a puzzlement

[calimac]

The news has been getting out, both within and outside the SF community, that Alan Beatts, owner of Borderland Books in San Francisco, has been credibly accused of physical and sexual assault by women close to him. I'll leave out the details; you can read them at the above links.

As John Scalzi has pointed out, such accusations particularly hurt when the perpetrator is someone you know and like. And a lot of people in the SF community know and like Alan. Including me.

So what should we, as interested and concerned outside observers, do about it? A lot of events scheduled at Borderlands have been canceled, starting with Jo Walton's last night which disappeared that morning - that's how sudden this has been - and a lot of people have declared that, much as it will hurt both the independent bookstore community and their own purchase of SF, they won't do business with Borderlands any more so long as Alan is associated with it.

But here's something that nobody I've read has commented on. Brian Keene, the podcaster who broke the story to widespread attention also said this:

Both women, I think it's important to note here, both of these women have told me, on the record, they don't want to "cancel" Alan. I'm using the popular term. His daughter told us, quote: "He did a lot of good in my life. He made it possible for me to move to San Francisco, he did his best to provide me support while I was growing up, and for the majority of my life he was my best friend. I don't want me speaking out about what happened to come across as me trying to destroy his life or to get revenge on him. This absolutely sucks and I wish it wasn't the case. ..." Alan's ex-girlfriend echoed this, stating that they just want the public to be informed and they want him to get treatment and help.

But then Keene immediately went on to say that, despite his long-standing connection with Alan and Borderlands, he will not be doing any more signings there.

Is that not "canceling" Alan? If it isn't, what would be? When these women say they don't want to "cancel" him, do they mean that they're not asking us to cease patronizing Borderlands? If not, what are they preferring that we do?

I've never been in a position to visit Borderlands often, and I'm not planning on going up to San Francisco for any purpose so long as the virus reigns, but someday it will happen and I'd like a little guidance here. I'm not eager to be more outraged and indignant than the actual victims of the actual crime. It is a puzzlement.

Comments

[calimac]

That's certainly a response, though in Scalzi's case he's using it to solve the problem that he's already invested money in the store that can't be easily pulled out.

My question is more, what are the victims asking the customers and general public to do? And if it's not to cease doing business with the store, should we be reluctant to follow that advice?

[cynthia1960]

Since Emma and I have been supporting the store yearly, we need to reconcile our past support with wanting to help victims of sexual abuse.

I don't think that the folks Alan harmed have explicitly said what they want done, and they are *not obligated* to tell us anything they don't want out in the world or provide us solutions. Some folks who have been abused can and do choose to tell us what they'd like done, but it isn't something we should expect to be given.

I'm trying personally to look at restorative and transformative ways to serve justice, and they can manifest in very different ways. We have to figure this out on our own.

[calimac]

Of course they're not obligated to tell us anything, but they have told us something, phrased with considerable intensity, and at first glance it seems to be the opposite of what people are doing. So I'm trying to parse this.

[cynthia1960]

It will take some internal work to figure out what works for you. Worry less about what other folks are doing.