A Man Who Had No Eyes

The diverse and divergent approaches to adversity and disability form the core preoccupation of the story. The theme is explored through the contrasting characters of Mr. Parsons and Markwardt. Both were laborers who lost their eyesight in a factory chemical explosion. The story commences 14 years after the incident, and Mr. Parsons is now a well-off insurance salesperson. He is “successful, respected, admired” (Paragraph 3) and has a positive outlook on the world. The narrative hints at Parsons’s perseverance over personal obstacles when he reminiscences with pride on his journey from being “little more than a skilled laborer” (Paragraph 3) to a well-established businessperson.

On the other hand, Markwardt uses his disability to capture the sympathy of  passersby in the hopes of selling petty objects. His major hubris lies in his stubborn refusal to take responsibility for his circumstances and distorted worldview. He blames his destitution on the factory owners for not providing the workers with insurance. According to him, it would have been more beneficial to be injured during warfare, since veterans receive state support. His obsession with his past tragedy is reflected in his “insane sort of pride” (Paragraph 11) in having been a victim of a well-known accident of catastrophic proportions. He constantly relives the tragedy; even after more than a decade, the memory is still very fresh, and he remembers the exact statistics of how many people were injured or killed in the explosion.

Markwardt also resorts to practiced, vivid narrations of the accident and enthusiastically describes the “C shop going up in one grand smudge, and gas pouring in all of the busted windows” (Paragraph 13). Markwardt’s entire consciousness is rooted in that moment of explosion, which is not uncommon for people who have experienced extreme trauma. However, the narrative does not frame Markwardt as a sympathetic character. Instead, Mr. Parsons, who chooses not to dwell on the tragedy and seeks hope in the future, is positioned as the more morally-applaudable character.

The coincidental yet crucial meeting of the two characters, where neither is initially aware of the other man’s identity, highlights the divergent paths their lives have taken after the tragedy. Mr. Parsons’s identity does not hinge on his disability, so Markwardt interprets the stranger as a person without disabilities, and therefore one likely sympathetic of Markwardt’s circumstances. Markwardt’s ennui and choice to not exercise his human agency are complemented by his moral dubiousness and deceitful nature. Kantor uses the men’s shared experiences to highlight that character, not circumstance, dictates the outcome of one’s life.