“Death with Interruptions” by José Saramago is the kind of fiction book I enjoy. I’m typically not a fiction lover, but I think the amount of philosophy and political aspects  in this book makes me so curious that I somehow remain focused on the book. Even when it takes a while for a reader to understand the characters in the book. This book seems to cover probably one of the most ethical and philosophical question to exist: is it worth living when it feels like you’re in between death/dying? 

It was almost like I got the insider scoop, the one potential answer to this question, until the ending, where Death doesn’t die HA. I absolutely think that it was a good choice to take this path. I feel that some people may not be as satisfied with the book given how the book DRAGS out the story with mentions of death on every page, only for there to be no answer to the question that everyone’s asking. However, the between life and death in these situations is a gray zone where I personally feel it is meant to be like you’re prolonging what is going to happen; I mean that’s just life. 

We start the book with two movements that occur in the society: one believing in beating death through willpower, and the other advocating for eternal life as the new reality. The Prime Minister couldn’t seem to accept death, potentially because of the Queen Mother already being on the fence of death. However, the religious leaders (the catholic roman church) opposed not dying at all, because they thought that it is fundamental to the religious doctrine. 

The absence of death leads to questions about how hospitals and the funeral industries are going to do with this new normal. Graveyards suggest burying or cremating domestic animals to keep the business going. How interesting that as much as we wish our loved ones to live, industries like that pretty much need the death to keep their business running. Also the over crowdedness of hospitals lead to indefinite patient stays because they don’t know when they could potentially die and are also suffering in the ‘in-between.’  As a result of some concern, the Prime Minister proposes a symbolic age of mandatory death that allows for him holding his political position. 

The maphia (not mafia because it’s different according to the book) then gets randomly involved. They have some sort of control with the government. The maphia created a plan to transport dying individuals across the border for burial, charging exorbitant fees. Families started getting scared and stopped sending their families across the border. That is when to cover up the maphia started labeling deaths as suicides to continue business.

Just as I was already getting so intrigued with the plot, it thickens! Later in the book, a letter is sent to the director-general’s office with no warnings, the secretary opens it (LOL). The director general catches the secretary and orders her out. At that moment the director general panics and hurries to share this news with the prime minister because this can change things for everyone. At midnight the prime minister and director-general inform the public on TV about the return of mortality (oopsie). Obviously there is a lot of chaos. As a political science major I definitely over-analyzed this moment in the book. Anyway, some people start dying, but then they make the change for people to have one week warning before dying to say their byes with their families and friends. This part was very sad and I can’t imagine the amount of sadness in the society. Some people didn’t believe the better though in correlation to the Deaths’ letter. National flags are put on homes that have deceased individuals for doctors to help. It’s so devastating to read. 

I completely forgot, but Death is a character in this book in itself. Which I find so interesting! Death pretty much makes all the decisions and Death is almost human-like. For example, having favorite interests like art and finding love with the Cellist (kind of symbolic and funny). I’m sure there’s so much more to say about this book. But I chose to focus more on the societal structures of the book! Probably because it’s more in line with political science that is my major and interest!

Question: Do you think dying should happen at some point of our lives? And for what reason do you think that? (no judgement, just curious to hear other perspectives :)) 

OR/AND

How did you feel reading this book?