Saramago - Blindness, my review/critique. I've just…
0 reactions
Saramago - Blindness, my review/critique.
I've just finished Saramago's *Blindness*.
I was very excited to read it. The concept sounded very interesting, and I'm into darker, bleak, philosophical, and psychologically deeper books. For context, I'm a fan of Bulgakov, Dostoevsky, Vonnegut, and Peter Watts.
To be honest, the concept was the only thing I really liked about the book.
The things that annoyed me:
**SPOILERS!**
* >!**The unusual punctuation.** I'd read about Saramago's unconventional punctuation beforehand. I got used to it pretty quickly, but personally I don't think it added anything to the experience. I'm a pretty cynical person, so I can only see it as a cheap marketing gimmick.!<
* >!**The narration and writing style.** I didn't find it particularly artistic or sophisticated. Many times it felt like listening to an absent-minded old man telling an anecdote. I think it would have been much more interesting if the doctor's wife—the only person who could still see—had been the narrator.!<
* >!**The unrelatable characters.** The characters don't have distinct personalities or deeper motivations, and the occasional pseudo-philosophical rambling doesn't help. The book also mentions that names are useless for blind people, but that doesn't make any sense to me.!<
>!**The unrealistic and illogical plot:**!<
* >!The soldiers guarding the quarantine immediately receive orders to shoot anyone who approaches. This could have been made more believable with a small setup—for example, if some blind people had revolted or soldiers had accidentally become infected.!<
* >!What was the point of stealing valuables inside a sealed quarantine?!<
* >!Why is there almost no real resistance from either the men or the women when they're told they'll only receive food if the women submit to being raped by the gang members?!<
* >!Before all of this, there's a scene where several characters have consensual sex with random people. The doctor, whose wife can still see, and the girl with the dark glasses sleeping with the half-blind old man? Come on. Even if we ignore how unrealistic it is, what is the point? What is the novel trying to say with that scene?!<
>!And then, in the end, the blindness magically disappears.!<
>!Yes, I understand that the blindness is an allegory. But it's so vague. An allegory for what? Our blindness to our own morality? How fragile civilization and social order are? I know readers are often expected to interpret symbolism for themselves, but to me that feels like a weak excuse. I think the novel could have explored its ideas with much more depth.!<
>!I'm probably overly critical, but once I notice plot holes, I can't simply ignore them.!<
>!This could have been such an atmospheric, bleak, introspective, and thought-provoking book, but it ended up being a huge disappointment.!<
#entertainment
source
I've just finished Saramago's *Blindness*.
I was very excited to read it. The concept sounded very interesting, and I'm into darker, bleak, philosophical, and psychologically deeper books. For context, I'm a fan of Bulgakov, Dostoevsky, Vonnegut, and Peter Watts.
To be honest, the concept was the only thing I really liked about the book.
The things that annoyed me:
**SPOILERS!**
* >!**The unusual punctuation.** I'd read about Saramago's unconventional punctuation beforehand. I got used to it pretty quickly, but personally I don't think it added anything to the experience. I'm a pretty cynical person, so I can only see it as a cheap marketing gimmick.!<
* >!**The narration and writing style.** I didn't find it particularly artistic or sophisticated. Many times it felt like listening to an absent-minded old man telling an anecdote. I think it would have been much more interesting if the doctor's wife—the only person who could still see—had been the narrator.!<
* >!**The unrelatable characters.** The characters don't have distinct personalities or deeper motivations, and the occasional pseudo-philosophical rambling doesn't help. The book also mentions that names are useless for blind people, but that doesn't make any sense to me.!<
>!**The unrealistic and illogical plot:**!<
* >!The soldiers guarding the quarantine immediately receive orders to shoot anyone who approaches. This could have been made more believable with a small setup—for example, if some blind people had revolted or soldiers had accidentally become infected.!<
* >!What was the point of stealing valuables inside a sealed quarantine?!<
* >!Why is there almost no real resistance from either the men or the women when they're told they'll only receive food if the women submit to being raped by the gang members?!<
* >!Before all of this, there's a scene where several characters have consensual sex with random people. The doctor, whose wife can still see, and the girl with the dark glasses sleeping with the half-blind old man? Come on. Even if we ignore how unrealistic it is, what is the point? What is the novel trying to say with that scene?!<
>!And then, in the end, the blindness magically disappears.!<
>!Yes, I understand that the blindness is an allegory. But it's so vague. An allegory for what? Our blindness to our own morality? How fragile civilization and social order are? I know readers are often expected to interpret symbolism for themselves, but to me that feels like a weak excuse. I think the novel could have explored its ideas with much more depth.!<
>!I'm probably overly critical, but once I notice plot holes, I can't simply ignore them.!<
>!This could have been such an atmospheric, bleak, introspective, and thought-provoking book, but it ended up being a huge disappointment.!<
#entertainment
source
| 3,000 mlx | |
| 4 | |
| 0 |