|
Musicmystery -> RE: So I've discovered this thing called "Gorean." (1/11/2010 8:25:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnimusRex I suppose every thread needs a contrary viewpoint, so here is mine. While I wouldn't discourage someone from reading all 26 novels, in order, I am not of the opinion that it is necessary in order to grasp the meaning. I am also a Christian, but I haven't read the Bible cover to cover. I just skimmed it for the hot parts. I say this especially because the books are so repetitive; I read two, and to be honest, was flipping pages towards the end. I wouldn't be the first person who suspects that the author was paid by the word in the later ones. I wouldn't want this to be interpreted as a slam against Gor; its just that if you can't get a sense of the Gorean worldview after a couple or three of the books, another 23 or so won't be any more enlightening. Like any work of fiction, the reader approaches it with his own worldview, and comes away with his own unique interpretation. quote:
ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Kimveri- I don't disagree necessarily- as with many things, the basics of Gor can be learned quickly, but one can spend a lifetime studying its deeper meanings. My Catholic upbringing probably colors my thinking- most Catholics never read the Bible, or study theology; our understanding comes from our daily interaction with others, and occasional instruction from others who do study. I would agree that those who study Gor and read all 26 books and ponder studiously the intricacies do have a different, deeper understanding of it all. But I wouldn't think that something that purports to reveal a true nature of ourselves would be inaccessible to the casual reader- that would turn it into some sort of cultish mystery, alien to our natures. I would think that there should be some sort of intuitive understanding, a sense of rightness that is accessible without too much study. Hi Animus, Well, that last bit helps me see where you're going with this. And I can agree to the point that it's not a deep mystical undertaking. I even started a thread once about deifying it as "The Philosophy," which drew a fair amount of strenuous disagreement. I see it more as patterns emerging from a close look at our society and the choices we make albeit often counterproductive to our natures and better well-being and happiness. I can also agree that Norman is never going to be mistaken for one of our better authors. It is repetitive, and at times deliberately arcane and pretentious in word choice and sentence construction. It's something we have to read past for the ideas presented and illustrated. The reader needs to work at it a bit. But I most definitely cannot agree that reading 2-3 books will give anyone a good picture--at best, a taste, and a completely mistaken view of, yes, "the philosophy." We actually see that here quite a bit--someone goes off on a position and clearly is unfamiliar with other books addressing that topic. Tarl and others go through a progression. To read only Tarnsman, Outlaw and Priest-Kings and see Tarl as the epitome is to not understand "Gorean" at all. That takes at least through Maurauders. Many have read only Slave Girl, Kajira and Dancer. It shows. These folks have a very distorted view. What if someone read only Explorers, Savages, and Blood Brothers? A series of primitive cultural anthropology? Or later works--a series about a war between Cos and Ar? Yeah, it's a sci fi series that started with a book, caught on, and turned into churning out a book a year for a while. And sure, there's a bit of searching for something else to write about. And absolutely, quality varies widely. Among my impressions upon first seeing Blood Brothers was "this is a much better written novel than many of the others." So for those interested in following through, it takes some work and patience. For those picking and choosing a book here, a book there, they'll both miss the serial events that inform each subsequent book, as well as go about spouting opinions about Gor, using the books to justify their views, much as Christians cite the Bible to support their social/political opinions without actually troubling to read the damn thing [Trust me--NO ONE who has read the entire Bible would claim to live by it]--and being absolutely incorrect, probably while ranting about how they get it and the rest of us can't see that. Seems to go around. Live well, Tim quote:
ORIGINAL: Kimveri Hello, AnimusRex, quote:
ORIGINAL: AnimusRex But I wouldn't think that something that purports to reveal a true nature of ourselves would be inaccessible to the casual reader- that would turn it into some sort of cultish mystery, alien to our natures. I would think that there should be some sort of intuitive understanding, a sense of rightness that is accessible without too much study. This is very true, but that casual reader would need to be already in touch with his/her own nature, already rejecting the unnatural societal conditioning most accept, already seeking something simpler, truer, more natural to intuit those buried, denied & repressed instincts. That 'casual reader' would have to be ...uncommonly perceptive. ;-) It's not the philosophy that's hard to grasp at all....it's the scraping off of the barnacles on our own eyes so that we can actually SEE these simplicities that's so damn tough. ...& I also would hate to try to narrow it down to a few books.....I can't imagine leaving out the bloody giants.....the arrow of war.....the sharing of paga with an enemy....the Ubara wandering the Northern Forests.....the demise(??) of Pa'Kur....the redemption of Callimachus.....the enlightenment of Jason....I mean.... ...WHICH three books?? ~Kimveri I agree with this. Good point. Tim
|
|
|
|