Riled Up Over Riley

***NOTE***

In the research leading up to this article, I missed finding some key recent information which others were kind enough to show me. (Thanks Allyson Bird.) A lot of those other outlets cited something on Tumblr. As it happens, I almost never use Tumblr, and so I couldn't access that source. I've since unlocked my Tumblr account and found the information I should have seen right away. But even then, other helpful links, such as to Mr. Riley's Twitter account, are non-existent. (He may have deleted his Twitter account, I'm not sure.) He does still have a Facebook account.

But I will say this in my defense. Examples of Riley's recent misdeeds were NOT, all arguments to the contrary, easy to find! And why not? Because nobody bothered to cite them. I got one recent quote, and that was all. But that was enough. But that one quote was like pulling teeth! It is irresponsible and bullheaded of people to say, "Oh, you should have just Googled it." It wasn't that simple, damn it!

STILL, that leaves me with a difficult choice. Clearly I have my share of crow to eat. Do I delete the article? Do I write a separate retraction? Or both? In the end, I've decided to leave the article here, but strikethrough everything I now know to have gotten wrong, and annotate where needed. The self-induced graffiti serves me right.

Two things I'm especially proud of, in spite of my SNAFU. First, at the end, I clearly stated that if anyone could show me a recent example, I would change my mind. Well, someone showed me a recent example, and I changed my mind. (That's how it's supposed to work, you know.) And second, even though I had limited information at the time, I still reserved my opinion. I didn't declare him innocent, and neither did I declare him guilty. When one doesn't have all the facts, that's the correct approach. I'm glad I did so.

Let this be a lesson to all about how easily the information superhighway suffers from traffic jams. And let this also be a lesson that one needs to repeat basic facts in an article, not just include links. Because otherwise, when the link fails, so does the information. That's partly what happened here.

I nevertheless give my apologies. I'll do better going forward.

*********

Well, we've had ourselves a sci fi controversy. The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, better known to its fans as F&SF, which is one of the oldest and most venerable of all the legacy SF story magazines, had (at least for a while) accepted a story submission from a British author named David A. Riley. But, as it turns out, David Riley is well-known to be someone who associated with fascism in his 20's. He was a member of something called the National Front in the U.K. during the 70's and 80's, which was later absorbed into the BNP, the British Nationalist Party, which even Wikipedia recognizes is a fascist organization.

Horror aficionados might recognize the name, because he was selected to be a juror for the Bram Stoker Award in 2016, but was then stepped down from that role in response to objections over his past pro-fascist ties. He was interviewed by the Horror Writers Association and vehemently denied that he is a fascist. He gave examples of how his small publishing business has treated minorities with inclusivity. But, he admitted, that might not be enough to convince some people, he said, and he accepts that.

Well, whether Riley changed his ways or not, F&SF decided not to publish the story. It's not clear if Riley himself withdrew or if F&SF simply rescinded the offer to buy the story. But what is clear is that Riley's story will not be published. At least, not by F&SF.

Okay: Now here's my view on all this. If Mr. Riley abandoned fascism and became more of a centrist, even if he's still a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, that's a good thing, and he should be rewarded for it, not condemned for it. As people get older and wiser, they're supposed to abandon wingnut ideas in favor of moderate ideas, that's how maturity works.

But did Riley do so? Honestly, I don't know. There isn't enough out there in the blogosphere to really know. I couldn't find any recent examples of Riley's opinions to draw any conclusions. But neither could his detractors. People out there seem to think that it's "once a fascist, always a fascist," and I think that's bullshit.

When I was 23, the same age that Mr. Riley was when he was a candidate for Parliament as a member of the National Front, I was a fundamentalist Christian. As the years went by, I abandoned Christianity, became a Unitarian Universalist, an agnostic, and then finally an atheist. In fact, I was a fervent fundamentalist for almost exactly as long as Mr. Riley was a member of this fascist political group. But if someone were to conclude from my past that I was STILL somehow a conservative Christian, I'd call that person an idiot! I was one of the founding members of an atheist group in Milwaukee, and had been heavily involved in the Secular Humanist groups which preceded that. I've been an atheist for over a quarter of a century, now. I've been an executive within SWiFT, the Southeast Wisconsin Freethinkers, for ten years. I was vice president for two of those years, and I've been president for the last six. Calling me a Christian would be the height of absurdity.

And Mr. Riley? I just don't know. I can't find a Twitter account for him. He does have a blog, but he's posted nothing on it except reviews of other people's works, and every once in awhile, a note regarding the birthday of H.P. Lovecraft. There's just not much in there to indicate what his current political opinions are. And the only time he mentioned his current political opinions was the aforementioned 2016 interview, and all he said that time was that he wasn't a fascist. He didn't call himself conservative, liberal, libertarian, or some variation. He just left it at that. His examples of inclusivity were solid, but cursory. Perhaps he thought that was enough.

Yet all of the attacks upon Mr. Riley cite nothing recent. Absolutely nothing. Attacks levied upon him by Nick Mamatas, or by Doris Sutherland, all cite only the four-decades-past behavior. It all boils down to the things he did as a young 20-something. [NOTE: I leave this intact because these articles did, in fact, neglect to include the all-important recent activity.]

In the space of time since Mr. Riley left the NF, American Idol contestant C.J. Harris was born, lived, and died. So did Ring of Honor wrestler Jay Briscoe. And in all that time, his detractors cannot cite one, single example of racism.[Riley did, in fact, give a ringing endorsement of Andrew Brons in 2009.]

Am I saying that Mr. Riley isn't a fascist? No. But I AM saying that, at the very least, we ought not jump to the conclusion that he still is. [Although I'm proud of my level-headedness here, there is sufficient evidence that he still held BNP sympathies as late as a decade ago.] We do NOT come after people with cancellation and/or pitchforks and torches before we have all the facts. Why? Because we're liberals, goddamn it, that's why! That's simply not who we are! And I'll have words with anyone who says otherwise. (Okay, I mean, most of us in science fiction and fantasy are liberals. Maybe not all of us, but you get my point.) [NOTE: Conclusion was wrong. But the principle was still right.]

And maybe someone will say, "But David Riley hasn't apologized for his past behavior!" And that's a fair point. He doesn't seem all that apologetic. When asked about it in his 2016 interview with David Dunbrow for the Horror Writers' Association, Riley said, "Who should I apologize to?" And yes, that was very dismissive. But it's also very dismissive to say that someone should be automatically condemned over belonging to a political party he LEFT in nineteen-fucking-eighty-three! [NOTE: He left, yes, but his endorsement of Andrew Brons showed he still had ties with the ultra-right.]

Are we really so shallow as to say that forty years isn't enough time to have distanced yourself for something? Do we really want to say that such a person hasn't worn their hair shirt long enough?

People do change. I'm living proof.

I'm no longer a fundamentalist Christian. And by the same token, maybe, just maybe, David Riley isn't a fascist anymore, either. [Maybe that's still true. But if so, he changed his mind much more recently than 1983. And one might think that he would brag about such a change instead of keeping it to himself.]

Show me one recent example of the man saying something racist, and I'll change my mind.

[Someone did. So I did.]

Eric

**