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.