I hear you Jude and yes, you guessed it - I am not able to agree - I see Saramago using satire and a delicious ability to write comedy - he even makes us smile as he compares what we know today to what may have been experienced during the Medieval march from Portugal to Austria - However, I see this book as Saramago proselytizing his beliefs using satire to make his points rather than knocking on our door with the latest copy of Watchtower.
I can admire his ability to tell a story, paint pictures with words, put together engaging sentences, write a page turner as we say to describe his ability to convey curiosity and our anxiety to find out what happens next - however, a piece of literature, especially for literary acclaim, I expect to touch my feelings, my values, and my thoughts, even challenge my perceptions - either adjust or shine a light on what I have taken for granted.
Now that is what I expect from a book by a world renown author - it is not what I expect every reader to expect - In light of my expectation reading this book by Saramago I cannot help but see his references to - yes, brilliant - thanks for finding the connection in his bio - authority and the Catholic church.
He has enticed me to do additional reading, to learn more about this time in history. I did not know his views were based in Communism and I do like what Bloom says - not a quote but to the affect Saramago's views are elemental - and so, where I do not read Tolstoy's, satire the History of the Russian State from Gostomysl to Timashev, or Sterne's, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, or Chaim Potok's, The Gift of Asher Lev, or another satire about politics in religion, Anthony Trollope's, Barchester Towers without being cognoscente of the political and religious views of the author just as, I could not see a discussion limited to the talent of the author to create an artistically written novel.
In these discussions I am delighted that we do have Senior Learn folks, like you Jude, who can see and remark on the artistic talents of an author, often seeing things I miss and yes, it would be nice if Saramago was only writing factual history but he makes all sorts of snide comments that cannot be ignored or, maybe that I cannot ignore. Also, true to most of the books we choose to discuss we include placing the story in historical context.
None-representative art is not as easy to define as political however, there is much 'Great Art' that carries a political message – example, in Mesopotamia the portrayal of kings was to propagate a positive message – Howgarth paints both moralizing and satirical art - Diego Riveria's and Picasso’s murals, Goya, Military art of battle scenes glorifying the victors, Religious art, John Steuart Curry’s, Tragic Prelude, Benton’s Cut the Line, Ilya Repin’s, Beggar - the political art commissioned by Stalin or, here in the States, the art depicting the rise of Unions – even Andy Warhol created political art.
I think we enjoy visual art as we do literature if we knew the background and history of the times depicted and if the artist was expressing his thoughts or the thoughts of whoever commissioned the art. There are some visual artists like Portugal’s Cardoso, Da Silva and Isaura Xavier – whose art was not political or religious where as, early Portuguese artists were limited to academic art supported by the King, that propagated religion. I would imagine that narrow view of academic art is another burr under Saramago's saddle that he may see as, 'but for the grace of when I was born in history there go I'.
I wonder if Saramago was one of the last true Communists – not Stalin’s version but the theory of Communism that many intellectuals saw as a fair and equitable system.
