Jose Saramago: Blindness

LA CLUSTER THOUGHTS:

• Saramago's writing style: His interesting use of aphorisms, provers, idiomatic phrases, etc. What is he trying to tell us by his focus on these linguistic devices? Is this related to the ultimate insignificance of language that needs to be supplemented by action? (note phrases emphasizing “seeing”)
  

• Overarching qustion: How is this novel “unafraid to face all of the horrors of the century” as the Washington Post proclaims? At the end, the doctor's wife says “I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see” (126) – can we just write off the novel as a cliché reminder of this tragic human condition? Is there something more to the white blindness?

• To answer that “overarching question”: dissect some of the crisis moments in the novel (e.g., the fire in the asylum, the doctor's wife choice to kill, the blinded statues in the church) to see whether there is a connecting thread reveal the “nature of humanity” - human shame/dignity is a major factor; hell imagery is an important aspect

• The characters: why the particular group that Saramago assembled? The conflict of the doctor's wife's agency – did she actually do something good? The necessity of centering on one group of people to make an all-encompassing event meaningful for the reader.

• The ending of the novel, when everyone regains their sight: Now that everyone can see, they will feel greater shame for the filth and “hellish” atmosphere they created when blind; the legitimacy of going to extremes because of an extenuating situation.

• Novel too typically anti-governmental and preachy, while not maintaining a vibrant plot structure? Similar to "disaster” movies – i.e., Cube, 28 Months – and how does it take a different (or similar) spin on the situation?