HG Wells, Country of the Blind

[avon]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_flzDJH7qJLk/S8YdtwpIFYI/AAAAAAAAACw/c88OR23KVFw/s320/photo.jpg


It was, he found, much more difficult to proclaim himself than he had supposed, and in the meantime, while he meditated his coup d'etat, he did what he was told and learnt the manners and customs of the Country of the Blind. He found working and going about at night a particularly irksome thing, and he decided that that should be the first thing he would change.


Short Story Intermission -

H.G. Wells, The Country of the Blind, 1904.


Text available at: http://www.readprint.com/work-1482/The-Country-of-the-Blind-H-G-Wells


Open for discussion on Sunday, 18 April, 2010.

[Pedro]

COMING SOON FROM A BOOK CASE NEAR YOU.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/PedroHistory/CountryoftheBlind.jpg

[avon]

HG Wells was born somewhere in Britain, sometime in the latter decades of the nineteenth-century. He needs no introduction here.

Country of the Blind is probably his best known short-story. Its an unusual piece for a variety of reasons: its easy reversal of the common saw that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; in the fact that the protagonist is unable to communicate; and in the way that our normal perceptions become redundant when their mode of communication is removed. The tale is thematically rich … so there is plenty to talk about.


Thread open.

[Patito de Hule]

The first thought that struck my mind, was what a funny name for a mountain in Ecuador--Parascotopetl. It almost sounds like Nahuatl since the Nahuatl word for mountain is tepetl, but it hardly sounds like something in Mapuche or Quichua, the two most common native tongues in Ecuador.

The second idea that hit me is more significant for historians or other social studies. Communication between two cultures--or between two times--is difficult because of different nuances of words and because of different conceptions of reality.

Communication and conception of reality are two things I think might be key to Wells' thought.

[Patito de Hule]

A second reflection that seems worth working through is that in Golding's Lord of the Flies, the castaways soon descended into a Hobbesian state of nature where life is "solitary, poor, vicious, ugly and short."

In The Country of the Blind, for all that the original group had had a society, they seem to have slid into a Lockean state of nature. They further developed their society so they had elders and laws. Locke would have predicted that. The "laws" are symbolized by the rule "Keep off the grass." I visualized signs all over the place saying "PLEASE KEEP OFF GRASS." :D

[Pedro]

Communication and conception of reality are two things I think might be key to Wells' thought.
Very much so, communication and perception were certainly key to Well’s way of viewing the world. I think there was a touch of the mechanist in his soul in that he saw education as the key to solving all problems. One critic said Well’s believed that “history could even be fixed by education.” Some additional themes I see in the story are:
A community will adapt and overcome its disabilities.
A community comes to accept that their ‘fault’ is normal behavior.
Such a community will remains blind to any other perspective. (bad pun intended) And will resort to violence even to maintain the ‘fictions’ by which they live.
The story may also be seen as a allegory of the smart versus the not so smart.
Fear of the outsider.
Maxims have their opposites. An example that come to mind; ‘Absence makes the heart grow fonder’ versus ‘out of sight, out of mind’.All of these could make for separate threads*. Anyone want to take one up?

essays also welcome

[Pedro]

One more theme.
Our hero believes that he has been selected to be their 'heaven-sent king and master'. This is the fatal flaw in his character, the hubris that makes the story a greek tragedy, the valley citizens supplying the chorus.

[Patito de Hule]

One more theme.
Our hero believes that he has been selected to be their 'heaven-sent king and master'. This is the fatal flaw in his character, the hubris that makes the story a greek tragedy, the valley citizens supplying the chorus.
An excellent point. In the version I read as a child, Nunez somehow escaped the valley with Maria-sarote. That ending would have been much more satisfying to me when I was young. But this remark well shows why it had to end the way it did in this earlier version.

Another point using high school criticism terminology: This story is written from an omniscient narrator POV. It could have been more interesting from a first person POV by Nunez. But it would have been a very different story. How would one work in the background of the Country of the Blind? How would we get the story from the narrator after he died? How would we understand the thoughts of the people? It could all be worked out, but it would probably make for a more complex story.

[Rosicrucian]

Well, I read this story the day it was posted and have been waiting for the discussion to open.

I agree with Avon, very rich thematically, very poignant, and one of those stories that stay with you forever. I wonder though what you guys made of the ending of the story? It's quite open and whilst that in some cases adds to the richness of the narrative, given where I am in life right now, I find open endings a bit difficult to put up with. They seem almost a cop out to me. Wells could have easily given the tale a proper ending but he didn't. Why?

So I would just like to know how the readers here have interpreted the ending of the story.

Thank you.

[avon]

An excellent point. In the version I read as a child, Nunez somehow escaped the valley with Maria-sarote. That ending would have been much more satisfying to me when I was young. But this remark well shows why it had to end the way it did in this earlier version.

Wells revised the ending in a later, 1939, version. He switched the last 300 words for an alternative ending of 2000 words. The version that we linked to above is the 1904 version.

[Patricia]

One more theme.
Our hero believes that he has been selected to be their 'heaven-sent king and master'. This is the fatal flaw in his character, the hubris that makes the story a greek tragedy, the valley citizens supplying the chorus.

When I started reading this story I thought Wells was trying to lure me into an allegory decrying the Colonialism of his period; the futility of trying to force Western values on the otherwise content natives. But by the end I came to think of it as more of a hero's tale, not unlike the story of Jesus. To me, Nunez is a type of Christ, at least in his own mind. He can see while all others are blind. His inability to get them to comprehend his vision frustrates him. By God, ought he not be King? From rebellion he moves toward conformity out of love for an imagined disciple he deludes himself can understand what it means to see. But his disciple is as blind as the others, and is responding only to his kindness. it is almost as though I can hear him thinking, "There are none so blind as those who cannot see." Ultimately, he is ready to sacrifice his life in a vain attempt to climb a mountain to his paradise, rather than sacrifice his marvelous vision.

[Rosicrucian]

One more theme.
Our hero believes that he has been selected to be their 'heaven-sent king and master'. This is the fatal flaw in his character, the hubris that makes the story a greek tragedy, the valley citizens supplying the chorus.

One problem with calling it a tragedy is that the hero doesn't have many redeeming traits to begin with. So instead of sympathising with his plight in the end we get a feeling that he got his just desserts for wanting to lord over what he thought were a bunch of hapless and helpless people. He also comes across as a one-dimensional character -- a power hungry opportunist, slow to learn and adapt.

[Pedro]

One problem with calling it a tragedy is that the hero doesn't have many redeeming traits to begin with. So instead of sympathising with his plight in the end we get a feeling that he got his just desserts for wanting to lord over what he thought were a bunch of hapless and helpless people. He also comes across as a one-dimensional character -- a power hungry opportunist, slow to learn and adapt.

Yes. One thing that Wells has been accused of is that he is short on character development but makes up for it on plot development.
As to a redeeming trait Nuez does have the capacity to love. So much so that while he cant' submit to the loss of his eyes he does accept his 'destiny' which is never to see his beloved again. So he leaves and climbs the mountain to meet his ultimate fate. We might take that for integrity. Not altogether a bad trait.

[Pedro]

Wells revised the ending in a later, 1939, version. He switched the last 300 words for an alternative ending of 2000 words. The version that we linked to above is the 1904 version.
How was the ending changed? Is there a copy on line of the revised version. A mans views can change a lot in 39* years and it would be interesting to see any differences.

*I think the story was written in 1899, first published in 1904.

[Rosicrucian]

Yes. One thing that Wells has been accused of is that he is short on character development but makes up for it on plot development.
As to a redeeming trait Nuez does have the capacity to love. So much so that while he cant' submit to the loss of his eyes he does accept his 'destiny' which is never to see his beloved again. So he leaves and climbs the mountain to meet his ultimate fate. We might take that for integrity. Not altogether a bad trait.

I actually see that as a product of a panicky mind, his decision to run away. He did not have anywhere to go but he had to run away from what he was going to be subjected to. It literally was a case of he couldn't take it anymore. He had to save his sight, and leaving his beloved behind was just a byproduct of the bigger problem he was facing... from which there was no escape. He was a man with sight in the land of blind, it had to end in tears for him sooner or later. He made it end sooner.

[Patito de Hule]

Well, I read this story the day it was posted and have been waiting for the discussion to open.

I agree with Avon, very rich thematically, very poignant, and one of those stories that stay with you forever. I wonder though what you guys made of the ending of the story? It's quite open and whilst that in some cases adds to the richness of the narrative, given where I am in life right now, I find open endings a bit difficult to put up with. They seem almost a cop out to me. Wells could have easily given the tale a proper ending but he didn't. Why?

So I would just like to know how the readers here have interpreted the ending of the story.

Thank you.
When I was younger, I would have agreed about "open endings" being unsatisfactory, but they are fairly traditional in specualtive fiction. Now that I'm older, I am much more aware that real situations don't have well defined endings and questions don't have well-defined answers.

This ending was not really so open, however. He was alone, a long, long hike from safety. He had nothing--presumably his torn clothing, no food, no anything. Remember, he did not leave Maria sarote with the intention of running, but of joining the blind. So, when he lay down in the snow, and evening came, and he just kept lying there--well we know what the end was.

Pedro's comparison to a Greek Tragedy is appropriate. He was "King" of the Country of the Blind (so he thought for a while; he had that fatal flaw of character, hubris; he ended tragically. All the elements are there.

In the 1939 version, he turned back and, iirc, told the people there was about to be an avalanche. They wouldn't believe him, of course. So he took Maria and made it out to safety. The stupid people in the valley got smashed (presumably) by the avalanche. More satisfying for the protagonist, of course, and he saved the girl. This is more along the lines of a comedy, not a tragedy. But I liked it better that way when I was a young teen or preteen.

The 1939 ending also lengthened the story beyond what was necessary to tell the tale. The climax was more climactic that way and the denouement--well it was a lengthy denouement for a short story. The short story should be one step up from poetry in its parsimony of words. Not a prose poem, mind you, but a narrative where every word, every paragraph has a need to be there. It is deliberately compact when well done. In the 1939 version, the denouement was longer than it needed to be because it was outside the scope of the fundamental story. The "fundamental" story had nothing to do with Nunez's grief for his loss of Maria. I think the 39 version pushed the climax up a little since the story had, IMO, a weak climax.

[Pedro]

p.s. He was also "a reader of books in an original way". I tend to overlook a mans sins who can do that.:D

[Patito de Hule]

When I started reading this story I thought Wells was trying to lure me into an allegory decrying the Colonialism of his period; the futility of trying to force Western values on the otherwise content natives. But by the end I came to think of it as more of a hero's tale, not unlike the story of Jesus. To me, Nunez is a type of Christ, at least in his own mind. He can see while all others are blind. His inability to get them to comprehend his vision frustrates him. By God, ought he not be King? From rebellion he moves toward conformity out of love for an imagined disciple he deludes himself can understand what it means to see. But his disciple is as blind as the others, and is responding only to his kindness. it is almost as though I can hear him thinking, "There are none so blind as those who cannot see." Ultimately, he is ready to sacrifice his life in a vain attempt to climb a mountain to his paradise, rather than sacrifice his marvelous vision.
The stages of grief are denial, anger, acceptance. Wells wouldn't have known that explicitly, of course, but he would have been aware. So do we see Nunez, perhaps, going through those stages of grief for his lost civilization?

[Cicero]

I am on a trip here and just popped in to say that I read the assignement, enjoyed it, and will try and catch up with things Hisortum when I return next week.

Best to all.

[Pedro]

So, when he lay down in the snow, and evening came, and he just kept lying there--well we know what the end was.
Are you implying he died? In the beginning the narrator tell us he heard the story from Nuez before " he died of punishment in the mines".

[corrocamino]

Seeing (pardon the term in this context) that people are oblivious to what's in front of their eyes, the usefulness of allegory escapes me. I suppose it's a distraction that some find enjoyable. Now, watching a baseball game -- that's a prudent use of time.

[Patricia]

The stages of grief are denial, anger, acceptance. Wells wouldn't have known that explicitly, of course, but he would have been aware. So do we see Nunez, perhaps, going through those stages of grief for his lost civilization?

I think so. Nunez, I think, is full of grief and no small measure of fear. For Nunez, perhaps his denial is expressed in his assumption that things are not beyond his control, but may be tailor-made to be used for his benefit. When it becomes clear that this is not the case he lashes out, not so much at the source of his grief, but at his inability to control the situation. Finally, he realizes he must accept his plight, but cannot, because he believes what he loves is not actually dead but is still attainable, if only he can climb higher. He's a tragic hero, IMO.

[Pedro]

Seeing (pardon the term in this context) that people are oblivious to what's in front of their eyes, the usefulness of allegory escapes me. I suppose it's a distraction that some find enjoyable. Now, watching a baseball game -- that's a prudent use of time.
I'll see your allegory and raise you a metaphor.

[corrocamino]

I think we should avoid games of chance with Patricia lurking -- she's "the house" you know! Know anything simile we can do?

[Patricia]

I think we should avoid games of chance with Patricia lurking -- she's "the house" you know! Know anything simile we can do?

You can do nothing but hope. Tread lightly, CC, or I'll back-shuffle the deck and slap a 21 on you before God can get the news. Slip a little toke out for me, though, and we'll both take our chances.;)

[corrocamino]

If you think I'm not intimidated, think again! Even ordinary sleight of hand fools me every time. Imagine sleight of hand combined with a mesmerizingly pretty face! But I suppose guys don't mind losing their paycheck if they can just sit at your table for a couple of hours! I mean, the table with a view always commands a high price.

[Patricia]

If you think I'm not intimidated, think again! Even ordinary sleight of hand fools me every time. Imagine sleight of hand combined with a mesmerizingly pretty face! But I suppose guys don't mind losing their paycheck if they can just sit at your table for a couple of hours! I mean, the table with a view always commands a high price.

You are so sweet........and also a liar. Thanks for the nice toke though!:o

[corrocamino]

Well, I've been known to exaggerate. In your case, not necessary! I just keep trying to win the lottery, so that I can be green, wrinkled -- and perceptually "SWEET" enough to run off to the South Seas islands with. (I'll keep you posted -- I greatly prefer girls who haven't forgotten how to blush.) ;)

[Patito de Hule]

Wasn't that "one of the early settlers" that died in the mines? He who brought out the legend of The Country of the Blind?

Nunez needs to die to make it a tragedy.

[Pedro]

I think the tragedy idea is intact. Solidly so. Unless I have the wrong definition in mind. In general a tragedy is a drama of a serious and dignified character that usually describes a developing conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny, circumstance, or society) and reaches a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion.


For the heck of it, here is a thought from the master Aristotle: Comedy is the absence of tragedy.

[Pedro]

Wasn't that "one of the early settlers" that died in the mines? He who brought out the legend of The Country of the Blind?

Nunez needs to die to make it a tragedy.

Nunez failed in what he took to be his mission. He lost the love of a woman. He was beaten down by society. That seems tragic enough.


I went back and read the intro. You are right. The reference is not to Nuez.
And dieing on the mountain makes more sense.

[Patito de Hule]

I think the tragedy is spot on!

He's "King" (or thinks so). He has that hubris, as you mentioned. He comes to a tragic end by losing Maria and by dying.

[Patito de Hule]

There are conflicts in this story. The most obvious one is obvious because it is made explicit. It is that between Erasmus' aphorism "In the Country of the Blind the one-eyed man is king" and its opposite. This conflict is resolved (at least temporarily) about two thirds of the way through the story. Nunez states:

"I was mad," he said, "but I was only newly made."

In terms of the stages of grief that I mentioned earlier, there was denial in the aphorism; there was anger in the rebellion; there is now acceptance. This should be the climax if that is the most important theme of the story, and we are only two thirds of the way through the story.

There is another aphorism which is not made explicit. Love conquers all. And so it seems until the end when love does not conquer. The story continues to build up with his love for and proposal to Maria-sarote. He accepts the proposal to have his eyes put out. But the true climax comes when this opposition is resolved.

He had fully meant to go to a lonely place where the meadows were beautiful with white narcissus, and there remain until the hour of his sacrifice should come, but as he walked he lifted up his eyes and saw the morning, the morning like an angel in golden armour, marching down the steps....

It seemed to him that before this splendour he and this blind world in the valley, and his love and all, were no more than a pit of sin.

He did not turn aside as he had meant to do, but went on and passed through the wall of the circumference and out upon the rocks, and his eyes were always upon the sunlit ice and snow.

Now the opposition between the 1904 ending and the 1939 ending become clear. Wells would have wanted to present an aphorism and denuded it; he would have done the same with the implied aphorism. Thus it was necessary for the protagonist, having denied love, (was he ever in love?) has abandoned love and needs to die. Perhaps the later ending, where he returns to the valley and brings out Maria, is more satisfactory to our sentimentalities, but it would not be to Wells' sensibilities.

[sylla1]

I guess Wells might have been partially inspired by the Classical myth of Cassandra, granted with the gift of prophecy but punished with the curse of unbelievability.

[okamido]

I guess Wells might have been partially inspired by the Classical myth of Cassandra, granted with the gift of prophecy but punished with the curse of unbelievability.

"OFF TOPIC"

There is a wonderful depiction of how that curse came to be in Eric Shanower's The Age of Bronze.

"ON TOPIC"

[okamido]

Has anyone commented on the fact the villagers felt they could cure Nunez, with "simple" invasive surgery? It seems like a commentary on the medical desire of Wells's time, to "cure" patients by cutting into them, or electro-therapy, lobotomies, etc..

[Patricia]

There are conflicts in this story. The most obvious one is obvious because it is made explicit. It is that between Erasmus' aphorism "In the Country of the Blind the one-eyed man is king" and its opposite. This conflict is resolved (at least temporarily) about two thirds of the way through the story. Nunez states:

"I was mad," he said, "but I was only newly made."

In terms of the stages of grief that I mentioned earlier, there was denial in the aphorism; there was anger in the rebellion; there is now acceptance. This should be the climax if that is the most important theme of the story, and we are only two thirds of the way through the story.

There is another aphorism which is not made explicit. Love conquers all. And so it seems until the end when love does not conquer. The story continues to build up with his love for and proposal to Maria-sarote. He accepts the proposal to have his eyes put out. But the true climax comes when this opposition is resolved.



Now the opposition between the 1904 ending and the 1939 ending become clear. Wells would have wanted to present an aphorism and denuded it; he would have done the same with the implied aphorism. Thus it was necessary for the protagonist, having denied love, (was he ever in love?) has abandoned love and needs to die. Perhaps the later ending, where he returns to the valley and brings out Maria, is more satisfactory to our sentimentalities, but it would not be to Wells' sensibilities.

Thank you, PH, I think I "see" it more clearly now. Do you think he was in love with Maria, really? Or could his love for her have been a substitute for the love of what he lost? Not civilization per se, but all that was familiar to him, and any dreams he may have had. Something that he would've had to consider in his decision would've been how completely useless he would truly have become had he actually been blinded. After all, he didn't grow up that way.

[Patito de Hule]

Do you think he was in love with Maria, really? Or could his love for her have been a substitute for the love of what he lost? Not civilization per se, but all that was familiar to him, and any dreams he may have had. Something that he would've had to consider in his decision would've been how completely useless he would truly have become had he actually been blinded. After all, he didn't grow up that way.
That's a question that might bear some discussion.

As Pedro said, Wells did not do much to build up character. He suggested that Nunez's capacity for love was his redeeming quality. But did he really have a capacity for love or was it just physical attraction.

A contrast appears in this context in that Nunez considers Maria beautiful while the rest of the tribe considers her homely. She has not as hollow as the rest of them. Another contrast occurs when Maria falls in love with Nunez while the rest of his people consider him "mad" and definitely an outsider. After his rebellion,

He expected dire punishments. But these blind people were capable of toleration. They regarded his rebellion as but one more proof of his general idiocy and inferiority. . .

So physical attraction? Substitutive comfort for what he has already lost? Or true love? He did decide to let them remove his eyes for her, and that sacrifice strongly suggests real love. The conflict has shifted to vision v. love. And in the end of this version he chooses vision an death with the remote possibility of returning to his own country.

[avon]

That's a question that might bear some discussion.

As Pedro said, Wells did not do much to build up character. He suggested that Nunez's capacity for love was his redeeming quality. But did he really have a capacity for love or was it just physical attraction.

A contrast appears in this context in that Nunez considers Maria beautiful while the rest of the tribe considers her homely. She has not as hollow as the rest of them. Another contrast occurs when Maria falls in love with Nunez while the rest of his people consider him "mad" and definitely an outsider. After his rebellion,



So physical attraction? Substitutive comfort for what he has already lost? Or true love? He did decide to let them remove his eyes for her, and that sacrifice strongly suggests real love. The conflict has shifted to vision v. love. And in the end of this version he chooses vision an death with the remote possibility of returning to his own country.


I can't help thinking that there is something in the fact that Nunez noticed that Medina-Sarote's 'closed eyelids were not sunken and red after the common way of the valley, but lay as though they might open at any moment.' In other words, she is not all that different from what Nunez would expect. Its a physical attraction by default rather than a psychological one. I think also the fact that she is considered slightly apart from the rest of the community only adds to the default nature of the 'attraction'. I'm not convinced that this was love.

[avon]

How was the ending changed? Is there a copy on line of the revised version. A mans views can change a lot in 39* years and it would be interesting to see any differences.

*I think the story was written in 1899, first published in 1904.


I haven't been able to find one that is freely available.

[avon]

What relation, if any, does Nunez have to Hythlodaeus?

[Rosicrucian]

I think the tragedy idea is intact. Solidly so. Unless I have the wrong definition in mind. In general a tragedy is a drama of a serious and dignified character that usually describes a developing conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny, circumstance, or society) and reaches a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion.

Right, well I was thinking Shakespearean tragedy hence the talk about redeeming traits.