I think the blinded characters lose their humanity, not because they are blind but because they have no guidance, no social pattern to follow in their new situation. When the little group, led by the woman who could see, breaks out of the asylum into a blinded world, they behave much better. They have formed a group within the lost crowd and gradually work their way back to a common humanity.

Blindness is an extreme example of the general portrayal of a “not-normal” character in fiction. Deaf? Child-like, trusting, can’t look after him/herself. In wheelchair? Angry, hostile, depressed, can’t look after him/herself. The list is endless. I have no idea why authors tend to use them to illustrate vulnerability and in some cases, hopelessness. And that it takes a ‘normal’ person to make it right.

I agree. although now that I have been thinking more, I think it is the doctor’s wife’s gender more than her sightedness that is the key to this novel.

Blindness is an extreme example of the general portrayal of a “not-normal” character in fiction. Deaf? Child-like, trusting, can’t look after him/herself. In wheelchair? Angry, hostile, depressed, can’t look after him/herself. The list is endless. I have no idea why authors tend to use them to illustrate vulnerability and in some cases, hopelessness. And that it takes a ‘normal’ person to make it right.

Films and novels about Helen Keller are such example. They all portray her as an animal-like child until she was taught a language and humanity by – oh, hey! – a ‘normal’ person. In reality, this never happened.

She’d already developed an understanding of a language and a way to communicate – through homemade signs – with her friend and family by the time her teacher Anne Sullivan entered her life. Regardless, people in general will always associate the iconic image of a wild and uncontrollable child with Helen Keller (and to some extent, deaf-blind people). So, when they read or see something like Blindness, they aren’t surprised because they ‘understand’ it’s expected of a blind (or deaf-blind) person.

All that said, there is one character in Blindness I found interesting. I can’t remember his name. The one who was born blind, therefore has the advantage over newly blinded people. I didn’t like the author’s implication: give this blind man the control, he’ll abuse it. He’ll abuse it because he doesn’t understand the essence of humanity in the first place.

He was in the position of being like the Wife – helping them, sharing his skills, and so on – but he didn’t. Instead he used the white disease as a chance to dominate people. It’d make sense that he did it as revenge for being forced to struggle to overcome obstacles in his everyday life.

But if I remember right (I read it over a year ago), the author didn’t give him that angle. Instead, it’s ‘he’ll be our enemy because he’s naturally blind’.

It’s a messy ramble, sorry.

@Merrian: Day of the Triffids sounds so familiar. Thank you for bringing that title to my attention.

And yes, I was thinking too about Robin’s post as I wrote this, that it’s another case of appropriation of a minority’s life experience for literary purposes, and what are the ethical issues we need to be aware of.

I want to add a few more things — especially the gendered piece (I think it is very significant that the one sighted person is a woman), but am too tired at the mo.

Also I was just reading a blog made in the last few days with lots of comments @ Dear Author on ‘what readers can and should expect of authors ethically and morally in a book’. Your discussion and the comments from groups representing blind people tie in with that thread very well.