I brought the Luther Scrolls into the discussion only because I noticed, in reading this thread, that the posters were using different quotes from the books to defend conflicting viewpoints, in the same way that people often use different quotes from the bible to defend conflicting viewpoints.The Luther scrolls are, at least, an attempt at an exegesis of Norman's (and Lange's) works for the purpose of creating a unified, unambiguous set of rules for an online roleplaying environment. I disagree that he does not cite the books in the scrolls, he does so extensively, albeit perhaps not enough, because I do agree that in many cases he extrapolates and draws conclusions that I find tenuous at best. And for me, as a non-native speaker, I find them easier to read and understand than the books. They are just simply written in an academic style, with a relatively simple vocabulary and straightforward sentences, and avoid the overblown bombast of Norman's voice in the novels.
With all due respect - for anyone with even the most basic knowledge of academic writing, wording something to appear as though it is well informed is neither difficult nor praise-worthy. The Luther scrolls are what they are - one man's subjective interpretation of Norman's novels. At least with note-cards of quotes, the quotes are being displayed unbiased, as they were presented in the books. Even if out of context. Which is surely better than one person's interpretation of a collection of quotes.
Nothing beats book-reading for Gorean knowledge (regardless the author's shortcomings) - but out of context quotes beat subjectively slanted fluff any day of the week.
What exactly in my post do you disagree with? And please do not misquote me. Nowhere did I state that I considered the Luther scrolls well-informed (can an essay be well-informed, or is it the writer?). I didn't even call them "well-written", I simply stated that for me, as someone for whom English is not my mother tongue, they were relatively easy to understand (even his discussion of the Nietzchean roots of Gorean philosophy was easier for me to follow than some passages in Norman's fiction -- which btw does suggest that I have at least attempted to read the books). I will give you that Luther's opinion is no more valid than any other opinion given in this thread, but I fail to see why,
prima facie, a statement or opinion by Luther should be less valid than any other opinion given in this thread, merely because it is Luther who said it. Perhaps there is a thread in one of the Gorean forums that sufficiently demonstrates why Luther has been discredited and his writings should be purged and not considered at all, but I haven't found it yet. I am, however, of enough of an open mind, that I would be pleased to see a critique of what he has done wrong. One can only learn from it.
