Why Is 'Blindness' Considered A Dystopian Novel?

The ending of 'Blindness' hits like a punch to the gut. After surviving the chaos of the epidemic where society collapses due to mass blindness, the doctor's wife—the only one who kept her sight—watches as vision suddenly returns to everyone. It’s not a clean victory though. The city is in ruins, people are traumatized, and there’s no explanation for why the blindness disappeared as mysteriously as it came. The final scene shows people rebuilding, but the story leaves you wondering if humanity learned anything. The doctor’s wife whispers, 'I don’t think we went blind, I think we were always blind,' suggesting the real blindness was moral, not physical. The abrupt return of sight feels almost cruel, like the universe played a joke on humans by revealing their fragility.

Jose Saramago's 'Blindness' is a brutal mirror held up to society's fragility. When an epidemic of sudden blindness hits, the veneer of civilization cracks instantly. People turn savage, hoarding food, abandoning the weak, and forming violent hierarchies. The government's response is equally damning—quarantining the blind in horrific conditions, showing how quickly bureaucracy dehumanizes in crisis. What shocked me was how the characters' morals decay without sight; it suggests our 'civilized' behavior is just performative, dependent on being watched. The only sighted character becomes both protector and prisoner of her morality, highlighting how empathy is a choice, not instinct. The novel implies society's order is an illusion, shattered when basic needs are threatened.

I’ve been a huge fan of José Saramago’s 'Blindness' for years, and I’ve dug deep into whether there’s a sequel. Surprisingly, there isn’t a direct sequel, but Saramago did write a companion novel called 'Seeing'. It’s set in the same unnamed city, four years after the events of 'Blindness', and explores a different kind of societal breakdown—this time, through a mass election protest where most voters submit blank ballots. The government panics, and chaos ensues. While it’s not a continuation of the original story, it’s fascinating how Saramago uses a similar setting to critique power, control, and human nature. 'Seeing' feels like a spiritual successor, diving into the aftermath of a society that’s already been through the unimaginable. If you loved the themes of 'Blindness', this one’s a must-read. What’s interesting is how 'Seeing' shifts focus from physical blindness to metaphorical blindness—how people refuse to 'see' the truth or take responsibility. It’s less about survival and more about the fragility of democracy and the lengths those in power will go to maintain control. Saramago’s signature style—long sentences, minimal punctuation—is still there, making it feel like a natural extension of his work. While it’s not a sequel in the traditional sense, it’s a brilliant companion piece that deepens the world he created in 'Blindness'.

In 'Blindness', the main characters are mostly unnamed, which adds to the novel's eerie tone. The story revolves around an ophthalmologist, his wife, and a group of people struck by a sudden epidemic of blindness. The doctor's wife is the only one who retains her sight, becoming the group's reluctant leader. There's also the girl with dark glasses, the boy with the squint, and the old man with the black eye patch—each representing different facets of human nature under extreme stress. Their interactions reveal raw, unfiltered humanity as society collapses around them. The lack of names makes them universal symbols rather than individuals, which is a powerful narrative choice by José Saramago.

The plot of 'Blindness' was deeply inspired by the author’s fascination with human vulnerability and societal collapse. I’ve always been drawn to stories that explore how people react when stripped of their comforts and norms. The idea of a sudden epidemic of blindness felt like the perfect metaphor for how fragile our systems are. It’s not just about physical blindness but the moral and ethical blindness that follows. The novel mirrors how quickly society can unravel when fear takes over, and how individuals either rise or fall in the face of chaos. I think the author wanted to challenge readers to confront their own assumptions about humanity and survival. The setting, deliberately unnamed, adds to the universality of the story, making it feel like it could happen anywhere, to anyone. It’s a stark reminder of how interconnected we are and how easily those connections can break.

I've read 'Blindness' multiple times and researched its background extensively. José Saramago's masterpiece isn't based on a specific true story, but it's deeply rooted in real human behavior during crises. The novel mirrors historical events where societies collapsed due to pandemics, like the Black Death or cholera outbreaks. Saramago took inspiration from how people react when systems fail—the selfishness, the brutality, but also the unexpected kindness. The white blindness epidemic serves as a metaphor for how humanity stumbles through moral darkness. What makes it feel so real is the raw portrayal of human nature stripped bare, not unlike actual accounts from war zones or disaster areas. For those interested in similar themes, 'The Plague' by Albert Camus explores parallel ideas about societal breakdown.

In 'Blindness', societal collapse isn't just a backdrop—it's a visceral dissection of human nature under pressure. The epidemic of blindness strips away civilization's thin veneer, exposing raw instincts. Without sight, social hierarchies crumble; doctors and beggars become equals in desperation. Basic systems fail as garbage piles up, hunger spreads, and quarantine zones descend into chaos. The novel's brilliance lies in its unflinching portrayal of how quickly decency unravels. People hoard food, form violent factions, and trade dignity for survival. Yet amid the darkness, glimmers of resilience emerge. The doctor's wife, who retains her sight, becomes a silent witness to both cruelty and unexpected kindness. Her actions—small acts of care, like organizing food distribution—highlight how humanity persists even when institutions fail. The story suggests societal collapse isn't merely about system failures but the choices individuals make when those systems vanish. It's a haunting mirror held up to our own world's fragility.

I’ve read 'Blindness' multiple times, and the critical reviews often highlight its raw, unflinching portrayal of human nature. Many praise José Saramago’s ability to craft a dystopian world that feels eerily plausible, where a sudden epidemic of blindness strips society of its veneer of civility. Critics often note how the novel’s lack of character names forces readers to focus on the universal human experience, making it both unsettling and profound. Some argue that the sparse punctuation and dense paragraphs can be challenging, but they also add to the disorienting atmosphere of the story. The book’s exploration of power, morality, and survival resonates deeply, though some find the graphic depictions of suffering hard to stomach. Overall, it’s a masterpiece that demands reflection, even if it’s not an easy read. One recurring theme in reviews is the novel’s allegorical depth. Saramago doesn’t just tell a story about blindness; he uses it as a metaphor for societal collapse and the fragility of human connections. Critics often compare it to works like 'Lord of the Flies' for its stark examination of how quickly order can disintegrate. The doctor’s wife, the only character who retains her sight, is frequently discussed as a symbol of resilience and moral clarity in a world gone mad. While some reviewers find the ending abrupt or ambiguous, others appreciate its open-endedness, leaving readers to grapple with its implications long after finishing.