New Leaf April 2020 Discussion • Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs

[CRussel]

It's time to discuss our chosen guilty pleasure, Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Originally Posted by Goodreads

John Clayton III, an orphan boy, comes of age in the western coastal jungles of Africa following the tragic deaths of his aristocratic parents. Raised in the ways of the apes by his adoptive mother, Kala, he is renamed Tarzan and ascends to king through feats of revenge and courage.

When a group of explorers brings the beautiful Jane Porter to the jungle, a lovelorn Tarzan decides to follow her to the United States to win her love. On his journey back into human society, Tarzan must decide whether to return to the jungle or reclaim his past.
Fast-paced and suspenseful, Tarzan of the Apes was wildly successful and generated two dozen sequels; and many film, radio, and comic-book adaptations.

[CRussel]

So, was Lord Graystoke really like Johnny Weissmuller? Was the book as good as the movies? And really, was this a guilty pleasure? Or a major slog?

Let the games begin...

[gmw]

I nominated this so you can probably guess: I like it ... despite all its shortcomings.

I know it is crap. After reading this you can watch George of the Jungle and think it was not a spoof but a spirited retelling of the original. And I love that movie too.

It's probably a carry over from childhood. As I noted in the nomination thread, when others were reading wholesome tales like Anne of Green Gables, I was reading Tarzan of the Apes and the myriad stories that followed. I was climbing trees and swinging from branches - the orchard at home suddenly the darkest jungles of Africa. (But now even a small step ladder makes me nervous. ) And I'm guessing it might be these stories that first led me into science fiction and fantasy via Burroughs' John Carter (Barsoom) stories.

Acknowledging and reading this as pure fantasy helps, I think. It's not quite our world, just very similar. In Tarzan's world there are Apes that fall somewhere between gorillas and humans - something like large chimpanzees, perhaps. In Tarzan's world the lions don't act much like our lions, and it's hard to walk a hundred yards through the jungle without running into one (but always just one, never a pride that would work together to make a brief snack out of a naked ape ).

And while reading I can accept all that. I can forgive the incredible coincidence that Tarzan's cousin, William Clayton (along with Jane Porter etc.), should be stranded on the same beach as Tarzan's parents. I can even forgive most of the sexist, racist and classist portrayals*. No, there are just two things that stood out in this as a step too far for my tastes:

The strandings are almost identical, even down to the large kind-hearted villain that convinces the others to set the people on the beach with supplies rather than simply throwing them overboard. (And this delicate sensibility appears after slaughtering the rest of the officers on board.) I found it easier to accept it was the same beach than that these circumstances should repeat.

And the second was swinging through the trees of Wisconsin - over the top of a bush fire. This gave me trouble (hot air rises, trees burn). Isn't it odd that, of all the things I could have picked on, this stood out? And I've never even been to Wisconsin. Okay, so I've never been to Africa, either.


* It seems to me that a story that places white nobility onto such a high and shining pedestal means that much of the racism becomes a variation of class prejudice. The book shows savagery among both white and black men; only the white nobility stands out as honourable ... and, curiously, this is apparently hereditary, so the white nobility can't even take credit for it as something they choose. (Tarzan can't help being good and noble, and a non-cannibal, non-rapist - it came built in. In which case thinking well of Tarzan for these traits is like thinking well of him for having two arms and two legs.)

But toward the end Tarzan points out that lions may be cowards or not, because each are different. "There is as much individuality among the lower orders, gentlemen, as there is among ourselves." This is a little spoiled by the "lower orders" reference, but it is still, as with a few other places in the book, a nod to the idea that how you behave is not all down to what you are ... which, I admit, is direct contradiction to other parts of the book that insist Tarzan behaves has he does because of his heritage, but such contradictions are often evident with expressions of prejudice.

[Calenorn]

As with many authors, it helps to read them through the lens of their time. Based on the state of scientific and geographic knowledge in 1912, the first Tarzan novel is grounded in some quite clever speculative fiction. At the time paleontology and evolutionary science were searching for a 'missing link.' Much of the first Tarzan novel explores what it would be like if such creatures were to exist. The great apes in Burroughs' novel are not chimps, like in the movies. They have a distinct culture and a rudimentary language.

(In a similar vein, Burroughs' John Carter stories are grounded in speculation about the nature of Mars based on 1910 science. What could an earth native do in a low-gravity environment? How would life adapt to a world with little water and no plants?)

So there is some interesting thought underlying Burroughs' pulp stories. Even so, they are undoubtedly pulp. (He DID need to sell these stories, after all.) And as sequel piled on sequel, there was more pulp and fewer ideas. Still, the first Tarzan and John Carter novels stand up well after a century. And they're worth exploring for their influence on subsequent storytellers. No Superman without John Carter.

[Calenorn]

Originally Posted by gmw

In Tarzan's world the lions don't act much like our lions, and it's hard to walk a hundred yards through the jungle without running into one (but always just one, never a pride that would work together to make a brief snack out of a naked ape ).

This is a fair point. Burroughs' knowledge of African biota was... limited. I've read that the initial version of the story included TIGERS!

An African tiger is fantasy deluxe. I guess the tigers were retconned into lions.

[Calenorn]

Originally Posted by gmw

The book shows savagery among both white and black men; only the white nobility stands out as honourable ... and, curiously, this is apparently hereditary, so the white nobility can't even take credit for it as something they choose.

Burroughs was subtle about racial issues. He went as far as he could go and still be able to sell the stories. A white, male protagonist was commercially mandatory. Subsequent Tarzan novels did portray some noble, courageous black characters.

And consider the John Carter novel. It opens as a typical western, but when the protagonist finds himself on Mars, he discovers that the red people have an advanced culture and technology, but the only white creatures in sight are savage, mindless apes!

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Burroughs was subtle about racial issues. He went as far as he could go and still be able to sell the stories. A white, male protagonist was commercially mandatory. Subsequent Tarzan novels did portray some noble, courageous black characters.

And consider the John Carter novel. It opens as a typical western, but when the protagonist finds himself on Mars, he discovers that the red people have an advanced culture and technology, but the only white creatures in sight are savage, mindless apes!

I'm not sure subtle is the word you're looking for . But yes, he did like to mix things up a bit and that may seem to obscure some of the prejudices, but like a lot of modern fiction, it's a visual trick: the word is moving faster than the eye. I can change the colours or the species for the sake of the story, but alliances and prejudice still lie with the ones I have chosen to present as most like some private ideal.

However, his stories describe the main protagonists with almost sensuous care, and this same sort of exaggeration carries over into many others too - humanoid and animal. It can make it rather difficult to separate what is some sort of -ism and what is strictly melodramatic emphasis. (In later books the cliff-hanger endings to each chapter becomes so blatant that you get used to never stopping at chapter breaks.)

Whatever. The books can't help but be of their time, and I can't fault him for that, but neither can I completely ignore what stands out against the values of this time.

[Calenorn]

Tarzan is perhaps more interesting from a business perspective. Burroughs invented the character-driven fictional franchise, but I wonder if the thing didn't grow beyond his ability to control. Later Tarzan stories had as much to do with movies, and even newspaper comic strips, as with books. This accounts for the cliff-hanging.

[Calenorn]

Originally Posted by gmw

Whatever. The books can't help but be of their time, and I can't fault him for that, but neither can I completely ignore what stands out against the values of this time.

Your choice, of course. But a lot of vintage (public domain) fiction can be enjoyed if you can keep those time/culture filters firmly in place.

[Catlady]

Still reading, hope to finish by tonight.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Your choice, of course. But a lot of vintage (public domain) fiction can be enjoyed if you can keep those time/culture filters firmly in place.

You speak as if it's either/or. As you will have seen on my first post, I did enjoy the book - I do enjoy the books, which is why I nominated this one. Being aware doesn't preclude enjoyment ... or not always. There are some books that I enjoyed when younger that I now find hard to take. Oddly, or not, most of the victims tend to be closer to contemporary than Burroughs.

[Calenorn]

No offense intended. Choosing whether to read (or to stop reading) is either/or. I'm glad you enjoyed Tarzan.

We all have our boundaries. For example, Sax Rohmer is an author I won't visit again.

[gmw]

No offence taken. This being a book club we (or some like myself, anyway ) tend to dissect the books a bit more than we might in general reviews. For me a club discussion is not just about whether each person thought it was good or bad (we can get a lot of that from the "what are you reading" thread), but to see what it was that stood out to other readers. And to discuss what we found interesting about the book, for whatever reason - like your earlier observation about Tarzan of the Apes as speculative fiction. In short: to see and try and understand other perspectives of a book. It's what I like about the club and makes even those selections I did not enjoy directly worth reading.

[fantasyfan]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Burroughs was subtle about racial issues. He went as far as he could go and still be able to sell the stories. A white, male protagonist was commercially mandatory. Subsequent Tarzan novels did portray some noble, courageous black characters.

And consider the John Carter novel. It opens as a typical western, but when the protagonist finds himself on Mars, he discovers that the red people have an advanced culture and technology, but the only white creatures in sight are savage, mindless apes!

Burroughs did clearly believe that Western white civilisation was superior to native indigenous cultures. He also felt that these latter were vulnerable to evil manipulation. However barbaric they seemed, there was no excuse for the outrageous criminality of European societies—crimes against humanity which were exposed by Roger Casement. The following quotation illustrates the intense anger of Burroughs:

“To add to the fiendishness of their cruel savagery was the poignant memory of still crueler barbarities practiced upon them and theirs by the white officers of that arch hypocrite, Leopold II of Belgium, because of whose atrocities they had fled the Congo Free State — a pitiful remnant of what once had been a mighty tribe.”

Burroughs takes a similar line in his group of western novels which are written from the standpoint of the Native American. In the Mars novels—which I think are better (IMHO) than the Tarzan sequence, the Black race is the most noble and technologically advanced of all the various Martian cultures. So while Burroughs certainly shared the cultural mind-set which dominated much of his world, I think he also realised some of the ethical failings of that system.

[Greg Anos]

The interesting thing about this book, in bigger context, is the enormous industry it started. ERB turned into a shrewd businessman, and made many, many millions off of the writing business Tarzan started. Tarzania, California wasn't jsut named after tarzan, for example, ERB bought the huge block of land off the proceeds of his writings and used it as a real estate development, for which he got millions. . . (and that was back when gold was either $20.67 an ounce or $35 an ounce. In today's dollars, figure somewhere between 10 and 20 times the amount.)

Totally unheard of for a pulp author of the times.