This is not the same Jose Saramago of Blindness, in my opinion. The second part follows one member who "turns". The first is an interior discussion amongst the government about the audacity of the public to attempt such rebellion. Neither on an individual level or national level.Without reading for the question of blank votes, this book can be divided into two parts. While initially there was a bit of discussion and action amongst the government, and an ultimate action did occur, the various points of views or different events that could have taken place were never discussed. As such, reading for this extremely interesting question, I may have missed anything else that came out of this book. Or at least that's what I thought it was going to be about. The question posed by description of Seeing is what happens if you choose to vote, but the vote is blank. To vote or not to vote that is usually the question.
As the story unfolds, “the humor is still tender but the tone darkens, tension rises” (Ursula K. What begins as a satire on governments and the dubious efficacy of the democratic system turns into something far more sinister. A police superintendent is put on the case. Perhaps she is the one behind the blank ballots. But are the authorities acting blindly? The word evokes terrible memories of the plague of blindness that hit the city four years before, and of the one woman who kept her sight. In response to this mass act of rebellion, a state of emergency is declared. But when the ballots are counted, more than 70 percent are blank. Voters promptly rush to the polling stations, as if they had been ordered to appear. Should they reschedule the elections for another day? Around three o’clock, the rain finally stops. On election day in the capital, it is raining so hard that no one has bothered to come out to vote. A strange protest triggers a descent into paranoia and chaos in this “illuminating parable”-a sequel to the Nobel Prize-winning author’s Blindness (Ursula K.
0 kommentar(er)
