Incidentally, while the always-corrupt ruling party on the right and the opportunistic party in the middle are alternately bumbling or puppet-mastering their way to allegorical world domination, the almost-mythic party of the left, alluringly mysterious and always altruistic, is behaving with utmost dignity and valor, and with a forced hagiographic depiction of ethical uprightness. Because that’s the way it is in the real world.
A heavy-handed approach, compared to the sure touch of the earlier book. But more importantly, and just as straining to the literary merit, if not ideological concern, of Saramago, the two principal characters he entrusts to coming around to the promised state of “seeing” — one due to close contact with the principal characters of Blindness — jump to their conclusions without the support of reasoned analysis or thought, and reach respective epiphanies unconvincingly. The perplexed reader is left hanging, maybe for what should be the follow-up to Seeing: Believing.
Article comments
1 - Natalie Bennett
This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States. Nice work!
2 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Thank you, Natalie.
3 - Reason
Incidentally, while the always-corrupt ruling party on the right and the opportunistic party in the middle are alternately bumbling or puppet-mastering their way to allegorical world domination, the almost-mythic party of the left, alluringly mysterious and always altruistic, is behaving with utmost dignity and valor, and with a forced hagiographic depiction of ethical uprightness. Because that's the way it is in the real world.
Are you serious?? Did you read the same book I just finished?? Geeeeeeez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Perhaps you could explain yourself better. And can Reason pick up on Sarcasm enough to know I wasn't being literal-minded? Or is the problem that you did get it and still disagree? I really can't tell.