangers of oppression cannot be overstated. I like this man for trying to tell us a story that will help us believe it.

As I read this book a little more slowly, a thought occurs to me: Is this luminous whiteness, that is all the people can "see," an ironic comment on that part of society that has recently become pitch black with human evils? We're witnessing the breakdown of law, order, and morality; we see futile attempts to adapt, and we see old fears and superstitions gaining hold.

It's as though the doctor's thought "Perhaps only in a world of the blind will things be what they truly are," is highly prophetic.

Lorrie

White noise is noise that affects us but we don't really hear it or are not conscious of it. White blindness may be a blindness that we can't see - we are not aware that we have it - not aware that we are blind.

We probably are living at a superficial level. We are not living up to our true potential - not living from the gut, the heart. Life has become a pretense. What is important? a vcr, a dvd, nintendo, pokemon toys, hdtv, a new trendy kitchen, a new car? Visiting a relative in a nursing home? Inviting Uncle Charley to dinner next week even though no one in the family ever associates with him? Giving a $20 bill to a street person? Hugging your kids-your spouse? Taking the time to listen to them long and hard? Calling someone who is lonely?

Or are we blind to the needs of others? And what can that blindness lead to?

Horrendous ramifications.

Linda

Sarah said: (

"I'm sure all men want to believe they would not act in this way if they were there. Or that no woman would want to believe she would act as a Nazi collaborator or guard at Auschwitz. And yet, people did this."

Weren't those that acted as guards or collaborators victims also? They were being oppressed by the Nazis - they were assigned jobs at the camps and probably had the attitude of "we or them." It's no excuse, I know, that they were weak enough as a people to surrender their values to the Nazis, but I see them as victims also, although not to the extent of the victims of the concentration camps certainly.

Are the men who raped the women victims? Only of their physical condition and as some of the men could control their physical desires the ones who raped were just thugs, as has been stated here. They would have been "thugs" regardless of physical problems, perhaps not to the extent of raping women but outlaws in some regard.

No one has mentioned the wife watching as her husband had consensual sex with the girl with the dark glasses. My book has gone back to the library so I cannot look up the details of this episode. What do we think of this?

Who knows, Ella. Sarah doesn't. I don't. The only thing I can think of is that Saramago forced this part of the plot to remind the reader what sex was, to show the difference between sex and rape (power). And that really doesn't fit, either.

Hairy wrote: " White noise is noise that affects us but we don't really hear it or are not conscious of it. White blindness may be a blindness that we can't see - we are not aware that we have it - not aware that we are blind."

Hmmm. I wonder. It makes the whiteness of the blindness easier to understand. Ironic too when you consider that in our culture we traditionally characterize the good as being white. Blinded by our own ideas of what is good?

Jack

Jack

Excellent interpretations, Hairy and Jack.

Lorrie, indeed - we say "I see" easily and automatically, often not "seeing" at all, nor trying to.

Saramago's words in the interview, which we would not have known about had Jack not shared it with us, are telling :

".... People are so content to be what they are .... ... what's needed is a more violent shock, a shock to their personal interests. We live in a realm of the ego, and the egoism is not only that of the rich, but of those who affect the same attitudes...."

Complacency, self-satisfaction, self glorification, relentless self promotion, and the ceaseless "forging ahead" -- no matter who or what is knocked over in the process (O.J. jumping over those hurdles in those commercials suddenly comes to mind) --

all have become so common as to be accepted almost as "virtues" (=proof of personal success, manifestation of progress...).

And no, I for one do not consider the men who raped to have been victims themselves; that could too easily open the door to perpetrators' claiming victimhood as an excuse for committing unspeakable wrongs of all kinds.

The subject of Nazi collaborators and concentration camp guards is dealt with, honestly and courageously, in Bernhard Schlink's book THE READER. Thank you all.

Traude

Irregardless of their religious convictions the basic principles of the 10 Commandments were ignored. They are laws, directives in how we should live and act toward our fellow man. Lacking love, honor, duty, and trust our "thugs" were blind to the common precepts of decency and propriety. Is this good vs. evil? Is it their lack of spirituality or devotion to someother higher than themselves that keeps them blind to humane and benevelent behavior? Is the "word" hidden in their hearts or has it been extinguished?

The thugs are guilty and not victims. No doubt they were thug-like in their previous existence as sighted people. They are still thugs. The Doctor's wife must be now--in this horrible situation--something like she was before. One does not learn how to cope overnight.

I like the blindness being white. It sets this blindness that spreads like the plague apart from blindness as we know it as well as indicating that the optic nerve is still operating.

Maryal

I agree, Maryal. Even if the thugs were required to do what they did (and they clearly weren't here), they would be guilty of terrible deeds. Think of My Lai in Vietnam; the "I was just following orders" defense didn't - and shouldn't - work. In this case we have an even worse scenario because the thugs were acting entirely on their own - no one forced them to do anything.

SarahT.

I will FINALLY have a copy of this book; I just now purchased it through B&N. So I am going to have to read fast to catch up with all the discussions. I'm afraid this doesn't sound like a book that can be read quickly, but I am so interested in it that I will try. Otherwise, I'll wait for the next book discussion.

Jeanbs ... I read it in about 3 days... facinating, horrible in places, disgusting in others, but the discussion brought out a lot of ideas I hadn't thought about... So then I had to go back and check out those places... A real eye-opener.

Jean BS: If you remember, all the time you are reading this book, that it is an allegory, that helps! Sometimes when I came across a passage that seemed to have no literary value, I would ask myself, "Now what did he mean by that?" Or, "I wonder what that represents." I think you'll find that helps a lot to understand this author, if anyone can understand him.

Lorrie

I loved how back in Chapter 8, Saramago played with us by having his characters talk about allegories. After the old man with the black eye-patch gave his account of how things were getting on in the world outside the asylum, he suggests a game to pass the time. They should all tell of the last thing they saw before they went blind. He starts off the game by saying he was looking at his "blind eye" when he went blind. "An unknown voice" (an unknown voice I choose to believe is Saramago himself)tells the old man that his tale sounds like an allegory: "the eye that refuses to acknowledge its own absence."

The pharmacists' assistant says that he began to "wonder what it would be like if I too were to go blind." Another allegory says the unknown voice: "if you want to be blind, then blind you will be."

Lorrie has taken up Saramago's challenge and mined the allegories from his tale. Well done, Lorrie.


Charlie

JeanBS - I'm with Pat - I think you can catch up! You won't be able to put the book down.

How interesting, Charlie and Lorrie, that you talked about allegory in this book. I was thinking this morning about how well the book works as a literal account of what happens in society when everyone goes blind. Betty said awhile back that some of the details don't work, don't ring true. I agree with her.

For example, I didn't think the tender sex the inmates engaged in just before the rapes rang true at all. This is one instance in which Saramago's male voice didn't, in my opinion, capture what women would have done just before being raped. Not at all.

Ella cited the episode of consensual sex between the woman with dark glasses and the doctor. That also had a ring of untruth to it, although I thought the doctor's wife's reaction made sense.

If we take the story literally, are there other episodes that simply don't ring true?

I saw the sex scene between the Dr and the woman as "a connection." They reached out to one another in a blind state. Being without sight does not negate the desire. It actually enhances the desire to touch someone, to be a part of someone, to join with someone. This is a "connection."

Alf - great point.

It is a great point, Alf, but I'm not convinced (by Saramago) that at a moment of great fear, that a husband would turn sexually to another woman with his wife in the room----to be blunt. When we are threatened, we pull in, we turn to what is known and secure. We shrink; we don't expand.

Allegories. Literal story. I have to tell you, the more we know about this book through discussion and through Jack's and others' details about the author, the less I know about this book. Looking at one part of it, by chapter or theme or intent, works well for me, but then is lost when we go on to the next chapter or theme or intention.

I've moved all the way from (at the beginning of the posts) saying Saramago expresses hope in all of us through his character, the doctor's wife. Later, I wrote that he believes the world, a blind world, values the empty life of accumulation, status---that we are on unexamined paths to destruction. In other words, I haven't a clue.

My only optimistic thought is that this book will be a good one to reread in a year---or three. We will have changed as people in tiny ways, stayed the same in important ways, and some perspective will surely tell us if our views are (primarily) personally driven (well, of course they are, but how much) or, hell, maybe we'll all annex a few billion more brain cells and Saramago's story will lose a little stature but gain clarity. Or not.

He does justice to the brutality of rape like no other author, I'll give him that. From whatever source, he knows what rape is. Family member? Witness? Participant? Who knows. There are a few thousand judges who hear rape cases that should be required to read his account, anyway.

Betty, that is truly a marvelous interpretation, a summation even. Yes, this is definitely a book to be held, and kept, and read again more than once, over time.

There are still open questions concerning the ending, the flight to the church (refugium), the meaning of the blind-folded icons/images. We are going to talk about that, I hope.

And no, I don't think we can take the plot or the protagonists literally - the latter are nameless on purpose, I believe, to show the universal applicability of such a (far-fetched?) predicament.

Jack told us about Saramago's latest recently published book, of which we have not heard a word here officially yet

-let's hope somebody is hard at work right now preparing for a translation into English-

and that is privileged advance information for which we must be grateful. As Jack said, this latest book is the third in a trilogy that began with BLINDNESS and continued with ALL THE NAMES.

The author's perception and outlook are grim, but isn't there also a shred of hope ? I think there is.

As for the rapes : I read WAITING before I joined this group but have checked into Archives for your discussions.

In any event, the rape scene described ther, in WAITING, was more graphic and more violent (I thought), and the reader keenly felt the devastating, lasting effect on the victim, who would not admit what happened, for shame.

In BLINDNESS, the violation was acknowledged = an admitted fact, a fait accompli, almost a case study, and as such even more horrendous, especially on that scale.

Traude

Traude, thanks.

You've reminded me that another book we discussed, History: A Novel began with a rape scene. Don't know why that one or the one from Waiting didn't leave me with a thought that the author captured the brutality. I'm learning, though (from our discussions), that we bring so much of ourselves into the interpretations of books, so maybe something about this book hit home for me as the scene in Waiting did for you.

At the other end of the understanding spectrum, Traude, was the discussion of ????, can't remember the title, with the author as a guest online with us. She defended a scene in her book where a female character was turned on by being sexually forced ("manhandled" I think was the word, held down and forceably kissed, but not quite a rape). I was rude to her. Others were silent. Charlie, discussion leader, was diplomatic and graciously brought the discussion to an end. Good 'ole Charlie, my favorite guy who "gets it."

Betty's summation precisely states why this site excels above all others. "My only optimistic thought is that this book will be a good one to reread in a year---or three. We will have changed as people in tiny ways, stayed the same in important ways, and some perspective will surely tell us if our views are (primarily) personally driven (well, of course they are, but how much) or, hell, maybe we'll all annex a few billion more brain cells and Saramago's story will lose a little stature but gain clarity. Or not."

Very thought provoking and wonderfully said.

Just in the corse of a few weeks my views were altered with the 2nd reading. The first time I read this book, I was at the edge of my seat, swept along ,fearful with our "blind" characters. The next time I read it, I became angry as I became angry with the victims of the extermination camps. This type of book gnaws at our souls, our very essence.

Betty, Alf and Traude, you may read the book again in 3 years and gain more clarity.

Once was enough for me and in three years, I'll just be three years older and a few billion brain cells deader, I'm afraid. But I'll still be reading something!

Betty, you said it so beautifully:

"Allegories. Literal story. I have to tell you, the more we know about this book through discussion and through Jack's and others' details about the author, the less I know about this book. Looking at one part of it, by chapter or theme or intent, works well for me, but then is lost when we go on to the next chapter or theme or intention."

I think you also had this reaction, Jack.

Isn't that what works about this book - that we can have a million interpretations and that we rethink our own reactions as we read on? That's why I think this book will last - it works on so many levels.

Not to worry, Traude, we will definitely get to the final section of the book. I have us reading pp. 216 through the end starting tomorrow. How interesting, though, about Waiting. I had to think -- was there a rape in Waiting? That's how little impact that book had on me as compared to this one. Weird.

Now, Ella, tell us why you feel that way? Is the book just too upsetting and gross? Is it a bad read?

Is there anyone here who feels the book isn't well written? Isn't gripping? I suspect we're all together on that one.

I had to admit, Ella, that I found myself thinking this morning - what a terrible thing to be reading during Thanksgiving week! Why put myself through such horror?

Do we gain from reading books such as this? Books that stimulate our minds in deep and fascinating ways - and yet are terribly disturbing to read? I go back and forth about this. Years ago I was on a Chaim Potok reading kick. I was reading a book that was so sad and depressing that I wondered whether it was a good thing for me. At the time, it wasn't. And yet, it was a great book.

ALF - to get to your point about the need for touch and a connection - that did make sense to me. Perhaps it was the blindness itself that created this sensory need. Perhaps such a need wouldn't have existed in those with sight.

Jack - where are you?? We need you on this last section!

Betty, re your post #274,

I have been with you in this group only since THE HUMAN STAIN was discussed; clearly I cannot comment in this case. But it would be interesting to know the book's title and/or the author's name.

Alf and Ella, what is so satisfying to me personally is the earnestness, thoroughness and willingness to explore - get deeper, in other words.

As I have said before, we should not feel that we are required to LIKE any book in order to have a good discussion, and our get-togethers seem to prove the point. There are no facile answers, not to this book.

Sarah, the descriptions of human physical functions are graphic, to be sure but, in my opinion, are never vulgar, do not seem to be designed to appeal to a salacious reader looking for cheap thrills ...

More than once I have thought of Sartre, particularly his novel NAUSEA (La Nausée) and his play NO EXIT (Huis Clos)... (BTW Sartre too flirted with communism.) But I believe Saramago is more hopeful. Let's see what everyone thinks of the last part of the book.

And yes Sarah, on question 7, again I say that the book resurrects nightmares many of us have had - when we knew in that nightmarish state what was "up" and yet were unable to act, or react.

I have expressed my sincere gratitude to all of you elsewhere and don't want to be boringly repetitive. And yet I say it again,

Many special thanks to all of you and HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Traude

Traude---I too have thought about Sartre's Nausea in connection with Blindness. I'm glad you reminded me. I agree that there is more hope in Blindness although even in Nausea there is hope. Although the ultimate message of that book is that nothing has value, if that statement were true, there would be no point in writing the book at all. Thus the very existence of Nausea belies its thesis.

Blindness has a good deal of hope in it toward the end where I don't think we are yet so I will wait to comment.

Maryal

Betty was referring earlier to The President's Astrologer, by Barbara Shafferman - our first in the current Fiction/Author Events series.

I think the book was intended to be an "eye-opener" to what we are doing with our lives and where small self-centeredness actions can lead to not seeing what needs to be done for others.

The book initially reminded me of the beginning of The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham - a far cry from Sartre, but, what the hey!

I'm pretty much with Betty here, too. I may really have no clue.

I thought that his having a rich wife wouldn't hinder his writing at all. He would be able to write free and clear of worries and be able to concentrate on his topic better than a person worrying about finances.

(Unless he was writing something like Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London.)

Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone! How sweet it is to have a couple of "free days."

Linda

Now that we've cleared away the dishes and are well into the turkey sandwich phase of the weekend . . . .

--------------------

The final section of the book has our intrepid group out in the "real" world away from the asylum. As with the Wizard of Oz, they realize that the soldiers are gone, all blind, and that their power was simply imagined. Their prison is engulfed in an inferno.

We discover a society that has completely broken down - in infrastructure (no water, no gas, no electricity, no banks, no food distribution, no garbage pickup or street cleaning) and in human relations.

The girl with dark glasses discovers that her parents are gone from their apartment and that "for months" (aha, now we know how long the blindness has existed) a raw rabbit and cabbage eating woman has lived alone in her building.

The doctor's wife discovers a stash of food in the below-ground storage of a market.

We discover that people have all become homeless becasue they cannot find their way back to their own homes. They wander in loosely organized and ever-changing bands to shops, theaters and fancy neighborhoods with cars they can sleep in.

Animals roam the streets in packs like hyenas and eat dead corpses. Although once domesticated, their instincts now tell them to avoid humans - for whom they might easily become food.

We meet the dog of tears.

------------------------

What do you make of all of this?

1. I found myself thinking of the cultural revolution in China or Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge. There was a sense that all of society had to break down and be made again. People's comfort had to disappear. Did any of you have this reaction?

2. Saramago says: "There being no witnesses, and if there were there is no evidence that they were summoned to the post-mortems to tell us what happened, it is understandable that someone whould ask how was it possible to know that these things happened so and not in some other manner, the reply to be given is that all stories are like those about the creation of the universe, no one was there, no one witnessed anything, yet everyone knows what happened."

What is he saying here? That it was inevitable that society would break down as it did? That it was inconceivable that things would turn out differently?

3. Who or what does the dog of tears represent for you? At one point Saramago likens the dog to a human. Is the dog the first sign of hope? Does the dog's interaction with these humans transform him? "The dog went to lie down at the door, blocking the entrance, he is a gruff, ill-tempered animal when he does not have to dry someone's tears." And what do you make of this: "[E]ven the dog of tears, who knows no language, began wagging its tail, this instinctive movement reminded it that it still had not done what is expected of wet dogs, to shake themselves vigorously, spashing everything around, for them it is easy, they wear their pelt as if it were a coat. Holy water of the most efficacious varieyt, descended directly from heaven, the splashes helped the stones to transform themselves into persons . . . ."

There is almost a god-like quality to this comforting dog of tears.

There again, the dog has no name, and yet like the people, what they are called gets to who they are. Somewhat like Indian names. Who needs any other name if the one you are called is "who" you are?

This was an incredible experience reading this part of the book. I think the doctor's wife was extremely helpful. They never would have survived in the comfort they had without her.

Linda

I was so relieved and happy when our intrepid group emerged into the light of day and began trying to find the places they had come from. I could almost smell the better air and feel the freedom with them.

And the Dog of Tears--what a magnificent addition. He moved in to comfort because at some point he had learned to love humans and how to make the sad feel better. He is a bit of normalcy--people have dogs who depend on them and who protect them. This dog is domesticated and has not turned wild. It is almost as if he has been waiting for the Doctor's wife.

I see so much hope here in this last part of the novel. These people have survived. They have helped each other. I think the bathing scenes are some of the finest in the book. How good it must feel to be as filthy as they were and then to get clean at last.

~Maryal

Yes, Linda and Maryal - we see hope in both the doctor's wife and the dog of tears in this final section of the book. I really came to love and appreciate both of them.

Linda - you're right - the names are perfectly descriptive, aren't they? The dog licks one's tears - how much more perfect a description could one give him? Indeed, when the blindness begins to lift, one of the first things that happens is that someone calls the doctor "Doctor." They have not used names or titles up until this point. It almost makes one sad that they have to lose the much more meaningful connection of knowing each other intrinsically, rather than by their titles.

And Maryal - those bathing scenes are beautiful, aren't they? I especially love the bath the man with the eye patch is given. The water is terribly cold, and there is little of it, and yet his pure pleasure at being clean, and the tenderness with which a woman (whose identity he does not yet know) cleans his back, is really cause for optimism.

Since the filth was so abhorrent to many of us, there is something truly liberating about having our protagonists get clean. It is, as you say, Maryal, a real source of hope.

Do others agree? Or do these city scenes suggest to you that it is only a matter of time before all are dead? Knowing what I know now, the scenes seem hopeful - but I have to admit that the first time I read the book, I had no idea how things would turn out.

Indeed, my memory of the book was of much longer scenes where Saramago described the rapes, the filth, the terrible conflagration in the below-ground storage of the grocery. When I reread the book, these scenes were much shorter than I remembered. There was more hope than I remembered. The horror stayed with me, and I remembered little of the optimism of this final section.

All of you wonderful discussion participants - come on back for this final week and give us your final thoughts on this amazing book.

Come on in kevxu, Ella, MarjV, ALF, Ginger, Betty, Charlie, Ginny, Jean BS, Judy, Lorrie, Maryal, PatW, Traude, Artemis, and those of you just reading along with us.

Ollie ollie oxen free!!

Last thoughts, anyone? What was the meaning of this book?

Was it well written?

Would you recommend it to a friend?

Would you reread it?

Will you read other Saramago books?

Would you like to discuss them (other Saramago books) here at SeniorNet?

-------------------

Incidentally, take a look today at Parade Magazine (comes in a lot of Sunday papers). Our intrepid Lorrie is quoted in an article that prominently features SeniorNet.

SeniorNet is a really special site. Virtually all of us are volunteers here and came to the site originally because we love books. We quickly became hooked on the high quality and depth of the discussions here, the great books we discuss, and, most importantly, the friendly, smart, welcoming people. Gradually, we began leading discussions and now consider SN home. I hope you all will too - you have a place here with us. You all are what make these discussions great.

So . . . sit back and make yourselves comfortable. We'll be discussing a collection of short stories in December, as well as Orwell's Animal Farm. We are currently voting on a "Prized Fiction" selection for January 2001, and on a "New Fiction" selection for February (nominees include National Book Award [NBA] winner In America, by Susan Sontag, Barbara Kingsolver's latest, Prodigal Summer, and NBA nominee Blonde, by Joyce Carol Oates). This doesn't include all the nonfiction, poetry and other genres we read and discuss here.

Take a look and stay awhile . . .

http://www.seniornet.org/cgi-bin/WebX?14@@.ee6eef3

Sarah, I feel that this is one of the most significant books that we've talked about for a long, long time. I know that, after I got over my initial revulsion at some of the vivid descriptions of the sordid things that happened to this band of people, I kept going back to reread certain passages. This is one of the great things about this author. He not only makes you think, he makes you become one with the characters he has invented.

All in all, this is not a book that will be soon forgotten.

Lorrie

I think these posters in this group have been wonderful. some of the comments made have been really meaningful. It's been a pleasure to be part of this group, and well done, Sarah!!

Sorry to have briefly disappeared again. I had the very bizarre experience of discovering that an interesting acquaintance of some years ago , though not someone I had nnot known intimately, and whom I had been told was dead, is very much alive. One night I was looking for someone on the Internet and began idly putting in the names of various people to see if they might have web pages. Quite without thinking I put in this person's name, and found someone with that name who had a web page...and after reading it I was almost certain it was the same person. And it was. We have been exchanging many, many emails since then. Perhaps there is a connexion. Paul had (and has) AIDS and was reported to have gone into a terminal decline and gone off to a former home to die. As it turned out he came very close to it, but he did manage to get the various new drugs in time and was one of the lucky ones to respond well to them. Back from the dead. for a time at least. This had really addled me over the past few days, seems very unreal. I am only used to hearing that the sick are sicker, or have died.

I too felt that the last part of Blindness when the people finally come out into the air and light to be very deeply moving. Probably because as I was rereading this section I had the above experience this time my reaction was almost something like exhileration. I do remember, though, when I first read it some time ago I felt an uplifting then as the group emerged, despite the disintegration of their once familiar world. The scene of bathing the man with the eye patch and the appearance of the Dog of Tears are highlights of this section. I'm still not feeling that there is (or perhaps better, that I have gotten) a clear message, if one was even intended, but the movement of this book into light and space is so affirming that it seems as if this must be at least a hint from the author to hope. Certainly the change in circumstances for the characters affected me that way, though clearly horror continues to abound, but the fact that they are not confined is such a relief to me as a reader -- it is quite incredible how successfully Saramago has been in creating and sustaining the claustrophobic atmosphere so that even as a reader I seem to be breathing freer now that we are outside, and this condition is almost as good as a definite promise or goal upon which to fasten hope.

I had forgotten, by the way, till I saw something in the paper that Saramago has written a travel memoir that has been translated into English, though whether it is available in the US I don't know. The book, I think, is a UK publication. "Journey to Portugal." I think I will look for it. I'm anxious to see how he handles non-fiction, and especially what he has to say about his country.

Jack

"The worst blind person was the one who did not want to see," said the Dr.'s wife. What does this mean?

We know what we should be doing, but we don't want to do it.

ALF--Give me a page number and I'll check out the quote. In the meantime, I am guessing. If the doctor's wife is talking about herself, she means that she has often wished not to see what the others cannot, that it is far worse to be sighted in this situation than it is to be blind. Wishing for blindness is close to deliberately blinding oneself, or refusing to face that which one does not wish to SEE, and therefore the worst blind person would be the one who did not want to see.

Hope I have confused you sufficiently ......

Maryal

As others have said, I am not sure why an author would write such a tale of horror, of filth and vulgarity, of blind men raping blind women; it seemed at times as though JS was building on the horror, piling it on to lead us on in ever more abominable scenes, and it was almost an anticlimax at the end when the blind regained their sight and life returned to normality. Was it to ask the questions of ourselves what we would do under these circumstances, to examine these characters to see if any goodness can prevail under these hideous circumstances, if the cruelty of the sighted to the blind is etched in reality and, finally perhaps, to examine the qualities of the characters for humaness in spite of helplessness. I keep asking myself if I would rather have been the doctor's wife or one of the blind - I have come to no conclusion.

As much as I did not enjoy reading this book and would not have finished it had I not wanted to read the comments of others; I will ask a friend in the medical profession to read it and we will discuss it, not to the extent that we have here because such lengthy and varied comments can only take place in a group; but we will each ask why we read it, why we liked or disliked the book, does it have any meaning for us beyond a story that at times seems written only to shock the reader, and discuss the problematic solutions of a societal breakdown in an epidemic.

Thanks, Sarah, for leading this discussion and my thanks to all of you for your participation in an interesting discussion.

Ella, thanks for your thought-provoking comments. I've been sitting here thinking it's easy to see what you mean but that I see this book differently. When Jack quoted the author on his belief that he had to go to extremes to make his point (did he use the word "shock"?), that helped me think I understood the author's motivation. I've been thinking---have you (or anyone) wanted to grab someone by the shoulders and shake until he comes to his senses? Has any of us thrown up our hands in frustration because we can't get our point across?

As a feminist, I often shake my head with disbelief that the CURRENT physical dangers that face women in so many countries are ignored or downplayed routinely. A few weeks ago, on the evening news, Tom Brokaw reported that the U.S. military had begun working with several European countries to investigate and attempt to stop women being purchased in Asian countries, then sold into sex prostitution mafia-type rings that do business close to military bases. The news report said "thousands" of women are purchased and resold each year. Of course, I kept waiting for Brokaw to say, "Didn't we do a story like this a few years ago and a few years before that?" This is not a new thing.

So, I suppose I "hear" a genuine frustration in Saramago's language, his choice of story, choice of words, mysterious metaphors, allegorical hints. Does his choice of extremes mean that he wins prizes but confuses and turns off the average reader? Your comments, Ella, make me wonder who Saramago imagined his audience to be. On this one issue, I do respect an author who says, I have to say what I have to say, even if I can't predict if it will be received in the spirit in which it was written.

But remember---I'm not sure what his message is, period. I can say, though, that his attempt to shake us by the shoulders seems genuine. His concern rings authentic---to me. He's trying to tell us something.

Maryal: That quote was from pg. 298, a conversation between the Dr. and the gal with the dark glasses.

The dog of tears leaves me with a warm heart. The intensity of our distress & misfortune is abated by our ability to cry "tears." If something becomes too unbearable to discuss or to endure, tears well inside us and the flood gates are engaged. To the Dr's wife her feelings of lonliness seemed that it could be "overcome only by the strange THIRST which the dog drank her tears."

Sarah: You've done a superb job leading this discussion and I thank you. As usual this group has brought me greater understanding and appreciation of another novel.

Jack - I'm so glad you're back. That is so interesting about Paul. Indeed, he was in the world all along, but because you thought him dead, in a very real way, he WAS dead. I had the opposite experience a couple of years ago - someone I thought was very much alive had died unbeknownst to me. She WAS alive as long as I felt she was alive.

I love Jack's quote: "the movement of this book into light and space is so affirming that it seems as if this must be at least a hint from the author to hope." It's interesting that the "blinding light" that afflicted all of our characters did not bring relief from the claustrophobia to which Jack refers. It was only true light, natural light, that lifted that sense of oppressiveness. I agree with you there, Jack.

Ella - I'm sorry this book was so upsetting for you - but oh so glad you were here with us. How interesting that you will talk about this book with a friend in the medical profession. Is it to get his/her "take" on how society actually reacts to epidemics? To test whether Saramago's portrayal of the reaction had any resemblance to reality?

Betty asks who Saramago thought his audience would be. Before he won the Nobel Prize, Jack, did he have much of a readership outside Portugal? It seems a European audience might be more able to grasp the horror of this book given their experience with WWII, the former Yugoslavia, the cold war, Chechnya, etc. We are really very sheltered on our American continent in a way Europe has never been. I wonder if Saramago didn't imagine a far more fatalistic audience than the American one.

ALF - you are so right; tears are such a catharsis. They don't call it a "good cry" for nothing. Indeed, when we cry, we release endorphins that can be as pleasurable as those we get from exercise. It's interesting that the blind eyes did not lose their capacity to shed tears. Perhaps Saramago was making the point that blindness did not remove the power of the eyes to make one feel true emotion.

Thanks for all the kind words. I've really loved this discussion - you all are terrific!

----------------

I know Traude has wanted us to talk about the church scene. If you'll recall, the doctor's wife (and the dog of tears) enter the church, and she discovers that all of the figures in the church's icons/statues/paintings bear white masks. There is speculation that the priest created the masks. As the crowd in the church realizes the masks are there, the people leave en masse.

What is Saramago telling us here? That the church inhabitants have lost hope for fear God no longer can see them? That their religious icons have lost their power because they cannot see? That if even the icons are blind, there is no more reason for hope?

I have been told by Portuguese and non-Portuguese alike that Saramago did not have a wide readership prior to the Nobel, by which they mean that he was not someone whose novels got snatched eagerly off the shelf as they came out. In Portugal it seems to have been his novel The Stone Raft that made him more well-known. It is about what happens when the Iberian peninsula becomes detached from Europe and begins to float out to sea. For most of his career he has been a kind of "thinking person's" writer I believe.

I think he is very involved in his sense of being Portuguese. First there are the books based solidly on episodes in Portugal's history, i.e. Siege of Lisbon, Balthazar & Blimunda. The Stone Raft is clearly a judgement on the state of the Iberian peninsula after thirty or forty years of fascism and a lesser period of center and left governments. I take Blindness and All the Names, which I would highly recommend (and it has no filth or sex), as more philosophical "musings", or perhaps essays is better, on the state of man, but colored by what he has seen of men under the entire gamut of governmental systems. My feeling is that the U.S. style of consumer civilization probably appalls him, without surprising.

Jack

What do you all make of the book's final paragraph? Certainly I think it has to be - even if only a little - a bit of a tease, giving us a fright, but I find it difficult to think that this is all there is to that momentary suggestion that at the end of it all the doctor's wife is becoming blind - even though the ultimate sentence lets us know that she is not.

Before this incident the doctor and his wife are talking: "...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."

At the very end is Saramago suggesting to us that even this woman we have all admired and in a sense depended upon, just maybe even she is susceptible?

What do you think?

Jack

I had a discussion with my daughter about the last paragraph of the novel. Here it is:

The doctor's wife got up and went to the window. She looked down at the street full of refuse, at the shouting, singing people. Then she lifted her head up to the sky and saw everything white, It is my turn, she thought. Fear made her quickly lower her eyes. The city was still there.

There is fear here when we think that the central character may have developed the White Blindness. But she is frightened too and lowers her eyes. When she does so, "The city was still there." In other words, she can still see. I think it is a brilliant last paragraph.

Thank you, Sarah, for leading a superb discussion. I am planning to teach this novel next semester.

~Maryal

Jack, Maryal, the "we" spoken by the doctor's wife in "I think we are blind....Blind people who can see but do not see," sounds like a collective "we" to me, in that she lived through the ordeal with the others but, more to the point, is beginning to "see" (understand) at the same time others are beginning to see. And, of course, it is Saramago speaking to us through her---almost with faith that we are ready for her insight.

Betty---Yes, I completely agree with you. And I will always remember her from this novel. She was a very real person to me.

~Maryal

Thank you, Sarah! You lead dicussions so well and have such a range of intelligent, probing questions. I am sorry I wasn't able to post more. My time is so limited I haven't even had much time to look over the book again after reading it. I wish I had the time to write and muse and ponder.

Wonderful discussion. Just wonderful! Very impressive to say the least! - Linda

I agree with LInda. And people were responding to each other also which i thought was very neat. I kept reading the posts and left a couple messages even tho I had decided I wasn't finishing the book except for the final chapter.

Perhaps the white she saw (doc's wife) is the hope we live with, even in our darkest moments. As several others said in another way.

~Marj

and I want to read about the Dog of Tears - if anyone has the pbk - about what page did that start???? Thanks

Jack asks about the last paragraph of the book:

"The doctor's wife got up and went to the window. She looked down at the street full of refuse, at the shouting, singing people. Then she lifted her head up to the sky and saw everything white, It is my turn, she thought. Fear made her quickly lower her eyes. The city was still there."

Jack says:

"Certainly I think it has to be - even if only a little - a bit of a tease, giving us a fright, but I find it difficult to think that this is all there is to that momentary suggestion that at the end of it all the doctor's wife is becoming blind."

Good point. What else is Saramago doing besides teasing us that after all of her ordeals, the doctor's wife may be blind? Trying to tell us that the difference between blindness and sight is very slight - that it's really a state of mind, rather than a physical difference, that separates the two?

What difference would it have made if the book ended with the doctor's wife actually becoming blind? What would that tell us about her? If in some ways the blindness was a positive thing for these characters - especially the man with the black eye patch and the woman with the dark glasses - would it be so terrible for the doctor's wife to become blind?

Betty makes a good point about the sentence: "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." Seeing is "understanding," Betty says. These sentences are a bit of a brain teaser, but if they are not actually blind (physically) but still do not "see" - isn't Saramago saying that they DON'T have understanding? That is - they really have the physical power of sight, but don't "see" (i.e., understand) the world around them? If that's what he's saying, does that ring true about our protagonist characters? (In my mind, it doesn't, although it's certainly true of the marauding masses in the book.)

Maryal - wow! You're going to teach this book next semester! That's wonderful. I'd love to hear about your plans. Was this something that was in the curriculum all along? It would be fascinating to take a course on this man's work. How right you are about the lasting impression the doctor's wife leaves on us - she is indelible.

For those of us interested in reading other Saramago novels, it sounds as if we must read All the Names and Balthazar and Blimunda. Would you also recommend Siege of Lisbon, Jack? The Stone Raft also sounds fascinating. And I know PatW is also reading something of Saramago's. PatW, what is the title again?

Do others have recommendations?

Traude, we need your insight on the church scene!!

Hairy - golly, thanks for the kind words.

-------------- By the way, at SeniorNet we have an ongoing discussion of prize winning/nominated fiction called "Prized Fiction." Nominations for future prize-winning books to discuss often pop up there first. If you'd like to subscribe to that discussion, or simply to pop over now and make suggestions for future book selections, click on the link below.

Prized Fiction

________________________________________

Sarah--I picked Blindness myself. My daughter read it and said, "You have to teach this one." And then I read it with this group and see why she said that. It is a book that begs to be read with a group.

It is also interesting stylistically--all those run-on sentences with very minimal punctuation, not even quotation marks. They will be forced to read every word or get lost. No skimming here!

~Maryal

You have been an exceptional moderator/discussion leader. I thought your questions were great, as was your knitting together of our various comments. Thank you.

I haven't read the Siege of Lisbon, but I think Traude may have said she had. I'm very interested in reading the new one, A Caverna. If anyone else is I'd suggest you keep checking the UK Amazon.com site the book is likely to show up in a UK edition first judging from the past.

I would like to see this same group discussing Nobel prize-winner, Yasunari Kawabata's book "Snow Country." The prose is truly gorgeous, no other word for it. His compatriot, Junichiro Tanizaki, wrote a wonderful, dark puzzler of a book, "The Key." It is composed of the alternating diary entries of a middle-aged husband and wife, each of whom is reading the other's diary, and each of whom is then saying in their own diary that they suspect their spouse of peeking into theirs. Very intriguing study of deceit, baiting and double-dealing.

Jack

I wanted to let you all know that Traude is having some medical problems and has been laid up. I've missed her terribly, and invite any of you who feel the same to drop her a note. You can access her e-mail address by clicking on her name in any of the posts she made along the way in this discussion.

TRAUDE - please, get well soon!

Sarah, many thanks to you for handling the discussion of a difficult book ably and even-handedly, and thanks to all who participated. Your questions were thought-provoking. Our get-togethers here were a privilege to attend. This circle is truly special.

I am sorry not to have been able (yet) to add my thoughts on the last part of the book or answer my own questions about the meaning of the church scene : I took a detour to the hospital Tuesday after another fall and that slowed me down to a crawl.

Jack is right about Saramago's ALL THE NAMES, it is excellent and quite different from BLINDNESS, even though written in a similar style : with page after page of narration, many without the visual relief of a paragraph, without "conventional" dialogue, and with only minimal, selected punctuation marks. Metaphysical questions are asked.

I will actively rejoin you as soon as I can see out of my second eye, which is still swollen shut. With much gratitude for your wishes, Traude

Truade: Even your thank yous are eloquent. We miss you, take care of yourself.

Traude - I am so sorry to hear of your misfortune. Please get plenty of rest and here's hoping you will be feeling well again soon. Best Wishes! - Linda

Traude----Especially sorry to hear about your poor swollen eye. It is, nevertheless, really good to see a post from you.

Maryal

It's been a delight to learn about this book with all of you. I want to discuss more books with you. I'll be leading another "Prized Fiction" discussion in January 2001 (the book will be Mating, by Norman Rush, a National Book Award winning novel from several years ago that is one of my favorite books from the last 10 years). There are lots of other great discussions going on too.

The Book Club Online continues with a discussion of Best American Short stories of 2000 Starts TODAY!!

The discussion of Orwell's Animal Farm has also just begun.

In February we'll read a yet to be selected work of new (literary) fiction.

For a list of all of the selections, click on the Books & Literature link (in red) at the top and bottom of this page.

So . . . don't go away. You all belong here. We're family now!

Much love to all of you

Signing off,

Sarah

PS I'm going to embark on my own Saramago book-reading adventure over the holidays. I want to read everything by this brilliant man!

My many thanks to Sarah(the sighted one) and the others in the group whose elbows I clutched during the past month I finished this book even though after reading the first few pages(and many times later) I didn't want to. Early on it reminded me how I felt during the 40's of how I imagened the victims of the first and unknown and devastating atom bomb blast could have felt. Mid way I did not think the author meant blindness to be eye failure, but what was it symbolic of and what was the challenge? During this time I clutched your elbows by lurking--but groping. Now at it's conclusion, here is mine. Also during the 40's society had witnessed such horrors of man's capablities to each other, we escaped such reality to fantasy or image-making and in this "healing" state we have seemingly lost sight of the truth--but the tears have bathed the filth and stench from us and we have survived to try again--oh how glad I am to have read the book! And thanks again to all of, espcially Sarah--Yvonne

Well, the meaningful metaphors have no end. I loved the image, Yvonne, of you holding onto someone's elbow here. In some ways, we all have depended on each other to see (understand) Saramago's message(s). Your points about the 40s, Yvonne, are well put.

Yvonne---I really appreciated your post. It's a wonderful thing when a book wins a reader over despite being grim. And I'm so glad you made the journey with us.

Maryal

Thanks again, SARAH!!

SarahT... Just finished Saramago's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ .. A little different from my knowledge of the scriptures, but a very interesting story.... written in the same manner as Blindness.

Yvonne - what a beautiful statement: "tears have bathed the filth and stench from us and we have survived to try again." What words of hope - perfect ones with which to end this discussion.

We'll be archiving this discussion shortly, but it will still be available in our archives if you want to post more.

http://www.seniornet.org/cgi-bin/WebX?14@@.ee72687

With love and admiration for all of you,

Sarah