I think I see what you saw, but I don’t think I would have seen it without first reading your post. Or, rather, I think I would have seen it and had similar reactions, but I’m not sure I could have done anything other than point at words and gesticulate wordlessly.
Before I say anything else, I need to place myself as a straight, white, cis dude. I’m privileged enough to know that I am privileged and that I benefit in countless ways from a system designed to benefit people who look like me. Having said that, I know that I can’t know what it’s like to be a woman and am really in no position to comment on Hale's depiction of "womanhood." Still.
I found the piece by turns frustrating and illuminating. I can’t put it better than you did. I agree with you that Hale seems to be judging CrimeCon attendees as if she’s separate and above them, and that the editorializing is off-putting. I also think the piece talks about being a woman as if there’s only one experience shared by all women. The case for that doesn’t seem supported, but the piece did encourage me to think through how widespread and pervasive abuse and trauma are.
I didn’t like that the piece generalizes from a handful of attendees and some seemingly casual observations to all attendees, and then from there to all women. At least, those were my impressions of Hale’s article and your post.
An interview or two with some researchers/scholars who could have given more context to things left unsaid would have been good. For example, Hale refers to Grace’s “massive audiences of women who, statistically, have likely been victimized themselves” without talking about how they compare to the broader population. It’s implied, but nothing more. Combined with the apparent assumption of “womanhood” being a uniform experience of accumulating trauma… Something just doesn’t sit right for me.
It seems like there were too many thing this article could have been, but snark and judgment wouldn’t let it be anything. For example, it could have been a serious exploration of how women with shared pasts of abuse and trauma are using a convention devoted to true crime to bond, grieve, heal, etc. At times, the article seemed to be trying to do that, but the snark ruined it for me.
I don’t know. Maybe I don’t understand how the article fits into Vanity Fair’s editorial portfolio. Maybe the snark and judgment were required.
I apparently have a lot of thoughts on the article. You said everything better in your post, so I’m going to stop. :)
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughtful take. I can't seem to stop thinking about this piece, so maybe in that way it was more successful than I give it credit for!
I think the moments where she lets the women speak for themselves are the strongest. As well as her own brief mention of how she has also experienced abuse and trauma in her past. In fact, if she had hewn more closely to personal writing, especially in that one section I quoted about the double-bind of patriarchy, I think the piece would have been a lot more successful. It is, as you note, the totalizing tone, together with the snark, that I felt was not only off-putting but flat-out wrong.
I also appreciate how you position yourself in relation to these attendees. I also enjoy the privilege of my whiteness, along with my luck in not experiencing or losing anyone to a violent crime. I think the best pieces on these sorts of events let them be messy and complicated. It can both be a place where you can buy serial killer merch, while at the same time a place where victims and their families feel they can share their stories on their own terms in a supportive space. I almost feel like the snark is an attempt to critique the former but it has the unfortunate and unavoidable result of downplaying or dismissing at least the possibility of the latter.
I think we definitely need more time and space to think through CrimeCon in a grounded and empathetic way, and maaaaaybe this piece will end up being a part of that conversation? I don't know. But I've certainly enjoyed talking it through with you!
Yes, I think those moments (where she let the women speak for themselves) are the strongest too.
Good point about the personal writing; I would have liked more of that too. That also may have given more context and support to the elements I find less palatable in the piece as it is.
Also a good point about letting CrimeCon be more than one thing, which is how I interpreted what you said anyway.
I've never been to the event, though I'm curious. I don't really dig the commercial aspect, but I'd like to go at least once for my own sake. Which reminds me of another thing about the piece: the totalizing tone also seemed to apply to her depiction of male attendees. How hard did Hale work to find any men who weren't there because they were dragged? Yes, the majority of attendees are women, which warrants continued discussion. However, I find it hard to believe that all, or even just most, of the men who were there didn't want to be there.
I also can't seem to stop thinking about this article! So, thank you, I've enjoyed talking it through with you too!
It's not just you. Great piece, I think you're on to something important here. I'm bracing myself to read Hale's piece.
Thank you! And do let me know what you think if/when you read the piece!
I think I see what you saw, but I don’t think I would have seen it without first reading your post. Or, rather, I think I would have seen it and had similar reactions, but I’m not sure I could have done anything other than point at words and gesticulate wordlessly.
Before I say anything else, I need to place myself as a straight, white, cis dude. I’m privileged enough to know that I am privileged and that I benefit in countless ways from a system designed to benefit people who look like me. Having said that, I know that I can’t know what it’s like to be a woman and am really in no position to comment on Hale's depiction of "womanhood." Still.
I found the piece by turns frustrating and illuminating. I can’t put it better than you did. I agree with you that Hale seems to be judging CrimeCon attendees as if she’s separate and above them, and that the editorializing is off-putting. I also think the piece talks about being a woman as if there’s only one experience shared by all women. The case for that doesn’t seem supported, but the piece did encourage me to think through how widespread and pervasive abuse and trauma are.
I didn’t like that the piece generalizes from a handful of attendees and some seemingly casual observations to all attendees, and then from there to all women. At least, those were my impressions of Hale’s article and your post.
An interview or two with some researchers/scholars who could have given more context to things left unsaid would have been good. For example, Hale refers to Grace’s “massive audiences of women who, statistically, have likely been victimized themselves” without talking about how they compare to the broader population. It’s implied, but nothing more. Combined with the apparent assumption of “womanhood” being a uniform experience of accumulating trauma… Something just doesn’t sit right for me.
It seems like there were too many thing this article could have been, but snark and judgment wouldn’t let it be anything. For example, it could have been a serious exploration of how women with shared pasts of abuse and trauma are using a convention devoted to true crime to bond, grieve, heal, etc. At times, the article seemed to be trying to do that, but the snark ruined it for me.
I don’t know. Maybe I don’t understand how the article fits into Vanity Fair’s editorial portfolio. Maybe the snark and judgment were required.
I apparently have a lot of thoughts on the article. You said everything better in your post, so I’m going to stop. :)
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughtful take. I can't seem to stop thinking about this piece, so maybe in that way it was more successful than I give it credit for!
I think the moments where she lets the women speak for themselves are the strongest. As well as her own brief mention of how she has also experienced abuse and trauma in her past. In fact, if she had hewn more closely to personal writing, especially in that one section I quoted about the double-bind of patriarchy, I think the piece would have been a lot more successful. It is, as you note, the totalizing tone, together with the snark, that I felt was not only off-putting but flat-out wrong.
I also appreciate how you position yourself in relation to these attendees. I also enjoy the privilege of my whiteness, along with my luck in not experiencing or losing anyone to a violent crime. I think the best pieces on these sorts of events let them be messy and complicated. It can both be a place where you can buy serial killer merch, while at the same time a place where victims and their families feel they can share their stories on their own terms in a supportive space. I almost feel like the snark is an attempt to critique the former but it has the unfortunate and unavoidable result of downplaying or dismissing at least the possibility of the latter.
I think we definitely need more time and space to think through CrimeCon in a grounded and empathetic way, and maaaaaybe this piece will end up being a part of that conversation? I don't know. But I've certainly enjoyed talking it through with you!
Yes, I think those moments (where she let the women speak for themselves) are the strongest too.
Good point about the personal writing; I would have liked more of that too. That also may have given more context and support to the elements I find less palatable in the piece as it is.
Also a good point about letting CrimeCon be more than one thing, which is how I interpreted what you said anyway.
I've never been to the event, though I'm curious. I don't really dig the commercial aspect, but I'd like to go at least once for my own sake. Which reminds me of another thing about the piece: the totalizing tone also seemed to apply to her depiction of male attendees. How hard did Hale work to find any men who weren't there because they were dragged? Yes, the majority of attendees are women, which warrants continued discussion. However, I find it hard to believe that all, or even just most, of the men who were there didn't want to be there.
I also can't seem to stop thinking about this article! So, thank you, I've enjoyed talking it through with you too!