This book is a sequel to the more popularly known Blindness. I liked the earlier book of course, but I think Seeing is much more witty and intelligent, and the satire inherent in all Saramago works is brought out fully in this book.

The story begins with the citizens of the capital of the same unnamed country (who have recovered from the mysterious blindness episode) going to the polls. At the end of the day, the results showed that majority of the votes was blank. This puts the national government in a dilemma. They hold another round of voting. The outcome was even worse this time around. To deal with this catastrophe (for the government in question and all parties of the political spectrum) the government sets off a series of measures, from the benign to the most absurd and frightening that resembles Big Brother, which ends in the city being held "in siege."

The authorities try to pin down the source of this silent and bewildering (and for them, almost malevolent) defiance. The same characters we follow in Blindness reappear. They are identified by the authorities as "suspects" in this silent revolt, it could only be them, especially THAT woman, they say.

Seeing has less "mythical" power than Blindness but i find it more frightening because it is more realistic. We see how institutions of democracy could be perverted to serve the narrow interests of the political elite. Isn't that something we all recognize?

While the story overall is less visceral than Blindness, the punch happens at the very end, and it is even more shocking and memorable than what happens in Blindness where normality returns.

Blindness was unputdownable, but I liked Seeing even better. ( )

A great follow-up to _Blindness_, this book continues to explore the ways in which modern democracy and bureaucracy can so easily turn sinister. Not a page-turner, but definitely a compelling story. ( )

Bij verkiezingen wordt 70% blanco gestemd en dit percentage wordt na de opnieuw uitgeschreven raadpleging 83%.
Met dit stille protest van de bevolking raakt de zittende regering geheel gedesoriënteerd en vervalt in repressie en een niets ontziende jacht op de burgers die voor de verkiezingsuitslag verantwoordelijk gehouden kunnen worden
Het boek beschrijft de gebeurtenissen, en hoe!

Met een combinatie van ironie, sarcasme en waar nodig een voorzichtig cynisme beschrijft Saramago het handelen van de hoofdrolspelers. Hij doet dat vanuit een scherp waarnemings- en inlevingsvermogen en een briljante wijze van vertellen. Bij mijn weten heeft géén ander in een literair geschrift zo treffend de holle retoriek van machthebbers kunnen beschrijven.
Stilistisch is het boek een meesterwerk, de vaak lange zinnen -na de komma volgt vaak weer een nieuwe zin- zinderen van zeggingskracht.

Uiteindelijk behandelt de schrijver het thema rond de vraag wie de macht in het land heeft en welke rol de kiezers daarin kunnen spelen.
Een actueel onderwerp dat getransformeerd is in een monumentale roman. ( )

Heel apart boek doordat het verloop heel onvoorspelbaar is. Ook interessant isde link met zijn boek stad der blinden ( )

Just like "Blindness" (one of his recent books), this book by Jose Saramago is another masterpiece. Long (up to a page!) sentences, no name for characters, but so compelling that you just cannot put it down. There are references to "Blindness" in this book, the events are happening in the same town. ( )

On election day in an unnamed capital city, rain pours down beginning in the early morning hours and continues well into the afternoon, a cause of concern for those working at the polls. Will anyone bother to show up during the deluge? Should the election be postponed? Under the orders of the government, the polls remain open, and finally, toward late afternoon, hundreds of people throng to the polling stations and cast their ballots. The government should be happy with the unprecedented show of national pride, but when the ballots are counted, more than 70% are blank.

In their bewilderment, the government does everything it can to figure out what's happening: sending spies out among the citizens, questioning and imprisoning those who case blank ballots, declaring a state of siege, imposing a curfew. When nothing seems to work, the government pulls up stakes and flees the city.

But in their determination to lay blame on someone for this show of rebellion, the prime minister learns of a woman who, during a mysterious bout of blindness which affected the entire country, somehow managed not to suffer the same blindness. She must be behind the mass blank balloting, and the prime minister sets out to discredit her.

--

When I first picked up this sequel to José Saramago's "Blindness", I wondered if it was necessary to have read "Blindness" in order to follow along in "Seeing". The story in the latter took place four years after the plague of white blindness, but only vague references were made to that first story. Yet, about two-thirds through, the main group of characters -- the survivors -- all appear, switching the focus of the story. But, surprisingly, I didn't think it necessary to have read the first book. The majority of characters in Seeing who may have been present during the blindness of the first book, don't know what happened to the group of survivors, and this "blindness" of sorts allows the reader understand the government's motives a bit more.

At it's most effective, "Seeing" tells a tale of how humans react to change. On one end of the spectrum, Saramago provides a satirical view of a government taking things to the extreme, of overreacting to a possible change of public opinion rather than attempting to understand what caused the change. The fear of losing control overrides logic, as in the case of the prime minister who needs to find a single person to blame for something out of his control -- in this case, resulting in very dire circumstances. At the opposite end, those remaining in the capital go on with their lives. A strike by the street cleaners is thwarted by the many housewives who take to the street with brooms to clean their own patches of the city. When those who didn't cast blank ballots are forced into returning to the capital, believing that their apartments and omes have been looted (thanks to government broadcasts), they are welcomed back by those who remained in the city and shown that everything is as they left it. Two very different reactions and outcomes to the same events: fear on the one hand, which doesn't allow for moving forward, and acceptance on the other.

I've now read three novels by Nobel laureate José Saramago, and two things stand out in each of them. First, one paragraph may last for four to five pages, mixing dialogue from more than two people and throwing in the author's own commentary. Surprisingly, it sounds more daunting than it actually is. I did find myself paying closer attention to the words in order to determine who was speaking, but looking back, I remember more of the story. Maybe it's just me....

Second, something mysterious seems to spark the story into action, and the origins are never explained. In "Blindness" -- the novel preceeding Seeing -- the entire country develops a strange white blindness; in "The Stone Raft", the Iberian Peninsula mysteriously separates from the rest of Europe and floats away. for those two novels, the mysterous works because those events aren't the main focus of the stories; the stories are more about how the characters react and survive under unknown circumstances. In Seeing, it's almost the same thing with the populace suddenly arriving en masse to vote, the procession of unmanned houselights that follows the government as it leaves the city. Even members of the government comment that something unnatural maybe happening, but by the end of the story, it's never explained. And to me, this was the one story in which that explanation felt necessary because it was alluded to so much by many characters.

"Seeing" is a fine book to read, and I highly recommend both it and its precursor, "Blindness". ( )

Not as compelling as Blindness (to which it is something of a sequel), but perhaps more timely. I found the main premise of the book difficult to buy into, but it still seems to contain some worthwhile commentary on politics and human nature. For a while. Then I got to the end, and, for the first time ever in my life, I threw a book against a wall in anger. Terrible ending, though if the book were better, it might still be worth it; as it is, just don't bother. ( )

The sequel to “Blindness,” “Seeing” is slow at the beginning, but picks up nicely when we finally reunite with the main characters from the previous book. The main character was sympathetic, but my favorite parts were the descriptions of buttered toast. They made my mouth water. ( )

Jose Saramago, who won the Nobel Prize in 1995, comes up with the weirdest story lines. All the Names tells the story of a bureaucrat whose life is dominated by the routines of his job in the office of birth, marriage, divorce, and death records. When his routine is broken, he spirals into some pretty bizarre behavior. The Stone Raft is about a crack that develops in the Pyrenees Mountains, and gradually widens until Spain and Portugal float off into the Atlantic Ocean. Blindness, a bit more conventional as a thinly veiled retelling of Albert Camus’ The Plague, has been followed by Seeing.

In this novel, 83% of the electorate, in the same fictional country as Blindness, have cast blank ballots. The police attempt to find out what is going on, and all they get are, pun intended, blank stares and stonewalling.

I would love to ask Saramago if this novel is an allegory for the Bush administration. The parallels are eerie and gave me another reason to keep reading to find more threads connecting the two. Paranoia, slippery slope logical fallacies, and obfuscating politicians are only some of the parallels.

His style is also peculiar. For example, one typical section break (he does not use chapters) begins with a single paragraph that runs on to 5 and a half pages in length. The sentences are enormous. Here is an example:
So, what did you find out. The question, as well as being superfluous, was, how can we put it, just the teeniest bit dishonest, firstly, because, when it comes down to it, everyone would have found out something, however irrelevant, secondly, because it was obvious that the person asking the question was taking advantage of the authority inherent in his position to shirk his duty, since it was up to him, in voice and in person, to initiate any exchange of information. (9)

Fourteen commas before we see a period. The only other markers in his sentences are a capital letters, which indicate someone is speaking.

The last third of the book provides some comedy and some serious parallels to the Bush Administration. Several police officer are sent to the capital city with orders to prove a particular individual is guilty of the crime of fomenting the rebellion which resulted in the casting of the blank ballots. The government declares the investigation complete, and identifies the guilty party. Foregone conclusions, manipulation of the facts to suit that conclusion, and the manipulation of the press to further the agenda of the government. Sound familiar?

ANOTHER weird thing about Saramago is how he traps the reader. It almost becomes a game to stay with him, follow the huge strings of parenthetical statements, and understand what is going on in this strange city. You have to keep reading to play the game, to understand the game, and then to win the game. A win, I might add that is terrifically satisfying.

Together with Blindness, Seeing is an important book, Saramago is an important writer, and I completely understand the Swedish Academy awarding him the Nobel Prize for Literature. If you are a serious reader, this book MUST be on your TBR shelf. Five Stars.
--Jim, 12/23/07 ( )

Chilling, but brilliant. A modern day 1984. The book is somewhat divided into two parts. The first tells the tale of a rogue capital city of an unnamed country, that decides to cast blank ballots during an election. The government responds in crisis mode and puts the city in a state of siege. The government then decides to leave the city to its own devices and moves the government elsewhere. The book then switches to the tale of a police superintendent sent into the city to examine the claims that a woman who did not go blind during the city's plague of blindness (see Blindness, by Jose Saramago) may be behind the blank ballot plot. The first half paints an almost utopian and optomistic picture of a city that has decided to cast off the shackles of modern government oppression. While the second half reaches deep within the human conscience and the struggle for right and wrong and ultimately ends with a bleak outlook on the corruption and power of government, even in a "free and democratic" society. ( )

I did not realize at first that this book is a continuation of “Blindness” which I have not yet read.
“Seeing” is a book about how the majority of citizens in the Capital city cast blank votes in an election. The ministers of the government are searching for a reason for this “revolt” and will not stop until they find one.
The ministers decide to put the capital under siege and move the government officials, police force and military out of the capital and let the citizens fend for themselves, hoping for chaos. The objective is to get the citizens to beg for the government to come back to them in return of casting proper votes in the next election.
The book leaves you with an eerie feeling about politicians. Who can you trust?
I also found it quite humorous from time to time. One of the first chapters starts like this:
“To the Minister of Defense, a civilian who had never even done his military service, the declaration of a state of emergency seemed pretty small beer, he had wanted a proper, full-blooded state of siege,…..” ( )

In his first book, Blindness, Saramago provides us with one seeing women as witness to the tragedy that ensues when one after the next all the people of this (unnamed) town fall to an epidemic of white blindness. Throughout the books he never refers to anyone by name. They are simply called "the first blind man", the "girl with the dark glasses", and so forth. Further, his style is such that it is never entirely clear who is speaking. His paragraphs go on for pages with only capitalizations showing where one speaker begins and no clear designation of who is speaking. For a world turned blind this is an interesting if intrusive style.

Reading Seeing let me see that the cumbersome style is just how Saramago writes. No one is blind in Seeing and yet we still hear next to nothing to identify the characters. In this case, there is a freak occurence where 85% of the votes in an election turn up blank. In true Strangelove manner, the government acts completely inexplicably to rout the insurgency, including leaving the capital, inciting strikes, bombing subways, and conducting assassinations. The reason why I actually liked this book better than Blindness is that the populace draws together and acts with human decency. The absurdity is confined within a select few, artfully described as conniving, power-hungry politicos and their ignorant or ignoble colleagues. Everyone understands the absurdity of the situation and decides to live out their lives in peace nonetheless. The book is still written in a jarring style, but at least it left me with less repugnance than Blindness.

Una de las novelas más duras de Saramago.
Y posiblemente la más pesimista.

No voy a contar más para no estropear la lectura a los demás.

De todas maneras, no es de lo que más me ha gustado de él. ( )

Seeing was a good book but certainly not up to the standards set by Saramago over the course of his illustrious writing career. As the sequel to Blindness, I was very surpised to find that it took Saramago 150 pages to tie this novel into its predecessor. This is especially true since I cannot imagine the book being particularly good, or even making a great deal of sense, if the reader has not read Blindness.

It seems that the real purpose of Seeing was to give our author the opportunity to make a political statement about the current state of democracy and all of the control that the government wields behind the scenes. He does this with some success and does make the reader pause to consider what his/her government is up to.

In the end, the book is simply good - not great. It flows along well enough but seems to take a long time to get to its point. I felt that this would have been better suited to the novella or short story form. Nonetheless, all of the Saramago style traits are there - long punctuation-free commentary, eloquently selected phrases, etc. If you're a fan of this author, he doesn't let you down, he just doesn't inspire you as he normally does.

**SPOILER ALERT (Highlight)**

The book is the story of a nation's capitol city (the country is never specified) and a recent "epidemic" of blank votes which were cast (twice) in a recent election. This blank vote epidemic occurred only in the capitol city where almost 90% of all votes cast were left intentionally blank. In the name of protecting democracy, the city is placed in a state of siege (how ironic...) The government leaves, the police are removed, and the military surrounds the city to prevent departures. The government takes control of the television and all but two of the newspapers so as to communicate the punishment being handed down to the residents.

Mysteriously, a letter is sent to the president and prime minister which names the only person (the woman from Blindness) who did not lose her sight during the epidemic of blindness which occurred in the same city four years prior. The author of the letter (the first blind man from Blindness) suggests that he believes she may somehow be responsible for this new "epidemic".

As a result of this letter, three police officers are assigned to the case and sent into the city undercover. The superintendent in charge of this assignment meets the woman and is compelled to protect her as he is certain that she has no involvement.

Because the government officials recognize their mistakes in handling this crisis, the interior minister is determined to pin the entire problem on this woman and he makes this known to the superintendent.

In the end, the superintendent's conscience and his desire to protect this innocent woman, creates in him the need to turn against his own government and he shares the real story (of the set-up) with one of the two independent newspapers.

While his bravery sets the record straight with the poplace, it does not manage to save his life, nor does it save the life of the woman he aims to protect.
( )

Seeing by Jose Saramago

I expect I am in the minority, but I could not read more than 32 pages of Seeing. I read a few of the reviews, read what fellow posters of book forums had to say about it, and it was all good. "Saramago is a wonderfully sensitive writer, Saramago is an artist, Saramago is someone that needs to be read in this day and age!"
Oh brother!

First of all it put me to sleep, then I started skimming (always a bad sign). Then when sentences started not making any sense, I'd have to go back to see what I'd missed, and it wasn't much. Then it started irritating me. The word simplistic doesn't seem to cover his style. If I wanted to be harsh, I'd say simple-minded would be a more accurate assessment. The best I can say is that the book has no personality, either of the author or the books inhabitants.

I am not one to give up on a book or an author......usually. I will make an exception in this case. ( )

This book was a loser for me and I have discarded it from my library.

Mr. Saramago can certainly write finely honed satiric pages of commentary on modern-day political and media processes. Carefully read they are admirable in their satiric accuracy -- and even their literal accuracy -- and they are a pleasure to read. In fact, his style of nearly unending sentences need not diminish the joy because they are so spot on. However, in this story -- told in unrelenting third-person narrative style, and without a human being or a human interest angle any place in sight early on -- even Saramago's implacable and unrelenting political posture quickly palls and begins to sound like one has heard it all before. The images that quickly crossed my mind were of endless Op-Ed pieces and canned journalistic news analyses. The Nobel Prize -- presumably for Saramago's literary merit, rather than political merit -- is of course not to be ignored, but this book was simply not for me. I bailed out early because I get my fill of endless political spouting in the news, day in and day out. ( )

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/saramago.h... ( )

"Mijn nieuwe roman gaat een hels kabaal ontketenen", voorspelde José Saramago bij het verschijnen van De Stad der Zienden - en hij kreeg gelijk.
In een niet nader aangeduid land worden verkiezingen gehouden. Wanneer aan het eind van de dag de stemmen worden geteld, blijkt dat zeventig procent van de kiezers in de hoofdstad blanco heeft gestemd. De verkiezingen worden overgedaan. Deze keer stemt ruim tachtig procent blanco. De regering besluit een grootschalige operatie op touw te zetten om de activisten die hiervoor verantwoordelijk zijn te elimineren. Een geweldadige breuk tussen de politieke macht en het volk lijkt onafwendbaar.
De Stad der Zienden is José Saramago's antwoord op de vraag die in de hedendaagse democratie steeds luider klinkt: wie heeft de macht? Heeft de kiezer nog iets in te brengen? In zijn bekende, sublieme stijl slaagt Saramago er opnieuw in een hoogst actueel onderwerp om te zetten in een literair meesterwerk.

Currently reading ( )