Gorean Fiction
   By Arthur

I’ve recently noted a disturbing trend in the on-line Gorean community; authors of fiction must take care of what they write, lest they be misinterpreted, even shunned. The craft of writing fiction requires the author to put the reader into that state called ’suspension of disbelief’. A truly skilled writer can create believable characters and worlds with no basis in reality, and explore things far outside themselves or their own experience.

Several years ago I wrote a fan letter to Robert Anton Wilson, co-author (with Robert Lynn Asprin) of The Illuminati Trilogy; this novel has been called ’a fairy tale for paranoids’ and is the Mother of All Conspiracy Theories. Tongue in cheek, I asked Mr. Asprin if there really was a powerful and secret society dominating world events, dedicated to secular humanism and the improvement of the human species, and if so how could I join? If there wasn’t, what say he and I start one? Now before the invention of the bane called email, most writers seldom received fan mail, and to my surprise Mr. Asprin wrote back. He told me that no, he knew of no such secret society; the craft of the writer is to take fantasy and illusion and make it seem real. He thanked me for the compliment to his writing, in even for a moment thinking there might be some basis in reality. He also suggested I ’dig a hole in the back yard, and bury $23,000, in small bills. Don’t call us, we’ll be in contact.’

Incidentally, years later I became a Freemason; but, that’s another essay. ;-)

Trying to psychoanalyze anyone by their writing, any of their writing, is a game left to extremely well trained professionals. Trying to do so via their fiction is infinitely harder, especially for amateurs, than doing so by correspondence or other prose.

Stephen King obviously has a really morbid imagination, but I don’t think he wants to be or admires vampires, zombies, killer machines or aliens. The writer of Memoirs of a Geisha is male, and I haven’t heard he was a gay prostitute. Even the creator of Hannibal Lector, who remains at large and I’m sure with anticipated sequels, isn’t reported as being a practicing cannibal. Shakespeare would have to have had multiple personality disorder.

It can be done, but as I say it’s tricky. There is no doubt that John Norman and Robert Heinlein used their books and characters to espouse their beliefs; however, trying to psychoanalyze Anne Rice by her books would be worthy of a doctoral dissertation. Many have analyzed Thomas Mallory to death, and thought that in La Morte D’Arthur Mallory must have pictured himself as the noble and self-sacrificing King Arthur. Another, in my view a much more insightful analyst, says Mallory identified himself with Lancelot; it’s Lancelot’s son, Galahad, who eventually obtains the Holy Grail. The father, recognizing his own imperfections, hopes to see his dreams fulfilled by his son.

How many women privately entertain rape fantasies, and read "bodice rippers"? Many Goreans might interpret that as a desire to be subdued and forced to surrender; but in a rape FANTASY the woman remains in control, more like a bdsm sub. Try to actually rape such a woman, end up dead or in jail. A woman (even a slave) might entertain such fantasies, with no real desire to be raped. It’s been said, with great validity I think, that the principle difference between a slave and a Gorean Free Woman is that the Free Woman will submit to one Man only (and may never totally surrender); the slave willingly submits to all men, and can be made to surrender to all. Respect doesn’t equal submission; I’m very respectful of and to older men, but will assert myself when I think it necessary.

In discussions with my wife and other women, I’ve come to the conclusion that a woman wants to know her man could throw her over his shoulder and carry her off, could rape her, could be dangerous, is capable of violence; it makes her feel desired and protected, makes her feel like a woman. Should a man actually do these things, he’s an uncontrolled animal and not a desirable mate.

The craft of the writer, of the storyteller, is to transport us outside ourselves, to let us experience the impossible; or at least the unlikely. It is entertainment, the interpretation and creation of archetypes, and more. Richard Bach doesn’t want to be a seagull, Shakespeare wasn’t prone to settling arguments with a sword; actually, Shakespeare liked to sue people. To ever assume an author is the subject of or a character in their story, that a story is a projection of an author’s personality, is to make unfounded and illogical conclusions. For the best writers, even more so.

I wish you well,
Arthur

[Arthur is a published writer of fiction and non-fiction, and has degrees in psychology and cultural anthropology.]

See the musings page to learn why the Gorean Voice won’t be having a fiction column

Warriors
   By xxxxxxxx [I have lost (or didn’t get) the authors name, would he please step forward and allow his name to be credited?]

I was asked to write this on what it means to be a Warrior of Gor. On how one should be and act as one of red caste. I was also asked to explain how one becomes of the red caste.

I will start by saying that one must be a warrior from the heart above all things. It must be one’s basis of beliefs. It relies on one’s fortitude, honor, strength and courage. It relies on one’s integrity of them. One cannot be a warrior and lack integrity; this would be a simple scoundrel that battles with others out of rage for his own existence. A warrior believe it or not is a lover of peace, but it is inner peace. One who battles with himself and has a clouded mind will falter. His self-doubt will cause him to act hastily. It will cause him to rush out to battle if not to only prove to himself that he is strong. In these things we find the destruction of ourselves. A warrior cannot rush into battle out of self-exuberance, he must face battle calmly. He must be relaxed and confidant in himself and those he stands with. He must have loyalty to those he serves. A warrior without loyalty even to himself will in the midst of battle change his course to suit his own desires, thus causing a change of flow of battle. This cannot be tolerated for one man turning can decide the rise and fall of an army or battle, or even war.

In Tarnsman of Gor a warrior became a warrior only when recognized by another of that caste. I truly believe a true warrior will recognize his brethren when amongst him, But if a man is called a warrior and later shows himself out to be a coward or anything other then honorable. He will be stripped of his position (If not slain in battle anyways). One must know as a warrior when to be on defense and when to be on offense. When to advance and when to retreat. A warrior recognizes his enemy and knows their weaknesses but also respects them. For in their weaknesses he will find his strengths and in discovering their weaknesses he too will recognize his own weaknesses. As I said before a warrior must know himself above and beyond anything else. In knowing himself he will come to know the enemy. A warrior can be either simple in mind or complex. It is for this reason a warrior must know the limitations of his surroundings. If he is in council with the Ubar he must show his intelligence and be politically correct due to his station. When speaking of the enemy he must know his facts and speak well of them. When among the enemy he must be ruthless in his endeavor but he must also be respectful of how he carries out his mission or tasks.

Of course as a Master he will decide on his own whether respect is due or not, but I say this, it is better to give respect and sit with your enemy before you then it is to sit in disrespect and turn your back to allow the blade of chance to find its way into your tunic.

As a warrior you must keep your weapons sharp. What are a warrior’s weapons? His weapons, of course, being made of steel and also of various equipment --the lance, etc. But these are not a warrior’s only weapons; his mind is a weapon, he must also keep it sharp and clear. He must be wise in the ways of his enemy and himself and his surroundings at all times. He must appear sharp as a razor, though at times deception of being dull can be a great advantage, but is this not also employing tactics? Which of course relates to being sharp in one’s mind. To put it bluntly, a warrior himself is his tool. Yes, equipment and mount are important, but without a sharp warrior, these are but useless items. It is said that for one to be truly successful in battle against one’s enemy, he must win the battle without even raising his sword. Being sharp, prepared, respectful, and knowing oneself above and beyond anything else, does this. I will only add this one last thing.

If you are a Gorean warrior, remember who you are, and never forget it is you who make or break peace. It is you who bring about win or failure. But if you are going to fail, do so knowing that you failed with honor and that you died so others might have a future.

Ta Sardar Gor

Wind and Steel

SLAVES AND THE GOREAN PHILOSOPHY
   By adelaide

While this girl is not Gorean, she has been in the company of Men whose lives reflect their adherence to Gorean philosophy and she honors Gorean customs, as she has seen them in practice in real life. The girl admittedly has not read all the books through once, much less the numerous times she knows those knowledgeable of Gorean ways and philosophies have. She also willingly admits that she is operating more from a instinctual base than one of knowledge. And so armed with meagre knowledge and limited contact with those who practice the ways of Gor, this girl entered into a discussion with a Gorean Master she respects, admires and is very fond of. This one believes it will not be the last time she is that foolish, but so encumbered from such a paltry knowledge base, the girl dives in to the deep end of the pool just the same.

The discussion began as the girl made the opening gambit: if a Gorean community outside the realm of the internet is to thrive, it will be due to the efforts of Men. Not simply replying to posts, or sailing email, but in pressing flesh, sharing drink, and sharing themselves, their time, and their character. On this we agreed, and after that agreed upon very little else.

This girl premised to say, a slave does not "have" the Gorean philosophy. A slave will espouse the Gorean philosophy as given to her by a Gorean man. The philosophy does not originate with the slave, but it may emanate from her. Her behavior may reflect certain tenets of Gorean philosophy, but that is only to the extent her Master will allow, and reflective of his own interpretation of the philosophy.

A Gorean slave cannot live the Gorean philosophy of her own, it is experiential, and meant to be a living philosophy, not simply one of contemplative thought. A slave may speculate on what a Gorean male may or may not do, may perhaps discuss with other slaves or Masters what they believe the philosophy is or is not, but in the end, it is reflective of the Master’s application of the philosophy, and not of the girls independent application of the philosophy. A slave’s concept of the principles of Gorean philosophy must be different, not necessarily better or worse, but different, as this one understands the philosophy belongs to Men. Its application and responsibility for adherence to that philosophy is solely within the control of Men.

As this one understands, the tenets of Gorean philosophy were interpreted by Men from the Priest Kings; it was not disseminated widely throughout all of Gor, for all the populace equally, but given to Men, to utilize as they will. This is the dominion of Men, allowing the emergence of character assets buried beneath societal strictures, reaffirming and restructuring a society to reflect those character assets.

These tenets are spoken of highly on the Gorean message boards: words like Honor, Integrity, Truth, self-Mastery, self-actualization, and stewardship of that he controls, all comprising the ultimate US Army slogan "Be All You Can Be," and a girl would add "but Be Who You Are."

A slave cannot independently choose those character assets she wishes to manifest, they are within the scope of the one who controls her. If a slave is ordered to cheat at cards, the slave may hold the character value that it undermines her integrity to do so, even if the opponent is aware she is doing so. Will the slave cheat as ordered? Definitely. If her Master believes that cheating at cards is not an impingement of character, the slave will do as ordered, regardless of her personal beliefs. That is the nature of slaves. The slave’s integrity is in the hands of her Master, and her behavior is reflective of His character, and is no longer her own to express at her will.

This one was asked, how is this any different from any other philosophy? The girl would simply state -- power. In ancient philosophies, there was no gender separation, philosophy was available to the masses, no power base of control, no stopgap measures on interpretation of philosophy. One interpreted it as one saw fit, taking what one wanted, leaving the rest. All were free to interpret as they wished, live as they wished.

For slaves, this is not the case. Through training and personal encounters, a slave will reflect the values of her Master. This does not mean a slave cannot discuss her Master’s philosophy, but one must remember the source of origin. This girl cannot think of a slave, living in a Gorean home, who would have the audacity to speak "for" their Master, or to speak against (at least in public) her Master’s viewpoint on Gorean philosophy.

Slaves may share what they speculate their Master would think or believe, but in the end, it is the Master’s beliefs which will guide and decide the action, regardless of the slave’s personal beliefs. A slave may embrace the philosophy as she is taught it by her Master, she may wholeheartedly agree and concur, or she may not. The books are filled with the trials of girls confronted by the conflict of previously held beliefs and Gorean philosophy.

Thought cannot be controlled, a girl may think or reason to herself, may disagree with the philosophy of her Master, but her word and deed will ultimately mirror that of her Master, if she is indeed slave.

What responsibility does a slave have, from a slave’s point of view?

By r0issy

The immediate answer to this question can be a number of things

Absolute obedience
OR
A slave is only responsible for what ever her Master says she is responsible for
OR
A slave owns nothing so has no responsibilities

All of these are very easy things to say, and sweep the issues under the carpet, and make it look easy for the slave.

Let us start by looking at the definition of responsibility from Webster’s dictionary:

1. the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability
2. something for which one is responsible :

To expand a little on this lets also look at the definition for responsible:

1. Liable to respond; likely to be called upon to answer; accountable; answerable; amenable; as, a guardian is responsible to the court for his conduct in the office.
2. Able to respond or answer for one’s conduct and obligations; trustworthy, financially or otherwise; as, to have a responsible man for surety.
3. Involving responsibility; involving a degree of accountability on the part of the person concerned; as, a responsible office.

Slaves are answerable to their owners. In this way a slave is more responsible than an average person. Unless a person breaks a law, no one is going to stop an average person from acting in a silly and irrational way. No one has the right to demand that an average person explains their actions, unless there are some hierarchal dynamics. A Master and slave don’t just have the dynamics, the Master can and will demand that a slave not only explain her actions but takes the punishment for any wrongdoing.

But is a slave answerable to her own morals? What happens if the absolute obedience requires her to break one of her deep-seated morals? A slave who says she is absolutely obedient to her Master is ignoring the chance that her Master might ask something which goes against her very basic morals. Is a slave accountable to herself? Let’s give some examples:

A Master tells a slave to murder someone.

A Master tells a slave jump out of a 14^th floor window.

A Master tells a slave to ignore a small child needing an ambulance to be called.

A Master tells a slave to drive dangerously to get Him to that meeting on time, ignore the red lights

A slave finds that her Master is abusing children

These examples are perhaps a little extreme, but they do need to be thought about. Masters are human and therefore make mistakes and have emotions. There is no right or wrong answer, it is very much a "it depends" type of question.

On a very practical note, the legal systems in many countries will not take "He told me to" as a great defence against murder or dangerous driving. The law sees a person as responsible for his/her own actions.

Let’s take some slightly less extreme examples that do not ask a slave to break the law.

A slave is not allowed to leave the house without permission, her Master is in a meeting that she cannot disturb, and a serious car accident happen outside her home, should she go out to help?

A slave is out shopping, but has limited time given her, she comes across a lost child. She really does not have time to help and get back in time, what should she do?

A slave is driving her Master to the airport to catch a plane, they are slightly late, they witness a car accident, the slave has medical skills to help but her Master says "drive on"

For a slave to say she would obey her Master without question in each of these situations without thinking is denying that she has morals. Whether her responsibility to her absolute obedience to her Master or her morals wins is not the issue, the issue to recognise is that there is a moral battle for the slave there. Humans are designed with some very practical morals: to protect children, the survival instinct. They are deeply rooted within us.

Therefore this is not a slave twisting the rules to meet her own desires, the "He said no cakes, He didn’t mention biscuits, so therefore girl can have one, He said girl was not allowed to buy any more clothes for herself, well if girl buys you some and you buy girl some we haven’t broken any rules". That is finding loop holes in what the Master said and we can all imagine the consequences of such actions.

Neither are these rules going against a slave’s preferences: "Master says girl must be home by 5pm, but girl likes walking slowly through the park, so girl will be late". Another one we can all see the reply to.

Can a slave be absolutely obedient? What happens if her Master goes insane? What happens if He asks her to break a deep-rooted moral. Does a slave have to be able to cope with being answerable to herself?

Hopefully, none of us will be asked to answer these questions in anything but theory. Unfortunately, some of us will have to one day, and possibly cope with the more serious situations. So the conclusion of this article is to advise a slave to ask her Master to sit and talk around these situations, to see what He would expect a slave to do. From this a slave can prepare herself before the situation arises.