Blindness discussion

When the author says "the city is still there", does he mean she wasn't actually blind, or that she was blind, but the city still exists?

she wasn't blind

I don't think she was. The movie version says so, too.

She didn't, it was just the natural way to end the book. The epidemy is over and now she has to rebuild her life along with everybody else.

No. She did go blind. I'll find the passage. I'm almost sure of this. More pictures at 11:00

I didn't read it as her going blind. brilliant book, reminded me a lot of The Plague by Camyus

Now you have made me unsure weather she did or she didn't. From memory, She thought it was her turn, but it turned out to be a false alarm.

She didn't, but it would be easy to read the text in a way that suggests she did lose her sight just as the others began regaining theirs. (that was the way i read it) The sequel to the novel makes it clear that she didn't lose her sight I believe.

the last passage clearly confirms that she does not go blind, although she does fear that this might be her turn to lose her sight as everybody else's epidemic is coming to an end. The very last paragraph of the book reads:

"The doctor's wife got up and went to the window, She looked down at the street full of refuse, at the shouting, singing people. Then she lifted her head up to the sky and saw everything white, it is my turn, she thought. Fear made her quickly lower her eyes. The city was still there."

clearly? I don't believe it's clear at all.

The blindness that people had experienced was described as being 'white' not black. So it's a direct reference to her suffering the condition. The sky isn't white, even if it's cloudy, it's not white..

Did she blind or not?
The answer is in your mind, not in your eyes.

She didn't go blind, the blindness in the story is meant to be like there being a burning light that you can't see beyond hence the sun or the sky would have a similar effect ...

No she remains ok till end

I don't think that Saramago has wanted to leave a final in conclusion.
Make us to believe something and then kill it with a fact is more his style.

No, she didn`t go blind. In fact, in another Saramago`s book, she is called The Seeing Woman.

Daniel wrote: "I don't think that Saramago has wanted to leave a final in conclusion.
Make us to believe something and then kill it with a fact is more his style."

I completely agree with you. Clearly, I think that the Doctor's Wife doesn't go blind. When I read the book (in portuguse of course), that possibility of her going blind, I haven't thought of it for a single moment. The text in portuguese, I think it is just unequivocal.

I believe she did go blind, and the sentence "The city was still there" is the authors way of showing that society will always rise again; no matter what catastrophe may occur. But its just my opinion

I believe she did not go blind at first cause she was actually the only person who was not afraid to being so. I see no other explanation for her not going blind. At the end however, it says "she saw everything white" (just like the others) and "Fear made her quickly lower her eyes"...so to me, she did go blind.

This is a great discussion. I still think she did. But the differing opinions make it clear that Saramago didn't want to hit people over the head with it and may have even wanted a discussion like this. I read "the city was still there" as the narrator's statement, rather than an up-close experience of what the character was seeing.

"The doctor's wife got up and went to the window, She looked down at the street full of refuse, at the shouting, singing people. Then she lifted her head up to the sky and saw everything white, it is my turn, she thought."
- I think this is more philosophical rather than literal. It probably could mean a lot of things as it was her time to get taken cared, her time to rest, the way to end this slight nightmare she lived, also the lack of importance she gives to it (she just, thought. no panic, etc) it can be interpreted in many ways. As any good write, it should had a lot of ways to be interperted, one for everyone.

"Fear made her quickly lower her eyes. The city was still there."

The city was still there, meaning she wasn't blind. Everything was normal, life was back.

It's just the reaction of humans in the end of tragedy. is this really over? it can't be, if it isn't I won't be surprised, i'm prepared. I accept it.
That's what it means to me.

Chris wrote: "clearly? I don't believe it's clear at all.

The blindness that people had experienced was described as being 'white' not black. So it's a direct reference to her suffering the condition. The sky i..."

But if you suffer from brief sun blindness, the sky does go white. And the sky in a city can be very bland and white, too, thanks to pollution.

I believe that it's not important whether she go blind.

The reason Saramago chose the desease is to show the weakness of so called moral standards and that in extreme cases human beings go back to their primitive nature. But also the author put people, who try hard not to betray their rules and to stay on the civilized side, to the test.

So, the doctor's wife passed the examination. The epidemic is over and even if she became blind (though from the last passage I concluded she didn't), it's a matter of a month or so to get better.

The reader cannot know one way or the other. The end is intentionally ambiguous. That's what the author wanted. Any other reading is a deviation unsupported by the text.

Of course she didn't go blind. That would be a cheap trick by a great writer. At the end everyone regains their sight.

She didn't go blind, Saramago say's that the city still was there, and it means she could see it.

I don't think the end is ambiguous in any way. It says she is looking down at the street full of refuse, at the people, then she looks at the sky and thinks it's her time, she fears she might be going blind with the "white blindness" but when she lowers her eyes the city is still there, that is, the street full of refuse and the people. It only means that the city being there is the reassurance she needed to know that, in fact, she wasn't going blind.

Someone already mentioned this, but Saramago wrote a sequel, "Seeing," in which she's a character: she still has her sight, and is noted as the only person who kept her sight back when everyone else went blind.

"Seeing" is also wonderful, by the way: it's about a weird sort of revolution where people in the capitol city just start sending in blank ballots in elections, and the government's panicky reactions. If you liked "Blindness," you should definitely read it. (And don't stop there! There's lots of great Saramago!)

omg...thanks for letting me know about Seeing, I am so eager now to reread Blindness, and then will go straight to read Seeing...I had no idea he wrote another..its just gotta be good.

I haven't read seeing yet but from what I have read in reviews it's set 4 years into the future, which makes it completely conceivable that she has gone blind and recovered her sight within the time period.

My own thoughts on it agree with other people in that the writer leaves it down to our own minds as to whether we want to believe that the doctors wife has gone blind or not in the end

I guess the wife turned blind because I heard there's a sequel to this entitled "Seeing" I'm not sure though, but I guess she turned blind in the end..

mizzip wrote: "omg...thanks for letting me know about Seeing, I am so eager now to reread Blindness, and then will go straight to read Seeing...I had no idea he wrote another..its just gotta be good."

Seeing is a lot more complicated and less entertaining than Blindness.

Lurisse Ann wrote: "I guess the wife turned blind because I heard there's a sequel to this entitled "Seeing" I'm not sure though, but I guess she turned blind in the end.."

There's no sequel. Saramago doesn't do sequels. It approaches the same philosophical undertones in a different way, but it's everything but a sequel.

Seeing is a lot more complicated and less entertaining than Blindness.

This kind of thing is subjective, of course. I liked Seeing a ton; I didn't find it too complicated, the main character is really likable, and the opening scene (the election workers waiting for voters to arrive) is my favorite part of either book.

It approaches the same philosophical undertones in a different way, but it's everything but a sequel.

Well, I don't know what definition of "sequel" you're using. However, it's not just a matter of "philosophical undertones": there are overlapping characters (in particular, the doctor's wife), and the events of Blindness are referred to in Seeingas having happened in the past. So I'd call that a sequel, though certainly the plots aren't as closely connected as in some series.

She wasn't blind

Chris wrote: "She didn't, but it would be easy to read the text in a way that suggests she did lose her sight just as the others began regaining theirs. (that was the way i read it) The sequel to the novel makes..."

Indeed she does not go blind and in the sequel, it's shown that she sees. He's a brilliant writer, his novels are amazing. He won the nobel prize in 98 <3
I'm proud to call myself portuguese when people mention him

I think it's vague, not to imply that she lost her sight, but to imply that the others regaining their sight made her feel like she was becoming blind instead. Or invisible, perhaps.
And allegorically speaking, the city represents the threat that humanity would return to how it was before as if nothing happened. Isn't that what she's more afraid of?

Ray wrote: "Of course she didn't go blind. That would be a cheap trick by a great writer. At the end everyone regains their sight."

Ray is right on target with this. I teach this novel regularly and the question always comes up, and it always separates readers who really have a sense of literature from those who don't. Having her go blind at the end would be a cheap trick of a plot device and would be utterly meaningless.

They've just had a conversation in which it is said (though it's unclear by whom), "I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see but do not see." It seems clear that this is a judgment about the meaning of the novel--the whole novel is a parable of sorts, though not an allegory. To have the doctor's wife somehow succumb to a moral blindness after she's demonstrated unequivocally that she has very clear moral sight would represent an arbitrary caprice on the part of the author, and Saramago is not capricious. Her sudden fear rather embodies the knowledge they have all gained that they live now--and have always lived--in an uncertain world. It's basically a happy ending. Everybody is shouting, "I can see!" The doctor's wife's momentary fear lets us know that her moral sight is intact--this happiness in the moment is fragile, and she knows it.

No the doctor's wife does Not go blind at the end. For those still trolling or too dumb (Luis Azevedo) to understand that even if the story's ending was ambiguous, the sequel SEEING continues the story and includes the wife and she is still NOT blind. At no point does she go blind. She sees just fine. I just hope you few remaining nay sayers use your own eyes to read this comment and end the thread already. And please before anyone argues to the contrary, go read the story's sequel SEEING first before embarrassing yourself

It's not ambiguous, and I don't think he wanted it to be ambiguous. Many times in the novel she thinks she is going blind, but it's normally just fear or dizziness, and so she goes back to seeing. The same thing happen here. It would be strange to treat this part differently just because it's the end of the book and we expect a twist. I've read in Portuguese, maybe the english translation is not as clear?

Also, there is the sequel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ojpb...
I've recently discovered this interview where Saramago puts it very clearly. At around minute 29:00 he says something like this (my translation):

"The last sentence is not only there to close. It is also to open something. When the doctor's wife thinks she is going blind, but verifies that she DIDN'T, because the last sentence which is 'The city was still there', it is as if the city itself is asking people if they have learned the lesson. As if the city says 'I'm still here. Have you learned? or are we all going together into disaster?'

After that he speaks about another of his books, Intermitências da Morte, which begins and finishes with the same sentence: 'The following day no one died'.

No of course she didn't get blind. Because from the first of the book her behavior was a symbol of humanity and seeing so because of that she didn't get blind. If she got blind in the end it would cause a conflict...

She had immunity, me thinks.

Dave wrote: "She had immunity, me thinks."

I agree thats how i see it , no pun

She did go blind. It states that everything went white and she said I am blind, when she looked down the city was still there. The city of course is still there, but all she saw was white. It's the irony in the book. Also plays on the topic that people are 'blind' towards the destruction they are doing to the planet and the way they live their lives.

When I read that last passage, I interpreted it as: the city is still there, therefore her vision is intact. I thought it was a very satisfying ending since it brought a sort of hope to the ending. Looking at these comments though, I'm realizing that I love both interpretations of the ending. I never realized how unclear that sentence was.