A Blind Person's View of Blindness

[Richard]

I believe that José Saramago did a profound disservice to blind people when he wrote this book. He had no right to portray blind people in such a filthy, scatological way, even in an allegory. He didn't try to find out about us. He just exploited us as bugaboos for his literary masterpiece. Please see A False Image of Blindness and Are Protesters of Blindness Missing the Point? for more information.

[Gareth]

Hi Richard, just finished this and did enjoy it, although I often wondered how a blond person would feel reading it - the descent into degradation etc. However, I did feel that overall the author was trying to visualize how non-blind people would react en-masse to sudden blindness, not commenting on how actual blind people conduct themselves. Interesting to hear your response, though

[Richard]

Gareth wrote: "Hi Richard, just finished this and did enjoy it, although I often wondered how a blond person would feel reading it - the descent into degradation etc. However, I did feel that overall the author w..."
I realize that it's a complicated book and people will interpret it in different ways. Although it is in large part concerned with the reactions of a large number of people to mass blindness and disorientation, I find its depiction of blindness and blind people problematic. As for an analysis of the book, I thing that the second article I linked to is particularly perceptive. And yes, they are newly blind, but there is no learning curve. The way I see it, he just wrote this story about blindness and blind people, hardly thinking about real blind people. And when they protested, he dismissed their concerns as "nothing at all." I hope he thought it over later.

[Gareth]

Read that second article and I think I'm getting your point now. Would blindness necessarily expose the 'moral frailty' of people as quickly and as harshly as on the book? The doctor's wife does sail through the book without losing the moral high ground ( even when she kills someone). The others all appear to go through some kind of moral degradation.

[Richard]

Gareth wrote: "Read that second article and I think I'm getting your point now. Would blindness necessarily expose the 'moral frailty' of people as quickly and as harshly as on the book? The doctor's wife does sa..."

My understanding of the book is that blindness is symbolic of irrationality, of not observing or understanding, and the doctor's wife is meant to be the only eye-witness and also a symbol of civilization. I don't believe it was possible for him to portray blind people as admirable and still write the book he wanted to write. I think Harrell's article is brilliant, but at a gut level, I was just put out by all the sh** and depictions of blind people as not able to clean themselves. As blind people we have to put up with a lot of prejudice and people stereotyping us, and there comes a time when a person has to say, "Enough's enough," make some noise, and be heard.

[Paula]

I don't think he portrayed blind people as amoral at all. Im not arguing your right to feel offended, but I didn't take idea away from the book.

I thought the book was about how in a collapse of society and time of limited resources the violent and amoral- those most willing to abuse without guilt, to insure their own power and comfort without compunction can assert control over those who ARE moral through terror and violence. When you have no one to help, and you are helpless (not that blind people are helpless- but a seeing person who is struck blind will certainly be helpless for a time) do you sink to their level for survival?

[Prodip]

This is nothing but highest a symbolic portrait ,an abstract creation in ruthless way, simply natural.

[Frances]

Richard wrote: "I believe that José Saramago did a profound disservice to blind people when he wrote this book. He had no right to portray blind people in such a filthy, scatological way, even in an allegory. He d..."

Thank you for linking to this articles! I am not blind, but the whole way through the book it troubled me that Saramago seemed to be using blindness as a symbol for something, and in doing so was acting like blind people don't already exist! It seemed inconsiderate at best -- as Kim said above, "he also creates an offensive caricature of slovenly blindness to do it. Or, to phrase it differently, he paints the picture at the expense of blind people." So it'll be really good to read more on this.

[Jarkko]

I know this might be a touchy subject, but, honestly speaking, I don't believe anyone would base their opinion of blind people on a highly allegorical book. Saramago isn't mocking blind people or portraying _blind_ people in any way. He's portraying _just_ people. Because people do go like this once they are desperate, panicking and in isolation. Lord of the Flies touches the same subject, but I don't think Golding was writing about male children being savages - that is just the basic human condition when people get desperate. In this novel the cause happens to be a sudden blindness en masse. Not to confused with blind people living their normal lives in an orderly society.

[Enchantingmonkey]

that is just the basic human condition when people get desperate. In this novel the cause happens to be a sudden blindness en masse. Not to confused with blind people living their normal lives in an orderly society.

Yes, this is how I perceived the book. It was about the chaos that ensues when a large number of people suddenly become blind.

At no point while reading this book did I think that this is how blind people would behave in a normal society.

[Juan]

Actually that blind people in a normal society does not behave that way is pointed out explicitly in the novel.

[Nea]

This is a very interesting discussion. My understanding of the book was that the problem wasn't just blindness. It was fear of blindness, which drove many of the behaviors and the maltreatment of other human beings. It was about how governments often respond to health crises in a way that does far more harm than good. It was about humanity in all of its ugliness, including the exploitative types who would take advantage of any situation- including mass blindness. It was about how people might respond to suddenly having their "normal" ripped away. It was about the breakdown of societal structure due to fear and the sense of helplessness that might arise when families are torn apart (the blind family member tossed into an asylum, the other family members left behind or locked into quarantine). When people are suddenly unable to do the job they've always done, they stop going to work and society is no longer able to depend on the service they provide. In that sense, the book was about how much we all depend on each other without ever appreciating it. It was about how people use their power, how people respond to a sudden shift in everything they know.

I imagine such a breakdown could happen with the loss of any sense if it happened en mass. If the world was suddenly full of people who couldn't hear or feel, how would we respond? What if we all suddenly started to lose our arms or legs? If nobody could walk or pick up a child? How would we treat those who it happened to first once we realized that the condition was highly contagious? What would our government do? How would our criminal types respond to those left defenseless, not just by their physical limitation but by the mental effects of sudden loss? If people panic and there is mass hysteria, fear of the world ending, what would that mean for us all? That's what I think this book is about. It's about who we are when we lose a part of what we think makes us who we are.