Kody Keplinger interviews Rachel M. Wilson about DON’T TOUCH

September 2nd sees the release of Rachel M. Wilson‘s debut Don’t Touch, a contemporary YA novel from HarperTeen about a girl whose OCD is endangering her aspirations of becoming an actress. For our one-year anniversary, we invited Rachel to the blog to discuss the book.

To make things even more exciting, we’re giving away a signed ARC of Don’t Touch! Details at the end of the post.

Take it away …


Cover for DON'T TOUCHKody Keplinger: First of all, can you tell us how you got the idea for Don’t Touch? How did this story come to be?

Rachel M. Wilson: Don’t Touch began as a very personal book. I experienced OCD and anxiety from age ten into high school, and even after my symptoms were under control, I was left with a lot to process. My first pages were close to my own experience, but I needed more distance to be able to craft a story.

Once I decided to focus on Caddie’s fear of touch, I was partly inspired by superheroes like X-Men’s Rogue. Caddie doesn’t have superpowers, of course, but we all have the power to affect the world around us. If we don’t trust ourselves, that can be scary. As a magical thinker, Caddie worries that her thoughts or actions might have dangerous consequences, and this freezes her up. She’s scared to act, to change or move forward, and compulsions like avoiding touch give her a temporary sense of control over those fears.

During the writing process, other bits and pieces gradually came to seem essential to my story. The scene in which Caddie and Peter visit an abandoned pool, for example, was inspired by an exploratory drive into old Irondale. That setting led me to Ophelia and to so much more of Caddie’s story.

Kody: I think a lot of people think it’s easy to write your own disability, but in my experience, it can be tricky. How was this experience for you? Were there any challenges you faced in writing about a character with OCD?

Rachel: Yes, I found it very tricky. First off, OCD can consist of many different obsessions and compulsions at once, and these are often hard for someone without OCD to understand. Media portrayals of OCD often stick to neat freaks obsessed with cleanliness or germs, but most of my own fears and compulsions were much more “creative.” For example, for years I avoided gum and blueberries like the plague for fear of blowing up like Violet in Willy Wonka.

All the different symptoms in my first draft overwhelmed my early readers and took away from a coherent story arc. My last advisor at Vermont College of Fine Arts, Martine Leavitt, wisely encouraged me to narrow my focus, and at that point I zeroed in on touch. I considered presenting Caddie’s fear as a phobia, but that didn’t fit in with her magical thinking. Eventually, I found a balance by acknowledging that Caddie has other symptoms without spending too much time with them on the page.

The other big challenge was that obsessions are often constant. I had the phrase “don’t touch” in my novel about a zillion more times than it appears in the final draft. My editors convinced me that a little goes a long way, and we really pared it back. That was for the best because readers still comment on how constant that obsession feels to them.

I also found it hard to handle the dueling beliefs that go along with OCD. Some call OCD “the doubting disease” because OCD sufferers know our fears aren’t justified, but we doubt this knowledge. What if we’re wrong and the compulsions really do matter? We’ll do almost anything to avoid that uncomfortable worry. It’s good practice in fiction, though, to invest your characters with unshakeable drives and convictions. Some of my early readers had trouble with Caddie questioning or even ridiculing her OCD beliefs. I had to be true to that doubt, but it was challenging to make sure that it wouldn’t diminish the force of Caddie’s fear for the reader.

On a less technical note, writing about Caddie’s anxiety often brought up anxiety for me, but experiencing an emotion while writing doesn’t guarantee that your reader will feel it. I needed to make sure that those feelings came through on the page and not just in my head. The only way to do that is by getting distance from your character and reading with fresh eyes—or by soliciting feedback from honest readers. For me, getting distance came not only from taking time away between revisions but from giving Caddie experiences that weren’t as personal to me. Yes, I love theater, but I’ve never played Ophelia. I understand separation and loss from other experiences, but my parents are nothing like Caddie’s and they’re still happily married. The ways in which Caddie is not like me were as important as the ways in which she is for me to be able to write fearlessly.

Kody: Every disability has its tropes. Were there any specific OCD stereotypes you tried to steer clear of in writing DON’T TOUCH?

Rachel WilsonRachel: Yes. For one, OCD is often portrayed as quirky or cute. I don’t mind a comedic point of view on OCD as long as it’s balanced with the reality of how awful it can be. I addressed the quirky trope head-on by having Caddie attempt to pass off her symptoms as “artistic quirks.” She’d like people to think she’s a whimsical oddball if the alternative is being perceived as crazy, but she’s hiding the pain. In reality, this kind of anxiety can be completely debilitating, even life-threatening. It isn’t cute, and I don’t think anyone who reads the book will perceive it that way. Even Caddie’s friends, who want to support her, find her OCD frustrating. That’s true to life—it can be hard to empathize and be patient with someone who’s highly anxious. Caddie’s friends connect to her because of how she works to be open with them—not because her OCD is some adorable quirk.

I’ve also been put off by stories that treat OCD (or any mental illness) as a character flaw or weakness of will. When the movie As Good As It Gets came out, I was excited because I’d never seen a movie or read a book about someone with OCD, but I was disappointed that Melvin’s OCD seemed conflated with his misanthropy and general nastiness. When he said he wanted to “be a better man,” it felt like he was saying that OCD made him a bad person and that he’d suddenly chosen to “fix” himself. It’s tricky because of course one can be nasty and have OCD; one might even become nasty in response to illness. But something about how that narrative mashed up out-of-control compulsion with willful bad behavior left me feeling icky.

I don’t think of Caddie as perfect by any means, but she’s trying to be a good friend and handle her anxiety as best she can. There’s strength in that, and I hope that comes through even when she’s struggling.

Kody: How similar is Caddie’s experience with OCD to your own? 

Rachel: Caddie’s younger history of handwashing and magical thinking is close to my own. My biggest symptom from fourth to eighth grade was handwashing—the bit about Caddie having raw and bleeding hands that her parents suspect might be caused by allergies comes from experience. At another point, a teacher thought I might have diabetes because I asked to go to the bathroom so often—for handwashing, of course. I never wore gloves, though I might have liked to. Instead, I kept my hands tucked under my arms and used my elbows to open doors and turn on faucets. I wore socks at all times and used my toes to change TV channels. I lined my school bag with paper everyday so it wouldn’t be contaminated by my social studies book, which had been contaminated by a copy of Watership Down that I checked out from the library. Random things like that were always turning menacing to me. Something about the intelligent rabbits—their glossary and the violence of the first few pages had really disturbed me. So all year, the social studies book had to be lined with paper and kept in its own cubbie hole—until one day, I accidentally let it touch my vocabulary book, and then there were two books in the cubbie hole. My own fears around touch had more to do with contamination, while Caddie’s are tied up with magical thinking—if she touches another person’s skin, her parents’ separation will be permanent. I had a lot of magical thinking games, but not specifically around touch. Some of mine involved clicking my teeth or blinking while looking at a particular color, focusing on “good” words or images to cancel out “bad” or scary ones, and repeating prayers over and over in my head. I chose to focus on touch with Caddie because it’s such a clear metaphor for what her anxiety does—it keeps her from connecting with other people.

Kody: What have you learned from your experience writing DON’T TOUCH? Do you have any advice for writers trying to negotiate that balance of writing characters with their own disabilities?

Rachel: Well, one danger of writing about your own issues is that you do have ownership. You may feel a sense of entitlement to write what feels true to you, but it’s important to remember that you’re still representing a group of people who are often underrepresented. There’s a need to step back and make sure your story doesn’t have implications you didn’t intend . . . But once you’re conscious of that, at a certain point, I think it’s important to let go of the fear of getting it wrong.

I definitely worried about getting things wrong in fictionalizing OCD, but ultimately I gave myself permission to tell a story. I learned that—for me—it was more important to capture the feeling of OCD and anxiety than to write the experience literally, moment-to-moment. Had I written a stream-of-consciousness account of my own OCD, it would have been distancing, chaotic, and frustrating to read. Some of that might serve my story, but a little goes a long way. I also found it important to be conscious that every element of a story doubles as metaphor. The idea of thinking about OCD as a metaphor made me uncomfortable, but I needed to consider how it worked as metaphor to know what story I was telling. There’s a delicate balance to that—the balance between medicine and metaphor—and I can’t promise I’ve handled it perfectly, but I think it’s more important to attempt the balance than to avoid sharing our stories altogether out of fear of getting it wrong.


Thank you, Rachel!

Rachel has generously donated a signed–and personalized, if desired–ARC of Don’t Touch to be given to one of our followers. To enter, simply leave a comment here on WordPress or reblog our Tumblr post. (Yes, doing both increases your chances!) In one week, we’ll select a single winner from one of these locations to win the book. This giveaway is open to US and CA addresses.

The giveaway over, and the winner has been notified. Thanks to everyone who entered!

Discussion #8: Intersectionality and Disability

For our first anniversary, we’re bringing back the discussion post format! In these posts, we ask our contributors for their thoughts on various topics. We’ll post one every Friday this month. Based on a suggestion from s.e. smith, we asked:

Why is it that diversity in young adult, middle grade, and children’s literature is often represented as an either/or, without intersectionality? Characters can either be autistic or gay, for example, or a wheelchair user or Black, but rarely both. Why do you think we see so few characters who are marginalized in more than one way?

Our contributors sent the following responses:


Marieke Nijkamp: Oh my goodness, I would love to read more queer, disabled characters. And I would love to see more intersectionality, period. Of course the queer, disabled experience is different than the queer experience or the disabled experience, but that only makes me wonder if there is such a thing as THE queer experience… or THE disabled experience. Because I have yet to find it.

It is always going to be a matter of research, trial and error. And if you feel characters have to have a reason to be multi-dimensional, multi-diverse? I’d love to see an equally legitimate reason for characters to be white AND straight AND able-bodied AND middle class AND AND AND. We are no checklists.


S. Jae-Jones: I think children’s literature, more than adult, is still stuck on a mainstream idea of “relatable”. The protagonist must be flawed—but not too flawed! The protagonist must have an “issue to overcome” (a phrase I loathe)—but nothing “too trying” or “too unusual” or worst of all, “too far from the physical ideal”. Invisible disabilities seem to have glamour (mental illness—providing it’s “quirky”, or a cosmetically appealing scars), but heaven forbid a protagonist have NOTICEABLE signs of a disability. In my opinion, it all comes back to this mainstream idea of a “default”. The “default” is relatable. Stray too far from it, and it won’t sell.

The other obstacle facing intersectionality in kidlit is the fear of tokenism. I’ve seen that accusation leveled at authors who’ve tried to include diverse characters, especially characters who are diverse in more ways than one. (E.g. “Why is this character bi, Black, and Jewish? It’s not realistic!” or worse, “The author is so lazy s/he can’t be bothered to come up with more characters.”) I think that we, as a society, are conditioned to thinking people should be put in boxes, and one box at a time, at that. It’s ingrained in the way our society—or at least American society—seems to function. I grew up in Los Angeles, which has a large multiracial population, and filling out the ethnicity portion on census forms often confused myself and my classmates—”Do I have to pick just one?” If you were Black and Hispanic, or Asian and White, you either had to choose, or were stuck with picking “Other”. And the word “other” is a powerful thing.


Corinne Duyvis: It’s such a multi-faceted problem: first there’s the fact that most people don’t even see the need for these characters–as though people like me aren’t just as real and valid as the cishet-white-abled people who are often written about, and as though we don’t need representation just as much or more. Then there’s the assumption that every “minority trait” is tacked onto a character, and thus requires justification in a way that, for example, whiteness and straightness don’t. Once writers get past those notions and do want to write these characters, there’s the joint fears over doing it wrong and over “trying too hard.” I understand and often share those fears. I’ve heard these same remarks about my debut novel: trying too hard, what’s the reason for these characters, etc. But it’s not as though writing a character facing multiple oppressions is some kind of performance or outrageous deed. I think it’s better to try too hard than to not try at all.

Even when writers overcome these hurdles, do their research, and successfully write intersectional characters … they need to find publishing professionals who are on the same wavelength. And that’s a challenge, too.

On a different-but-related note, as Andrea Shettle often and expertly points out, characters rarely have multiple disabilities. Many of my disabled friends have more than one disability, as do I. Many disabilities have high comorbidity rates. Plus, someone who requires a wheelchair is just as likely to also get migraines as an able-bodied person; being autistic makes you just as susceptible to mental illness. Perhaps even more, thanks to both personal and societal pressures.


Lyn Miller-Lachmann: We’ve never had anything close to proportional representation of people of color in children’s and YA books, and the mismatch is more glaring now because the demographics in our society have changed but the presence of main characters of color in books has not changed since the 1980s. So I’m not surprised to see so few characters of color who also have disabilities.


s.e. smith: Agh this is such a cause of frustration to me! Sometimes it feels to me like authors are trying to hit diversity bingo — okay, I’ve got my Latino character, and my Lesbian character, and my Disabled character, now give me a prize! The fact is that many people have intersectional identities. Minority teens rarely get to see themselves in text at all, and those who experience multiple oppressions find it even harder to locate books that tell their stories.

Part of the problem here may be that authors find it scary to imagine tackling multiple aspects of marginalisation in the same character: the Black and gay experience is different that the Black or gay experience, for example, just like the disabled and queer experience is different than either of those identities together. But these are problems that aren’t going to go away by not writing those characters — you have to plunge into them, and you have to do your research, and you have to commit to depicting a world where the true spectrum of diversity is shown.


Kody Keplinger: I think there’s a lot of fear. I think many authors (myself included) have a deep fear of “doing it wrong.” It’s scary enough to write about disability, but when you introduce another element, you double your chances of being offensive or problematic. Should that fear hold authors back? No. It should push them to do research, to approach with care, but not to avoid intersectionality all together.


Natalie Monroe: I personally think it’s because writers believe once a diverse element is added (ex: queer, ethnicity…), it’s done. Their book is now ‘diverse’ and ‘realistic’. But real life isn’t just one ball in a column, it’s a whole jumble of multicolored spheres across rows of columns. I’m Asian and am in a wheelchair. I know someone who is autistic, Asian, and in a wheelchair. I know a Filipino who is autistic. Diversity means exactly what it means, so stop treating it as a kind of ‘rules of requirement’ thing and mix it up.


Do you have any input, readers?

Discussion #7: Warning Flags and Turn-Offs

For our first anniversary, we’re bringing back the discussion post format! In these posts, we ask our contributors for their thoughts on various topics. We’ll post one every Friday this month. Today, we asked:

What kinds of words, phrases, or situations used in book or character descriptions send up warning flags for you? We’re thinking of clichés, ableist language–anything related to disability that may be a turn-off.

Our contributors sent the following responses:


Natalie Monroe: What I hate is when books try to ‘beautify’ disabilities. For example, the character has a limp, but we don’t know the ugly and gritty, like maybe his/her one hip is higher than the other; or he/she lurches forward with every step; or he/she walks bowlegged or duck-footed. It may be that to make the character seem attractive (I have never read a book in which the character in a wheelchair doesn’t have a nice, straight back. My back is as curved as a waterslide), but the point is to make the character’s personality eclipse their physical appearance.

Tyrion from A Song of Ice & Fire by George R.R. Martin is a good example: he’s described as hideous in text, but fans still go wild over him because they find him funny, clever and honorable.


Sara Polsky: I get frustrated by any reference to a character “overcoming” disability or anything that sets a character with a disability up as an inspiration.


s.e. smith: Well, magical cure narratives, obviously. But if I’m casually looking at jacket copy, things I tend to look out for are ‘despite her disability’ or ‘overcoming adversity’ or ‘brilliant but [disabled]’ or something along those lines, where characters are separated out from their disabilities. I’m also leery of anything that talks about disabled characters as inspirational, courageous, or amazing just because they’re disabled. Language like ‘wheelchair bound’ also makes me very uncomfortable, as it suggests the publisher isn’t in tune with disabled people, and that the target market for the book is nondisabled people, not people like me.

I think this is one area where authors are really in a bind, because many don’t have control over their cover copy, and the flap copy may have nothing to do with the book. Those who are in a position to advocate definitely should, both to send a message to the publishing community and to ensure that their books get to people who need to read them. If I was buying a book for a recently-disabled teen, for example, I wouldn’t get something with a cover that described people like her as ‘wheelchair bound’ or ‘overcoming adversity,’ because that’s not language she needs to hear ever, but especially in the early stages of adapting to disability.


Marieke Nijkamp: I’m seconding that completely; the adversity narrative makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable. It’s so inherently othering–people with disabilities may be lesser, but look at what they can still achieve! Aw, yay! /sarcasm

Closely related are those instances when books and/or blurbs talk about disabilities in terms of inspiring other characters. We’ve talked about inspiration porn before, so I will not say too much about it, but I’d like to think it’s not my only purpose in life to be an inspiration to able-bodied people.


Lyn Miller-Lachmann: I think the protagonist with Asperger’s who solves a mystery a la Sherlock Holmes is overdone. It feeds into the same kind of compensatory superpower cliché that has characters with hearing impairments read lips perfectly from across the room. You don’t do justice to a person with a disability by portraying characters with disabilities as superhuman, because most of us aren’t superhuman and are doing the best we can. I understand that the cliché is well meaning in that it acknowledges that persons with disabilities can and do make contributions to society.

And my own character with Asperger’s, Kiara, dreams of being one of the mutant superheroes of the X-Men. In fact, though, she helps not by being extraordinary, but by being present.


Corinne Duyvis: In addition to the excellent examples already listed, I tend to get turned off “autism books” when the flap copy references the character’s “unique worldview” or starts out listing all the character’s peculiarities. I’d rather know what actually happens in the book. Something like this is usually a good indicator that the MC is seen as quirky and special and otherworldly and, well, is written with a neurotypical audience in mind. Also: “doesn’t let disability define him/her.” Gag.

Oh, and plots about how difficult it is having a disabled sibling or parent. While it may be true in many cases, it’s an overwhelmingly common narrative, and it contributes to a really problematic idea of disability.


Kody Keplinger: The “inspirational” thing is an immediate turn off for me, too. Blindness specific, though, any time a character is introduced in a way that shows us how advanced their other senses are (this is a myth, people. When one sense is cut off the others don’t get better, you just get better at using them).

Furthermore, whenever a blind character is introduced who needs help with the most mundane of things (cutting vegetables, for instance) and they spend a lot of time bemoaning how difficult it is to do things when you can’t see. I’ll shut a book pretty fast for those offenses.


Any additions, beloved readers? Share them in the comments!

Kody Keplinger interviews April Henry about GIRL, STOLEN

As a blind woman (and formerly a blind teenager), I’ve found it very difficult – damn near impossible – to find books that accurately portray blind characters. This is why April Henry’s Girl, Stolen was such a pleasant surprise for me. The main character, Cheyenne, is a teenager who lost most of her sight a few years prior to the events of the story. One day she is in the backseat of her stepmother’s car when it is stolen by a teenage boy named Griffin, who might be in just as much danger as Cheyenne when they return to his father’s house.

Cheyenne is a well-researched, well-written example of blindness. It’s not her whole life, though it is a part of it. She’s not always bitter and angry about her disability, but she’s not constantly cheerful either. She uses what little vision she has in a way that felt very real to me. And, as a guide dog user myself, her anxiety over not having her guide dog with her during these horrifying events felt very authentic. I was so impressed that I had interview April Henry–New York Times-bestselling author of nearly 20 mysteries and thrillers for teens and adults!–about creating Cheyenne and the story of Girl, Stolen.

Take it away …


Cover for GIRL, STOLENKody Keplinger: What made you want to write about a blind character?

April Henry: Girl, Stolen began with a story I saw in the local news. A blind teenager was with her mom and step dad.  They went out to dinner and then they wanted to go Christmas shopping.  Heather decided to stay in the car.  Her mom left the keys in the ignition in case Heather got cold. A man came along, saw the keys, jumped into the car, drove off – and then realized there was a girl in the back seat. She eventually talked him into letting her go. But I thought, “What if he had kept her?”

Eventually I asked myself more questions:  “And what if the thief was a teenager too? And what if his dad was running a chop shop for stolen cars? And what if they thought about letting her go – until they learned she was the daughter of Nike’s president?”

Kody: Writing about blindness isn’t easy. I’ll be honest and say that nearly all the portrayals I’ve read have been woefully inaccurate – which was why GIRL, STOLEN was a pleasant surprise to me. How did you go about researching and writing such an accurate portrayal?

April: I started by reading.  I read a lot of autobiographies written by people who had gone blind or were born with little sight, such as Cockeyed, Follow My Leader, Planet of the Blind, Touching the Rock, and more. If I could figure out how to contact the author, I did, and then asked questions. I also emailed and talked on the phone with a girl in high school who was blind and went to a mainstream school.  For example, I asked her what might be a distinctive smell Cheyenne could recognize someone by, and she suggested a couple of things, including mint-flavored chewing tobacco.

And I interviewed two people I knew who did podcasts or radio shows about books and who happened to be blind. One woman in Austin had strong feelings about how blind people are portrayed in the media. She had her computer read it to her and caught some typos. So Girl, Stolen was actually proofread by a blind person!

Kody: One of my biggest complaints about blind characters is that, too often, they are completely blind with no vision at all while, in reality, 90% of legally blind people have some vision. Cheyenne actually does retain a bit of vision, which I found refreshing. Why did you choose to give her some vision? What difficulties did you come across in trying to write from Cheyenne’s perspective? April Henry

April: I decided I couldn’t imagine what it was like to be blind from birth, like Heather.  (I’m pretty sure Heather doesn’t see, or sees only shadows).  Because Cheyenne had seen once, I could have her imagine how things would look. As for how she went blind, I remembered how my daughter and had been walking on an unlit road and a car came up behind us and did something cool with our shadows (as the car got closer, it looked like our shadows were walking backward).  I decided to use that scene, only to have a car careen out of control, killing Cheyenne’s mom and throwing Cheyenne into a sign. I interviewed an ophthalmologist about what would happen to her and why head injuries cause blindness. He’s the one who told me about how many people in that situation still retain a little sliver of vision, but it’s out of focus. I then spent several hours wandering around my house with my hands almost all the way over my eyes. I also bought a cane and learned how to (sort of) use it.

And I guess I just used my imagination.  Without glasses or contacts, I am legally blind.  My “best” eye is 20/275.  I can see that people have a flesh-colored smudge for a face, but I can’t see expressions.

Kody: While Cheyenne’s guide dog isn’t around to be much help in the story, we do get a lot of insight into her life with a guide dog. As a guide dog owner, I found these little tidbits to be really, really true and honest – at least to my experience. Did you do any specific research on this, despite Cheyenne being without her dog for most of the story?

April: The more I researched, the more I learned how important guide dogs are to many blind people, so I decided to give her one.  I figured Cheyenne would think about him a lot even if he wasn’t there. I spent a day at Guide Dogs for the Blind in Boring, Oregon. They even put a blindfold on me and brought out a dog for me to harness and walk. It’s very hard to do that if you have never seen the dog or the harness, but I finally managed. Then I tried to pat the dog on the head – and realized I had harnessed the tail end. The head trainer, Malinda Carlson, reviewed the manuscript for me, answered lots of questions, and helped me figure out whether an untrained dog might be able to briefly be a guide dog. I actually had to do a lot of research into what it’s like to own a dog, because I have never lived with one, and am somewhat afraid of them (got bitten when I was five).


Thanks so much, April!

In addition to answering a few of our questions, April was kind enough to donate a signed copy of Girl, Stolen to giveaway to one of our awesome readers! To enter, leave a comment here and/or reblog our Tumblr post.  Yes, doing both increases your chances of winning. In one week, we’ll select a single winner from one of these locations to win the book. This giveaway is limited to US addresses.

The giveaway over, and the winner has been notified. Thanks to everyone who entered!

Discussion #6: If We Could Tell an Author One Thing …

For our first anniversary, we’re bringing back the discussion post format! In these posts, we ask our contributors for their thoughts on various topics. We’ll post one every Friday this month. Today, we asked:

If you could tell an author writing a character with your disability one thing–besides “do your research”–what would it be? For example: a piece of advice, a warning about a common inaccuracy or iffy plotline, etc.

Our contributors share the following:


Kody Keplinger:
I’d remind authors that blindness, like all things, is on a spectrum. Most characters depicted in fiction are completely blind – they see nothing. In reality, only 10% or so of blind individuals are completely blind. The other 90% fall on a spectrum. Depending on the disorder or trauma that caused the blindness, a person could see in a thousand different ways. So many people don’t realize this, though. I actually get accused of faking my blindness because I can read large print text on my phone. I often wonder if this is because the media only portrays complete blindness as “blind” and rarely acknowledges the other 90% who have some vision.


s.e. smith:
Something that’s really been bugging me a great deal lately is media and pop culture depictions of OCD. OCD is not about being ‘obsessively’ neat or fussy about personal appearance — it’s a very complex mental health condition that has serious ramifications and manifests totally differently in different people. I’m especially tired of the stereotype that people with OCD are super-clean (although I do keep a very tidy house).

It might help to break down what OCD is actually about — obsessive thoughts, and compulsive actions. OCD involves intrusive, traumatic, aggressive thoughts that don’t go away, and compulsive rituals that people use to manage them. Maybe for some people that’s checking the stove four times before leaving the house, or having to double and triple-check locks. But it can also involve hair pulling, or needing to reorder jars on the shelf, or being completely disrupted by environmental change. Avoid cheap shortcuts when depicting OCD, and make it a condition with actual consequences instead of the figure of fun or something quirky.


Corinne Duyvis:
I’ve spoken a lot about autism, but less so about AD(H)D. I’d love to see more accurate and varied portrayals: It’s not all about distractibility, impulsiveness and hyperactivity! Those traits may be common, but I’d like to see, for example, characters struggling with making decisions, or experiencing hyperfocus.


Lyn Miller-Lachmann:
I’d ask authors to avoid arranging scenes and entire plot lines around characters with Asperger’s who take everything literally, particularly if the author intends to use it for laughs. It feels as if you’re laughing at us and not with us. Besides, most tweens and teens with Asperger’s have learned what an idiom is and know the difference between literal and figurative meanings, even if the literal meaning conjures amusing images in our minds.


Marieke Nijkamp:
I’d love to see more spectrums, especially when it comes to daily life with a disability. For example, when it comes to my arthritis, it means I am in pain almost every day. It does not mean I’m in the exact same amount of pain every day, that the pain itself is exactly the same, or even that the pain is the worst of it.

Some days, I can barely hold a hairbrush. Other days, it’s more like an annoying ache in my bones. Some days, my painkillers are heavenly (and anyone who thinks it’s acceptable to come talk to me about how medication is poison can get out and check their privilege), other days I barely notice them. Some days, I can ignore the pain, and other days, it chips away at the very core of me because it’s so very invasive. It’s a spectrum, and no day is quite like the other.


Kayla Whaley:
In terms of my own disability (Spinal Muscular Atrophy), I’d like authors to consider the physicality of it beyond not being able to walk. Realize that neuromuscular diseases don’t affect ONLY one’s legs. My entire body is weaker than most and that affects my physicality–the way I look and move. I tend to sit leaning forward and to the right because it takes less strength for me than sitting upright. If I’m reaching for something on a table, I have to use my free arm to brace the other. When I’m moving my body (gesturing while talking, adjusting my sitting position, dancing, anything), I don’t tend to be the most graceful because it requires a decent amount of effort to do so.

I think because the only wheelchair-using characters we’re used to seeing are athletic people who have been paralyzed (not that those portrayals are necessarily accurate either), it’s easy to fall into the trap of focusing on the walking issue while ignoring the rest. (And keep in mind that this is a very, very incomplete list and focuses purely on visible physical differences between me and those who are able-bodied.)


Cece Bell:
I agree with what several of the other contributors have said: disabilities are on a spectrum. That is definitely true with deafness—there’s such a big range, and so many different ways that each deaf individual might deal with their own level of deafness. I rarely see deaf people in fiction (probably because I don’t read nearly enough), but I often see them in movies or on TV as minor characters who exist for no other reason than for comic relief. You know, the stock deaf person who shouts all the time because he can’t hear what he’s saying. That joke’s so old even my dog won’t eat it. I guess this advice is more for movie directors than authors, but there you go!


What about you, commenters? Any advice to offer?

Kody Keplinger: The Beautiful Tragedy

Kody KeplingerKody Keplinger is the author of three books for teens: The DUFF (Designated Ugly Fat Friend), Shut Out, and A Midsummer’s Nightmare. Her first middle grade novel, The Swift Boys & Me, was released by Scholastic on May 27. Currently, Kody lives in New York City with her guide dog, a very upbeat German Shepherd named Corey. When she isn’t writing, Kody teaches writing workshops and spends a lot of time eating Thai food, marathoning Joss Whedon’s TV shows, and vlogging. You can find her on TwitterYouTube, and her website.


Recently I was talking to a guy online when I mentioned being legally blind. He replied in what he thought was kind – something along the lines of, “I’m just trying to wrap my head around the idea that someone with such beautiful eyes can’t see out of them. Seems like such a waste.”

UGH.

To be fair to this gentleman, I think he thought he was being flirtatious or sweet or something. But, in reality, the “beautiful tragedy” is a complex and frustrating trope in disability culture. The guy’s comment is not the first I’ve heard, and I’m not the first person it’s been directed to.

So what’s so wrong with this trope? Why is it wrong to emphasize the supposed irony of a person with beautiful eyes who can’t see or a good-looking person “confined to a wheelchair” (another horrible, tragedy evoking phrase) or the like? First off, because it seriously implies that disabilities affecting those without beauty are a lesser issue.

The person I was corresponding with implied that it was a “waste” that I couldn’t see when I, according to him, have pretty eyes. So would blindness then be better suited to someone with less appealing eyes? Are unattractive people somehow more deserving of disabilities than attractive people?

I’ve also seen this applied to mental illness in fiction and film – someone who is incredibly smart or a brilliant artist struggles with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, manic depression – you name it – and we’re lead to believe this is somehow even more of a tragedy because the person is otherwise brilliant. As if it would be better if less intelligent or talented people had to deal with mental illness.

Obviously, this is a horrible thing to imply on many levels. A beautiful person’s disability is in no way better or worse than any other person’s disability.

However, that brings me to the second half of the trope – the tragedy.

In many ways, I am less bothered by the implications about beauty that this trope demonstrates and more frustrated with the implied tragedy of disability. By proposing that it is a “waste” for me to have pretty eyes and also be blind, it is suggesting that I am some tragic figure. That the beauty I have is diminished by this awful disability. That I am somehow broken. I don’t like the idea that any part of me is a “waste.”

By suggesting that it is a tragedy for a genius (either intellectual or creative) to have a mental illness, it lessens the work of that person. It turns them into this sad, ironic figure for society to marvel at. When, in reality, their mental illness is no different from that of the Average Joe who has a mental illness. Is Average Joe considered a tragedy on this scale?

I am no one’s tragedy. I can be smart or beautiful or talented and still deal with my disability, and it doesn’t compromise any of those things.

As writers, it’s important that we avoid the beautiful tragedy trope when creating disabled characters. While it might serve to heighten tension or add layers to a character, it ultimately sends really damaging messages about beauty or talent and disability. It implies that average people are more deserving of disabilities while attractive or talented people are forced to be seen as tragic figures. Neither of these things are true.

I never wrote back to that guy, but if I had, I would have told him thank you for saying my eyes are pretty, but I’m perfectly fine with how much (or little, really) I can see out of them. I am not broken. I am not tragic. And nothing about my situation is “a waste.”


The Swift Boys and Me, by Kody KeplingerNola Sutton has been best friends and neighbors with the Swift boys for practically her whole life. There’s the youngest, Kevin, who never stops talking; the oldest, Brian, who’s always kind and calm; and then there’s Canaan, the ringleader and Nola’s best-best friend. Nola can’t imagine her life without the Swift boys — they’ll always be like this, always be friends.

But then everything changes overnight.

When the Swifts’ daddy leaves without even saying good-bye, it completely destroys the boys, and all Nola can do is watch. Kevin stops talking and Brian is never around. Even Canaan is drifting away from Nola — hanging out with the neighborhood bullies instead of her.

Nola just wants things to go back to the way they were — the way they’ve always been. She tries to pull the boys back to her, only the harder she pulls, the further away they seem. But it’s not just the Swifts whose family is changing, so is Nola’s, and she needs her best friends now more than ever. Can Nola and the Swift boys survive this summer with their friendships intact, or has everything fallen apart for good?

Nola’s struggle to save her friends, her unwavering hope, and her belief in the power of friendship make Kody Keplinger’s middle-grade debut a poignant story of loss and redemption.

Kody Keplinger: But Sometimes, It Does Suck

Kody KeplingerKody Keplinger is the author of three books for teens: The DUFF (Designated Ugly Fat Friend), Shut Out, and A Midsummer’s Nightmare. Her first middle grade novel will be released by Scholastic next year. Currently, Kody lives in New York City with her guide dog, a very upbeat German Shepherd named Corey. When she isn’t writing, Kody spends a lot of time eating Thai food, marathoning Joss Whedon’s TV shows, and vlogging. You can find her on TwitterYouTube, and her website.


I’m nervous about writing this post. I’ve been very personal on the internet before, even about my disability, but I’ve always tried to present a narrative of positivity of sorts. Sure, I’ve talked about ableism and other unpleasantness, but in regards to me and my abilities and my experiences, I’ve tried to veer on the side of happiness and empowerment. Presenting anything else is hard for me, because there are so many ways for my words to misread or misinterpreted or misunderstood. It calls to mind a line from the song “Breathe (2AM)” by Anna Nalick:

And I feel like I’m naked in front of the crowd/’Cause these words are my diary, screaming out loud/And I know that you’ll use them however you want to.

But the goal of this website is to be a resource for writers and readers, to educate people on the realities of disability, to help people create and identify well-written disabled characters. And because of that, I know I need to be fully honest.

I don’t speak for everyone and would never try, so I want to start by saying that this is MY experience and MY reality and MY observation, not everyone’s. So, I’m going to talk specifically about blindness here. With that said . . .

When I read about blind characters or see them on TV or in movies, they always go too far in either one direction or the other. The characters are either completely ruled by their disability – physically and emotionally – constantly breaking down about the struggles they face, fearing the outside world, struggling to adapt, etc. Or, they don’t seem fazed at all. In fact, you might never know they were blind because they are independent and fearless and nothing – NOTHING – holds them back.

One might assume that I’m okay with the latter portrayal, but the truth is, I hate both, because neither is honest.

If you’ve read much of this blog, you’ll know why the first option – the character completely ruled by their disability – is a bad portrayal. Presenting disabled characters as weak or fragile is problematic and unrealistic when the vast majority of us live full, happy lives. But the second option, the disabled person who isn’t even fazed, that’s not honest either. In fact, those representations almost fit into the superhero trope to me – they feel like overcompensation on the part of the writer, who doesn’t want to present a weak character, so instead they erase all signs of the character’s disability other than the bare bones – this case, there character can’t see, but that’s it. That’s the only sign of their disability.

The reality, at least for me, has always been somewhere in the middle.

Most days, I don’t think about the fact that I’m legally blind. I mean, I do  – I have a guide dog, I use accessibility functions on my computer, etc – but these things have become such a part of my life, that most of the time, I don’t think about why I’m using them. I don’t think about the fact that not everyone does. In fact, most of the time, when I hand my roommate my laptop to show her something, she has to remind me to zoom out because, well, she isn’t blind. I forget. Because this is just my life. This is normal.

Most days, I don’t really think about it.

But there are other days, too, when I can’t help thinking about it, and sometimes, it sucks.

When my friends talk about going to clubs or out dancing, I always have to bow out. I’d love go dancing with them or to go to a club like other 22-year-olds, but because of my vision, I don’t think I could enjoy it. Clubs are too dark for me to navigate, and too loud for me to use my hearing the way I’m used to. (Note: blind people don’t have “better” hearing, but we do use what hearing we have more efficiently.) If I went to a club, I’d have to leave my guide dog at home (too much stress for her), and I’d be stuck clinging to one of my friends. It wouldn’t be impossible, just not worth it.

Thinking about that sucks.

Before I got my guide dog, Corey, clinging was something I was very paranoid about. Even with a cane, sometimes I needed to hold onto someone’s arm for help. I was always worried I was getting annoying or being an inconvenience. I always thought about how much easier it would be on them – not me, but THEM – if I could see. With my best friends, this paranoia wasn’t a big factor. But with new people – especially with boys I might potentially have a crush on – it was a source of anxiety. And sometimes, when Corey can’t help, it still is.

Thinking about that sucks.

I was born legally blind. My condition is congenital, so I don’t know what it’s like to see well. I don’t have the same feeling of loss that some people who’ve lost their sight later in life do. But I’ve had to stop Googling the name of my condition, Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis. Why? Well, LCA, as it’s called, has many variants on many different genes, several of which (like mine) haven’t yet been discovered. A couple of those variants, though, have shown some success with gene therapy. Some people have had their vision improved. Most of the time – like 99% of the time – I don’t think or care about a cure, because I’m okay with my life as it is. But when I Google my own condition and all I see are pages of articles about breakthroughs and cures! And none of them apply to me. Whether I care about a cure or not, that gets to me.

Thinking about that sucks.

Most days, I don’t think about my disability at all. But every now and then, I do.

Some people might misread this post. They might want to post comments like “Stay strong!” or “You’re so brave!”  If you’ve read much of this blog or any of my other posts, you know that’s the last thing I want. I’m not strong or brave or inspiring – I’m a person living my life the way that’s normal to me. All I’m saying is that there are emotional implications that come along with disability, and while portraying a character whose life is controlled by their disability is problematic, portraying a character who faces no emotional implications of their disability is problematic, too.

So, when writing a disabled character, think about this. You can still have an independent, capable character while acknowledging the emotional implications of that disability as well.

I’m scared to post this. I’m scared of how it’ll be read. I’m scared that the negative feeling I’ve talked about will get more focus than all of the postive things I’ve talked about in the past. I’m scared that you’ll see these things as weaknesses.

But you all deserve my honesty, and hopefully it’ll help someone who is writing a blind character to think about those other, deeper elements. That’s my goal – not to elicit sympathy or consolation. I don’t need that. I like my life, I’m happy with it, and these occasional, sucky times don’t change that at all.

Kody Keplinger: The Trope of Faking It

Kody KeplingerKody Keplinger is the author of three books for teens: The DUFF (Designated Ugly Fat Friend), Shut Out, and A Midsummer’s Nightmare. Her first middle grade novel will be released by Scholastic next year. Currently, Kody lives in New York City with her guide dog, a very upbeat German Shepherd named Corey. When she isn’t writing, Kody spends a lot of time eating Thai food, marathoning Joss Whedon’s TV shows, and studying improv at the Upright Citizens Brigade. You can find her on Twitter as well as her her website.


Recently, there has been a lot of talk about service dogs – particularly, fake service dogs. Some of you may have seen the articles and news reports, awful stories of people who pretend to be disabled in order to take their dogs into stores and restaurants. If the media is right, it’s practically an epidemic.

With that said, I guess it’s not surprising that I get accused of “faking” my disability pretty often. I’ve been yelled at my strangers, I’ve had business owners question my need for a guide dog, I’ve been told over and over again that I “don’t look blind.” This happened even before I got a guide dog. People saw me with my cane and because I didn’t seem disabled by their standards, it was assumed that I must be lying, trying to cheat the system in order to get perks.

It’s not just me these accusations fall upon. I’ve seen it happen to others. I’ve heard people comment on how someone parked in a handicapped spot was “an awful person” because “they can clearly walk.” But never did those people consider the unseen – things that might cause pain or difficulty walking or other reasons a closer parking spot would be needed. I know people who need handicapped parking and regularly receive hateful notes on their car for using it. Then there are people who gossip to me about so-and-so who isn’t really disabled like I am, and don’t i just hate when people take advantage of the system like that?

I’ve been baffled by this for most of my life. Why would anyone fake a disability for a few small perks? And why would it be such a threat to abled people, who always seem so outraged by it? More outraged, sometimes, than actual disabled people.

I have some answers to both questions, but they’re just guesses, really. I can’t really imagine either side. I can’t imagine faking a disability just for the small benefits liking parking closer or taking a dog to restaurants, and I can’t imagine being so angry about it, either. I’m not angry about people getting those benefits. The only thing I’m angry about is how it indirectly affects me: more people assuming I’m faking my real disability.

But I’m getting off topic.

The notion of people faking disabilities is not at all new or novel. In fact, it’s been a trope in fiction for a while. In TV, movies, books, etc, it’s not at all uncommon to come across a villian who pretends to have a disability for one reason or another. And, like many, many disability tropes, it’s a harmful one.

I see the “fake disability” trope as potentially harmful. It can bring suspicion on people with real disabilities. If so many pieces of fiction present a world in which people faking disabilities is common, then why wouldn’t consumers of that fiction start to suspect this behavior in reality? Especially when those same pieces of fiction only portray the extreme versions of real disabilities (complete blindness vs. legal blindness, etc).

Obviously not everyone who consumes fiction assumes these realities. But when these stereotypes are portrayed so often, it’s hard for me to believe that it doesn’t have some impact.

I understand that faking disabilities isn’t just a fictional thing – it does happen in reality. But does it happen as often as fiction portrays? Or as often as the news portrays? I don’t know, but I like to think not. And I’d rather the attention be on people with real disabilities than people faking them.

But what about you? How do you feel about the “fake disability” narrative? Do you think it’s harmful? Do you think it’s as common in reality as the media portrays it to be? I’d really like your thoughts because this is an issue that i’ms still struggling with. So let’s discuss!

Discussion #4: Disability tropes

For our final discussion post, we asked our contributors the following question:

Which are your least favorite disability tropes?

Here were their insightful answers:


Kayla Whaley:
My least favorite disability tropes may also be the most common (at least in my experience), which is precisely why they’re my least favorite. These tropes are some of the only representations of disability people see, which is very dangerous. After all, the media we consume greatly impacts how we view the world, so seeing these tropes only reinforces ableism and ignorance.

The first (though these aren’t ranked in any particular order) is that of the disabled saint. The pure, innocent, good little cripple. These characters serve largely as inspiration porn for both the audience and the other characters. Think Tiny Tim. It shows the ablebodied that those of us with disabilities are perfect despite (or perhaps because of) our tragic disability. So if we do anything outside those ideas of “goodness”, it’s quite a shock for the ablebodied around us. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cursed or talked about drinking with friends and have gotten actual gasps and nervous giggling, because if I’m in a wheelchair, I must be a saint, right? I must fit into their tiny, preconceived box of “good”.

The second is the disabled villain. Interesting how the two most common tropes dealing with disability are polar opposites and neither come even close to reality, huh? There are so many examples of the disabled, disfigured, disgusting villain: Darth Vader, Captain Hook, innumerable weekly baddies on shows, etc. The (typically visible) disability serves as a cue to the audience that this character is one deserving of your revulsion and fear. Yeah. That’s definitely a message I want sent to the world.


Marieke Nijkamp:
Apart from the whole disabled character as inspiration (see inspiration porn), one of the tropes I hate most is the magically healed disabled character. The one where, at the end of the quest or story, the crippled character finds himself able to walk again because he’s learned to be nicer, or the blind character finds herself able to see because she was willing to sacrifice herself for her friends. After all in real life, everyone wants to be healed/disability makes you incomplete/if you only try hard enough…?

Because that’s the implication of such story lines. That disability equals something incomplete at best and more often something that’s morally reprehensible. It implies that only if you learn how to overcome that, only if you learn you’re too be generous, you’ll be healed and happy and be able to reach your full potential. (And secretly, that’s what we all must want.) Heavens forbid you’re happy just the way you are.


s.e. smith:
Obviously, magical cures are a big frustration for me–the disability that is magically fixed to further the plot, the disabled person stripped of her identity as a disabled person by a cure (and usually so appreciative of being saved from the eternal suffering and torment that is disability). This narrative positions disability as something tragic and terrible that needs to be fixed, and sometimes as something a character should be ashamed of–only after the disability is cured does the character become whole.

I also really loathe one-note depictions of disabled characters, where the character becomes consumed by the disability and doesn’t have any other qualities or characteristics. This is often compounded by another trope, such as the super crip or bitter cripple, two other depictions of disability that also make me gnash my teeth in frustration. These one-dimensional depictions aren’t authentic to real experiences and they also contribute to ableist attitudes in society.

Disability-as-educational-tool is another trope that should have been taken out back and shot long ago. Disabled people are human beings, not object lessons or props for character advancement. If a disabled character is being used to educate other characters, give them some kind of motivation, or teach a Very Special Lesson to other characters and/or readers, that character is being abused. Every time this kind of depiction of disability comes up, it reinforces the idea that this is the role of disabled people in society, to teach and educate the people around them, rather than to live as just another person navigating a sometimes complex and always diverse environment.


Maggie Desmond-O’Brien:
In my opinion, one of the most damaging disability tropes is the idea that a disability can be “healed” through sheer force of will, without treatment. That instead of the infinitely more difficult task of living with the disability, you can simply eliminate it in one fell swoop by being “tougher” or not buying into the “system.” My experience with this has been mostly in the mental illness arena, which is tricky–some acute mental illnesses really do pass with time. But others, such as certain types of depression, bipolar disorder (my own disability), and schizophrenia, tend to be lifelong battles. You’ll have good days and you’ll have bad days, you’ll have days where you accept it and days where you don’t, but the truth is that it’s never going away and you just have to deal with it–no matter what pop culture tells you.


Corinne Duyvis:
My first pet peeve is the disabled relative–sibling, parent or child–who only exists to further the main character. The disabled character rarely has an actual personality or plot line of their own, and does not get to have a normal, complex familial relationship with the abled character; instead, they exist to provide angst or obstacles, or to make the abled character look sympathetic and heroic for taking care of them. Sometimes both! Remember: disabled people are fully-rounded people, with lives and passions of our own, not merely bit parts in abled people’s lives.

My second pet peeve is the ~magical~ disabled person, who often holds–or is–the clue to saving the day. They’ll be the only person with a magic ability, or, in a world where these are commonplace, their ability will be the most special or powerful. Examples include Dinah Bellman from Stephen King’s The Langoliers or Little Pete from the Gone series. This trope can also be used without any supernatural aspects, in which case the disabled person will have savant-like abilities such as Kazan in the film The Cube or Kevin Blake from the TV series Eureka. This trope bugs me because it’s so Othering; the disabled character is something to be ooh-ed and aah-ed over, feared or worshipped, set apart, instead of just being a regular person dealing with their own crap alongside the rest of the cast.


Kalen O’Donnell:
My least favorite disability trope? Yeah, that’d have to be ‘character has a deep dark secret – turns out he/she is bipolar, or else someone close to them is’. Sure, usually this one is trotted out with the best of intentions, as our heroes learn or express by the end of the story that its nothing to be ashamed of or they love and accept them in spite of it, etc, etc. But a book is more than just its climax or last three chapters. If a story makes an impression on a reader, its the whole book that’s going to stick with them, not just the shiny red bow that wrapped everything up all nice and neat at the end. And so while the author may have hoped their story would impart the idea that a bipolar disorder is nothing to be ashamed of, to any reader who can actually relate to that, they might actually just be confirming that ‘yup, people are ignorant about this sort of thing and there is a reason to keep it a deep, dark secret….at least unless and until you meet that special enlightened person who loves and accepts you anyway.’

So how about we see more bipolar characters who are living with it with grace and dignity, neither hiding it nor flaunting it. Who don’t shy away from discussing it with the romantic interest if and when it ever becomes relevant, and is comfortable enough with it to refuse to be belittled or patronized by people who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about? That’s a trope I could get behind.


Kody Keplinger:
I’m forever frustrated by the “damaged disabled person” trope – wherein the disabled character is a brooding, broken character, scarred both physically and mentally, etc etc. I see this way too often, and it makes me so angry. Where are all the happy disabled people, yo?


What about you, dearest readers? Any thoughts on the above tropes, or do you particularly loathe a trope that hasn’t been mentioned?

Kody Keplinger: Disability, Individuality, and Differences of Opinion

Kody KeplingerKody Keplinger is the author of three books for teens: The DUFF (Designated Ugly Fat Friend), Shut Out, and A Midsummer’s Nightmare. Her first middle grade novel will be released by Scholastic next year. Currently, Kody lives in New York City with her guide dog, a very upbeat German Shepherd named Corey. When she isn’t writing, Kody spends a lot of time eating Thai food, marathoning Joss Whedon’s TV shows, and studying improv at the Upright Citizens Brigade. You can find her on Twitter as well as her her website.


I was going to write another post today, a review, but I had something else on my mind that I just couldn’t shake. Something I see everywhere I look. So, here I am, doing a post I never planned.

I want to talk about differences of opinion.

I think almost all minority groups – be them based on ability, race, ethnicity, or otherwise – are plagued with Spokesperson Syndrome, or the assumption that one person from the community has the ability to speak for them all. So often I hear people make statements like “Well, I know someone who is [INSERT MINORITY GROUP] and they thought [INSERT MOVIE/BOOK/TV SHOW] was fine, so it must be true.”

This bugs the crap out of me.

Since this is a disability focused blog, I will focus on disability. And since I am blind, I will particularly focus on that community.

A mistake I see a lot of writers who write about disability make is asking only one person for help. I’ve heard so many people say things like, “I have a cousin who is blind, and she read the book and said it was good at portraying blindness.” And while that cousin may really believe that, it doesn’t mean the next blind person or the next will agree. Obviously, you can’t please everyone, but getting multiple viewpoints on one disability is so important when you write. Because every single person is going to have a different take or opinion on their own disability.

Let me be more specific.

In the blindness community, you have a lot of different perspectives – you have those who are legally blind versus those who are completely blind, cane users versus non-cane users versus guide dog users, Braille readers versus non-Braille readers, and then the break down of all the different disorders and causes of blindness, and there are tons. Each of these people is going to have a different opinion and perspective on how they see their disability and their community. You can ask two people what their opinions on Braille are, and you’ll get two entirely different perspectives.

But let’s say you have two blind people, both with the same cause of blindness, the same vision, both cane-users and Braille readers – even then they are likely going to have two very different takes on certain issues.

Within the blindness community, there are several advocacy groups (forgive me for focusing on the U.S. here). The biggest ones are the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB).  Both of these groups have a lot of members in the community. Both of these groups advocate for blind people. But they are very different with a variety of different philosophies. They disagree often, and sometimes there’s tension between members of these organizations.  And then you also have smaller organizations. And, of course, there are also people who don’t affiliate with either.

This isn’t confined to the blindness community – nearly all disability communities experience this to some degree. Just because people have the same disability doesn’t mean their opinions are going to be the same.

Which is why I get frustrated by people who make the argument I mentioned above. I hate the idea that if one person from a community is okay with something, everyone else in the community must be. I hate the idea of being a Spokesperson.  I think about it a lot. I like blogging about my disability and about blindness, but I’m always worried people will assume my opinions are that of All Blind People.  To some that might seem like a silly concern, but it’s more likely than you think.

But how does this relate to KidLit, you might ask.

As I said before, I frequently hear writers talk about how their cousin, their friend, their Twitter follower, gave them the “okay” on a disabled character.  As if that person is speaking for the whole community.  Now obviously, a writer can’t send their manuscript to every blind or deaf or autistic person on the planet, but assuming one person from that community can speak for them all is kind of upsetting to me. I have lots of blind friends. Some aren’t bothered at all by the tropes they see in books or in movies and might “okay” something I found truly offensive.

No one can speak for the whole community.  It’s just not possible.

Which is why I think writers should reach out to multiple people, to multiple organizations, etc. You can’t please everyone, but you can try to understand as many viewpoints and opinions and perspectives as possible. And, of course, you can’t encompass all of these opinions and perspectives, but understanding them will go a long way in making your character more accurate and nuanced.

But mainly, understand that we are all individuals within these communities. No two blind people are alike. What is offensive to one may not be to another. And only getting one side of things isn’t enough research to truly create a well-balanced, accurate depiction of a disability.