Hmmm, did he present opinion/interpretation as fact? I don't think the guy did, really. There were plenty of references of him saying this was just his interpretation, his attempt to collect facts about the books. Maybe others took it as fact, but that is hardly his fault.
I think that those scrolls were quite helpful, to a lot of people. Norman didn't write an RP guide. Finding 'facts' in the books is pretty hard, especially when you don't have them all and before google and other search indexes indexed everything. So, part of the Luther scrolls, along with various other sources, served as a kind of RP-guide instead. Most of the notecards he made on particular topics are pretty accurate. And his essays aren't at all bad either. He delved into particular topics more deeply than anyone else has since, I think. For example, even though I have seen plenty of blog-posts (and forum postings) about Gor, who has ever spend time to write essays about the Greek/Roman roots of the stuff that is in the books?
Compared to a lot of other 'sources' about Gor on the web, especially 5 years ago, his work was really quite nuanced and systematic (especially since a lot of the other stuff was quite bad). His 'essays' on Gor's philosophy and such are rather dry and not always as insightful as one might hope, but they aren't full of shit either.
The thing I disliked most about them was the nearly semi-religious tone of some of his essays, not unlike a theologican's tone when delving into biblical texts. Which was not as bad as some of the stuff written about Gor (especially from those life-styler times), but still somewhat annoying, and the complete lack of a 'critical' element in his analysis of the stuff in the books.
His notecards etc. were not full of 'onlinisms', which some people may think. I don't think I ever saw him talk about scriberies, chillas, say aye or aii, have panther girls call men 'male', or stuff like that. Maybe they did contain some mistaken interpretationThat is stuff the online community came up with on it's own, not through his scrolls/notecards.
If I were to guess where the current fad of bashing the Luther scrolls comes from, I'd guess this must be fuelled by a couple of factors:
- People resenting players 'knowing' about Gor through notecards and sources like the Luther scrolls, without having read the books. (The most important one).
- Some people abducting passages from the luther scrolls and other notecards and using them to 'justify' playing femlaw, etc.
- The 'tone' of the scrolls, in which the author lists what he feels are 'facts' from the books (without quotes and references) and presents them as such, which may annoy those that feel THEY themselves have a better grasp on those 'facts.
- The fact that they are old, associated with past style of life-styler dominated RP that most of SL Gor has emancipated itself from, that there are some new sources that may be better.
- Luther had an interest in the books that was sort of academic, clearly. This may have impressed those that regarded Gor in a life-styly way. But for pure Gor RP-ers, a lot of it is less relevant. Why would they care about comparisons between Norman's ideas and Nietzche's or Aristotle's?
- The fact that it has become fashionable to say they are crap, just as it became fashionable to bash Norman himself as the worst writer in the English language some years ago. People are herd-animals, after all.