Mystic Radio Interview with John Norman

Mystic Radio is no longer oper­at­ing a web­site and we have been unable to con­tact them. Fortunately, we retained a copy of this inter­view for pos­ter­i­ty, and hope­ful­ly the own­ers of Mystic Radio will con­tact us if they see this, and we can obtain for­mal per­mis­sion to re-post this.


Early in the fall of 2011 a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of Mystic Radio request­ed a phone inter­view with John Norman. Mystic describes itself as “a small non­prof­it radio sta­tion whose lis­ten­ers either fol­low the Gor books .” We regret­ted that Mr. Norman doesn’t give live inter­views but told Mystic that he might respond to writ­ten ques­tions”. Below are those ques­tions and the author’s answers.

1. Q: You have the longest running Sci Fi series; you’re a well-known writer; yet in the late 80’s you were blacklisted. Did you anticipate this? What were your feelings?

 

A. I think that there was, and may still be, a German sci­ence-fic­tion series, the Perry Rhodan series, or such, which might be longer, and so on. I am not sure of this. As far as I know, how­ev­er, the Gorean series is the longest, most com­plex, and most care­ful­ly worked out sin­gle-world sci­ence-fic­tion series writ­ten to date. The German series men­tioned, I think, may have been a mul­ti­ple-world series. I believe Wendayne Ackerman, the wife of Forry Ackerman, trans­lat­ed sev­er­al of the German books into English. I men­tion this in part because I think Forry Ackerman, “Mr. Science Fiction,” lit­er­al­ly coined the expres­sion you used above, name­ly ‘Sci Fi’. He was a won­der­ful human being, and a dear friend. Incidentally, I think the German series men­tioned may have had sev­er­al authors, over the years, as opposed to being writ­ten by a sin­gle indi­vid­ual. The impor­tant thing, of course, is not so much the length of a series, but its qual­i­ty, its pop­u­lar­i­ty, its dif­fer­ence, its orig­i­nal­i­ty, its pow­er, its courage, its impor­tance, and so on. I did not antic­i­pate the black­list­ing, which prob­a­bly bespeaks polit­i­cal naivety, and, I sup­pose, a mis­placed con­vic­tion that America was still a free coun­try, that free speech was accept­able, that the pos­si­bil­i­ties, the glo­ries, the poten­tial won­der­ful mul­ti­tudes of posi­tions and views pos­si­ble in sci­ence fic­tion, its myr­i­ad imag­i­na­tive worlds, the joys of cre­ativ­i­ty, pro­pos­al, and vision, were lit­er­ar­i­ly, intel­lec­tu­al­ly, and moral­ly legit­i­mate. I did not antic­i­pate a one-restau­rant town, with only one item on the menu. I have nev­er felt that art should be lim­it­ed by, or pros­ti­tut­ed to, an ide­ol­o­gy. But then I nev­er lived in Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, or Stalin’s Russia. With respect to my feel­ings, as I am a writer, and, in a way, an artist, or some­thing in that direc­tion, I was nat­u­ral­ly dis­ap­point­ed to learn of the black­list­ing, not so much per­son­al­ly, as moral­ly, and cul­tur­al­ly, this hav­ing to do with its effects beyond myself, effects hav­ing to do with the chill mes­sage it trans­mits to oth­er writ­ers, who might like to write freely and hon­est­ly. For exam­ple, if an indi­vid­ual with a track record of mil­lions of books sold can be black­list­ed, and such, the rest of you folks had bet­ter look out. Obviously, in such a case, the mar­ket is not eco­nom­i­cal­ly dri­ven, nor is it free­dom- or tol­er­ance-dri­ven. It is polit­i­cal­ly or ide­o­log­i­cal­ly dri­ven. Accordingly, if you want to pub­lish, write what the small, polit­i­cal­ly uni­form minor­i­ty which con­trols sci­ence fic­tion, which deter­mines what you will and will not be per­mit­ted to read, wants writ­ten. Take into con­sid­er­a­tion in your work the obtain­ing ide­o­log­i­cal fil­ters, and strive to cel­e­brate the cur­rent ortho­doxy. It may be dif­fer­ent tomor­row. Choose pre­scribed ruts and trim your sails to pre­vail­ing winds. Do what you are told. It is not so hard to catch on to what is want­ed, so do that. Writers of the world, unite, in the way they tell you. You have noth­ing to lose but your integri­ty. Science fic­tion has noth­ing to lose but its future. I do not think a free, hon­est lit­er­a­ture is evil, but the cen­sors, the thought police, the ax grinders, the pro­mot­ers of agen­das, might well dis­agree. We should rec­og­nize this sort of thing and respect their views, just as we should respect oth­er views which are sim­i­lar­ly nar­row, smug, big­ot­ed, unin­formed, and stu­pid. I per­son­al­ly favor nat­ur­al lib­er­ty, pri­vate prop­er­ty, a free mar­ket, a free press, lim­it­ed gov­ern­ment, and such, so I gath­er I am about as polit­i­cal­ly incor­rect as pos­si­ble. I do not try to be that way. I just man­age it. So, say bad things about me, and pre­tend you do not know me. Big Sister is listening.

 

2. Q: Why do the books have such a drastic change in characters? In some Tarl isn’t even mentioned.

 

A. This ques­tion is prob­a­bly best addressed to the books, since they pret­ty much write them­selves. I am grate­ful that they show up. In ret­ro­spect, it seems to me a good idea to have a vari­ety of pro­tag­o­nists, back­grounds, and sit­u­a­tions. I sus­pect that the hero of the books, so to speak, if one were to look for one, is, at least in part, the Gorean world and its ethos. Too, it seems to me that dif­fer­ent cen­tral char­ac­ters might add a fresh­ness and diver­si­ty to the series. On the oth­er hand, as I sug­gest­ed, the books pret­ty much write them­selves. They do what they want. Who am I to object? Sometimes I am sur­prised, and, as men­tioned, grate­ful. As the Eskimo say­ing has it, “Who knows from whence songs come?”

 

3. Q: There have been books written about, or involving, warriors, Priest-Kings, slaves, Kurii, and such. Does the future hold a book about the Free Women of Gor?

 

A. The most recent book, Mariners of Gor, deals sub­stan­tial­ly with Flavia of Ar, who would be about as free as one could get, as she was the con­fi­dante of Talena, dur­ing her reign as Ubara of Ar, under the hege­mo­ny of the occu­pa­tion­al forces, after Ar’s defeat. On the oth­er hand, to be sure, she does not remain free very long. After flee­ing Ar, to escape impale­ment, fol­low­ing the restora­tion of Marlenus, she is cap­tured and enslaved, and finds her­self on the ship of Tersites, as it under­takes its long, haz­ardous jour­ney across Thassa, to the World’s End. To be sure, the nar­ra­tor, so to speak, and lead­ing char­ac­ter, is Callias, a Cosian oars­man. In gen­er­al, I think that some­thing like 99.9 per­cent of writ­ers are cur­rent­ly busy writ­ing about free women, as they had bet­ter do, if they wish to get through the polit­i­cal obsta­cle course cur­rent­ly in place. Conform, or for­get it. Accordingly I do not think John Norman needs to attend to such mat­ters. Everybody else is doing it. That job does not need John Norman. It is being done very nice­ly, by about every­body else, those who know the score, the ide­o­log­i­cal require­ments, the way the wind is blow­ing, and so on.

 

4. Q: Why did you feel a need to change things, like money, and such, in some of the later books.

 

A. Following Earth like­li­hoods, giv­en Earth’s obvi­ous cul­tur­al influ­ence on Gorean civ­i­liza­tion, gold is regard­ed as the most valu­able met­al, mon­ey­wise, fol­lowed by sil­ver, and cop­per. I think there are two things to take into con­sid­er­a­tion here. First, Gor is extreme­ly decen­tral­ized, with­out gigan­tic nation states, or inter­na­tion­al cur­ren­cy com­mis­sions, con­cerned with stan­dard­iza­tions, and such. Accordingly, most mon­ey exchanges, between dif­fer­ent cur­ren­cies, would be like­ly to be done by scale, by weigh­ing coins, and such. A sil­ver tarsk of Market of Semris might not have as much sil­ver in it as one from Venna, or Harfax, or Jad, for exam­ple. In short, there is some­thing of a mix, or chaos, amongst cities, but not, pre­sum­ably, with­in cities. Also coins might be shaved, cur­ren­cies debased, and such. Accordingly, one should expect a vari­ety of coinages, and val­ues, in such a sit­u­a­tion. Second, as one would expect, giv­en the pre­ced­ing, dif­fer­ences such as that the num­ber of tarsk-bits in a cop­per tarsk might vary, depend­ing on the con­ve­niences of exchange. For exam­ple, in a major port such as Brundisium, small change might be local­ly very use­ful, for exam­ple, one hun­dred tarsk-bits to a cop­per tarsk, the bits tiny, like drops, per­haps, where­as in many cities there might be eight tarsk-bits, larg­er, tri­an­gu­lar coins result­ing from the divi­sion of a sin­gle cop­per tarsk, to a cop­per tarsk. In such a sit­u­a­tion, as in oth­ers, one sup­pos­es mon­ey chang­ers might equate, say, two tarsk-bits of one city to, say, fifty tarsk-bits of anoth­er. Also, coins may dif­fer from city to city. For exam­ple, in Brundisium, “staters” are men­tioned, but we do not hear of them in, say, Ar. In pass­ing, one might also men­tion some­thing which may not be clear to some read­ers, which is that coins, on Gor, tend to be valu­able. Indeed, much exchange, and such, undoubt­ed­ly takes place by barter, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the open coun­try; sim­i­lar­ly, local gar­dens would be like­ly to sup­ply more pro­duce per fam­i­ly than would be expect­ed in a mod­ern urban envi­ron­ment. For exam­ple, some slaves might be sold for as lit­tle as fifty cop­per tarsks, or such.

 

5. Q: Do you specifically have a map of Gor and /​ or pictures of some of the items and animals that are in the books that are not of earth that were done by an artist according to your specifications?

 

A. There are sev­er­al won­der­ful maps of Gor avail­able on the inter­net, here and there. They are spec­u­la­tive, of course. All, I think, rep­re­sent intel­li­gent con­jec­tures. Each is, as far as I am aware, com­pat­i­ble with descrip­tions in the books. I wel­come them all. I appre­ci­ate them all. With respect to ani­mals, there have been ani­mals on var­i­ous cov­ers, in inde­pen­dent art works, and so on. I think all that is avail­able, here and there. There was once a project to pro­duce a graph­ic nov­el based on a Gorean book, which project, unfor­tu­nate­ly, failed of fruition. A num­ber of fine draw­ings were worked out there, based on descrip­tions in the books. I would sup­pose the rights to those draw­ings would belong either to the artists, or to the indi­vid­ual, or com­pa­ny, which was under­tak­ing the project. I would guess that a graph­ic nov­el based on one or more of the Gorean books might be an inter­est­ing and remark­able project. There is, how­ev­er, noth­ing in the works along those lines at present.

 

6. Q: You had originally started writing as John Lange, and then changed to John Norman. Since Lange was already known, why the switch to Norman?

 

A. I think there may be a mis­take in the assump­tion behind the ques­tion here. It is an easy mis­take to under­stand, and a very nat­ur­al one. The first three Gorean books were all writ­ten by “John Norman,” but the first three were copy­right­ed under the name “John Lange.” After the first three, they were copy­right­ed under the name “John Norman.” I do not know why the change was made, as I had noth­ing to do with it, but it does seem a good idea to copy­right the books under the name “John Norman,” as that is the name under which the books are writ­ten. There are, inci­den­tal­ly, var­i­ous rea­sons for using the “John Norman” name. Most obvi­ous­ly, it sep­a­rates fic­tion from non­fic­tion, from, say, schol­ar­ly books, arti­cles, and such. As con­sid­er­able dif­fer­ences between these sorts of writ­ing are involved, that seems a good idea. Pretty clear­ly sci­ence-fic­tion writ­ing, or adven­ture-fan­ta­sy writ­ing, is one thing, and aca­d­e­m­ic writ­ing is anoth­er. The worlds are quite dif­fer­ent, at least alleged­ly. A minor rea­son is that it seems very few peo­ple can pro­nounce “Lange,” but almost every­one I have met is real­ly good at pro­nounc­ing “Norman.”

 

7. Q: Why is there a new money measurement/​calendar system, and other alterations, in the later books that differs from the first ten?

 

A. This ques­tion seems to over­lap some­what with ques­tion 4, above. I under­stand that that is the case because the ques­tions are pro­posed, at least to some extent, by dif­fer­ent indi­vid­u­als. At any rate, one might refer back to ques­tion 4, dealt with above. With respect to the cal­en­dar, if one means by the “cal­en­dar” the Gorean year, its divi­sions, and such, that is the same through­out the books, with the pos­si­ble excep­tion of men­tion­ing a hol­i­day, or such, here or there, not men­tioned in the ear­li­er books. If by the “cal­en­dar” is meant Gorean chronol­o­gy, one should note that Gorean chronol­o­gy, like that of the ancient world, is diverse. For exam­ple, Ar’s chronol­o­gy is based on years “Contasta Ar,” or “from the found­ing of Ar,” rather as Roman chronol­o­gy is on years “Ab Urbe Condita,” or “from the found­ing of the city.” On the oth­er hand, in Port Kar, years are reck­oned, fol­low­ing the estab­lish­ment of the Council of Captains, rather as, in year such-and-such of the Council of Captains. Other poli­ties might reck­on time in terms of Archon Lists, years of a Ubar’s Reign, and so on. For exam­ple, one would not expect Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and so on, to reck­on time in the same way. Even in the mod­ern world there are diverse cal­en­dars. There are, of course, “alter­ations” in a series, as it pro­gress­es. One may hear of a new city, a new riv­er, and so on.

 

8. Q: In the 70’s, the books started to gain followers and people started living according to your books, calling themselves Goreans, some even believing there is a Gor out there. It was either the sci-fi group went to Trekies or Goreans. What was your first reaction to this and what are your current feelings? What are your feelings toward individuals who have chosen to follow the life of Gor as a lifestyle? How is it that you wrote about such things and in a time when it was more shunned than accepted? Were you worried about the erotica side and how it would sell? How to you feel about the way many have embraced the books as a way of life? Did you anticipate there would be such a following when starting to write the series so long ago?

 

A. This seems to be a “suit­case ques­tion,” name­ly, a ques­tion which, actu­al­ly, con­tains sev­er­al ques­tions. I will try to answer a cou­ple of them. I think that is about all one has a right to expect. Hopefully the answer to all, or most, of the pre­ced­ing ques­tions is at least implic­it in what follows.

1. The Gorean books are fic­tion, and are meant to be read and enjoyed as such.

2. One does not know if a “Gor,” as an astro­nom­i­cal world, exists, or not. Given that there are bil­lions of stars in a galaxy, and that there seem to be bil­lions of galax­ies beyond these, stretch­ing on, far out of sight, and so on, and that extra­so­lar plan­ets are com­mon, between six and sev­en hun­dred hav­ing been detect­ed to date, it seems pos­si­ble that a Gor exists some­where. There are many fas­ci­nat­ing issues involved in these mat­ters. Much depends on whether life is abun­dant or rare in the uni­verse. My bet is that we are “not alone.” Simulations of primeval envi­ron­ments have result­ed in the abun­dant, nat­ur­al for­ma­tion of organ­ic mol­e­cules, but, so far, no cells, no civ­i­liza­tions. Perhaps one should give such exper­i­ments a bil­lion years or so.

3. I think the Gorean phe­nom­e­non is large­ly inde­pen­dent of what would nor­mal­ly be tak­en as “sci­ence-fic­tion fan­dom.” With all due respect to “typ­i­cal sci­ence-fic­tion fan­dom,” which I very much respect, and toward which I have very pos­i­tive feel­ings, the Gorean books are not writ­ten for “typ­i­cal sci­ence-fic­tion fans.” Indeed I am not sure they would under­stand them. Some sci­ence-fic­tion writ­ers appar­ent­ly don’t. They are writ­ten for adults, high­ly intel­li­gent, high­ly sexed adults, of both sex­es. Similarly, the Gorean books are not sim­ply adven­ture fan­ta­sy, but intel­lec­tu­al, philo­soph­i­cal, and psy­cho­log­i­cal nov­els. Also, some of them cer­tain­ly have ele­ments of sen­su­ous romance. The Gorean books are their own coun­try, their own world, not a part of some­one else’s coun­try, or some­one else’s world. They are not out, for exam­ple, to think up the 673rd vari­a­tion off genet­ic engi­neer­ing, denounce cap­i­tal­ism, woo anti­menite editri­ces, or such.

4. Interestingly, I know very lit­tle about the “Gorean phe­nom­e­non,” oth­er than the fact that it appar­ent­ly exists.

5. Interestingly, also, I do not regard the Gorean books as “con­tro­ver­sial,” as they are based, for the most part, on his­to­ry, anthro­pol­o­gy, biol­o­gy, psy­chol­o­gy, and such. It is true, of course, that cer­tain ide­olo­gies, and cer­tain com­pet­i­tive ambi­tions, are more like­ly to pros­per if cer­tain facts are over­looked, ignored, or denied. I think one should accept human nature, and the pro­found, won­der­ful dif­fer­ences amongst human beings, sex­u­al and oth­er­wise, for what they are, and then wor­ry about putting togeth­er a world in which human­i­ty might flour­ish, rather than be lied to, threat­ened, coerced, sick­ened, and stunt­ed. To be sure, this is a val­ue judg­ment. Some peo­ple doubt­less pre­fer a cul­ture that is a pen­i­ten­tiary, assum­ing they are, or expect to be, the guards and wardens.

6. Presumably one either writes for a mar­ket or one writes what one feels like writ­ing, and hopes for the best. I went at things the lat­ter way. There is mon­ey in flat­tery, syco­phancy, and hypocrisy. But I would rather make mon­ey, if I make it, anoth­er way, hon­est­ly, so to speak.

7. Sex, and sex­u­al needs, and sex­u­al natures are part of life. These things have been select­ed for, in diverse species, in thou­sands of gen­er­a­tions. It is hard to believe, for exam­ple, that the human species has been wrong up to now. I sup­pose that a fifty-thou­sand-year mis­take is pos­si­ble, but it seems unlike­ly. Perhaps rac­coons and giraffes have been wrong up to now.

8. I am in favor of peo­ple being safe, healthy, hap­py, ful­filled, and so on. What makes peo­ple safe, healthy, hap­py, and ful­filled? That prob­a­bly depends on the indi­vid­u­als involved. I think the test of “life con­se­quences” is impor­tant here. I have no objec­tion to indi­vid­u­als involv­ing them­selves in safe, healthy, hap­py, ful­fill­ing Gorean rela­tion­ships. Master/​Slave sex, for exam­ple, can be emo­tion­al­ly and phys­i­cal­ly reward­ing for both part­ners. I am not in favor of cru­el­ty, to a slave no more than to any oth­er ani­mal. The slave is to be cher­ished, and know her­self the belong­ing of her mas­ter. She exists to love and serve her mas­ter. She is not to be abused, but enjoyed. In the col­lar there are many rewards. The Gorean rela­tion has noth­ing to do with hurt­ing peo­ple. If it is not beau­ti­ful, it is not Gorean.

9. I did not antic­i­pate the suc­cess of the Gorean world, its pop­u­lar­i­ty, and so on. I did not even antic­i­pate the black­list­ing, for exam­ple, and it still seems sur­pris­ing to me, as I am not clear, real­ly, that there is any­thing there to be black­list­ed about. I am naive, I guess. Also, I did not antic­i­pate the extent of anti­menite pow­er in pub­lish­ing. That, too, was naive. It did not occur to me that women might exist who have seri­ous reser­va­tions about half of the human race. Interestingly, the Gorean books have a large, grate­ful, warm female read­er­ship. Indeed, sup­pos­ed­ly some six­ty per­cent of the Gorean read­ers are women. That did come as a sur­prise to me. So I gath­er that not every woman is turned on by, or thrilled by, anti­menite-approved males, when they rec­om­mend males.

 

9. Q: The women’s movement really didn’t come fully into effect until the late 70’s. Prior to that, many individuals were raised to believe women should be submissive to the male. They were to care for the man and meet his needs. You grew up in a time when this was so, and were an adult as the change occurred. Was the Gorean life of women submissive to men your belief or fantasy.

 

A. There is no Woman’s Movement. There are sev­er­al women’s move­ments, his­tor­i­cal­ly, and present­ly. For exam­ple, when a woman pro­vides the unso­licit­ed and not par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ing infor­ma­tion that she is a fem­i­nist, she is not like­ly to be doing much more than pro­claim­ing her alleged polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness, and that she is to be imme­di­ate­ly and uncrit­i­cal­ly approved. What is she telling us? Not much, I am afraid. Is she an Equity Feminist or a Gender Feminist, a Difference Feminist, or an Identity Feminist, or some oth­er kind of Feminist, or some com­bi­na­tion of these, and oth­er sorts, or what? Feminists range from lov­ing wives and devot­ed moth­ers to man-hat­ing lunatics. Some major divi­sions seem vis­i­ble, the Votes-for-Women move­ment, end­ing in the Nineteenth Amendment; the glam­our-jobs-for-mid­dle-class-white-women move­ment, the affir­ma­tive-action-spe­cial-priv­i­leges-based-on-gen­der sort of thing; and the far-left agen­da of some por­tions of con­tem­po­rary Feminism. (It is inter­est­ing that when the media inter­views a woman for the “woman’s view,” they always select, or so it seems, a woman from one of the left­ist move­ments, a rad­i­cal, so to speak, and not a rep­re­sen­ta­tive sam­ple of the oth­er 99.9 per­cent or so of the female sex.) . I was nev­er, per­son­al­ly, raised to believe that women should be sub­mis­sive to men, nor, as far as I know, were many oth­ers of my gen­er­a­tion. If one is a Christian, and takes St. Paul seri­ous­ly, on the oth­er hand, one might. I think he said that wives should sub­mit them­selves to their hus­bands. In that sense, there might have been reli­gious views along these lines. The three pos­si­bil­i­ties seem to be that wives should yield to hus­bands, or hus­bands to wives, or there should be a fight, as in a democ­ra­cy of two. I think the usu­al sit­u­a­tion is that the wife sub­mits to the hus­band in some things, and the hus­band to the wife in oth­ers. That seems to work pret­ty well. After all, hus­bands usu­al­ly know more about some things than wives, and wives usu­al­ly know more about some things than hus­bands. I do not think it would be a bad idea, per­son­al­ly, if wives sub­mit­ted them­selves to their hus­bands. I think that is a good idea. Perhaps I will call it to the atten­tion of my wife. On the oth­er hand, I was nev­er taught that sort of thing. The Gorean books are obvi­ous­ly fan­ta­sy. On the oth­er hand, their pop­u­lar­i­ty, and their impact, is large­ly a func­tion of fan­ta­sy mir­ror­ing real­i­ty. Without this they would not have the pow­er, the impact, the real­i­ty they do. What is cru­cial here, giv­en our present con­text, the Gorean books, and such, is biol­o­gy, and what is ful­fill­ing and what is not ful­fill­ing. To many women, it is sex­u­al­ly thrilling to be col­lared, stripped, chained, and knelt, to be sub­ject­ed to indis­putable male dom­i­nance, and many, in their hearts, feel some­thing pro­found­ly right and beau­ti­ful in being owned by, and han­dled by, a strong, pos­ses­sive, uncom­pro­mis­ing mas­ter. What is impor­tant here, again, is the test of life con­se­quences. I do not pre­sume to impose my views on oth­ers, and I would pre­fer that they do not attempt to impose their views on me, and every­body else.

 

10. Q: One of your readers wanted to know what the 12 slave kisses were. They were mentioned, but not explained.

 

A. I do not think they had bet­ter be explained. Would you explain them? Some would seem obvi­ous. This mat­ter, I con­jec­ture, is best left to the imag­i­na­tion. Needless, to say, as a por­tion of the train­ing of a slave girl, they would most like­ly have to do with a vari­ety of ways of pleas­ing a Master.

 

11. Q: What would your ideal kajira be? You write of various personalities. Do you have a favorite kajira?

 

A. I do not think I have a con­cept of a sin­gle ide­al kaji­ra. Women are won­der­ful, dif­fer­ent, and unique. I think rather than a sin­gle ide­al there would be a thou­sand ideals, and, per­haps, one for each woman. I see no rea­son why Margaret’s kaji­ra and Allison’s kaji­ra might not both, in their own way, be ide­al. Might we not bid heat­ed­ly on either one? I am fond of almost all the kaji­rae in the books. I am not sure I have a favorite. Let each male con­jec­ture his favorite kaji­ra, and let each female con­jec­ture her ide­al Master.

 

12. Q: Many times we write from personalities that we have met in our life. Are any of your characters made from individuals met within your life, over the years.

 

A I think this ques­tion can­not well be answered. I would sup­pose that the indi­vid­u­als one has met, and the indi­vid­u­als that one has read about, and so on, might influ­ence one. That might well be the case. Indeed, one might take one aspect from A and anoth­er from B, and so on. I think the char­ac­ter of Torm, the Scribe, might be based on the Dutch Humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam,. On the oth­er hand, I think the safest gen­er­al answer to this ques­tion is either “No,” or “Not to my knowl­edge.” Sorry.

 

13. Q: Where do you see Ar going, once Cos, Tyros, and the other occupational forces have been driven from her walls?

 

A. I pre­fer not to pub­licly spec­u­late on these mat­ters. I think it is much bet­ter to wait and see where the books go, and what they do. To be sure, in Mariners of Gor, we dis­cov­er the series risk­ing the vast­ness and tur­bu­lence of Thassa, the sea, as the ship of Tersites essays its per­ilous voy­age to the World’s End. At this time, Marlenus is restored to pow­er in Ar, and Talena, who served as a pup­pet Ubara dur­ing the occu­pa­tion, has become a fugitive.

 

14. Q: There are a number of lengthy plot arcs within the books. How far in advance did you plan them? Did you take it a book at a time, or did you have some grand vision from the start? How far back were you thinking about the fall of Ar, for instance?

 

A. The series is con­struct­ed in a rather Ptolemaic man­ner, name­ly, in terms of a great cycle asso­ci­at­ed with its epicy­cles. In short, each book, though com­plete with­in itself, should advance the series as a whole. For exam­ple, the “oth­ers,” “those who are not Priest-Kings,” the Kurii, did not emerge imme­di­ate­ly in the series. It did seem appro­pri­ate to bal­ance the pow­er of the Priest-Kings, which oth­er­wise would not seem chal­lenged, by a coun­ter­pow­er, one vast enough, and of suf­fi­cient sophis­ti­ca­tion, to threat­en them. The Gorean humans would seem caught between these two dan­ger­ous, titan­ic forces. They seem scat­tered, small, and weak, but even a mighty scale, suit­ably poised, weigh­ing worlds, might be tipped by so lit­tle as a grain of sand. Both Priest-Kings and Kurii, of course, enlist humans as allies, when it is thought to their advantage.

I do not know what will hap­pen in the series. The books have not yet told me.

 

15, Q: There are rumors, due to the change in style of writing in some of the later novels, that you have been getting help and/​or others, such as your sons and students, are writing them. What is your response to individuals who are stating this?

 

A. I am not per­son­al­ly aware of any changes in a style of writ­ing, or such, in the series. On the oth­er hand, Tarnsman of Gor was first pub­lished in 1966. So it is quite pos­si­ble that changes, in one thing or anoth­er, or of one sort or anoth­er, may have tak­en place. As far as I know, how­ev­er, things are pret­ty much the same. In any event, I am, and remain, at least to date, the only author of the series. I wish you well, John Norman

 

source : Formerly posted on Mystic Radio and eReads
What did you think of this?

One Comment

  1. The impor­tant bits from this inter­view, for me at least, are the following:
    ” I do not regard the Gorean books as “con­tro­ver­sial,” as they are based, for the most part, on his­to­ry, anthro­pol­o­gy, biol­o­gy, psy­chol­o­gy, and such”. 

    And to silence the misog­y­nis­tic, and the abusive:
    “The slave is to be cher­ished, and know her­self the belong­ing of her mas­ter. She exists to love and serve her mas­ter. She is not to be abused, but enjoyed. In the col­lar there are many rewards. The Gorean rela­tion has noth­ing to do with hurt­ing peo­ple. If it is not beau­ti­ful, it is not Gorean”.
    Directly from the author him­self — remov­ing the ‘excus­es’ of those unable to con­trol them­selves, or their tempers.
    Abusive behav­iour, is NOT Gorean behav­iour then, except to a ‘role­play­er’.
    Abuse is NOT ‘beau­ti­ful’.

    Well wish­es,
    Asmodeus.

    Do you agree?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *