My scanner software just tried to “helpfully” nudge me down to 100dpi as a 300dpi scan would take longer and be bigger. (duh… that’s the pont.) Much as I like the one touch functions on this thing, I was tempted to light it on fire just then.

If I wanted a small scan I’d have set the specs up for a small scan, thank you very much. Sadly, it doesn’t have a “I know perfectly well what I’m doing so please keep your helpful hints to yourself” feature. (Although “please don’t show this message again” is close.)

Working on the premise that more people will run across my work of I maintain archives where people might actually see them, I keep accounts on DeviantArt and Flickr, in addition to the archive here.

In a moment of curiosity, I plonked down some money for paid account time on DeviantArt, to see if doing so would at all streamline the upload process. (Which is a bit very clunky compared to Flickr.)? If you pay for an account they let you bulk upload files via FTP. Cool, right? And letting me upload large files via a protocol designed for same would be lovely…? if they didn’t make me go though the same time killing interface to finish the art submission phase.

Actually, most of their paid account perks seem to be of the useless. Will not be re-upping when my paid time ends.

First, some background on the Collyer brothers.

So if you’re going to write a story (even a quasi-fictional) about this, of course one would feel obligated to do some research about the subject, so as to avoid to give the appearance of talking out of one’s ass, right? Apparently not.

(E.L.) Doctorow says that writing a fictional account of the Collyers’ existence required figuring out how to “break into that house” and see what was going on and why. He says that he didn’t do much research for his novel; he felt that the brothers required “interpretation, not research.” (Link)

Bullshit.

If you wanted to write a work of fiction, more power to you. I’m cool with that. But you’re using real people and real events to bolster the visibility of your fictional story; and you’re doing it in a dishonest, or at least amazingly disingenuous fashion.

The Collyer brothers were always on my mind. … Somehow the fact that they had come from a well-to-do family and had more-or-less opted out was the real mystery of them.

Never heard of compulsive hoarding, have we? This is not “opting out”, certainly not in the sense of choosing (voluntarily) to absent oneself from society. The DSM-IV currently has it listed as a type of OCD, but it may have it’s own separate diagnosis in the DSM-V.

Doctorow tells his story from Homer’s point of view, a character who he describes as “a very compassionate, sensitive fellow.”

“The issue for [Homer] is to create meaning out of their lives in this peculiar eccentric decision that they’ve made,” explains Doctorow.

These were ill men who died tragically. If you wanted to use that as a general springboard to write a story romanticizing the “eccentric” rich, (which I wouldn’t respect much either, but would at least not get so annoyed by) you can say that the story was inspired by or bears a passing resemblance to real events, but don’t title your book “Homer & Langley” and then ignore fact that they were actual people, instead trying to make them into some sort of floating archetypes.

Why yes, I *do* expect my historical fiction to be rigorously researched. (Even if you intend to go off in a different direction.) Presenting your lack of historical research as an artistic choice just makes me think you’re intellectually *lazy*.

The interview doesn’t touch on this at all, but I do have to wonder (with a blind main POV character and all) just how much research Doctorow put into being blind (and specifically loosing one’s sight later in life), or if he just “interpreted” his way though that as well.

Note should be paid to the commenters at NPR, who quickly do note that hording does not equal “eccentric”.

…I’m more worried about teenage girls, already finding a disturbing relationship romantic, will start mooning over Heathcliff. “He strung up a puppy, he must really love me.” … Someone gets these girls some Jane Eyre before it’s too late.
- Jessa Crispin

Ok, I’ll be the first one in line to look at Heathcliff and say “bad idea, do not want”. And yes, compared to Cathy, Jane looks good; but only because now you’ve set up the classic good girl/bad girl dynamic. They’re both morons. One flames out in a co-dependent trainwreck and the other buys into the “only you can save me from my man-pain” line of drivel. I don’t consider either one to be a particularly healthy role model.

“…I read the record, which is written not just by men, but often by men who hate women. It’s an incredibly misogynistic record.”
Philippa Gregory

You don’t say. The bulk of early western history was recorded by the (male) clergy, being the only consistently literate class in Europe until well into the renaissance. Really, I would totally expect cloistered monks with little to no practical knowledge of women and a holy book that says flat out that they are the source of all bad things in the world to have a balanced view of gender politics. Yup.

Today’s dose of the painfully obvious (to me at least) has been brought to you by the letter Q and the number 3.

edit: As has been noted in the comments on DW, I was actually way off on most of the particulars. My own damn fault for engaging keyboard before brain.