Ensayo sobre la ceguera (Spanish Edition) [Jose Saramago] on * FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Saramago, un escritor que se ha convertido . Saramago, un escritor que se ha convertido en la conciencia lúcida de una época cegada por los mecanismos del poder, lanza una llamada. Title: Tesis sobre Ensayo sobre la ceguera, de José Saramago, Author: Staffcom Oaxaca, Name: Tesis sobre Ensayo sobre la ceguera, de José Saramago.
|Published (Last):||6 July 2004|
|PDF File Size:||4.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving….
Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Ensayo sobre la ceguera. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about jsoe problem. Return to Book Page. Spanish Editionpages. Published March 10th by punto de lectura first published The doctor BlindnessThe doctor’s wifeThe girl with jse dark glassesThe first blind manThe first blind man’s wife To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Ensayo sobre la cegueraplease sign up.
Raw, gross, compelling, and disturbing. Incredible if not mysterious writing. How about going blind and seeing everything “whit” instead all the “black” around us?
Al Maki For one thing, it’s actually realistic. Jorge Luis Borges was blind most of his life and he said the one color he never saw again after he became …more For one thing, it’s actually realistic.
Jorge Luis Borges was blind most of his life and he said the one color he never saw again after he became blind was black.
He saw a numinous field that was usually blue. Another thing, if you take the book as a parable, which given the fact that the author was a life long communist seems reasonable, then the blindness could be a result of cultural brainwashing, i.
See all 15 questions about Ensayo sobre la ceguera…. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia.
Not at all disturbing, not at all compelling and not at all interesting, Jose Saramago’s Blindness only succeeds in frustrating readers who take a moment to let their imagination beyond the page. Yes, Saramago’s story is a clever idea, and, yes, he creates an intentional allegory to force saramgao to think about the nature of humanity, but his ideas are clearly those of a privileged white male in a privileged European nation.
Not only do his portrayals of women and their men fall short of the mark, bu Not at all disturbing, not at all compelling and not at all interesting, Jose Saramago’s Blindness only succeeds in frustrating readers who take a moment to let their imagination beyond the page.
Ensayo sobre la ceguera by José Saramago (1 star ratings)
Not only do his portrayals of women and their men fall short of the mark, but Saramago has clearly never had to fend kose himself in the world. If he did, he’d realize that there were a thousand easy answers to the dilemmas he created for his characters, and he could have then focused more on the internal filth of their souls than ensqyo external excrement of their bodies. Blindness is not worthy of a Nobel Winner. View all 60 comments. Whether or not the translator is culpable, Blindness indeed has many flaws.
The narration, or rather the narrator, is not consistent. Oh, and that has reminded me that the tense suddenly shifts from past to present then shifted back to past then shifts again all arbitrarily. Unfortunately, the only constant that the narrative voice does have is a meaninglessly verbose style.
While I laud Nabokov for one sentence that appears to be a paragraph, that is only because that sentence is composed of so many beautiful parts all punctuated correctly, no less that work together to create an even more beautiful image.
Ensayo sobre la ceguera by José Saramago (2 star ratings)
This writing is more akin to the wandering, rambling speech of Grandpa Simpson which, while hilarious on The Simpsons, has no place within this story. The countless instances in which suspension of disbelief is just impossible.
Her utter lack of action and sense of responsibility for the majority of the book almost made me quit reading. My contention is the seeing-woman, who is clearly supposed joose be portrayed as the hero, is responsible for many of the injustices and just downright abominable acts that happen.
Does she cause them? But does she prevent them from happening? Finally, hey woman who can see: Yes, silly things like that bothered me. View all 46 comments. I couldn’t stomach this anymore. I’m not ashamed to admit, that when I read for entertainment, I do not read as critically as perhaps others who do appreciate this book.
The thing is, I don’t think the message the author was trying to convey was that profound Asramago, the world is blind. Our perception taints thi Soo Our perception taints things. Just as the woman who believes her abusive husband really loves her, our world and our realities are all shaped by our own perceptions and experiences. I’m not trying to sound like a snot, but I did not need a page incredibly literal metaphor to tell me this.
She does not at all behave how I would expect a person in a survival situation to behave. After days and days of having to hide her ability to see, she opens up her big mouth and notes her surroundings to her husband. This of course causes the blind people crammed all around her to take notice. What happens after that?
She has multiple opportunities to ceguerz the antagonists in this book, and gives us thin, flimsy excuses as to why she can’t. Her hand is inches away from the gun the antagonist holds and she can’t kill him because she has to suck him off first??
Are you fucking kidding me? This is where the whole book went from being a 3 star read to a jise I’d like to burn. People start shitting where they sleep, literally, after like, a week. Saramao no, this is not saarmago good way to highlight how the people have become animals because even animals do not do this.
The kid with the squint’s mother is totally absent, as if a mother, who cared enough to take him to eye appointments, would just simply abandon him.
The people are identified not by names, for some ridiculous reason that I’m sure I’ve pa point saeamago but by their eye patch, or their dark glasses, or their squint. All things you would need to see to know.
The sqramago part of this whole thing, is the author’s style of writing is a rage inducing level of difficult to read. Entire conversations look like this: And on and on and on.
Ensayo sobre la ceguera
Now imagine the whole book features seven characters stuck together at all times. I’m sorry because I think a few of my wonderful GoodReads buddies really enjoyed this one, and I am happy that they did. For those of you that enjoy analyzing literature, I’m sure there is plenty to discuss here. Perhaps this is a book better read with a buddy or in a group.
View all 12 comments. View all 5 comments. Signe-Anita, so that she can suffer with me. I really had high expectations for this book. I saw so many 5-star reviews just from the people on my GR list that I had to read it now. And I am monstrously disappointed. This was so bad. What am I missing? Where is the greatness? All I got from this book was: No marking of direct speech? And it’s fine by me. I read medieval Slavic texts 7,5 hours a day at work, and they hadn’t figured that little piece of wisdom out either, so I’m used to it.
Also fine, Russian can manage without them quite often, and the medieval folks had none either. But it does get tiresome to read page after page after page of never-ending text in one solid block. Russian is a perfect translation language for this kind of nasty prose, because they have all their participles that make endless convoluted sentences not only possible, but usually pretty understandable albeit not very pretty or stylistically admirable.
Provided you don’t lose focus halfway through a page. Which are the same goddamned thing in this book. Not only do they lack actual names, they also lack everything else. The only scene in the entire book that got me to react in any way whatsoever was the gang rape the women were sent to because it was their “duty” or whatever. And not the scene itself, but how poorly the aftermath was constructed. So it was actually the poor writing and depiction that got to me.
The “main” woman, the doctor’s wife notice how two out of three women in the book is only ever referred to as someone’s wife? I have no words. All her reactions are weird and stilted and She never felt like an actual person, and she’s the only character that gets enough space to actually become one. In that many pages, I find that to be a massive failure.