Tarzan of the Apes - Edgar Rice Burroughs

[TorpidPorpoise]

I feel like I'm missing something, here. How does this book appeal to a modern audience? I couldn't get past the rampant racism, sexism, and cultural imperialism. Are there redeeming qualities that I've missed? Should I try to read it again?

[Bighuey]

Back when those books were written the things you mention were the norm in books. Burroughs was a hack writer, he even admitted that he wasnt a good writer, he wrote just for the money. Maybe if you read it again, or some of the other Tarzan books and ignore all the racist and sexism and stuff, you might get more out of it. His books were very entertaining action adventure stories not meant to be taken seriously.

[Caron1]

There would be sexism and racism, naturally, because of when it was written...that's just how people behaved. I haven't read it for many years but that was never what jumped out at me. I just enjoyed the action and the jungle. Thinking about it though, wasn't Jane a strong woman? Didn't she venture into a jungle? Wasn't she the teacher to Tarzan, a man? Didn't Tarzan fight for the animals of the jungle? Didn't he fight against injustice and cruelty? Perhaps the book has some redeeming qualities you've overlooked. You might give it another shot.

[GoAskAlice]

In order to really appreciate this book you must look at if from a historical perspective. Burroughs writes within the confines of his time. Naturally there would be things that a contemporary audience might not be able to relate to. However, the action, adventure, mystery, and myth that is wrapped up in the story gives an excellent feeling of discovery. It has quickly become one of my favorite books. It is easy to read and has high entertainment value. I definitely recommend reading this book.

[thesnowleopard]

I don't think we should let Burroughs off the hook for the rampant racism and sexism. He wrote it that way because he felt entitled and superior compared to women and People of Color. In terms of what one could get away in the Pulps, sure, he couldn't come out and have, say, a character like Tarzan be non-white (even if Tarzan is pretty obviously inspired by Mowgli from Kipling's Jungle Book and Mowgli is South Asian), but you don't see him explore the boundaries the way Robert Heinlein surreptitiously did with characters like Rod Walker in Tunnel in the Sky or Johnny Rico in Starship Troopers, either. And there's just no reason to make Alice and Jane such wet noodles when the Pulps have the likes of Jirel of Joiry and Belit.

Plus, Burroughs was fond of changing the goalposts whenever it suited him to keep his Superior White Man trope (like all the stuff about Tarzan not engaging in cannibalism, even though he ordinarily would eat the man he first kills, or his somehow not ravishing Jane when she's totally up for it). The really annoying thing about the white male superiority stuff, though, was how he would NOT SHUT UP ABOUT IT. Burroughs keeps telling us how to feel about stuff that could easily be interpreted or spun a different way by a different writer (the way Charles R. Saunders later did) and no reader likes being told by the writer how to feel about the story.

That said, OP, you might want to stick it out at least for the first book. Yeah, the opening stuff with Tarzan's parents is very eye-rolling--and I'm certainly not saying the racism and sexism disappear thereafter (I wish)--but like a lot of iconic, classic characters, Tarzan as a character has his own mindset going that is pretty alien to all the racial and gender superiority stuff Burroughs keeps shoving in there with his authorial asides (Tarzan doesn't give two hoots about any of that). And Tarzan as a character is really very interesting and different, with a fast-moving story that flows well. Burroughs somehow gives a lot of drive and power to what is basically an episodic bildungsroman about a young feral boy raised by apes.