Now I should precede to the characterisation of the main characters of the story. They are the blind man (his name is not mentioned) who is a protagonist of the story and the society he lives in (his sister and brother-in-law, other peasants) which is an antagonist.

The author uses both direct and indirect characterisation in his story.

The writer reveals the blind man by means of narrative description with both implied and explicit judgement. From both fact and judgement we derive the impression of the blind man as a man weak both physically and morally. "He was a peasant, the son of a Norman farmer. ... Dependent on a sister of his, everybody in the farmhouse treated him as a beggar who is eating the bread of strangers. ... He was called a drone, a clown..." The author describes the man's appearence that is very suggestive: "His face was very pale and his two big white eyes looked like wafers. He remained unmoved at all the insults hurled at him, so reserved that one could not tell whether he felt them or not". The man's life is described in two sentences: " As soon as he finished his soup he went and sat outside the door in summer and in winter beside the fireside, and did not stir again all the evening. He made no gesture, no movement; only his eyelids, quivering from some nervous affection, fell down sometimes over his white, sightless orbs". The above mentioned comment of the narrator clearly indicate his sympathy towards the blind man. He suffers together with the  man and feels sympathy for him.

The antagonist of the story, the society, is mostly described through its treatment of the blind man. We see that the narrator disapproves of the peasants, he calls them "brutes" because of which "useless persons [the blind man] are considerate a nuisance, and the peasants would be glad to kill the infirm of their species, as poultry do". Their dislike for the blind man developed into hatred having come through several stages: they played "cruel practical jokes", "placed before his plate ... some cat or dog" who ate from his plate, "they made him chew corks, bits of wood, leaves or even filth", they struck and cuffed him, at last they forced him to beg. When the blind man didn't come home they didn't bother to look for him and surely felt relief when found him dead. Such actions towards the blind man talk for themselves and describe the peasants even better than any direct characteristics could do.

Talking about the narrative compositional form I should say it's a narration with the elements of description. The narrator tells about the man he knew. It's remarkable that the story begins like a narrator's meditation about joys of sunny days and then it reminds him about the events he met in the past. It is where the actual story begins. And the actual story from the point of view of presentation is the 3d person narration which is limited omnisceint and objective.

The conflict described in the story is an external one. The main character, the blind man, is opposed to the society he lives in. I can't say that he struggles against it, he is a helpless blind man who lives with his sister and her husband and absolutely depends on them. In the society in which he lives everybody treats him as a beggar and an "infirm of their species".  

The plot of the story has all the parts of a usual structure of a text. Exposition gives us the pre-story of the main character and describes the events that led him to the point described. The rising actions are marked by vivid tension that is seen through the stages of treatment of the blind man. At the beginning people just played jokes on him, but later they became more cruel and inventive in their brutality. The climax of the story describes the worst stage of their treatment of the blind man - they sent him in winter at severe frost to the road to solicit alms - and that led to the man's death. The climax is followed by an anticlimax. I can't say that the reader can be satisfied with the end of the story, moreover it makes him upsetm but at the same time gives food for thought.

After reading the short story "The Blind Man" written by Guy de Maupassant  I am absolutely convinced that it's a masterpiece both from the literary point of view and from the point of morality and the truth of life. 

Analysing the piece of writing I should start with the setting of the story that is the place and the time of the events described. 

The author doesn't indicate directly the place where the events are developing, I mean we can't find any geographical name or at least an approximate region. No doubt, it was done intentionally because it shows that the events described can be found in any place of the world. The only indication of a place is that it is a country place and the characters live in a farmhouse. 

Concerning the time of the story, it's not indicated in any way either. Only judging from the author's manner of writing (I mean he usually wrote about the contemporary time and described events that were close to him) we can say that it is the 19th century.

Taking everything into consideration I think that in this very story time and place do not play a very important role. The things described here are of universal character and reading this story the reader should think about himself and the time and the place he lives in.