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!"
