geekyTHERE WILL BE SPOILERS.
Seriously. If anyone comments here at all, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS. So please don't read and then yell at me because you encountered spoilers. You were warned. (I will not reply to every comment; I call partial comment amnesty. But I may well join some of the discussion, or answer questions or whatnot.)
You can also start a book discussion at my website forums, with less need to be concerned that I will see everything you say! In case you wanted, you know, discussion free of authorial influence, since I always wind up getting involved in these things.
Have fun!
May 24 2012, 16:49:34 UTC 5 years ago
Here's my reasoning: for the most part I think you've done a fantastic job of portraying George's disability, for lack of a better word. I found it all pretty much spot on and that especially includes her dealing with no longer having this problem. (Though, I can't say I have any experience with that but it actually jives with my thoughts on the psychology of being born blind.) However, I'm still vaguely confused about one almost throwaway statement from the first book where George's asserts that she doesn't need to blink because her eyes no longer require lubrication...which doesn't really mesh with my understanding of light sensitivity coping methods. In specific, squinting and blinking become almost involuntary as a means to deal with nasty, painful light sources. Or at least the ones that don't completely wipe out a photophobic person's vision. Unless that's not an issue for someone with retinal KA, which brings me back to my question above.
Anyway, I read Blackout yesterday and I am reeling from it to the point that any coherent thoughts are currently beyond me. So, well done and thanks for an awesome ride. :-)
May 25 2012, 23:14:13 UTC 5 years ago
Squinting and blinking are impractical solutions - as I remember from the scene at the horse barn, even with her eyes closed, daylight is difficult for her to handle. (My copy of Feed is still on loan to a friend.)
May 26 2012, 12:49:18 UTC 5 years ago
I think my curiosity and confusion about retinal KA is because I'm trying to understand the light sensitivity coupled with the better night vision. Night vision is based on the rods, which is why it's harder to differentiate colors when there isn't good light and why that 100 watt bulb essentially blinds you. Rods saturate at high light levels and they don't filter color vision. It's also your cones that give you that crisp clarity to your vision, which you lack as light levels drop off not so much because of the lack of light but because the part of your eye responsible for it isn't working any more.
Is my confusion a bit more understandable now?
June 12 2012, 15:53:04 UTC 5 years ago