Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Brad: I think you made a mistake there? Didn't you mean to post 3-4 more stars?!

Hahahaha. No. Definitely not. I think it may have been one of the books I was most disappointed in in my life.

I posted the mini-review I did for it way back when I read it. You can read it and tear me apart. Jessica ;)

Completely agree with you! I especially like how you pointed out the "challenges" he placed before his characters were pretty worthless.

I could not agree more. I thought this book was contrived, manipulative, and heavy-handed. I am completely baffled as to why it's so universally praised. I don't remember hating any book quite so much in recent memory - I'm glad to see your review, I thought it was just me! :-)

Glad to see someone else agrees too, Lisa, but I think we and Christina are in a very small minority though.

Add me to your list, Brad. I was barely able to tolerate it. It was just annoying in so many ways.

Sweet. I'm going to read your review right now.

Can get an example of one of these challenges? I'm curious. This is the first dissenting review I've seen of this one. Now I'm going to have to heavily reconsider getting to this one any time even relatively soon...

It's been a long time since I read this book; I remember there being numerous instances, but the only one that stands out over the distance of time is some part about water and a toilet. I remember thinking how stupid and unimaginative the guy faced with the problem was, and that continued throughout. I wish I'd written a better, more in depth review at the time, though, because I will not be going back to clarify my arguments...it's just too painful...and my memory isn't clear enough. If you do end up reading it, MFSO, I'll bug you to clarify that moment for me.

It'll be a loooooooooong time before I get around to this one. But I plan on knowing you via Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ for years to come, so one day we'll rehash this.

Indeed.

ok, hang on.


he could have then focused more on the internal filth of their souls than the external excrement of their bodies

part of the genius of this book is that saramago didn't probe too directly into the 'filth of their souls' but let their actions speak for themselves. if the gang-orgy-rape scene didn't bespeak some soulfilth, i can't imagine what possibly could. i was amazed by the distance saramago kept; how he wisely resisted authorial intrusion regarding what was playing out before us.


his ideas are clearly those of a privileged white male in a privileged European nation

1. back this up.
2. what exactly are the 'ideas' of a privileged white male in a privileged European nation?
3. but let's assume what you write is true... so what? would a story of global collapse have more legitimacy if it were presented through the eyes of a poor black female in a poor black nation?
4. Saramago was born into a family of landless peasants in Azinhaga, Portugal.



Saramago has clearly never had to fend for himself in the world. If he did, he'd realize that there were a thousand easy answers to the dilemmas he created for his characters

i'd ask for some examples but you were asked in message 9 and could only give one partial answer. i'm dubious. moreover, i believe part of the point of the novel was that the sheer psychological/existential horror dropped onto 'privileged white' people when all they took for granted was stripped away turned them into helpless infants. and this rings true. these are not militiamen, survivalists, or macguyver. saramago's point, of course, is that when the bottom drops out, most of us ain't gonna be able to wipe - much less save - our asses.

as for fending for himself. again: Saramago was born into a family of landless peasants in Azinhaga, Portugal.

thanks Brian for weighing in.
I loved this book. It's been a good while since I read it, so can't defend it as well as I'd like to.

I did write this blurb about 5 years ago, so I admit the details are quite vague for me now, and were I to write a genuine review today it would be more in depth and steeped with examples of what I was trying to say.

So I can't answer your first concern with my "review" because I would need to read this book again to remind myself about what made me feel that way, something I'm just not going to do with a book whose lasting impression is bilious at best and excremental at worst.

I do remember, however, that my feelings about Saramago as "a privilieged white male from a privileged European nation" did not tend towards a desire for a different narrative perspective in the book. I was not looking for the tale to be told "through the eyes of a poor black female in a poor black nation." My feelings about this were more pragmatic, and tied to "the thousand easy answers to dilemmas." One needn't be a MacGyver to overcome most of the issues Saramago presents his characters, nor militiamen, nor survivalists. One need only be slightly creative and willing to try things. Saramago's vision of what people would be capable of is the vision of a man who has likely never used a tool in his life. The answers were simple, and even some of Saramago's characters should have had access to the simple answers, but none of them did. And it was from this character behaviour that I developed my statement about his privilege and the privilege of the society he moves through.

So yeah...I think that's the best I can do with what I remember from the book.

heh heh. saramago worked as a mechanic for a number of years. i'm quite sure he's used a tool. it seems more likely to me that saramago believes we're all a fraction of an inch away from becoming totally disabled; that even the most resourceful of us could very easily be turned into helpless fools under extreme conditions. by saramago's worldview, if people were dropped into a world of sudden global blindness they'd quickly descend into intense helplessness fear and dependence -- he's clearly drawing a parallel b/t this situation and many who live under any variety of repressive regimes.

I just noticed that I have had Saramago's Death with Interruptions on my to-read shelf for a little while now. I love the premise, much like I love the premise of Blindness. We'll see how they pan out beyond that...

This all leads me to the question of what the overall approach is in this book. Is it consciously allegorical or does it strive for gritty hyper-realism? Or somewhere in between? It seems possible (as in logically possible, since I have no idea, really, about how the book reads or how it was read by Brad or brian) that brian forgave (or didn't even think to notice--given his expectations of the book) some lack of realism having appreciated the allegory, the symbolism, etc, and that Brad saw any lack of realism as a flaw because he maybe was expecting the book to be a more realistic thriller, rather than slightly surreal allegory...? Wild guesses here.

brian wrote: "heh heh. saramago worked as a mechanic for a number of years. i'm quite sure he's used a tool. it seems more likely to me that saramago believes we're all a fraction of an inch away from becoming t..."

It seems odd to me that I, of all people (and I say this because my personal vision is distopian bordering on the nihilist), would miss the message that you describe, but the thing is that I am pretty sure I didn't miss that intention. I saw him doing the things you say, brian, but I do think he did them convincingly, and his intentions didn't mitigate what I remember to be a poorly delivered and, for me, unbelievable speculation.

It is always possible, of course, that his time as a mechanic -- as a man "handy" with tools -- makes his vision of just how paralyzed we would all become even less excusable.

It is entirely possible that I went into the book feeling the way you suggest, MFSO. To be honest, I can't remember now. But my issues with the book are connected to disbelieving Saramago's distopia, to not being able to get past behaviours that rang deeply untrue for me, although I did know that Blindness was an allegory going in, so I can't be sure anymore.

Another possibility, though, brian, is that I did miss something. Perhaps I wasn't in the mood at the time, perhaps I was somehow distracted by my children, I don't know. It is possibly, however.

Brad, I am only halfway through the book so far, and am not sure exactly which character dilemmas you speak of here. Anyhow, here is just a thought I have:

For the simple solutions to work, co-operation from everyone will most certainly be required. Be it the society we live in, or the asylum of 'Blindness', you will find people willing to work towards the common good, people who are concerned only with themselves and disruptive elements who not only are concerned with their own good but are not shy of hurting others either.

For example, the blind internees did figure out a way to fairly distribute the food packets, but then the gang of hoodlums disturbed the entire process and made food difficult to procure for everyone except themselves. Similarly, when faced with the question of burying the dead bodies, everyone knew that to avoid infection and smell from rotting bodies, the bodies needed to be buried right away. But no one came forward from one of the wards and the bodies lay there rotting for a couple of days.
Simple solutions can be executed properly only if people agree on it and are willing to take that responsibility. The few people who are willing to do so will, after a point, be tired of bearing the burden of everyone else and resort to fending just for themselves.
So even if simple solutions were there, it may not be right to expect 300+ people to act in a fair manner. Even more so when these people are blind and quarantined in difficult conditions with no kind of rules or law-enforcement.

You make many good points, Megha. I really can't remember the details well enough to comment anymore, though. For instance, I remember my intial annoyance being when the blindness first hits, when people are still individuals, so that once they were together my feelings were compounded. But it is all very vague for me now. Maybe I will have to reread this again just so I can engage better with people on here about my feelings.

Thank you. I hate writing bad reviews, so I'm glad yours pretty much expresses everything I wanted to say. The only thing I would add is a spoiler, so I'll refrain.

My pleasure, Thomas.

one should read this considering the bigger picture, just like any other allegory. lord of the flies, for example. no one is saying it is the fundamental truth, but just a reflexion and the createon of hypothesis, like it happens in many saramago books, methinks.

I was literally jumping out of my seat in agreement while reading your review. I could not have said it better and I do not understand why it is rated so highly. Thanks SO much for the review!!

Thanks, Kelsey. I read this so long ago that I didn't write enough about it, and the details are way too foggy now; I almost want to read it again so I can write a more detailed review that expresses my feelings with a little more support. Still, this has nice bite to it. You're very welcome. I'm going to read your review now.

I don't understand the argument about the book being written from the perspective of a "privileged white male in a privileged European nation". It is a sort of made-up accusation that you can apply to every book written by a European male (maybe except the ones from Belarus). Would you blame "Crime and Punishment" for not being written from a perspective of Chinese peasant on the turn of 13th century?

Exactly.

When the privileged white maleness of the author is not integral to the plot or the decision making the author places on his characters, it is not a big deal. It slips by unnoticed and/or has no negative effects. However, even with my vague recollections of this book, an underprivileged or unprivileged white male would have made better post-apocalyptic decisions than Saramago affords his characters, and surely not all of them should make decisions as a man of Saramago's class would. Surely someone should have been capable in the face of fairly simple challenges.

I admit that I don't remember details of this book well enough to comment fully. But I know myself, and I am pretty confident that there must be more to my statement, which was made in the heat of putting down a book I enjoyed not a whit (the review has been edited to add a spelling correction, but my original date of reading it would have been somewhere in the summer of 2005), than it being "a sort of made-up accusation." Maybe not, though. I do love that you and Jessica are passionate in your defense of the book, Marek.

This book really made me think about what kind of upheaval our society could handle in such a short period of time. Allegory aside, if the entire population of a major city went blind within a 2 week period, how could we possible cope? We are, as a whole, so fundamentally visual that I can't imagine how we would react. There were certain parts that seemed a bit contrived, but overall I wasn't too incredulous. Have you read the sequel "Seeing"? That was bizarre in a whole different way- no excrement involved ;)

I haven't read anything by him before or since, the latter is mostly because of my strong negative feelings about this book. I have to admit curiosity about Seeing, though.

Brad, bravo to you for remaining calm and respectful under such an onslaught of hyper criticism. Brian, what you are neglecting to respect is that this review is about Brad's opinion, not yours. He does not have to like it, he does not have to see the things you see. He doesn't have to justify his opinion nor even write a review for that matter. He hasn't made disparaging comments about others who like it. He hasn't gone over to other reviews and told people they are wrong and that they have to defend their position. This is not a dissertation defense.

Brad is a very intelligent and considerate person. If you don't know him well, you can tell by how he tried to answer your questions. He has written almost countless reviews, most of which are wordy with a large amount of detail as he implied here. Some are even funny.

He is educated and very well read. (He teaches English for Pete's sake!) I don't always agree with his opinion but I always respect that he reads books with an open mind and makes thought out reviews. I don't remember the title but one of his reviews discussed a book he knew he should have hated but he really liked it anyway. I always appreciate his thought process.

It is not appropriate for you to attack his opinion however ill-informed you think it to be. You could have said that you disagree with his review politely and pointed out a couple of things you feel he missed like several others did here instead of picking it apart piece by piece and not once acknowledging that any of his points could possibly be valid if viewed from another perspective.

[Sorry Brad for butting in here but I had a similar reaction for my review of the hunger games. I was asked in a comment about my review to join a discussion about the book because the woman felt she wasn't getting through to me. In good faith I went to the discussion because it was in my favorite group. However, instead of a discussion I was denigrated over and over for my opinion by just a couple of people. Everyone else ignored the "discussion" but not one person defended my right to have a dissenting opinion even though I acknowledged over and over that I understood why others felt differently. It's the only negative experience I have had on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ but I almost left over it. Now you aren't so melodramatic as I am and you defend yourself very well; you don't need my help. But I vowed never to leave my friends under the bus and I can never just sit back when I feel a friend of mine isn't treated with respect. So please forgive my gushing. :)]

Kelly, it's been 7 months since the last comment was posted on this thread and more than 2 years since brian posted his coments. I think Brad was doing fine defending his viewpoint, and I'm not sure there was such an onslaught of criticism. My first comment/question was in jest, for example. But no matter, the more the merrier I guess.

No apologies necessary, Kelly. I love the gushing, and it's always nice to have a friend come to my defence -- even long after the fact. Thanks.

It might interest you to know, Kelly, that I've decided to teach Hunger Games (and Twilight) in a class this Spring. I wonder what reading critically will do to my students' love or hate for these books.

I love that you've kept your updates alive on this review after such a long time, Jessica. That's awesome.

I do. I see you were born in NB. Very cool. I work in NB.

ah! I go through Sackville every summer en route to CB. Nice place.

Jessica, I wasn't referring to you only Brian. In fact, you were one of the people who were respectful in disagreeing and I referred to that in my comment. I know this was awhile ago but I just read them and it made me mad now. Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ has this weird time thing. People comment on things even years later! It's never too late to defend a friend.

Brad, I think that will be a very interesting discussion. You'll have to share how it goes!

and I maintain that brian disagreed with Brad/pushed for examples in a respectful manner. Spirited discussion about books (and differing views of them) is what goodreads is about, in large part, for many of us.

Ok. I agree that's what Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ is for. I'm moderator of Banned Books and we have lots of intense discussions. I still think Brian was rude. It's okay to disagree as you said. :)

:)

You can add me to the list of people that hated this book too. In fact my whole book club hated it. I could only stomach about half of it before literally tossing my Kindle on the floor in frustration with how terrible this book is. It wasn't even the terrible grammar or lack of punctuation that bothered me. It was the pointless rambling that just made me want gouge my eyes out. I got so upset with this book that I had to go out and run 3 miles just to put myself in a better mood. People were not lying when they said it's just not for everyone.

but his ideas are clearly those of a "privileged white male in a privileged European nation"? In this you are painfully mistaken. Portugal is among the poorest EU members, Portuguese people have been emigrating to other countries for quite a while now. Also, Saramago definitely had not a life of ease and privilege. His parents could not afford to keep him in grammar school, and instead moved him to a technical school. I believe some research might prove useful before making such sententious and judgemental statements :( Leaving aside the book review, which is subjective, as all book reviews are, you are getting across incorrect information, which could have been verified very easily.

I don't even know why gave it a star? That's bad, man. I dunno but I guess you didn't understand the book; value the message behind. Perhaps you are one person who is not a transcendentalist. Saramago's Blindness will help us to dig deeper on what we perceive. Anyways, truth is subjective so I respect your comment.

To Kelly, I do not think Brian was rude to Brad. He was pointing out fallacies in Brian's assumptions which weighed heavily in Brad's reviewer. Brad's review was mostly about Saramago being a privileged white man when Brian pointed out correctly that Saramago was not from a privileged background at all. It is indefensible to write a review criticizing the very character of the author without first doing some research by looking up a biography of the author. There were other aspects of Brad's review that were based on incorrect assumptions. Brad exhibited a lack of knowledge of the effect of going blind has on previously sighted people in real life. People who go blind need extensive rehabilitation in order to take care of themselves. The characters got none. They were thrown in packed vans and taken to a virtual prison and put under armed guard and threatened with being shot. The recent actions of countries outside of West Africa during the Ebola epidemic there just shows how cruel goverments can be to epidemic victims (or suspected victims) of a disease that is highly contagious.
While Brad's review predated the Ebola epidemic, so he did not have a recent true incident that in some measure validated the truth that underlies Blindness, there are plenty of other dystopian novels out there that contain similar governmental callousness to epidemic victims. Brad's only response to Brian was that he read it a long time ago and hated it and did not remember much of it. Brad's review was basically a wrongly based ad hominem fallacy on the author and a lack of any medical knowledge of blindness. The only thing Brad seemed to remember correctly was an insignificant plot point concerning a dirty toilet.

Re read this. It's not just about blindness it is also a metaphor to the society if u understand what I say. It is indeed a brilliant book I have ever come across.

Re read this. It's not just about blindness it is also a metaphor to the society if u understand what I say. It is indeed a brilliant book I have ever come across.

Re read this. It's not just about blindness it is also a metaphor to the society if u understand what I say. It is indeed a brilliant book I have ever come across.

Re read this. It's not just about blindness it is also a metaphor to the society if u understand what I say. It is indeed a brilliant book I have ever come across.