A couple years ago I had this idea to read a whole bunch of books by Nobel Prize for Literature winners. I chose a couple from each decade the prize has been awarded and I actually got through the first three or four authors on my list before my life exploded a bit for entirely unrelated reasons. By the time everything calmed down enough for me to focus on hobbies and projects again, I’d cooled on the Nobel project and eventually I started this one instead.
Still, I haven’t entirely forgotten the Nobel thing and when I noticed Jose Saramago’s Blindness on the horror shelves at Antigone Books, I decided to put it on my pile. It seemed like a nice intersection between my old project and my new one.
It was a nice thought. Too bad I didn’t enjoy this book at all. It is dark, though, so I’m determined to review it.

I should mention the writing style first. Saramago has a very distinctive style of run-on sentences and walls of text. He doesn’t separate speakers so when he writes conversation it can take a second to figure out who’s saying what. He also barely uses any punctuation to show speakers’ inflection, so an extreme cry of pain would read the same way as a sigh of love or directions to the bathroom. I didn’t have trouble understanding the story but it faded quickly into a drab monotone that I hated quite a lot. People swear up and down that the run-on sentences sound great in Portuguese and I even read that it’s not an uncommon style choice in Portuguese and Brazilian writing. I can actually buy this. Some style choices just don’t translate well, so I can buy that the flat monotone of the English text is actually melodious and flowing in the original. Even though it didn’t work for me, it’s definitely unique.
Okay, moving on. The book’s plot is essentially that everyone in the city is going blind, one after the other, for no discernable reason. We, as readers, are following several of the first to be afflicted as they’re shunted off to quarantine (along with one blind man’s wife who pretends to be blind so she can stay with her husband). None of the characters have names because, and this is stated early on, now that they’re blind they have no use for names. They’re all called things like “the first blind man” and “the woman with dark glasses” and “the doctor’s wife.” This is both kind of annoying and probably deeply thematic.
Anyway, this blindness is both mysterious and extremely contagious so no one wants to actually enter the quarantine building to clean or deliver food or help these newly blind people learn to get around, so they mostly stumble around in confusion and shit on the floor. A lot. Both these aspects are described at length throughout the book. Symbolism! The sighted wife is very worried about what will happen if she’s found out (Will she be taken away from her husband? Will she become a slave to the needs of her blind bunkmates?) so most of the time she doesn’t try to help make any of this better for anyone. Some of this is thematic and some of this is, I think, Saramago being very old and sexist. (We’ll get back to this in a minute.)
As the quarantine building becomes overcrowded and order breaks down both in the building and the surrounding city, a faction of criminals hijacks the food supply and demands everyone’s valuables in exchange for food. When the valuables run out, they demand sex from the women of each unit in return. The non-criminal men kind of protest but let the women bravely volunteer to be raped for the good of everyone. The night before their rape appointment with the criminal faction (the criminals pick a different dorm room each night to send them women), the women generously have sex with a bunch of their male bunkmates. The sighted wife totally watches her husband have sex with another woman and is . . . super compassionate and pleased that he’s happy.
Then Saramago describes pretty explicitly the gang rape of a couple of different sets of women, the subsequent murder of the criminal faction’s leader, and the burning down of the quarantine building. At this point, the quarantined prisoners realize all the guards have either fled or become blind and they’re free to leave. Our main characters wander the city looking for food and checking on their former homes, being cared for by the sighted wife. Various symbolic things happen, including more shit everywhere and a lot of beautiful cleansing rain. Some of the symbolism feels a bit ham-handed, if you ask me. Then, at the very end, people begin to spontaneously regain their sight. Their recovery is exactly as sudden and mysterious as their blindness. The end.
But back to Saramago’s sexism, partly because it feels like a lot and partly because it’s a symptom of the larger way the book failed for me. Saramago was born in 1922 and even though he didn’t write Blindness until 1995 (and he was famously very communist and atheist and enlightened and whatnot) he writes with a creepy old-timey view of women. The sighted wife is unfailingly selfless and not interested in leading these people in any overt way. So is the “girl with the dark glasses” who, in spite of being blind, every man there can tell is the hot one. Saramago also never lets us forget “girl with the dark glasses” was also very slutty before she went blind. It doesn’t seem to matter, he just wants us to know. Later in the book, her sluttiness is redeemed (I guess) because in addition to taking a motherless boy under her wing, she falls in love with an old man who feels like he might be a creepy stand-in for an aging Saramago himself. Women are used heavily as symbols of hope and redemption and compassion in this book, but none of them feel like real human people. For me, it deeply undermined Saramago’s themes. How can I agree “sometimes people act this way” and feel moved by Saramago’s message when some of his pivotal moments feel like Saramago’s weird fantasy? Also, of course the women are redeemed by pure motherly selflessness. I guess even atheist communists have trouble leaving the Madonna/Whore binary behind.
The whole allegory seems to be about how fragile society is and how easily it breaks down into violence and selfishness. I don’t really disagree with this point but if I did this book would totally fail to convince me, mostly because I didn’t feel any complexity here. Only a couple weeks after reading Blindness I read a book about the New Mexico State Prison riot, and I couldn’t help but see deep parallels with what Saramago was trying to represent. In some ways, the prison riot is exactly the kind of sudden madness and breakdown of morality Saramago is writing about. But the actual prison riot was full of the kind of complex behavior even the worst human disasters are always full of–people murdering fellow inmates, police standing by and letting it happen, inmates trying to help friends, people trying to escape, inmates sneaking a friendly guard out the front door. Saramago’s story was simplified, of course, but to me it felt so simple the characters didn’t feel real or human anymore and I couldn’t identify with anything.
If I were very young and new to stories exposing the “evil within us,” as I always think of it, I might have been more moved and impressed with this book. I was assigned a dozen similar books over my years at school, though, and have read many since then. If I had to rate them all, this would be pretty low on my list.
Embrace the darkness. Read more books.


