A Man Who Had No Eyes

“A Man Who Had No Eyes” is an example of flash fiction, in which the author aims to achieve maximum impact using minimal description and exposition. Diction, syntax, and style inform the story’s impact. That is, the specific word choices the author selects and how those words are arranged affect how the reader experiences the broader thematic messages. Kantor uses simple, accessible language to build the narrative’s suspense and set up the ending’s ironic plot twist. In initially omitting the characters’ backstories and providing only selective descriptions of the characters and setting, Kantor effectively conceals Mr. Parsons’s blindness and develops the theme of Appearance Versus Reality.

The story is peppered with ellipses and hanging sentences, signified by triple periods and double hyphens, where the two characters either do not finish their sentences or are cut off midsentence by the other. This style lends urgency to the narrative, which focuses on dialogue rather than descriptive exposition, and the characters’ interjections form a narrative pattern. As Markwardt regales his backstory, he rejects Mr. Parsons’s attempts to respond, highlighting Markwardt’s self-obsession and delight in recounting his false tale. However, when Mr. Parsons exposes his lie, Markwardt loses his smooth eloquence. Mr. Parsons sharply cuts through the latter’s confused, volatile responses to give a more truthful depiction of their circumstances. The juxtaposition of the two men’s composure and the revelation of Mr. Parsons’s connection to Markwardt thematically highlights Human Agency and Disability.

There are very few references to the setting of the story. From the descriptions of the characters’ movements, readers can infer that their exchanges transpire on a busy city street in front of a hotel. The story takes place on a spring day, and Mr. Parsons finds the weather pleasant and exhilarating: “[The] sun was warm and yellowed on the asphalt” (Paragraph 2). However, by the time Markwardt finishes his story, the day loses its warmth: “The spring wind shrilled past them, damp and quivering” (Paragraph 18). Kantor uses the imagery of the changing weather to signify Mr. Parsons’s internal response to Markwardt’s distorted story. Similarly, in the climax, the narrative draws attention to the passers-by, who turn to stare at Markwardt. This reference is sandwiched between Markwardt’s audible discomposure, which is highlighted in his upper-case dialogue, and serves to exemplify the dramatic turn of events. The strategic and economic descriptions of surroundings, combined with the minimalist language, function to sustain the suspense and drama in the story.

The theme of Appearance Versus Reality emerges with Mr. Parsons stepping out from a hotel into a busy urban street. Mr. Parsons senses a man approaching and believes him to be a “blind beggar” based on the clacking of the man’s “traditional battered cane” (Paragraph 2). The narrator juxtaposes the man’s “shaggy” attire with Mr. Parsons’s refined appearance, yet the latter is understated, as is the presence of Mr. Parsons’s cane, or Malacca stick. The author exerts a tight control over the narrative by using the third-person omniscient point of view to carefully provide, as well as withhold, vital pieces of information. For example, the narrative vaguely alludes to both Mr. Parsons’s success as an insurance salesperson and his undefined personal obstacles. The information given is sparse and disjointed—“And he had done it alone, unaided, struggling beneath handicaps…” (Paragraph 3)—calculated to prevent readers from imagining Mr. Parsons as a person with blindness. A few lines earlier, Mr. Parsons feels a “sudden and foolish sort of pity for all blind creatures” (Paragraph 2), making it appear as though he is far removed from the experiences of the shabbily-dressed man who crosses his path. This impression is compounded by references to Mr. Parsons’s thrill at being alive and his vibrant youthfulness. The effect is that both men appear from wholly-different worlds.

The introduction of Westbury signals a connection between the men. However, the catastrophic event that marred the lives of both men looms darkly in the background without explicit description. The narrative only offers Markwardt’s myopic, biased version of the accident. Kantor uses the technique of interjection, wherein a train of speech is cut short, to centralize the narrative on Markwardt's perception of reality. Hence, when Parsons is about to talk more about the Westbury accident, Markwardt interrupts him to continue his own point of view: “But at the same time it was supposed to be one of the greatest disasters in—” / “They’ve all forgot about it” (Paragraphs 12-13). That Parsons remembers the incident is telling and foreshadows his deeper personal connection to Markwardt.

Although the narrative initially reveals insights into Mr. Parsons’s feelings and thoughts, the character becomes progressively opaque as Markwardt animatedly imparts his tales. The author’s use of extremely pared down language to describe Mr. Parsons’s reactions to Markwardt’s manipulated version of the accident sustains the story’s suspense. Mr. Parsons chooses to counter Markwardt with a calm, muted, “Not quite.” The surprise, which intensifies when Parsons reveals himself as Markwardt’s coworker, reaches its peak when Parsons matter-of-factly says that he is also blind. Markwardt’s hysteric and spiteful words act as a foil to Mr. Parsons’s extreme composure, and subsequently augment the climax. The author omits any further resolution of the plot and concludes the story with situational irony.

The story explores the theme of Human Agency and Disability through the two men’s different perspectives of adversity and the ways they choose to live with their disabilities. Both Mr. Parsons and Markwardt were coworkers in a factory and lost their eyesight in a chemical explosion 14 years prior. However, Mr. Parsons’s life trajectory moves upward, as he does not view his circumstances as a hindrance to becoming a successful salesperson. Conversely, Markwardt uses his circumstances to manipulate and gain the sympathy of strangers. The narrative does not foreground Mr. Parsons’s disability to underscore that he does not define himself by his disability, unlike Markwardt. The narrator refers to Markwardt as the “blind man,” “blind beggar,” and “blind peddler” to underscore Markwardt’s self-identity. His name is not revealed until Mr. Parsons identifies him in the story’s denouement, which symbolizes how Markwardt has negatively centered his life on his disability.