blindness

as it happens, i have yet to decide the nature of my blog still...so here is a current review of a book i'm reading:

blindness by jose saramago is crawling its way to the top 10 list of my favorite books (which i suppose at some point i will detail further). blindness walks through the days of an entire hospital brimming with people struck blind by a raging epidemic. witness to the depravity they encounter is one woman, never blinded, who is literally the eyes of the narrative. she watches as the blind people begin to attack what is most important to them: their dignity, their pride, their shame, and their hunger for a myriad of human desires.

the emotional and "human nature" elements of this novel are simple, and trace back to every wartime or epic work. so why is this book deemed "one that is unafraid to face all the horrors of the century" (-the washington post)? this is not the first book in which women are raped, or ruthless hand to hand death matches are exacted...yet saramago has won the nobel prize for literature for this novel.

Instead of further analysis of the novel itself, my mind turned to a commentary or potentially a critique of the nature of the novel. It amazes me that year after year, writers, essayists, authors, illustrators and more, continually write allegories of the same heinous truths of the world--and yet the same story, told in varying permutations, is intriguing and can capture rapt attention. aren't people bored with it yet? is this the answer to the apathy currently plaguing the world--a desensitization via repetition of the same common themes?

(overall i guess i won't review books, just babble on about their potential importance to the world at large? undefined blog aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh)