This last section of Blindness was filled with a bunch of collisions between the two groups of the mini-society of the asylum. First there was the killing of the rogue leader by the doctor’s wife and then there was the burning of the rogues, and the whole building, by one of the inmates. I think that these instances are a very interesting twist in the book and in Saramago’s exploration of human behavior. Before these chapters, all of the action had been initiated by the rogues and all of the destructive actions were taken by the rogues. This time, the roles have switched and the rogues have become defensive and scared while the inmates attack them and the rogues end up dying by the actions of the inmates
I tend to think that Saramago is making a new statement about humanity in this part. He made it clear earlier, through the creation of rogues, that there will always be those in a society who wish to live in unity and those who wish to gain control. The next part is that anyone, not just the rogues, can make use of some advantage to gain control. The doctor’s wife uses her scissors to throw the rogues into chaos and the other woman uses her lighter to eliminate the rogues, even though these woman would have been horrified at their own actions had it been another scenario.
This aspect of humanity can be seen later when the inmates enter into the rest of society. The world has begun to work as a strange cooperative unit, with people wandering into any building or house and taking whatever they need. This setting has also gotten a sort of rogue group now, the inmates who have the advantage of a woman who can still see. The doctor’s wife finds a basement full of food and keeps it a secret from the whole world; this is a secret that could eventually cost lives. The doctor’s wife essentially has control of that basement and will possibly take over other useful resources. It seems that humans are very apt to exploit advantages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I do not know if “humans are very apt to exploit advantages” per say. I would argue that humans are very apt to desire to live and to then pursue that desire. The doctor’s wife who killed the men was killing in defense; though the action was not directly affecting her she still had the right and responsibility (to the other woman) to harm him. Though I would say that killing seems extreme, but then again I questioned myself and wondered if I was being raped what would I do to get myself out of the situation? Honestly, I couldn’t answer, I don’t know what I would do, I pray that I would never been in the situation. Fictionally, these women were. When I say “responsibility” I mean the responsibility of one to protect the innocent. These women were innocent and helpless, she was not and she had a potential (suddenly lethal) weapon. I would like to refer back to King “what affects one directly, affects all indirectly”. If these men were not killed, would they have continued on to rape innocent women? Or would they have been wandering the streets like everyone else? Did the doctor’s wife do a good deed to humanity, because what affected her and those women could have affected the entire woman population?
Post a Comment