Before you all tell me how sexy I am in this painting created for this year’s NoirCon, give me a chance to explain how I feel about it.
Here’s the email I sent to Lou Boxer, the organizer.
I just saw the cover of the NoirCon catalog posted on twitter and am really upset. While I’m a huge fan of vintage pulp art and totally understand what you were going for in that painting, I’m hurt and offended to be portrayed as a half-naked damsel in distress. I try so hard to be taken seriously as a writer and to break out of the sexist mindset in which women are viewed as nothing but vixens and victims. I feel like that cover undermines everything I represent as a writer and a person.
To Lou’s credit, he got on the phone and called me right away, with the artist on the line. They apologized to me and told me that they never meant to offend me. The artist then went on to explain his intention, that it was meant to be ironic and that portraying me tied up and helpless was funny because it’s the opposite of how I really am.
While I appreciate the apology and the effort to communicate instead of hiding from conflict, I just don’t think that an image like this, ironic or not, is the kind of thing we need any more of in our genre.
So, Faustketeers, what’s your take? Do you think this painting is funny and ironic? Or does it reinforce the sexist stereotypes female writers have been up against for years?
Edited to add: This image is on a program book that has already been distributed to con attendees for an event this weekend, so there's no way to nix, pull or change it. In fact I didn't even know about it until an attendee posted a photo on twitter, which is a major part of my beef as well.
Edited again to add: In the interest of fairness, I have been asked to post the back cover of the book. (Sorry for the blurry photo quality.) It depicts other women, so I'm not the only female, but I am the only one who is overtly sexualized and portrayed as a victim. That's Megan Abbott and a female DJ behind Reed Coleman and SJ Rozan holding the arm of Nazi Ken Bruen. And, as far as Reed and some of the other men being nearly naked too, as I stated in the comments, a straight man portraying another straight man half naked and/or victimized as a joke is not as creepy as a straight man portraying a woman half naked and victimized as a joke. Especially when the woman in question is not in on the joke.
Profile
faustfatale- Christa Faust
- Christa Faust
Page Summary
- (Anonymous) : Yup, that's offensive all right [+2]
George Ibarra : (no subject) [+0] - andrian6 : (no subject) [+0]
- J.D. Rhoades : Well... [+1]
- setsuled : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : It's in the smile [+1]
- (Anonymous) : WTF? [+0]
- whiskeychick : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Nope Don't Agree with You [+3]
- Anna Lee Zaytseva : Nice save but... [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Anonymous-9 here [+0]
- Lee Goldberg : Common Courtesy [+1]
- mechanteanemone : (no subject) [+0]
- Jerry Leach : tough call [+0]
- Arinn Dembo : Use of Likeness. Plain and Simple. [+0]
- ladyeuthanasia : It's offensive. [+0]
joshagentry : Agreed [+1] - oddmonster : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Painting [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Unprofessional and discourteous [+0]
- thesaturdayboy : It's like ray-ee-aaaaaayn on your wah-heddin day [+0]
- Lincoln Crisler : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Peter [+4]
Comments
-Michelle Gagnon
I think the cover's intended audience very much will (or did) get the irony. The program was never intended for mass circulation. Its target was attendees at a small conference, the majority of whom almost certainly know Christa and her work. Those people might well find the cover tasteless and offensive, but they almost certainly would regard it as ironic.
One lesson to be drawn from this? Be careful when you crack an in joke. In jokes have a way of breaking out.
Also, "face value" is a curiously imprecise expression to use in connection with this illustration. What do you think viewers will take at "face value": The imagery of Christa being threatened, or the characters' jokey, cartoonish expressions?
Peter
i find it offensive myself with other reasons. being of mexican descent, i grow weary of seeing mesoamerican symbols being used as backdrops for sinister dealings. i could go on a rant about that, but i'll leave it at that, because i know most people don't have the depth of knowledge to discuss ancient mexican culture in a civilized way.
so yeah, it's offensive, and you have every right to raise your fist in anger.
It is, also, frankly, not that well done. The composition is wrong, the heads looked pasted onto different bodies... just not well executed. The amateurish work almost compounds everything. Quoth Tom Stoppard. "It could have been anything. A mute dwarf, standing by the road, pointing the way. But it had to be this..."
I'm not very familiar with modern noir literary fiction, this image seems more a comment on pre-1960 adventure serials or comics to me. Personally, I prefer story over social agenda and find the conscious injection of the latter inevitably overwhelms the former, even if I agree with the principle. If there had been a subversion of the stereotype, like you throwing fists and the guys tied up, I think the casual viewer would say, "Oh, this is a con about subverting stereotype." Though I guess if it had been drawn as a Johnny Guitar parody, you might get the same reaction.
Of course, that's all moot if you're uncomfortable with an image of yourself in bondage being published, in which case I really think they should pull the image out of respect for you. Though that may be a dated attitude from me.
Edited at 2012-11-10 01:19 am (UTC)
IF the artist had given you an "oh shit, see what I have to put up with" expression, then the irony could shine through.
As is, nah.
As it is, the smirk it give you does disarm it a bit for me. You're not panting and helpless; it seems like you could shrug your way out of those bonds if you felt like it. So I think the artist was really trying for some clever irony.
Only they didn't succeed so much with the clever ... or really even the irony.
Why put you on the cover for an event you aren't at? Why do that without your consent? That seems incredibly questionable, all on its own.
Alleged intent does not excuse actual effect. As a parent, you might mean to make a rebuke gentle or even funny, but the words might come off with more edge or negative emotion than you intend, and you still have to own that and apologize... or you're a jerk. Our society seems to be mastering the non-apology.
And, as Michelle said, they shouldn't have even represented you without your approval... especially if this is an event you aren't attending. I don't want to say this from the perspective of simply criticizing Noircon, but I say this from the perspective of supporting you as a person who's been misrepresented and offended. (And I am not convinced of the alleged attempt at irony at all.)
I believe you likely are also going to NoirCon to make connections with folks who don't know your work yet, right? So in that regard it may give off the damsel in distress perception.
However, I think given your gut reaction, you go with that. My gut never steers me wrong. And let me validate that your gut reaction is probably the smart move.
Are they willing to redesign? I can't imagine that NoirCon is represented in whole by this art as it is anyhow.
Regardless, happy they had the response they did and you, the artist & the organizers can come to an agreement.
I'm with you Faust. This is no bueno.
Irony (ha!) or not, I don't like it.
You should be center in that pic wielding an uppercut (or holding a pen and a glock).
Lee
Edited at 2012-11-10 02:26 am (UTC)
- Sophie
Your portrayal here doesn't seem to be that distressed. But I do get where the resentment comes from. Gotta take your side on this.
Sure, maybe they were "trying to be ironic" by depicting you this way, but the whole point of going to conventions is to meet new people, readers and other authors who don't know you and your work. You have a right to choose how you present yourself to the public, and you would never have chosen this image of yourself.
Sorry this happened, and glad you're standing up for yourself. And for all those artists and convention organizers...ASK before you do something like this to a professional author.
Sometimes it's difficult for people to understand that the highest compliment you can give a woman isn't that you think she's sexy. Especially in a genre where women are struggling for acceptance and recognition as writers, it's infuriating to see oneself depicted as a victim. Yes, a lot of the pulp covers depict women in vulnerable situations. I can see from where the artist drew inspiration. But depicting a real person this way — especially a person who is not attending the convention — is troubling. It reeks much more of a sexual fantasy than ironic commentary. You get to be somebody's sexual fantasy in a very public way, which is hella gross.
I know you pretty well. Much like your LiveJournal icon, you're a straightforward, powerful person. Even if the artist didn't mean to, he depicted you in a way that robs you of your best qualities. And you have so many fabulous qualities that he could have been "ironic" about that don't involve your tits and exposed flesh. Maybe he didn't realize that depicting a femme domme like yourself as a submissive is offensive in and of itself, but regardless, sexualizing you puts you right where you don't want to be — you're depicted as a sex object rather than a person. I don't see any of the men depicted that way. Maybe a gun gives them a little extra testosterone, but none of them are sex objects.
I'm really glad to hear, though, that Lou was responsive. maybe next time they will get approvals from the people they are depicting before executing the artwork. That certainly would've gone a long way toward avoiding a situation like this. And, dude! Duane as a Nazi? How does he feel about that? Lots of people I know would have a problem being depicted that way.
Peter
That was pretty much my instinctive reaction. Leaving the guys helpless, giving the lady the whiphand, would mean you're playing with the tropes and having fun with irony, etc. It'd still be heavy-handed, but at least the message would be clearer.
Also, I can't believe they didn't ask your permission to use your likeness for a project like this. Unprofessional and discourteous, to say the least.
Cheers, Declan
Personally I don't think it's particularly funny (or ironic), and I know a couple of the people in it, so God knows what fans will make of it. I think you and the others should have been consulted and given the chance to yay or nay ideas for how you would be represented and I think it shows either a spectacular lack of professionalism or an abundance of ego that this wasn't done.
As for the image itself, yes it absolutely reinforces sexist stereotypes, but then that's the default setting for those who profess to love the genre. That's not going to change until the genre's archetypes change, and that'll only happen when the genre's authors change the narrative. You're one of only a handful of writers actually doing that, Faust, so it's going to be tougher on you. Bravo for taking a stand - in this world of writers having to eat shit for the sake of their "potential readership", it's nice to see a bit of clear, independent thought going on.
Just sayin'.
To me, "Your" expression seems to say "isn't this ridiculous" rather than damsel-in-distress.
Alas, art... and humor... are up to interpretation. Lots of celebs got pissed over their portrayal in Mad Magazine as well.
Donna
Peter
The artist *chose* to joke about his ethnicity. I was not allowed to choose the way I was presented in the painting, it was chosen for me without my consent. I was not in on the joke. And when a joke is made *about* you instead of *by* you, it just isn't funny.