Seeing Is Not Necessarily Believing by Jose Saramago – Seeing (2006, translated in 2007)
By Andrew Fersch
As far as sequels go, they tend to be hit or miss. Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn’t be the last action hero if it weren’t for Terminator 2. On the other hand, I might still be able to respect Keanu Reeves (and to a lesser extent Alex Winter) if Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey had never seen the light of day. The difference though, is these were sequels to things that were menially enjoyable and garnered little respect for their cinematic genius. Jose Saramago’s “Blindness” on the other hand led him to a Nobel Prize for literature, so a sequel of his needs much more to be expected of it.
“Seeing” begins four years after the conclusion of “Blindness”, the epidemic of contagious blindness gone from the capitol city without and explanation and without any real lessons learned from the government. Instead of writing a book that immediately jumps into the issue of the citizens’ outrage with the government’s lackluster (and at times horrific) response to the epidemic, Saramago opts to take an entirely different route with his writing, and with his characters.
What was at once a political novel and social commentary, “Blindness” differed greatly from “Seeing” in that its subject and the issues raised were much clearer, much more black and white. In “Seeing”, there is a feeling that he is always just about to reach that point of clarity, and then confusion when he delves deeper into the minute thought processes of governmental leaders. This is not to say that Saramago does not make his points clear, on the contrary, the novel focuses around the idea that a government, faced with the fear of being considered obsolete by the populace, would react harshly, viciously, and without forethought.
It is this summation of government that pushes this book through points of confusion and it is also this focus on government which summarily changes the style one might have grown accustomed to from “Blindness”. Fantasy turns to theory, and theory based, quite clearly, at least to some extent, on Saramago’s younger years.
Growing up in Portugal, Saramago claims that for “political reasons” he became unemployed after working for the Social Welfare Service. There is a sense that this disillusionment with the government, and probably a good deal of watching similar absurdities in real life, led to the writing of “Seeing” as more of a manifesto of the wrongs governments commit than an entertaining novel.
Clearly, Saramago is a spellbinding author. Aside from run-on sentences abound, and (hopefully) sub-par translation at times, the writing draws the reader in with less so it’s story, and more so it’s ability to break down what people say and what it actually means.
In all though, the greatest difference is with how Saramago decided to conclude this book as opposed to with “Blindness”. Since that publication of that in 1998, he has clearly undergone changes in his writing style, although luckily has not lost the luster that made him very deserving of a Nobel Prize. It may be clear to see why “Blindness” is a masterpiece, if you look closely though, you would have to be blind to believe that “Seeing” isn’t one in its own right too.