Blindness
When style affects our ability to connect
An unnamed motorist is sitting at a stoplight when he is inexplicably struck blind. A good Samaritan offers help and from there it spreads, introducing us to our cast of characters, becoming an epidemic in the process. An ophthalmologist’s wife remains unaffected, but feigns blindness in order to accompany her husband to quarantine. Together they experience the horrors of a world without sight, and we become witness to the best and worst of humanity.
The cover of the book boasts, “Winner of the Nobel Prize For Literature,” which is deceptive. The winner in this sentence is Jose Saramago, not the novel itself. The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded for a body of work, not an individual one. Jose Saramago, for who with parables sustained by imagination, compassion and irony continually enables us once again to apprehend an elusory reality, became a Nobel laureate in 1998, three years after Blindness was published.
I know it is blasphemy to bad mouth literary heavyweights, but having only read one of his novels, I’m not so sure I agree with the above statement. Don’t get me wrong, Blindness is a compelling story and an affecting allegory, but the style tends to gets in the way.
Let me explain. Blindness is one great big run-on sentence. Wikipedia (I know, lazy research) sums up the style thusly: Saramago's experimental style often features long sentences, at times more than a page long. He uses periods sparingly, choosing instead a loose flow of clauses joined by commas. Many of his paragraphs extend for pages without pausing for dialog, which Saramago chooses not to delimit by quotation marks.
I can’t say this is a style I appreciate. This isn’t the drug-induced free form of Naked Lunch we’re talking about here; the man is trying to tell a story. And I just don’t feel this style is conducive to traditional narrative. It could be rationalized as an attempt to immerse the reader in the world of the blind; the overlapping dialog and loose sentence structure forcing us to proceed with caution, making it harder to identify what is happening. That is all well and good in theory, but does not make for the most enjoyable read. And apparently he uses this style in all his books, so it is not a creative decision based on the subject matter. Those used to Chuck’s minimalist style will be washed away in a sea of words.
I also feel the writing style affects our ability to connect with the characters. Saramago spends more time on the narrator’s musings and descriptive asides than he does on the feelings of his nameless protagonists. Sure, we experience their horror and feel their pain, but aside from the doctor’s wife, they are pretty much interchangeable (physical descriptions notwithstanding.)
I didn’t think the film version was the greatest thing ever, but it definitely gave the characters more depth. I also feel like it had greater success communicating what it felt like to be blind. Film being a visual medium, I suppose it has an unfair advantage, but the power of the written word is supposed to surpass all. I also feel like having seen the movie before I read the book, I had a firmer grasp on the narrative, as the film stayed pretty faithful.
So, to sum everything up- great concept, insightful allegory, but obtrusive style. If you can get past how he writes, Saramago has a lot to say. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy, so maybe that’s a good thing.
Login
New Forum Topics
New Reviews
Douglas Coupland re-imagines storytelling yet again with this spiritual successor to his bestselling debut, Generation X
Vonnegut haunts us from the grave with another posthumous collection of effortless short fiction.
Comments
And here I just thought I was some kind of literary heathen. I couldn't agree more. I give you props for actually finishing the novel, for me the style was so disruptive that I have never been able to get past the first 1/3 or so.
I'm all for experimental writing, but it's a go bold or go home endeavor. Just getting rid of standard grammar doesn't really merit "experimental" to me, just obnoxious, it pulls the reader out of the story more than enriching the experience.
This was a Book Club book a while back.
Anybody interested - here's the discussion:
http://chuckpalahniuk.net/forum/1000181/blindness-by-jose-saramago-oct-0...
I've read this twice, and love it. I believe it was my first translated book. I assumed the lack of quotation marks was a result of the translation, not the author's style, but regardless, I was far too engaged to be bothered by that small detail. I thought that the lack of insight into the other characters was effective as well. The blind can't see any setup, no indication of what is to come, and neither can we. I have not seen the movie, but would like to rent it, dispite the poor reviews I've heard.
I really enjoyed this book, although I felt like I had to work hard to enjoy the payoff. Having read 3 (and one-half) other of Saramago's works, A similar theme applies. He has excellent story ideas and I enjoy the thought process the reader is forced through, if one can just plow through the writing style. His word choice is excellent, but I feel like he hamstrings himself based on his odd writing style. His other works are good, but not at the level Blindness achieves. "Seeing" his sequel to Blindness should not have happened. My impression is that works after it were less successful and he felt like he should return to what made him famous. I haven't been able to get through it, and it seems like a "money-grab". He hit a homerun with Blindness and was awarded the Nobel Prize, perhaps a bit too hastily.
Though I certainly appreciate your take on the novel--and it's definitely one shared by many--I respectfully stake my disagreeance. He does have a bit of a winded, almost exhausting style, but I think it works well for what the story is trying to convey to a reader. I agree that in some ways the film actually achieved that purpose but film is, of course, a visual medium. I think the way the reader stumbles, fumbles through the story along with the overwhelmed and confused characters is instrumental in the actualization of the narrative. I thought it a clever way to involve the reader. But, full disclosure: I'm a Faulkner girl. Take all with a grain of salt.
Hm... most of the book club people seemed to like it. I kinda figured my opinion wouldn't be the most popular one, especially among avid readers.
Tina, as I stated in my review, I agree that the style gives the reader a certain confusion akin to blindness. But then I read that most of Saramago's work is written in the same style. I felt like I was trying to force myself to like it. So I swallowed my pride and admitted it- the style did not work for me. I can see why other people really like this book, though.
Though I certainly appreciate your take on the novel--and it's definitely one shared by many--I respectfully stake my disagreeance. He does have a bit of a winded, almost exhausting style, but I think it works well for what the story is trying to convey to a reader. I agree that in some ways the film actually achieved that purpose but film is, of course, a visual medium. I think the way the reader stumbles, fumbles through the story along with the overwhelmed and confused characters is instrumental in the actualization of the narrative. I thought it a clever way to involve the reader. But, full disclosure: I'm a Faulkner girl. Take all with a grain of salt.
I agree with this, as a full fledged Faulkner boy.
You know, I'm Portuguese, and Saramago is Portugal's first and so far only Nobel laureate. I just wanted to point out that his style isn't particularly unique in Portuguese literature. His great literary rival, Antonio Lobo Antunes, uses a similarly unpunctuated prose, though his is a little different in theory and in practice. Several of the current giants of Portuguese literature, and especially those popular in English and French speaking countries, use sparse punctuation, long sentences and unnamed characters. You kind of get the hang of it.
By the way, hello Josh and Tina. I'm Phil, the new reviewer.
Hello indeed.
I love the idea of literary rivals. Two authors that would come to blows if they happened upon each other in the street. What is the closest we have in the US? Dean Koontz and Stephen King?
Well, until recently I'd have said Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal. But now... yeah, probably King and Koontz, since Mailer is dead.
I'd like to say that this is one of my favourite books and I think it is brilliantly written. I mean it is confusing at times but it is about a world that suddenly been plunged into blindness, it's meant to be hard to work out what's going on in places to mirror the terror of the narrator. Saramago is guilty of using very avant garde techniques in general but in this book it really works, in my opinion.
I'm trying to make my way through this book. I like it, but the style it's written in isn't doing it for me. I loved the movie, though, and that's what made me pick up the book since I hadn't heard of it before then.
Sometimes I'll get lost in the text but randomly get caught up in a great part again, which is what is keeping me reading it.