Blindness by José Saramago
My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I read somewhere that this work of Saramogo, when published, was compared to Camus’ The Plague by many critics. Perhaps it is owing to the portrayal of a city facing an endemic in both works. On this account, the comparison is permissible. However, in my view, both works stand apart from each other. The reason primarily being that whereas The Plague, through an endemic, successfully brings forth the idea of solidarity among humans for a survival in an otherwise absurd world, Blindness on the other hand, is a portrayal of collapse of humanity in the wake of an epidemic. Camus’ stance is an idealistic one in the novel as he strived to demonstrate that empathy and compassion make man’s life meaningful amidst meaninglessness, whereas Saramago doesn’t hesitate to bring forth to the surface human vices which debase humanity. He portrays how when faced with extreme situations the civilized humans reduce to the stage of being animals or even worse. Both works are quite powerful in their rendition. It is however sad to note that the latter is not a mere idea and has shaken the foundation of our social system many a times in the past, more evidently as aftermaths of world wars and holocausts.

The novel starts with a man turning suddenly blind and thereby triggering an unknown and incomprehensible plague which turns the entire city blind except for one person. In the initial stage of the plague, government tries to restrain the situation by keeping the infected people isolated in an asylum but when the whole population goes blind, chaos reigns and the city turns into a hell. The most disturbing part of the novel is the one covering the events at asylum. All the unimaginable horrors become reality for the helpless victims of Blindness. They grapple with shortage of adequate food, unhygienic living conditions and uncertainty of future. The most gruesome event being forced sex imposed upon the female inmates in exchange of enough food for the members of their respective wards. Here Saramago unabashedly makes use of a language that may leave many uncomfortable but it achieves its purpose of delineating the horror of the situation to the reader who is left unnerved at the mere thought of such cruelty.

And though the narrative kept me hooked, making me jittery through the entire course, there were few things which I couldn’t take in. First being the murder of the leader of thugs by doctor’s wife which in my opinion could have been carried earlier. Did Saramago deliberately wanted us to witness the rapes, thereby making the murder seem justified? The fact that only doctor’s wife could see and could have at least injured the leader or robbed him of his gun kept crossing my mind. The second thing was the willingness of male members to let the thugs abuse the women violently in exchange of food. It was quite extreme and kept me pondering whether the blindness robbed them not only of their sight but also of their thinking power. Or was it that it corrupted their souls too? Or did they let it happen for it made one thing certain amidst all the uncertainty hovering over them i.e. the availability of food? Do humans really degrade to such base a state in face of such pestilence? Or is it that they became blind not only physically but morally too?

“Why did we become blind, I don't know, perhaps one day we'll find out, Do you want me to tell you what I think, Yes, do, I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see.”

Blind people who can see but do not want to see.

In that sense, the novel is also allegorical for it presents to us the picture of a society which is already blind. We are blind or indifferent when we witness injustice being perpetrated on helpless, powerless being abused or the innocents murdered. We are blind when none of it makes us shiver because it doesn’t disturb our normal lives, because we have become so used to living our isolated lives that the virtues like empathy and compassion have become obsolete terms merely.

In this work, there are only two characters – ‘doctor’s wife’ and ‘the girl with dark glasses’ who seem to be concerned about others. ‘Doctor’s wife’, being the only one who can see, is the chronicler of the events who states things as they happen to us and ‘the girl with dark glasses’ being the only one who seems to have empathy for others.

The work ends with blindness being lifted suddenly and people regaining their vision whereas no explanation is given for the cause of its occurrence. Regardless, the book leaves you pondering upon our social construct which is so fragile that it can easily crumble and collapse in the face of a devastation. A compelling read.






View all my reviews