Just posted this as an Amazon.com review of Hunters of Gor by John Norman.  I think it bears repeating:

Having heard various people- especially those in the roleplaying/BDSM community- extolling the magnificence of this series, I looked into it and found myself disgusted time and again at the idea of a philosophy that values men who control women with rape and physical beatings.  The most common defense I heard of the books was that they were intended to satirize feminism.  While there were certain thematic elements of this in the plot line of Outlaw of Gor, the remainder of the books seemed, to ever increasing degrees, to justify why a bully is the best thing a man can ever be and that men have a right and a responsibility to beat up women and terrorize them.

This was the first Gor novel I read (and I subsequently read Tarnsman, Outlaw, Priest-kings and Captive in case you want to accuse me of being ill-informed) and I was introduced to Tarl Cabot, who revels not in consensual BDSM but in the merciless, gloating terrorizing more akin to a high school bully who, unable to accept the more tender and vulnerable feelings he has for a girl, beats her and humiliates her to suppress his own inadequacy in the face of those feelings.  This is Tarl Cabot and through the course of the series he further accomplishes his goal of becoming a malicious thug towards women.

Norman's assertion is that men must be brutally harsh with women because if they show the slightest sympathy then women will seize on that and enslave the men by weakening and feminizing them.  For the women in the novels, this is undoubtedly true: every single female character in the aforementioned books was a shrill, maniacal, malicious, stuck up pain in the ass that was ultimately brought under control by a (physically) strong, arrogant man.  From what I'm told- and what I believe given what I've read already- this is true of all the women in the Gor novels.  Seldom would I be so tempted to derive a character analysis from a creative person's art (people have always accused David Lynch, my favorite director, of misogyny and I've always found their arguments to be based on willful misinterpretation) but when one spends some thirty novels venting at length on an intricate philosophy supporting the basic idea that the very character traits of the abusive husband, the manipulative boyfriend and the jock bully are not only admirable but the very best qualities possible in a man I have to come to the conclusion that John Norman's real problem is with women.  If feminists would focus on scumbags like John Norman rather than complaining about irrelevancies like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, they would have a much stronger case but they would also reveal how the type of men they purport to fight against are despised by much of society at large.

There is nothing noble about being so emotionally weak that anyone you don't dominate physically will be able to take advantage of you.  Norman likes to make the argument, both in the books and elsewhere, that this savage patriarchal rule was necessary for the good of society.  Ever the philosopher, he should be aware of Rand's truth that the good of society is not a justification of anything, just permission for evil to occur. Civilization did not spring out of rampant brutality- it grew out of human beings learning better and better how to get along and work with one another.

If you're like me, you'll read these books hoping for Tarl Cabot to eventually be beaten into the ground by a real, genuine, heroic character but that day never comes, apparently.

If there is one positive in the Gor novels, it is that it will compel the reader to rise to the occasion and articulate precisely why they disagree with Mr. Norman.  In addition to writing he (under his real name) made a career out of teaching philosophy at the college level.  If I were a woman taking one of his courses, I would be suspicious of the grade I received, positive or negative.

Oh- and there's also sword fights and monsters, if you're into that sort of thing.

Forgive my tardiness in posting to print as often as I do video.  Leaving Babylon is- happily- taking up a tremendous amount of my time as is my current writing project.  Nevertheless, the cold winds of reality whip around me in swirling bursts and drag down both of these wonderful pursuits by embroiling me once again in conflict with that great, cynical mystery that is human nature.  In such times I find myself returning to two specific observations from the annals of philosophical discourse.

The first is more bittersweet in its frustration:

"I love mankind, its people I can't stand." -Charles Schulz

The second, though sad in its truth, is refreshingly brutal:

"A true friend stabs you in the front." -Oscar Wilde

Once more the firm but vaporous hand that turns us to look full-on into the mirror of human folly has closed on my shoulders and in its grasp I find myself horrified by the bruised, bloody and swollen face that quivers in my reflection.  I medicate this echoing, residual pain as I always have- with a glass of wine, a long hot bath, and a good book.  Taken all at once these three elements combined allow me to feel like something other than Icarus laying crippled and broken, his virtue having melted away in a white hot moment of pride.

Right now I'm reading Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami.  It takes me to another world that is at once instantly familiar and impossibly alien, the singular gift that Murakami brings to all of his work.  I had planned on reading A Wild Sheep Chase next, but when I learned that the film adaptation of Norwegian Wood was available on Netflix, I knew that duty called.  Next I'll read Son by Louis Lowery.  I spent August reading the two preceding novels, The Messenger and Gathering Blue, to be ready for this final installment in the Giver story cycle.  I'm glad she's doing this- The Messenger answered a couple of questions left over from the Giver, but the story itself seemed to exist primarily for the sake of making a comment in immigration and border policy, which was a hot button issue in the 2004 election when it came out.  After that I'm going to finish the Aliester Crowley biography by Richard Kaczynski.  First book of 2013 will be Homer and Langely by E.L. Doctorow.  I also have a whole shelf of unread Thomas Wolfe.  I love his writing for its tenacity and gentlemanly demeanor, though I frequently get the feeling that he tends to stick his nose where it doesn't belong, often revealing more about his own ignorance than the shortcomings of his target.

Simba has spent the entire day sleeping on a decorative pillow.  Oh to have that kind of determination.

Certain movies are rather unique in my memory- the movies that seemed... captivating... when I was a child and now just seem morbidly fascinating.  When I was about seven or eight I saw a movie on cable one afternoon called "Dead Heat."  The premise is that a corrupt company has technology to bring people back from the dead for a few hours and so what do they do with it?  Do they start resurecting murder victims to find out who killed them or some other productive useage? No- they resurrect petty theives and have them start knocking over convenience stores. 

Treat Williams stars as a detective who dies in a gas chamber at the laboratory and is brought back from the dead by his coroner ex-girlfriend who instantly figures out what the resurrection machine is and how it works without having ever seen it before.  So what does zombie cop do as he visibly decomposes?  Of course- he stalks off after the sonofabitch that did this to him.  Along the way we go down the check list of action movie cliches- bad guys that can't seem to hit their mark no matter despite destroying everything else in the room (what Roger Erbert dubbed the "Principle of Evil Marksmanship,") situations where the guy with the gun has cornered the person he intends to kill and instead decides to start talking at length, cheesy tough guy one-liners and everything else that would make Duke Nukem proud.  Its one of those films that begs to be skewered by Mike, Crow and Servo on MST3K. 

I hadn't seen this unintentionally silly romp since that day decades ago but thanks to Netflix I just rewatched it as an adult.  As a kid, I thought it was badass.  Now, just bad.  Hilariously bad, mainly for its predictability and complete reliance on 80's movie cliches. 

So the ultimate outcome is that this tecnology was created by an aging business tychoon (presented in the most stereotypical Carter Pewterschmidt fashion possible) who wants immortality so that he can... make MORE money!  In a typical businessman-as-amoral-powermad-tyrant fashion, he expalins his intentions thusly:

"Everybody dies, rich and poor. Death doesn't descriminate, at least, not until now... Poor people are supposed to die, but the same rule doesn't apply to us- we're rich.  God wants us to live forever and even if he doesn't, we can always buy him off!"

Well, there's a lot of very obvious holes here- first of all, why is it so expensive that only the rich get to use it?  The process doesn't seem that expensive, in fact it appears to be ripped right from Frankenstein: just zap 'em with enough electricity to reanimate.  They do it to plenty of characters throughout the series without any difficulty at all.  Later, when Williams' partner (played by loveable caveman Joe Piscopoe) is similarly reanimated, it is stated that he cannot understand Williams because he has been brain dead "too long."  He then responds instantly to orders to kill Williams.  So... he was too braindead to understand his old partner but not too braindead to follow that order?  After regaining his mental capacities (its never explained how,) he and Williams destroy the machine and- for some equally unexplained reason- they suddenly crossover into what we assume to be heaven.

I didn't want this blog entry to be heavy handed, but I had to take issue with the film's brash assumptions about the rich- that given the power to resurect themselves they would immediately use the technology to screw over their underlings.  What if Steve Jobs could have been resurrected? What if the very people that made industry work for the betterment of all of humanity rather than their miscreant, bail out grubbing, lobbyist deploying progeny were back in charge?  Well, Occupy would get a kick out of this one.   

I'm missing Iron Maiden tonight.  Its their first time in Atlanta in close to 20 years.  Their last visit was in '96 and they played the Masquerade no less.  Funny how getting Bruce back was all it took.  Nevertheless, I've really enjoyed the modern era of Maiden (Brave New World and forward,) especially with Kevin Shirley producing. The man is a master. 

It kills me that I'm missing it, but I'm working tonight and need the extra money.  I'm working on new musical projects right now.  I know I keep saying that, but I don't want to say too much.  It will be worth it when its finally ready to go public. 

Goddamn- has it really been a month since I blogged here?  My goodness me...

Well, I've been trying to read the Gor novels by John Norman in the hopes of getting a good video blog entry out of it.  So far I've read "Tarnsman of Gor," "Outlaw of Gor," and "Priest Kings of Gor," the last of which I'm about halfway through.

The debate rages on and on about whether or not John Norman is a misogynist and this was the question I hoped to tackle in the video.  I originally began my study by picking up a copy of the 8th book in the series, "Hunters of Gor," and found the protagonist, Tarl Cabot (aka Bosk of Port Kar!) to be little more than a fantasy recreation of the classic abusive boyfriend.  For example, at one point he is walking along the deck of his boat and stops to remind one of his slaves that if he set her loose on the shores of a land mass they happen to be passing then she would be lost without him, would be unable to fend for herself, would be killed or taken slave by someone else.  She starts crying and he strolls off, thinking nothing else of it.  As one of my (male) friends pointed out, isn't that the behavior of an abusive boyfriend, one that reminds his girl that she'd be nothing without him, etc?

There's a whole lot more than just that going on in the Gor novels.  Cabot revels in treating women like scum and no, its not done with their consent.  Despite Norman's constant proclamations to the contrary, the books are NOT based on the consent of the women involved.  Beating and raping a woman until she gives you her consent doesn't count, lads.

People say that what he's really doing is satirizing feminist views on men.  I don't get that from the books at all- they may have been written in response to feminism but its not satire to just, in essence, say "not only are men as bad as you think they are but that's the way it should be."

Anyway, that's one of the many video projects I'm working on.  I want to make one thing abundantly clear to my various opponents: I will read literally thousands of pages in the interest of having an informed opinion.  So far I've read probably six hundred pages worth of the Gor "saga" and I've got many more to go.  The books are painfully badly written, sickening and boring, but I'm slogging my way through it in the interest of being informed.  I bring this up because a considerable number of anti-porn types have sought to criticize my novel, Eros Empire, without having actually read it.  They think that just because they read Andrea Dworkin they what my arguments will be automatically and can pretend to have read the book (not even having the guts to admit they haven't read it) and make wild accusations about the content and ideas, assuming that they'll be correct by default.

Think about that.

The Turner Diaries is considered the bible of the racist right and while reading it did nothing to change my opinion about the book and its author, I read every page so that I would know what the fuck I was criticizing.  As Harlan Ellison put it: "Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?  WRONG! Everyone is entitled to an INFORMED opinion!"

I can only please one person a day and today isn't your day. (And tomorrow isn't looking too good either.)


These words have plagued the desks of receptionists, secretaries, and other clerical workers for years- nay- decades.  I could understand this being amusing for a few months around the time it first came out, but why the hell has is held on this long?  I can remember seeing this on the front of the principle's secretary's desk when I was in 3rd grade which was literally 20 years ago.  Memes come and go.  There was a time when we were all saying "WASSSAAAP" when we answered the phone.  There was a time when we got a kick out of saying "all your base are belong to us." But those all came and went.  They lived out their relevance and were discarded in the dustbin of nostalgia.  Hell- not even nostalgia.  Nostalgia is something you're supposed to look back on fondly.  We all just realize how annoying these memes have become and move on to new ones.  So why does this one meme persist?  Do people really think its still witty and original?  Are secretaries really such sad, emotional shut ins that they think they've hit on something amusing and original?  But even more so, does anyone still think this is amusing to the people who read it?  Whenever I see this posted some where I feel like I've been given the finger.

Here's a new version of the same sentiment for the 21st century:
I'm here to do my job but I'm so goddamn ungrateful to be employed in this shitty economy that I'm going to act like I'm being put upon by your being here and requesting to perform the simple service that I'm paid to do because I'm an ungrateful, ass gasket that thinks some bullshit catchphrase from 20 years ago is still amusing even though every other pop culture fad from the early 90's is buried deep in the dark recesses of the minds of society so FUCK YOU!


See how it just rolls off the tongue?

Bob's Burgers has been a little more enjoyable since it came back.  Maybe its just because Allen Gregory and Napoleon Dynamite were so bloody awful.  As much as I love Family Guy and everything else Seth MacFarlene does, it seems like FOX can't get any animation going that's not a Simpsons derivative.  Futurama was one of the best things they ever did and it had to go to Adult Swim to catch on.

Ah well- FOX is notorious for failed shows in general.

I'm reading Count Zero by William Gibson.  An absolute master of his craft.  Kids- if you don't know who he is, just remember that Ghost in the Shell, Akira, The Matrix and pretty much any other science fiction work that deals heavily with the future of the internet would not exist were it not for him.

It must be one of the joys of being a parent to spend 30 minutes putting your child in a life vest, inner tube, water wings and flippers only to have them scream and cry the minute they touch the water.

There was a rat poking around near the pool today.  When I was a kid I used to love Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH by Robert C. O'Brien as well as the film adaptation which continues to be my favorite animated movie.  When I was a kid if I'd seen a wild rodent I would have imagined that it was a hyper-intelligent being that had escaped from a government test facility and was harvesting electricity.  Today I worry about fleas, rabies, the Plague of Justinian, etc.  Aint bein' a grown up swell?

For some reason Blockbuster has been unable to ship anything to my new apartment since I moved in.  That said, somehow, someway, I'm supposed to have Borderlands arriving in the mail shortly.  Space cowboys, first person shooter, scrapyards of rusted metal.  Sounds like fun, Beavis.

Its difficult to swim for exercise when you're taller than the pool.  I also seem to forget that the main purpose of the pool is not swimming but sitting next to it fully clothed and talking loudly on your cell phone. In the words of Charles Schulz, "I love humanity, its people I can't stand."

I just watched the Star Trek episode where Will Riker falls in love with this androgynous alien.  The episode serves as a metaphor for the LGBT struggles but I have to say that one thing irks me- the way, so often, Star Trek TNG would introduce a new character who defies the cultural norms of their home world and try to break free, only to ultimately return to their kind and re-conform.  Its almost as if the writers just didn't want to deal with the baggage of incorporating all of these new characters, even though they had an audience that would have gladly followed every conceivable plot thread.  There were other characters, like Data's "daughter" or the scientist who Lwaxana Troi falls in love with days before he is to commit ritual suicide, that were such compelling characters who were created and flushed out in the course of a single episode.  At least one of my favorite one off characters, Hugh the Borg, returns for the season 6/7 finale/premiere, but wouldn't it have been great to have him become a regular character on the series, especially since the Borg are arguably not only the greatest villains in the Star Trek universe but some of the most stunning foes in all of fiction?  Strangely, the few recurring secondary characters that are introduced are some of the least interesting, Worf's insolent son being a prime example.

I haven't watched Next Generation since I was a kid and its always been the only Trek series I've really enjoyed.  Thanks to Netflix I've got every episode of every season sprawling before me and I'm debating whether or not to get into them.  DS9 is interesting, but the others just seem like pale attempts at redoing what TNG did right the first time.  (And I do mean first time.  I don't count the original series as being even in the same universe as TNG with the exception of Harlan Ellison's stunning classic "City on the Edge of Forever.)

On a side note, there's an odd documentary out there called The Captains which is meant to be a set of interviews with all of the actors who have played star ship captains on the various Treks.  Patrick Stewart is far and away the most interesting and I would recommend the movie except for one small factor... Shatner.  The whole thing is his idea, his direction, his project... and he kills it.  Instead of letting the other actors talk, he dominates each interview, rambling on at length with asinine personal anecdotes while the people he's supposed to be interviewing stare blankly, waiting for a chance to speak that seldom comes.  To top it all off, he presents himself in the film as trying to work through some sort of persecution/low-self esteem complex about how embarrassed he is to have played Kirk despite the constant montages of him being showered with affection from legions of adoring fans.  This, combined with his abysmal rendition of Black Sabbath's Iron Man, brings my already dubious opinion of Shatner to a new low. 

My first entry.  I'm sitting here watching Stranded starring Vincent Gallo.  I just got home from seeing a friend's band play.  The pool was open at my building for the first time this year today and so I went for a swim.  That was my day.

A friend just gave me a copy of Paul Auster's latest novel Sunset Park.  I think I'll start reading it soon.  He's the American answer to Haruki Murakami and I don't say that lightly.  Nobody does post-modern existential surrealism better, at least not in this country.  But that doesn't quite cover the extent of what Auster does.  The difference in scope between The New York Trilogy and Brooklyn Follies is staggering- its almost hard to believe its the same author.

Time for bed.  I keep meaning to start working on my lucid dreaming.