So, I've been doing some spring cleaning

[Kitten Champion]

I was forced to come to the conclusion that I do indeed resemble an episode of hoarders. Mostly what's here is books, which I acquire in abundance very cheaply at libraries and half-priced bookstores. To be honest, I've only read a fraction of them and don't see myself actually reading the rest at any point. Now that I've got an ereader to fill, I'm pretty sure I won't. While deciding what to keep, what to give to Goodwill, or what to disguise as a thoughtful gift to people I don't really care for, I happened to come across a copy of Tarnsman of Gor by John Norman.

I'm... not certain what to do with it.

Now, I've heard or read very few positive descriptions of the book to say the least. I think I'm safe in concluding it's not going to stand as the pinnacle of good taste or intelligent literature. What I'd like to know is if it's in that murky category of still being worth reading just for the hell of it, like watching a Turkish remake of a Hollywood movie in the 80's, or would this be unpleasant, like watching a Micheal Bay film? I don't know anyone who's read it personally,

I'll point out that I'm a completionist, with books in particularly. Just getting my toe wet to see if I can tolerate diving on in is something I strangely have a hard time doing, the fact that it continues on haunts me. So opinions are appreciated.

[Eldan]

Well, from what I'm reading on the entire "Gor" culture online... probably not all that pleasant to read. Depends on whether you are into bondage porn.

[Kitten Champion]

Well, from what I'm reading on the entire "Gor" culture online... probably not all that pleasant to read. Depends on whether you are into bondage porn.

Not really.

It's just porn?

[KillianHawkeye]

What I'd like to know is if it's in that murky category of still being worth reading just for the hell of it, like watching a Turkish remake of a Hollywood movie in the 80's, or would this be unpleasant, like watching a Micheal Bay film?

I think you need to qualify this statement a bit, because even if you hate what Michael Bay has done to our childhoods in the last decade (and what he's apparently going to continue doing with TMNT), he is also responsible for The Rock which is one of the single greatest action movies of all time. I mean, Nicholas Cage in probably one of his best roles, and Sean friggin Connery! Not to mention Ed Harris. You just can't beat that, man. I could watch that movie every day for the rest of my life and not get bored. The first Bad Boys was also pretty good.

[Kitten Champion]

I think you need to qualify this statement a bit, because even if you hate what Michael Bay has done to our childhoods in the last decade (and what he's apparently going to continue doing with TMNT), he is also responsible for The Rock which is one of the single greatest action movies of all time. I mean, Nicholas Cage in probably one of his best roles, and Sean friggin Connery! Not to mention Ed Harris. You just can't beat that, man. I could watch that movie every day for the rest of my life and not get bored. The first Bad Boys was also pretty good.

I'm glad you got enjoyment out of his movies, but no, I don't.

He's a hack at best.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you don't like The Rock, you must not like action movies. That's fine, but if that's the case, it makes no sense to be critical. That would be like if I was critical of Phantom of the Opera just because I don't like musicals.

Anyway, my point was just that there is a range of quality in the thing you picked out: some good and some bad. Or maybe just not to use an opinion as a parameter in a comparison, since not everyone's opinions are the same.

Sorry I couldn't be any help regarding your book. I'll leave you alone now.

[Kitten Champion]

That's fair. I thought the Rock wasn't much different the every other overblown action movie in the mid-90's which repeated Die Hard ad nausea, but it wasn't any worse.

[warty goblin]

Not really.

It's just porn?

From what I know of Gor, it's bondage porn hopelessly entwined with virulently misogynist garbage. If you want sword and planet type stuff you can do way, way better.

[TheThan]

I say you read it like two or three times. Then write a page by page review of the book where you dissect the book humorously but mercilessly and then post it up on youtube (complete with skits) for all the world to see.

[The Glyphstone]

Houseplants of Gor. (http://www.rdrop.com/~wyvern/data/houseplants.html)

This is, from what I'm told, the closest you can get to a Gor story without actually reading one or going over the X-rated line, and a scarily accurate portrayal of the writing quality involved.

[MLai]

Nicholas Cage has 3 good action movies under his belt:
1. The Rock
2. Con Air
3. Face Off
And a fistful of bad ones.
But if you don't like the above 3 movies, then yeah you just don't like action movies, period.
Michael Bay also brought us Armageddon, which is a great and ridiculous "Murika **** yeah!!!" movie, and frankly 50x better than the "serious" Deep Impact.

[Kato]

I'm getting weirdly curious about this... is it so horrible it's good or is it really just... bad? There's something strangely appealing about works that are so, so, so, terrible to me. I never heard of it, though I guess if it is so bad noone ever bothered to bring it to Germany.

[Tebryn]

Not really.

It's just porn?


From what I know of Gor, it's bondage porn hopelessly entwined with virulently misogynist garbage. If you want sword and planet type stuff you can do way, way better.


Houseplants of Gor. (http://www.rdrop.com/~wyvern/data/houseplants.html)

This is, from what I'm told, the closest you can get to a Gor story without actually reading one or going over the X-rated line, and a scarily accurate portrayal of the writing quality involved.

The first few books, so the one you have and Outlaw of Gor (Which was riffed on MST3K and hysterical) are not nearly as bad as the rest of the series which descends into places you should only delve if you're into the S&M/BDSM scene. That's not to say they're -good- by any metric but they're not as bad as these posts would suggest. I still wouldn't read it on the basis it's not well written and doesn't stand the test of time that almost 50 years tends to put on Sci-Fi.


If you want an experience with the Gor series, I stress watching Outlaws of Gor, which can be found for free in it's entirety on Youtube. You'll get to see what the entire series is like through a PG-13 lens plus watch Mystery Science Theater 3000 which is just a good time in and of itself.

[factotum]

I've not read them, but I've also heard what Tebryn points out--that the early ones were OK-ish with maybe a couple of dodgy slavegirl scenes, and that the later ones are pretty much slavegirl scenes with maybe a couple of OK-ish moments! Since Tarnsman is apparently the first book in the sequence it ought to be the "best", whatever that means...

[comicshorse]

The first few books, so the one you have and Outlaw of Gor (Which was riffed on MST3K and hysterical) are not nearly as bad as the rest of the series which descends into places you should only delve if you're into the S&M/BDSM scene. That's not to say they're -good- by any metric but they're not as bad as these posts would suggest. I still wouldn't read it on the basis it's not well written and doesn't stand the test of time that almost 50 years tends to put on Sci-Fi.


I'd agree with this I read the second one and thought it OK pulp fiction with a couple of dodgy bits and then bought one of the later ones and after reading that decided never to read them again

[Manga Shoggoth]

I've never managed to read one through (or beyond the first chapter). My old minister has a few copies and informs me that the first few are OK (ish), after which they rapidly go downhill.

It's worth remembering that these are very old Fantasy stories, and there is a lot of really bad old sci-fi/fantasy out there.

[John_Olson]

Yes, it's porn, but it's not well written and the culture in which it takes place is extremely misogynistic. By the end of the first book, the "hero" has bought into the culture and is completely okay with it.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, this book should not be set aside lightly. It should be thrown aside with great force.

[MLai]

What is "misogynistic" by your definition? Because these books were written decades ago, before equal pay and women in office, and all that... so in order to read them at all you'd first to have to accept a certain level of dated thinking regarding women.

I dunno; never even heard of these books. For all I know it could be misogynistic even 50 yrs ago.

[Tebryn]

What is "misogynistic" by your definition? Because these books were written decades ago, before equal pay and women in office, and all that... so in order to read them at all you'd first to have to accept a certain level of dated thinking regarding women.

That doesn't make it any less wrong now nor does it excuse it for being wrong then either. "We didn't know better" isn't a defense.


I dunno; never even heard of these books. For all I know it could be misogynistic even 50 yrs ago.


Look up the Gorean culture. A 24/7 system where men rule over women who are little better than slaves because that's the role of women seems a little out there even for the late 1960's.

[MLai]

That doesn't make it any less wrong now nor does it excuse it for being wrong then either. "We didn't know better" isn't a defense.
Note, this response below is irrelevant to Gor:
I think literature needs to be viewed through the lens of its time. If it is very "enlightened" and happens to coincide with contemporary cultural views, then great. But that doesn't make that work intrinsically better than another old work which offends contemporary views.
Remember that what we consider "enlightened" or "correct" is merely our own current cultural bias. Future generations may (or, most likely will) look on our values and find them offensive.

Look up the Gorean culture. A 24/7 system where men rule over women who are little better than slaves because that's the role of women seems a little out there even for the late 1960's.
However, after reading up on "Gorean", it is offensive even through the lens of its own time of writing. The idea is also intrinsically paradoxical because Gorean culture is supposed to hinge on the "Order of Nature" (males dominant females submissive) yet the author writes about there being Gorean queens and women in power. It's like saying there's a world where one ethnicity is systematically enslaved, but there also are individuals of that ethnicity who are kings. How is that supposed to be not contradictory? Is he trying to placate feminists and show how enlightened he is? So I'm not here to champion it or anything.

[Tebryn]

Note, this response below is irrelevant to Gor:
I think literature needs to be viewed through the lens of its time. If it is very "enlightened" and happens to coincide with contemporary cultural views, then great. But that doesn't make that work intrinsically better than another old work which offends contemporary views.
Remember that what we consider "enlightened" or "correct" is merely our own current cultural bias. Future generations may (or, most likely will) look on our values and find them offensive.

I'm not saying that the books are badly written because they're antiquated because they're not really. They were written in the 1960/1970's and not the 1860/1870's. But saying that every book has to be given it's fair shake because our culture doesn't coincide with the author of the times personal outlook or culture is just...not a very sound thing to do. We don't believe the electron doesn't exist because Tesla said it didn't do we? When you take things outside the context of the time and try to place it in our world...that's when you start getting into trouble. It's all well and good to read something for it's own sake but...ya. Not much more I can say on that end without getting into serious bad territory.


However, after reading up on "Gorean", it is offensive even through the lens of its own time of writing. The idea is also intrinsically paradoxical because Gorean culture is supposed to hinge on the "Order of Nature" (males dominant females submissive) yet the author writes about there being Gorean queens and women in power. It's like saying there's a world where one ethnicity is systematically enslaved, but there also are individuals of that ethnicity who are kings. How is that supposed to be not contradictory? Is he trying to placate feminists and show how enlightened he is? So I'm not here to champion it or anything.

Most "strong" female characters who are queens or in positions of power are evil or throw themselves at male heroes in the course of the story as far as I understand it. So it's not so much empowering women and more they're perversions of the natural order and a big swinging phallus just needs to come by and show those quivering lady parts what's what.