Tarzan of the Apes/ The Return of Tarzan

[John]

Omnivore is correct. After the very early hominids learned to scavenge and later species grew more successful at scavenging/hunting/raising their own stock animals, the basic truth is that meat and other animal-derived products (milk, eggs, cheese, etc.) was on the menu wherever and whenever possible.

The evidence that it helped get us here, for better or worse, is that we are the most successful, higher-ordered thinking species on the planet. For now, anyway. Perhaps we are too successful.

In a billion years, when the evolutionary offspring of cockroaches take over, they'll likely have come along the same path.

[John]

You’re mistaken. Man’s teeth are precisely those of an herbivore, as is our digestive tract. We have no need of supplements. I have been a vegan for years and a vegetarian for many more years; I don’t give supplements a thought, though it wouldn’t do me any harm, not being much of a cook myself. Meat and dairy eaters, on the other hand, risk a long list of health woes, with new studies every day revealing the assets to our health of a plant-based diet. Standard American Diet mothers are urged to take folic acid supplements if trying to conceive and during pregnancy; modern medicine knows meat-eaters must take supplements. Vegan mothers get plenty of folic acid in their diet (though it doesn’t hurt to hedge their bets, either). Modern medicine is well aware that giving cows milk to an infant almost guarantees type 2 diabetes later in life. Here’s are some pictures of my Vegan friend Liev and her very healthy vegan daughter: http://veghaven.org/photo/photo/listF...

But this is not the place for this discussion, I fear. My website http://www.vset.net
has a great deal of information I’ve added over the years, including a few papers I wrote, and some useful links. There is an email link to me there, too, though you must follow the instructions beneath it. My time is minimal, now, but I’ll answer as able, with emphasis on sincere inquiries.

I know people want to believe we have to have meat in our diets; if it were not essential, the misery we inflict on meat animals and the damage we do to our environment would be unforgivable. We don’t need meat.

[Jim]

John wrote: "You’re mistaken. Man’s teeth are precisely those of an herbivore, as is our digestive tract. We have no need of supplements. I have been a vegan for years and a vegetarian for many more years; I do..."

John, sorry, but that just isn't so. We have omnivore teeth & digestive tract. Our eyes are not an herbivores. The list goes on... I don't know what you've been reading, but I believe that it is pro-vegetarian or vegan literature which has gotten some whack jobs with degrees to disagree with the rest of the scientific community. Happens all the time, but doesn't make it so. It's pseudo-science at it's worst. If you want to believe it, enjoy. Please don't expect me to.

The bit about the cow milk giving diabetes is complete crap. I've lived in farming communities all my life & so have my parents & kids. My grandparents all lived into their mid-80's, drank milk every day. One pair especially loved butter milk. No diabetes, lots of milk.

Fact is, a good varied diet, plenty of exercise & picking the right parents is about the best anyone can do. These weird, specialty diets are fads that some can afford & practice now, although I have no idea why they'd want to. Folks get in trouble with them all the time, too.

Night before last, a neighbor about my age stopped by & told me her son was running for sheriff. We got to chatting & she told me about some white oak down at her grandmother's house. I met her over there for Sunday breakfast; pancakes, bacon, eggs & a glass of milk. Grandma lives alone & is over 100.

I thought another neighbor was a bit dotty when I first met him. He's 85 & kept saying, "Momma said..." Momma just died a few months ago at 106. Far as I know, she ate just like him & he has milk for dinner when he's over. He lives alone & just finished his third cutting of hay for the year. I gave him a hand moving his cows into the other field since his dog died. He can still jog around pretty well.

None are vegetarians.

[Adam]

The claim that milk given to infants "almost guarantees" type 2 diabetes later in life is one I've never heard before. How many studies have been conducted about this link? Given the number of children who drink milk (as opposed to the very, very few who do not at all) you seem to be implying that nearly everyone gets adult-onset diabetes, which simply isn't the case.

[John]

John wrote: "Omnivore is correct. After the very early hominids learned to scavenge and later species grew more successful at scavenging/hunting/raising their own stock animals..."

Nope. Herbivore. At least by nature. I’d say your succession of meat-eating practices is accurate, but humans do NOT universally lust for meat. Two major religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, urge vegetarianism, with butcher being one of the Wrong Livelihoods specified in the latter. There remain tribes and enclaves that are purely vegan, wherein the health of the individuals is excellent considering the state of their medical options.

Since the elephant and the hippo illustrate pretty clearly that meat is not needed for mammals, in general, to develop muscle, perhaps we can limit our discussion to the brain. Again, it seems to me illogical to suggest that man’s cleverness in hunting and, later, herding animals enabled him to grow the brain that made him smart enough to hunt (with weapons, since we sure don’t have the equipment to chase dow gazelles and crush their skulls with our herbivore dentition) and to herd. No phylogenetic or evolutionary process has been proposed to demonstrate how a diet high in fat leads to the development of a bigger brain, or the necessity for a high fat diet for higher intelligence. If that were the case, then, since the risks of a high fat diet to our hearts is well-known, our evolutionary tendencies would be at cross purposes.

To say, in essence, man’s intelligence has made him a successful species, therefore the importance of our meat-oriented diet is established is an example of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument. I’ve forgotten my formal logic course, but the syllogism would be something like, “Man is a successful species. Man eats meat. Therefore, eating meat has made man a successful species.’ I want to say that is the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but it’s been a long, long time since college. At any rate, that’s along the lines of, “Red China is economically more successful than the US (currently). Red China is a communist state. Therefore, communism is a better system than capitalism.”

Whether intelligence will prove to be the most successful strategy for our species is yet to be determined, but it’s looking dubious. But, to repeat myself, there is plainly no correlation between animal intelligence and the eating of meat.

[John]

Adam wrote: "The claim that milk given to infants "almost guarantees" type 2 diabetes later in life is one I've never heard before."
That might be because you haven’t studied medicine; it is a fact known to all medical professionals. But I didn’t say milk; obviously, mother’s milk is the perfect food for babies. I said “cow’s milk.” I think I first encountered that fact in the Merck Manual. No time to look it up and copy it now.

[John]

Jim wrote: "J We have omnivore teeth & digestive tract. Our eyes are not an herbivores. The list goes on... " But it is a list of common misconceptions. Our teeth are designed for grinding and chewing; our jaws move side to side. The jaws of a carnivore are extended and designed for shearing; their jaws do NOT move side to side. The jaws of the omnivore are hinged like scissors (I’m sure there is a more proper physiological term for it); ours are hinged above the jaw line. The list goes on. The jaws of a true omnivore, such as the bear, are much more similar to those of the tiger than to our own. And the bear doesn’t eat that much meat: “Only a small portion of the diet of bears consists of animal matter, and then primarily in the form of colonial insects and beetles.“ - University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. My impression is - and I hesitate to state anything I don’t positively know to be true since I’m sure to hear about it - is that omnivores, generally, are carnivores in transition. Man may be one of the rare exceptions. Again, that is an IMPRESSION of mine that I’ve not found time to confirm.

As to our carnivore eyes - you imply that early man chased down and caught prey, needing 3D perception to do so. A little hard to imagine, don’t you think? We might have eaten grubworms and insects, but we’d hardly need depth perception for that. Can you think of any other reason primates might need good depth perception? I, for one, would probably not survive long if I had to swing from branch to branch. As it happens, I have no depth perception.

As I wrote to Adam, the link between cow’s milk and diabetes is far from “complete crap" (upon what counter research do you base that assertion?), it is well known to mainstream medicine; new mothers are cautioned not to give their babies cow’s milk before they reach their second year. Labeling everyone who disagrees with you a “whacko” is not a good way to assess the truth. I don’t expect you or anyone to accept what I say on faith, but I hope that every once in a while someone will choose to investigate the facts further rather than scrambling for rationalizations to justify whatever habits they already practice. One of my whacko references is T. Coling Campbell, professor emeritus of biochemical nutrition. “Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong,” as Carl Sagan or, maybe, some guy named Fasold said. That goes for investing years of study in a particular subject, too, no doubt. But, between somebody who is briliant and has invested years of study and someone who just makes unfounded or anecdotal assertions, the brilliant scholar is the way to bet.

Yes, my granny lived to be 96, and she was no vegetarian. But she was a farm woman, who cared for herself well up into her 80’s (the task fell to me later in her life) who ate oatmeal every single day for breakfast. A life of strenuous exercise will go a long way toward making up for an imperfect diet. But I, also, was raised on a farm, and we ate a lot more meat-free meals than the average American today. Many a meal was made of green beans, corn bread and a slice of onion, and we didn’t feel deprived (mostly because of the corn bread part; mom was a good cook.)

Anecdotes are, well anecotes, not science. The one study I know of, which studied Seventh Day Adventists in order to minimize extraneous factors, found that vegetarians, ON AVERAGE, live about seven years longer than meat eaters. The Hunzas, who get about 1% of their nutrients from animal products, are well known for their long lives. We can dismiss the myths of 130 and 140 being common lifespans, but an average age of 90 is still pretty darned good, with six people older than 100 the usual number to be found in a population of 40,000 (in the US it’s about 3 per 100,000). “Dr. Alexander Leaf, Chief of Medical Services at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor at Harvard Medical School, has reliably reported meeting a 106-year-old man who still worked herding goats during the summer months, while ‘the oldest Hunzukut‘ was "revered" for being 110. Dr. Leaf also has pointed out that it is "the fitness of many of the elderly rather than their age that impresses me."

[Adam]

John wrote: "Adam wrote: "The claim that milk given to infants "almost guarantees" type 2 diabetes later in life is one I've never heard before."
That might be because you haven’t studied medicine; it is a fac..."

The links between cow's milk and diabetes later in life have mostly been studied in infants under the age of 1 (who should only be consuming breast milk or infant formula). And the links were to type 1 diabetes, which is also known as juvenile diabetes.

You seemed to be making the blanket claim that all children (presumably humans aged zero to 12) who consume cow's milk develop type 2 diabetes later in life, which I'd never heard before.

[John]

I specifically said “infants.” But you’re right; it IS diabetes mellitus type 1, not 2. That’s the danger of speaking off the top of my head on detailed and complicated matters. Still I shouldn’t have made that blunder. Diabetes Type 2 seems increasingly to be linked to other bad diet habits and obesity, and is at epidemic levels in children, making the term “juvenile diabetes” obsolete.

But, of course, Type 1 is, if anything, WORSE than Type 2, and every parent should be, and is, cautioned to avoid cow’s milk in their infant’s food. I don’t think anybody is arguing - are they? - that we evolved to drink the milk of other species. But it’s amusing to think what we’d look like if we had.

[John]

I'd like to know why there's so much empty white space in my previous posts. Must've hit enter too often.

[Jim]

John, you're spouting pseudo science of the same sort that had people not using the grill because charcoal caused cancer in the 60's & has kids suffering from vitamin D deficiency because they're parents are afraid of skin cancer. It's PETA crap on top of that. Take it elsewhere. I'd prefer to discuss Tarzan or other pulps, not what a bunch of extremist whack jobs dreamed up over soy burgers.

[Henrik]

I think we can all agree that the pro et con cow milk is off-topic here. So while I agree with John on that point (we looked into it when we were having our own baby, and there are higher risks of various kinds) I support Jim in saying this debate should go elsewhere. (As John too said earlier was more proper.)

My first encounter with Tarzan was the comics, btw. What about you guys? Comics or the books? (I later read some Danish "kids digest" versions of some of the books--remember them as very entertaining.)

[Dan]

I hate to admit it but my first exposure to Tarzan was the TV series starring Ron Ely. It was on before church on Sunday mornings back in the day.

Anyone see that Doc Savage movie Ely was in?

[Adam]

Henrik, my first exposure to Tarzan (I'm pretty sure) was in a wonderful Marvel comic book adaptation that I bought in a large format (not sure if it was originally a miniseries). It stuck pretty close to the first novel by Burroughs.

In fact, I came across a copy in a thrift store not too long ago, and was surprised how much I remembered. One scene in particular I remember was when a young Tarzan watched two young apes playing, and he thought to himself, "Tarzan is ugly and hairless. Not handsome, like Keenak and Tonat." And then he covered his body with mud to hide his hairlessness. The story of not fitting in with his community but eventually growing to be smarter and even tougher (with the help of his knife) than all the apes and becoming their leader was incredibly powerful for me. I was about 8 or 9 years old when I read it.

A year or two later I saw the film "Greystoke, the Legend of Tarzan," with Christopher Lambert, and that also made a big impression on me.

It wasn't until I was in my early 20s that I actually read any of the Burroughs novels.

[John]

Jim wrote: "John, you're spouting pseudo science of the same sort that had people not using the grill because charcoal caused cancer in..."

Actually you’re the one “spouting” unsubstantiated claims to which I am responding. As to the grill thing I’m not aware that’s been disproven, but it’s not a major concern of mine: I love grilled corn on the cob. And too much sun CAN cause skin cancer, so it’s a matter, there, of proportion. Tanning booths were recently pronounced as deadly as poison. I didn’t become vegetarian for health reasons, but I’ve learned a lot about nutrition since, including courses in nutrition, physiology, microbiology, etc. I’m on firm scientific ground. But I suspect no amount of science would have any effect on your preconceptions. I will, indeed, take it elsewhere, though you have kept the issue going after I urged readers here to contact me through my webpage, an offer I now repeat: http://www.vset.net

Sorry, Steven, for taking up good pulp space. From now on I’ll try to limit my comments to pulp fiction. Maybe religion and politics, too.

[Jim]

John, you might note that since I've said you wouldn't convince me with your science du jour, I haven't bothered reading most of your posts. Just skimming enough to see you're still off topic & being annoying. If I wanted to argue PETA brand, vegetarian crap, I'd go to a group & topic so titled. Do you get the hint yet?
--------------------

I think my first exposure to Tarzan was Johnny Weismiller (sp?), but my father loved ERB & had many of his books. I was reading them as soon as I could, but I think I read his Barsoom series first. I don't recall seeing a Tarzan comic on a regular basis.

[John]

My first encounter with Tarzan was in Dell comics. There was a lot of reading in those 52 page volumes with no advertising. I can actually still remember bits of some of those earliest comics from way back in the early 50’s. The covers were photos of whoever was playing Tarzan at the time, often with a painted backdrop, but, since we didn’t go to movies often, that meant nothing to me. Tarzan was just a phenomenon who might have sprung full grown from the brow of Zeus as far as I was concerned. He was just part of my America, like Mickey Mouse, Arthur Godfrey and The Lone Ranger. I can still remember bits of the comics I had, probably because I only had a few which I read over and over. One, I remember, involved a region of the jungle where there was no sound. That was because some inventor had installed a machine that produced counter sound waves, canceling all noise. I remember that Tarzan was able to tell he was a Westerner because he used the word “malarkey.”

I also was prepared in case I ever encountered a triceratops. I knew just how to tame them with a staff. Strike them on the beak, then duck when they snap at you. For some reason, that inevitably made them tame. It was sort of like hypnotizing a chicken by drawing a chalk line out from its beak (which works, btw). Too bad I’d almost certainly be in the lost land of Pal-ul-Don if I encountered one and, therefore, not likely to be able to get it back to teach some of the kids and teachers at my school a thing or two. Comics in those days were educational. My first foreign language was that of the Great Apes, and I had a fairly extensive vocabulary (I never quite understood, though, why the chimp was named Cheetah). I have to admit, though, I didn’t begin to know as much Ape as many a trekky knows of the Klingon language.

I’ve already commented on how remarkable The Brothers of the Spear series was for that time.

When we got a TV I saw some of the old Weismuller Tarzans. It was not until I was in high school, as far as I can remember, that I even knew Tarzan had first been a series of books. I enjoyed the Marvel series when it came along; being as that was in the early days of Earth Day, it had a more environmental focus than the Dell comics had. More recently, I enjoyed Dark Horse’s version wherein Tarzan teams up with Tesla to undo the nefarious schemes of Thomas Edison, which sounds about right to me. After all, Edison did electrocute an elephant.

In short, definitely the comic book. Burroughs is one of those rare writers whose work has escaped beyond the printed page to become an integral part of his culture. And, by now, the world’s.

[Jim]

John wrote: "I also was prepared in case I ever encountered a triceratops. I knew just how to tame them with a staff. Strike them on the beak, then duck when they snap at you..."

LOL! I remember trying a lot of the stuff in the books, too. I actually thought anthrapoid apes were real. One cousin & I used to try to jump from tree to tree, but never had much luck. Lots of scrapes & dings, but it gave us a lot of ideas for games in the woods & used up many a summer day.

[Adam]

John, I know completely what you mean about living in a world where Tarzan and the Lone Ranger just existed. (I grew up in the '70s and '80s, though, so had no idea who Arthur Godfrey was.) It probably helped that I grew up without a television, and my primary entertainments were cheap nights at the movies, radio shows on NPR (esp. The Lone Ranger and The Green Hornet), and books and comic books. My friends and I just knew who Tarzan was, somehow, and would play games based on what we knew about him. Ditto for The Lone Ranger. I'm pretty sure I carried a Lone Ranger lunchbox to school every day for a year before I ever heard the radio show.

[Mohammed]

I didnt join you guys in this group read because the only copy of this book i found in the library was almost in pieces. Couldnt read it.

[John]

Adam wrote: "John, I know completely what you mean about living in a world where Tarzan and the Lone Ranger just existed.
Amazing - and heartening - to realize that the Lone Ranger lives on. Today the magic of audio drama is probably bigger than it’s been since the last radio dramas vanished, sometime in the 60’s, thanks to the internet.

I’m surprised to hear you grew up without TV, though. My family didn’t have TV till the 60’s because we just couldn’t afford one. My friend Karl Wagner’s folks had plenty of money, but just decided their kids were better off without TV. Karl grew up with radio drama and horror stories and old pulp magazines he sent off for. Later he became a famous writer himself. So I think his parents made the right choice. I’m curious how you managed to avoid the idiot tube. One of the stories in our reading book in junior English was “The Pedestrian” by Bradbury. Wagner often used to quote from it, “Why aren’t you home watching television?”

[John]

PS Re: Audio Drama - One of my favorite shows as a boy (and Wagner’s) was the Cinnamon Bear, run every year before Christmas. The best copy available of the show is at www.radioarchives.org/sets/PC31.htm (where you’ll find the illustrations I did for the show [though not for its original 1938 airing|). I have given copies to a number of people, adults and children. Some of both groups are quite entranced by it, but quite a large number of children, maybe most, seem incapable of sitting and listening to a story to which their imaginations must supply the pictures. I”m guessing this also applies to reading: that kids raised on cable TV and video games just don’t have the patience, maybe not the imagination, for either reading novels or listening to stories without video. Plainly many do as evidenced by the success of the Harry Potter novels (and more power to the author for accomplishing that), but, I suspect, a minority. So, is the fact that you were NOT raised with TV the thing that made you able to appreciate the spoken (and, presumably, printed) word?

[Adam]

We were poor, but by the '80s that obviously didn't stop anyone from having a television. No, my mom just had very particular ideas. We didn't have a car or any credit cards, either, and I wasn't allowed to have any sugar, red meat, or most processed foods.

I didn't even have a tape player until I was 12. When I rented radio shows on cassette from the public library I'd also have to rent one of their cassette players--they gave them to you in a brown padded pouch to take home.

I have no idea what I would have been like if I'd grown up with constant access to a television. Perhaps not too different, but who knows? It's all conjecture now. Kids I know now who were raised with constant television and internet certainly don't lack imagination. Patience and concentration seem to be the bigger problems.

I don't think there's anything wrong with any medium (television included) per se, it's just mindless consumption--hours of unstructured viewing--that I think is a depressing waste of time.

And yes, the internet has been a boon to lovers of old-time radio. Even though it sort of died in 1962, it never really went away. From 1974 to 1982 the CBS Radio Mystery Theater broadcast shows 365 days a year. I remember my mom listening to it. And NPR was great for radio dramas. We'd listen to old shows during the dinner hour. My local affiliate played The Lone Ranger, Fibber McGee & Molly, The Green Hornet, and Bob & Ray on the same schedule every week. That's what really kindled my love of radio drama.

They also played new stuff. Have you ever listened to Bradbury 13? It was thirteen adaptations of Bradbury short stories first broadcast in 1984. Great stuff. There were also the ZBS productions from the '70s and '80s (Jack Flanders) and the Cabinet of Dr. Fritz, which included an adapation of one of your friend Karl E. Wagner's short stories, "Sticks."

And thanks for the recommendation of The Cinnamon Bear! (Wild art, too, by the way ... reminds me of some of the old Oz illustrations a little.) I just listened to the first episode and will certainly listen to more ... though probably later in the year, when I'm more in the mood for holiday-themed stuff.

[John]

I recommend First Generation Radio Archives copy. They go to great lengths to find original transcriptions to eliminate the degenerated sound in so many circulating copies. You can find lots of free stuff online, of course, but their copies are pristine. And the money goes to a good cause.

Our local public radio station used to play old radio from time to time. I loaned them my copy of the Cinnamon Bear, then on reel-to-reel, and they said they got more response from that than from anything they’d ever run before. Then they hired a new program director, a grimalkin who had no interest in drama, including the classics, classical music or anything else other than NPR’s versions of talk radio. I finally quit donating or contributing to them. Car Talk is, imo, a poor substitute for Shakespeare or great music.

Prior to her arrival, it was a genuinely local station, with lots of volunteer shows (including my own wherein I reviewed pop culture, including re-issued pulps). One was radio drama, directed by Helen Lann who’d moved here from California where she and her husband had been involved in radio during its golden age. They had been friends of Jack Webb. The ancient scripts were mostly pretty bad, but it was still fun to perform (maybe not to listen).

I recently was asked to add my voice to a sort of modern version, an audio dramatization of original Star Trek based stories. You can be fortunate enough to hear my contribution at http://www.sttcm.com/index.php?pageid... in “Episode 4 - The Darkest of Thoughts“ and “Episode 5 - Command Decision.“ I have the minor role of Constable Delnya. One advantage to radio drama is that all roles are speaking parts. I have to confess I’m not sure where the plot line is headed. But it’s free, and cheap at twice the price!

[Jim]

You can also find a lot of stuff at archive.org. Sometimes their stuff isn't the best, but they often have the best available or missing pieces of radio shows, movies & more.

NoNags.com has a lot of OTR programs, but you need to be a member. It's cheap, less than $1/month. One of the best places around if you need simple utilities for your computer. They make sure they don't come with any surprises such as trojans & they rate them, too.

[Adam]

I recently discovered mysteryshows.com, which, despite their name, offers a lot more than just detective and mystery radio shows. They ask for a $10 donation, but it's a one-time donation, and from then on you get unlimited access. They have a bunch of great stuff that was removed from archive.org because of copyright reasons, but that isn't readily available on CD or to purchase on the Web.

[Jim]

I just finished reading "Lord Tyger". It was a very good update to Tarzan.

[John]

There have been several examples of actual feral children over the centuries. I wonder if there was a particular case in the news at the time Burroughs wrote his first Tarzan novel.

[Jim]

That's a really interesting question, John. I found this site:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/child...

It has a list of feral children, when they were discovered, how old they were & what animal they were raised with. Each name is a hyper link to further info about them.

Looking before 1912, I saw a 1904 hoax that might just be a Tarzan seed, "Lucas, the South African Baboon-Boy".

I have a two volume biography of ERB that I've been meaning to read for years. I wonder if the answer is in it?

[John]

I’ll be curious as to what you learn therein. My time for reading fiction (or biography) is limited right now to bedtime, and that will soon be taken up, with any luck, with fables of fearsome frogs (which I hope to purchase in the form of good, old-fashioned paper).

[Jim]

John wrote: "I’ll be curious as to what you learn therein..."

I'm not sure there will be anything I can't live without, which is probably why it's been sitting on my shelf for several years & will likely so for several more. I don't recall where it came from, but it's never been of huge interest. When I get home, I'll try to remember to look up the set. If anyone is interested, it's free to a good home.

[Jim]

"Edgar Rice Burroughs" subtitled "The Man Who Created Tarzan" by Irwin Porges. It's ISBN 03452513181000 which I couldn't find on a search here or in Amazon, so I guess they're fairly rare.

It's in 2 paperback volumes in a box. The box is worn some & the books look perfect, not even a spine crease. A couple of scuffs. They're heavy, so I'd appreciate postage for them. Otherwise, free to a good home. I doubt I'll get around to reading them.

[Werner]

Jim, if nobody else wants them and you genuinely want to get rid of them, I'll take them for the college library where I work; we have some of Burroughs' books, but no books at all about him. We'll reimburse you for the postage. Thanks a bunch! :-)

[Jim]

First come, first serve & it sounds like a good home. Email me the address, Werner. I'll try to get them out Monday.

[Werner]

Great, Jim; thanks! I'll message you the mailing address ASAP.

[Mary JL]

For those fans of biography, Richard Lupoff did a short but good book called "Edgar Rice Burroughs: Master of Advneture".

It is out of print, but your library may have a copy. Very well done.

[Steven]

Actually Mary, Master of Adventure The Worlds of Edgar Rice Burroughs is back in print with an update at the back of the book. I recently re-read it (along with the update, which of course I'd never read before) and think it's still a great book for anyone interested in Burroughs work. Thanks for mentioning it and jogging my memory.

[Werner]

Just now, I noticed for the first time that, according to our "currently reading" shelf, The Return of Tarzan is up for discussion as a common read until the end of this month. (I know, I know --even my wife tells me I'm not very observant! :-))

To get the ball rolling on that one, I'll start by saying that I really liked it! Of course, it exhibits both the strengths and weaknesses of Burrough's work; but for me the latter outweighed the former here by a wide margin. Sequels often show a decline in freshness and originality, but I didn't feel that this one did. The North African setting seems to be drawn more realistically than the sub-Saharan one; and Tarzan experiences some more moral decision-making and growth. One question (that I didn't tackle in my review) comes to mind: how do you all feel about Tarzan essentially stealing gold from the treasure vault in Opar? Was he justified, and why (or why not)? (Of course, realistically, an upbringing among apes probably wasn't big on stressing things like property rights.)

[Jim]

Opar were bad guys & didn't have any use for the gold anyway, so who cares about stealing from them? It was also payback for trying to sacrifice folks, including Tarzan. In the survival of the fittest, top-dog-eats-first-and-best morality of the jungle, he was perfectly within his rights.

I didn't care much for the whole Tarzan as a spy thing. It didn't work well for me. It felt too contrived & forced. Nor did I like how he got thrown overboard. He was too easy to sneak up on this one time, but no others.

Of course, the coincidence of where everyone lands is really pushing things, but had to be done. I did like how they lived so closely together for so long without knowing about each other. That was a good touch, I thought.

[Werner]

Jim, on the gold thing, that's pretty much my reasoning, too. (Actually, the people of Opar had evidently forgotten that the treasure vault was there, so it isn't like they'd miss any of the gold much. :-)) But I thought it made a good discussion starter, and I wondered if anybody agreed with me.

Overuse of coincidence, and selective inattentiveness on the part of a supposedly alert hero, are two of Burroughs' besetting literary sins! Personally, I didn't mind Tarzan as a counter-spy --he has some qualities that would be useful in that kind of work (and I can't really see him in a sedentary job). But I did have a problem with Rokoff conveniently having the incriminating papers on him at the end, after his clothes had supposedly earlier been reduced to such tatters that he was "almost naked." :-) Oh, well, that's Burroughs --you have to take his foibles along with his strong points.

Maybe I should have started a new thread for discussing this book? On the other hand, it's so imtimately related to the first book that they're essentially Volumes 1 and 2 of the same story; so I thought this discussion is really just a continuation of the preceding one. (The later books --at least, the two that I've read-- have more of a stand-alone quality.)

[Jim]

Maybe rename Tarzan of the Apes to add & the return of Tarzan? I think they read more like one longer book, personally.

ERB did use coincidence a LOT. I agree about the papers, too. That's one of my pet peeves in many books - how long things last. Some books have papers & houses lasting for centuries in good condition after humans are gone. It drives me wild. I've seen abandoned houses & they just don't last that long. Actually, they fall apart very quickly. Mice eat paper & it's a mess amazingly fast.

[Werner]

Jim, good suggestion for amending the name of this thread! I took care of that just now.

[Steven]

I always felt like TOA and TROT fit together as one book in some ways, much like ERB's A Princess of Mars, The Gods of Mars and The Warlord of Mars all pretty much read as one complete coherent story.

[Garrett Cook]

I have yet to read The Return of Tarzan, but Tarzan of the apes was a lot of fun in spite of its numerous shortcomings and Burroughs' inability to capture an outsider viewpoint very well. You don't really see that kind of brazenly un-PC action anymore. I'd kind of like to see the character updated but still as violent and savage as he once was.

[Adam]

In general I didn't like The Return of Tarzan as much as Tarzan of the Apes, but I thought the action and pacing was a little better overall. But there's something special (and kind of crazy) about the first Tarzan novel. The second, on the other hand, felt as if large portions could have starred some other pulp character (e.g., Conan, Kull) and worked just as well.

Oh, and I thought some of you might enjoy reading my recent review of the (very pulpy) film Tarzan and the Amazons: http://ocdviewer.wordpress.com/2009/0... I talk a little about the Weissmuller series as a whole, too, although I didn't end up discussing too much about their (often tenuous) connection to the Burroughs novels.

[Werner]

Good review, Adam! I've never seen any of the Tarzan movies (I know --a disgraceful lapse! :-)), but I wouldn't mind watching that one sometime, if it ever shows up on TV or VHS/DVD. (I'd always supposed that Boy was Tarzan's and Jane's born son --I never knew he was adopted. That's an interesting factoid.)

Yes, now that you mention it, Conan or Kull would have been quite at home in the Opar adventures. REH probably was influenced, consciously or not, by works like this.

[Steven]

I thought your review was very good Adam, made me want to go back and watch some of the old Tarzan movies.

[Adam]

Thanks, guys! Johnny Weissmuller gets a lot of flak for being a bad actor, but I think that's unfair. His line delivery is stilted (and this may have led to the public perception of Tarzan as a simpleton, which he isn't in the Burroughs novels), but he's a fantastic physical actor. And he did the jungle yell himself! As far as actors who have portrayed Tarzan go, I still think Weissmuller is the one to beat.

[Ó Ruairc]

But is it not true that man is a natural hunter? And being a natural hunter, would not meat be the primary food of choice? Like all carnivores, our eyes are straightforward so we can see our prey better. We walk upright so we can see above high grasses (early man needed this advantage while hunting). Our legs and lungs are created for long distance running. These are all characteristics that fairly-well proclaim man to be a hunter.
Too, in the dim, red days of mankind's existence, in the age before agriculture, animal flesh was man's means of survival. Meat provided much needed protein and iron. Without the iron gained from eating meat, the womenfolk would have become anemic; in turn, they would have given birth to children with anemia. In short, proof of our existence today is evidenced by our ancestors' fondness for animal flesh; it was the key to survival. I think ERB would agree. Furthermore and besides, there's nothing appealing about a savage ape-man who eats only grasses and coconuts.

[Werner]

O'Ruairc, I don't mean to throw my weight (such as it is :-)) as a co-moderator around, but I'd honestly rather not see that discussion --or rather, argument-- revived on this thread. IMO, it's not directly on topic (we all agree that Tarzan wasn't a vegetarian, and that whether or not he "should" have been isn't a question that interested ERB), and it's already generated more heat than light. We all have opinions; on some of them, it's best to "agree to disagree." :-)