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”.
