I got a critique on a story this week that has gotten me thinking. The critique was for my story, "Second Sight" which I hope to start sending out in the next week or so, and its from the perspective of a blind girl. I was very concerned about it because it took a great deal of effort to make that perspective readable. Everyone who critiqued my story did a brilliant job, but one persons critique made me think a bit more than the rest.

To be honest I think the person critiqueing the story has a chip on his shoulder when it comes down to disabilities. He felt that to accurately portray the perspective of a blind person I should all but handicap the reader as well. He wanted me to have the character identify people by smell, even by the smell of their sweat, feel every waft of air that tells her someone is going by, brutally cut every word that has to do with vision, and make the reader feel completely blacked out.

The critique was good, but at the same time I don't think the person who critiqued it really knew what I was trying to do with the story. I didn't want to write a story about BLINDNESS and how awful it is to be HANDICAPPED and the main character is a CRIPPLE who can't see anything because she is BLIND and you as the reader should feel BLIND too because its hard being HANDICAPPED.

I wanted the story to be about the actual plot, where the MC happens to have a problem. She can't see. That's part of the plot line, but its not the whole deal. I didn't want the focus to be on the fact that she's blind. I wanted the people reading to see the character, to feel her personality, and to accept the fact that she can't see without focusing on it.

Its true that everything he said was true. I have no doubt that people with severe vision loss end up depending on their nose as much as their ears. I did not use the MC's nose or, tongue nearly as much as I used her ears. Why? Because its easier for the reader to identify with someone who recognizes a familiar voice than it is for them to identify with someone who can tell where someone is standing by smell alone. The last thing I wanted to do is make someone feel alienated from the character because she was BLIND.

So I was careful about the words I chose. In the very first paragraph I had her refer to the beach she was sitting on as a very 'visual' place. I felt the word worked well for the picture she could form with sound, smell, and touch. Its a word that readers can understand, and I don't feel they're going to become confused about whether she can see or not when I've just spent five or six sentences explaining how its visual.

It ended up making me think though. How much do we owe our readers when it comes down to accuracy? Is the correct portrayal of a character more important than all the details? Is what the writer intended more important than what the facts allow? Where do you draw the line between accuracy and art?

Sometimes I hate writing. The more I develop and grow and find out, the more questions I have.