A Man Who Had No Eyes

The author constructs the character of the “blind beggar” with verisimilitude, or the appearance of being true. Additionally, the fictitious Westbury chemical explosion is presented in realistic detail. Markwardt’s vivid account of the accident lends credibility to the story and Markwardt’s characterization. The narrator minutely describes Markwardt through auditory and visual cues to portray a realistic character. A key auditory description is the “tap-tapping” sound made by Markwardt’s “traditional battered cane” (Paragraph 2). Other visual details foreground Markwardt’s personality and serve as harbingers of the final revelation of his treachery, including the shabbiness of his appearance: “shaggy, thick-necked” with greasy clothes; the slyness of his movements: “the half-furtive effort of the sightless”; and the neediness of his personality: the hands that splay over the cane’s crook “with a futile sort of clinging” (Paragraph 2).

The detailed, rich descriptions of Markwardt act as a contrast to the reticence and composure of Parsons’s character. In the climax, Markwardt’s shock in realizing the wealthy man was none other than his former coworker is depicted with visceral rawness: He shivers “crazily,” croaks “unamiably,” and finally screams “fiendishly.” The dramatic effect of the plot twist attains its full intensity when Markwardt’s hysteric reactions juxtapose with Parsons dismissive words: “[D]on’t make such a row about it, Markwardt” (Paragraph 27).

The story makes use of the third-person omniscient narrator to strategically weave a narrative of suspense and surprise. In the first half of the story, the narrator focuses only on the positive attributes of Mr. Parsons’s character to sustain the suspense of his blindness. The omniscience of the narrator becomes extremely crucial when Markwardt mentions the loss of his eyesight in the Westbury accident. The narrator withholds Mr. Parsons’s thought processes while Markwardt talks about the disaster. When Markwardt launches into a graphic description of the smoke and chaos at the time of the explosion, Parsons’s reaction is reduced to one short powerful sentence: “Mr. Parsons coughed” (Paragraph 14). The excessive attention on Markwardt’s appearance and the minimal description of Mr. Parsons’s reactions set up the ending’s ironic plot twist.

The essence of the story lies in the three plot twists that the narrator provides at the end. In the first twist, Parsons reveals that Markwardt is lying and that he knows the true story. Parsons says, “The story is true […] except that it was the other way around” (Paragraph 21). Second, he goes on to reveal that he was in the factory, and Markwardt pushed him away to escape first. In the third plot twist, Parsons quietly says that he is also blind, delivering the biggest surprise of all. Thus, the narrator releases the three twists as a cascade of increasingly intense surprises. The narration comes to a standstill after the final twist, and the author consciously eschews plot resolution to maintain the shock of all the revelations.

Dialogue is a major plot device used in the story. The action progresses through the rapid exchange of dialogue between the two characters. The diction, cadence, and execution of speech characterizes the speakers. Mr. Parsons’s speech is more formal and dignified, while Markwardt’s language is dialect-inflected and informal. The narrator describes Markwardt’s attitude and thoughts along with the dialogue to foreshadow the fraudulent nature of his character. For example, as he elaborates more on his tragic story, the narrator glimpses into Markwardt’s mind to highlight his manipulative nature: “[H]e was thinking that there might be more half dollars in Mr. Parsons’s pocket” (Paragraph 14). Further, the dialogue-heavy text makes it possible for the author to maintain a tight, suspense-filled narrative that culminates in the plot twists.

The plot depends heavily on the coincidental meeting of two former coworkers with a shared tragedy and disability. In the story, Mr. Parsons, a man who lost his eyesight in the Westbury explosion, is on his way to an appointment in a city that is not his home. Markwardt crosses Mr. Parsons soon after Parsons emerges on to the street from the hotel he is staying in. Thus, the author aligns the day, location, and time of the two characters to make them meet under highly-random circumstances. Additionally, the narrator suggests that Markwardt senses Mr. Parsons behind him in the public space and quickly turns around to accost him, paving way for a short conversation that ends in shocking revelations of the characters’ identities. In addition to the location and timing, many variables beyond human control, such as Markwardt’s instincts, Mr. Parsons’s openness to lead a conversation with a stranger, and so on, are manipulated to make the meeting possible.

The author makes use of a couple of red herrings, i.e., misleading hints, to give the impression that Mr. Parsons is not a person with blindness. The “foolish sort of pity” (Paragraph 2) that he feels for the “blind beggar” suggests that he is far-removed from people with disabilities. This impression is cemented by references to his enthusiasm for life, which is intended to connote one full of vigor and vitality. Additionally, minute, realistic descriptions of Markwardt’s mannerisms, such as “half-furtive effort of the sightless” and “thumping his way before him” (Paragraph 1) are juxtaposed against the understated disability of Mr. Parsons, drawing attention away from the latter’s blindness.