Talk:John Norman

censorship?

Frankly, Norman has a persecution complex. It wasn't political correctness that truncated his career; it was his insistence on publishing a long string of minor variations from the same template. Most of the discussion in the article about "action against the sale of Norman's books" is, at best, grossly overstated. Monicasdude 05:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, most people who have studied his writing history have come to something like that conclusion; he probably could have published more books if he was willing to work with editors a bit more. At least, it wasn't just political correctness. But that's opinion and speculation; putting this into a well researched and NPOV article may take some tinkering. Wyvern 11:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Saying things like "it wasnt" and "grossly overstated" is simply another example of an opinion, somewhat spiked by bias considering the tone used. Its attempt is to totally reject the opinion already stated in favor of what is simply a new and negative one. The facts fall more in line with what Wyvern stated - that there were a number of factors responsible, as is the case with just about anything that ever occurs, since its usually not a single thing that ends up being to blame. But the PC environment was a factor that impacted the Gorean novels, for they were, unsurprisingly, called sexist and complaints were made about them. I can say this because I know that when I tried to pick up vols. 23-25 at the commercial bookstore I regularly went to (this was at the time of their original publication), I was told that they would not be carrying them except by special order; that they would not be put on the shelves anymore. When the earlier novels were republished by Masquerade in the late 90ies I went to my local bookstore (part of a large chain) and asked about them out of curiosity. I was told that they would not be on the shelves due to their sexual content, but that they were available. In both cases I found this funny since the series seemed to have no problem being on shelves from the time it began in the late 60ies, right up to this sudden shift in the mid-80ies when you had to start asking for them instead (not saying all stories were like this but I do know some were - or for that matter if these were decisions simply made by individuals within the given bookstores/chains who did not care for the novels, which also would not surprise me). It could easily be argued that this shift in their marketing had a negative impact on their sales numbers, though overall the series did sell well for fantasy/sci-fi, especially at the time. -- IP 68.199.37.202 17:36, 30 March 2006

---

There are reasonably plausible rumors that after Wollheim was incapacitated, his daughter both didn't appreciate the Gor books' contents, and also didn't think that they would fit in with the direction in which she wanted to take DAW books. I'm not sure that's really "censorship". I have no reason to doubt that the Gor books remained a commercially viable proposition to the end, but I do doubt that they were any kind of roaring best-sellers -- and the mid-eighties books don't seem to have sold as well as some of the earlier ones (or else why are the prices of the last six books so much higher now?). And Norman wasn't really doing himself any great favor by dispensing with most editorial supervision, since that resulted in littering his books with "muchly", "modality", "unoften", and lot of repetitious mini-treatises. Then when he got the chance to publish the Telnarian series, it just wasn't as good as Gor. And after the mid-90's Internet revival of interest, several companies have struggled with trying to make money from the Gor material. As far as I can see, there are variety of reasons why Norman hasn't recaptured the relative success of his 70s and early 80s "moment", but conspiracies and censorship are only one part of it (not necessarily the most important part). AnonMoos 21:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

degree status

It is written that he was a Phd from Princeton University. However, what is the concentration?

added the title of his PhD dissertation as found on the Dutch wiki 82.93.67.64 18:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Query

• What exactly on the page is in "factual dispute"?
• What information on the page is not referenced or sourced?

I cannot find anything on it which matches these criteria. Therefore, I suggest that the {{{{dispute}} and {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} be removed from the page. Feel free to comment. Wikiborg 11:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The summary of Norman's philosophy at the books section, I presume. Almost no matter what the content of such a summary would be, some people are bound to have strong opinions about it... AnonMoos 09:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, since the mid-May edits, the use of the sensationalistic journalistic jargon phrase "sex-slave cult". AnonMoos 09:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I added quotes around "sex slavery cult", and I'm removing the "unreferenced" tag, since most of the facts and dates are pretty much common knowledge among those interested in his life or writings -- if people have objections to "unreferenced" material, they should flag it specifically in the text of the article. AnonMoos 01:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's past time to remove them. --Orange Mike 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The unreferenced tag was already removed a while back (see above), and the "factual accuracy" tag seems to be gone too (not sure when that was done). AnonMoos

Other

Should the 'sex slave cult' really be listed under 'career'? I don't believe anyone is claiming that John Norman was directly responsible for creating them, only that they were 'inspired' by his books: I'd have thought it was more suitable for a seperate 'Trivia' section (or similar named). Mark Grant 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I just changed the header level. If you want to make further edits along the lines you mentioned, that would probably be good. AnonMoos 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This "cult" obviously is a 24/7 D/s BDSM-group.--Nemissimo II 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

They're the "Kaotians" -- the more people have learned about them, the less there seems to be to them. The upshot is that on the "World of Gor" forum etc., both the Goreans and Kaotians have agreed that the Kaotians are not Goreans. AnonMoos 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain this more detailed? It's not obvious to me. --Nemissimo II 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The group in 2005/2006 consisted of exactly two core male members (the founder and his young disciple), and such women as they were able to attract to themselves from time to time. The group founder considered what he does to be "better than Gor", while the professed Goreans who encountered him online (and watched his several appearances in the UK media) considered him to be an annoying publicity-seeker who misrepresents Gorean ideals to a sensationalistic press... There are further quasi-sordid details, but other people know more about them than I do. AnonMoos 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. --Nemissimo II 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the cult story entirely from the text but retained the link as it is an example of an Gorean-like group. The news story is only tangently relevant to Norman himself but giving just such a short treatment creates wrong impressions (The previous wording sounded like a illegal cult in which women are forcibly kept, especially through words like "uncovered".) Deposuit (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

• A GDFL image would be great! --Nemissimo II 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Publishers

THE LINK TO www.newworldpublishers.com SEEMS TO BE BROKEN ON THIS BIOGRAPHY, CAN SOMEONE CHECK THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD JUST EDIT IT OUT OR NOT

That's not even his current publishers, anyway -- the current publishers are "E-Reads"... AnonMoos 06:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons category

There's a commons:Category:John Norman now, though it probably doesn't merit a "Commonscat" template on this article... AnonMoos 13:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Internet-driven revival of interest

Don't see anything very controversial in that assertion -- ca. 1995, Norman's authorial career was pretty much dead in the water (with the premature termination of the Telnarian series and no mass-market publisher willing to take on the Gor series), but by 1997 Gor enthusiasts were beginning to find each other on the Internet and bond into a community (or rather a number of communities, since different people have very different ideas of what it means to be "Gorean"). The first posting to Usenet's alt.books.gor now preserved at Google groups was made Aug 12 1997.

This internet-driven revival of interest hasn't enabled Norman to find a mass-market publisher, but it's kept Gor alive as niche product in several ways (most notably with the 2001 first publication of the 26th Gor book Witness, which wouldn't have happened without a significant number of Internet pre-orders), and spawned a thousand bulletin boards... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Follower of Borroughs?

"Norman is a follower of Edgar Rice Burroughs..." This is ambiguous. Such phrasing implies someone following a creed laid down by a prophet or some such. Is that what was intended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The first few Gor books were apparently patterned fairly closely after the John Carter of Mars books in a number of ways; as Norman started to gain commercial success and authorial self-confidence with the Gor series, he then felt free to depart more from the Burroughs legacy... AnonMoos (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

influence of ]Edgar Rice Burroughs's John Carter of Mars novels on Norman's early writings

Not sure why that statement was removed from the article; it's somewhat obvious to a large number of SF fans... AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal from list of BDSM writers?

The Gor books are not BDSM books but science fiction; it is only the later adoption of aspects from the books into the Gorean subculture that creates the connection. Also, Imaginative sex, though similar, has nothing in it that compares to BDSM; one quote is 'imagine the lash while he claps.' Sex play, certainly, but BDSM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.75.89 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly true that:

1) Norman wrote all the Gor paperbacks before the word "BDSM" itself was coined (which didn't happen until ca. 1990-1991), and that the founding of the "Sandmutopia Guardian and Dungeon Journal" (the first broad-interest BDSM periodical, which could be taken as a sign that the idea of a diverse pan-fetish umbrella community was starting to gather serious momentum) didn't occur until the same year that Magicians of Gor was published, 1988.

2) The majority of individuals who consider themselves to be serious Goreans do not really view themselves as BDSM practicioners, and may not have a favorable opinion of BDSM as a whole.

However, it's still the case that with respect to the Wikipedia category system, John Norman's works can be usefully filed under BDSM categories, as has been extensively discussed at Talk:Gorean. If you say that a "BDSM writer" is someone who writes with a conscious BDSM ideology, then John Norman certainly wouldn't qualify. However, if you say that a "BDSM writer" is someone who writes works with significant content that would fall under BDSM in a broad sense, then he does qualify. If there were a similar category that more exactly fit what John Norman does, then that category could be used instead of "Category:BDSM writers", but I don't think that such a more precise category currently exists in the Wikipedia categorization system.

And as for Imaginative Sex, Pat Califia (one of the most influential individuals in formulating the concept of BDSM) wrote a preface to the most recent edition, and presumably Norman didn't object. Anyway, I don't know if there's any BDSM code of conduct which says that BDSM people have to actually whip others instead of just pretending to whip them... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Queens College Philosophy Faculty

I removed the link to Queens College Philosophy department because it is no longer valid. An updated link to the Queens College Philosophy faculty is here: http://www.qc.cuny.edu/Academics/Degrees/DSS/Philosophy/FacultyStaff/Pages/default.aspx However, John Norman is not listed, so he is most likely no longer there. Tweisbach (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

He likely hasn't been an active faculty member for some time... AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Norman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://server.theadvocates.org/celebrities/john-norman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Norman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208203726/http://qcpages.qc.edu/Philo/tf.htm to http://qcpages.qc.edu/Philo/tf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Norman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514162828/http://www.rdrop.com/~/wyvern/data/ve.pr.html to http://www.rdrop.com/~/wyvern/data/ve.pr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

John Norman and BDSM

The BDSM movement didn't really start to coalesce until the 1980s (while the term "BDSM" itself seems to have come into use around 1990-1991), while Norman started publishing in 1966, so he actually precedes BDSM... AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)