Re-Post: Edgar Rice Burroughs and Masculine Narrative

[This is a much-revised version of an article that originally appeared some years ago at The Brussels Journal.]

Prologue: Contemporary popular culture is as jejune as contemporary politics, with which it is more or less indistinguishable: Strangled by political correctness and by contempt for form and etiquette, “pop” culture eats away like acid at what remains of courtesy and memory. But the past of popular culture – in literature, illustration, and the movies – has much nourishment to offer. One of the most widely read authors of the Twentieth Century, Edgar Rice Burroughs (1875 – 1950), had a penetrating insight concerning the health of the body politic and the positive relation of a vital culture to its founding traditions. The author of Tarzan (1912) and its many sequels, the inventor of the extraterrestrial sword-and-sandals romance, ex-cavalryman, admirer of the Apache and the Sioux, anti-Communist, anti-Nazi, self-publishing millionaire entrepreneur, religious skeptic, “Big-Stick” patriot, Southern California real-estate baron, sixty-year-old Pacific-Theater war correspondent, Burroughs has, with a few ups and downs, maintained an audience from his authorial debut in 1912 to the present day, nearly sixty-five years after his passing. Burroughs has a place in the culture wars, standing as he does for the opposite of almost everything advocated by the elites of the new liberal-totalitarian order. I offer, in what follows, a modest assessment of Burroughs’ work.

ERB Foto-Portrait 03

 I. “Racist, Sexist.” A longtime teacher of Western Literature, Classics-in-Translation, and American Novel courses at the university level (in California, Michigan, and Upstate New York) and a professing radical traditionalist, I am fiercely dedicated to high culture and the Great Books. I confess, however, to a sneaking fondness for some of the outstanding – even some of the less-than-outstanding – popular literature of the first half of the Twentieth Century. This is partly a matter of sentiment. Getting hooked on Edgar Rice Burroughs at twelve or thirteen contributed mightily to my own literacy, by making me a habitual reader. It must have been in 1966 or 1967. When most Burroughs titles went out of copyright in the early 1960s, two paperback houses, Ace and Ballantine, reissued competitively the sixty or so full-length adventure stories. Many of these tales ran in series – the Tarzan series, of course, but also a Mars series, a Venus series, and a Pellucidar series set in a strange world on the inner surface of the hollow terrestrial globe, lighted perpetually by a stationary central sun. The colorful action-based covers of those paperback editions, especially the ones by Roy Krenkel, figured largely in the attraction.

“ERB,” as fans learned to call Burroughs, also wrote a number of stand-alone novels, all either fantastic or adventurous. Burroughs exercised a fecund imagination, not least in creating his settings, which all boast a stable, detailed geography, a variety of differing cultures and societies, and exotic recurrent words from the appropriate fantastic languages. These authorial gestures would later undergo commoditization under the pretentious label of “world building.” For fifteen hundred dollars, one could take a summer course at a Midwestern university, taught by a practicing science fiction writer, in “world building.”

Burroughs’ reputation has risen or fallen tidally over the long term. The last high tide came with the proliferation of paperbacks in the 1960s, followed by a long period of diminished interest, with a few reprints here and there. The last decade, however, has seen a minor revival, rather more bon ton in character than the previous one, with the University of Nebraska Press under its Bison Books imprint releasing key items of the Burroughs oeuvre as part of their “Frontiers of Imagination” series dedicated to early masterpieces of science fiction. These Bison editions come complete with more or less scholarly “front material” by various hands. The first three Mars, or rather Barsoom, novels have appeared in a single volume – A Princess of Mars (1912), The Gods of Mars (1912), and The Warlord of Mars (1913). Bison has issued the first three Venus or Amtor novels (1930s to 40s), but separately, and the full range of the Pellucidar series (1914 through 1944), also separately; and along with these the Moon trilogy (1926) and the stand-alone Beyond Thirty (1916). Bison’s enterprise makes available a generous sampling of Burroughsian narrative from the man’s first publication, A Princess of Mars, to items of his final lustrum. A Princess has also appeared in a black-spined Penguin Classics edition (2007), something like the ultimate in literary vindication.

Barsoom Frzaetta

The introductions or prefaces in the Bison editions tend towards the apologetic. At least, they include unctuous apologies and hand-wringing reservations in awkward asides. For what sins do the timid contemporary recommenders of Burroughs feel the need vicariously to atone? Harry Turtledove, introducing Pellucidar (1915), makes a concession – or maybe it is a confession – on behalf of an author for whom he feels no little admiration, and whose memory he wants, under a regime of timid qualification, to preserve: “Yes, Burroughs was racist. Yes, Burroughs was sexist.” Yes, yes, yes, “racist” and “sexist” – Amen and Hallelujah, Brother! In describing his own reaction, when he first read the book in his adolescence, Turtledove writes, “Even a not too politically conscious teenager could see as much.” Phillip R. Burger, who supplies the “Afterword” to the same tale, aggressively trumps Turtledove, portraying Burroughs as a propagandist for American military action in the Philippines: “As Orientals were considered a cruel race, dealing with them cruelly was only right and proper. Down in Pellucidar Burroughs takes this American imperialist bent and removes some of its moral ambiguity.”

According to Burger, the “Mahars,” a race of sentient, winged, telepathic reptiles who enslave human beings in Burroughs’ inner world, serve as stand-ins for the Philippine rebels who fought against American governance in the aftermath of the Spanish War. (Does everyone follow that?) Burger must really stretch to make this identification, since the Mahars are in control of their own empire and the story concerns the revolt of the enslaved against them. Later in his essay, Burger fails entirely to catch the irony in a line that he quotes from the adventure. Burroughs has one of his Stone-Age, inner-world characters say of modern weaponry that it will enable him and his fellow warriors to “kill more… in a single battle than was possible before during the course of a whole war,” and that one of the men from the outer world “calls this [i.e., the efficiency of slaughter] civilization… a very wonderful thing.” Given the date of Pellucidar, given the formulaic character of the remark, and given finally the naivety of the person who speaks it, the authorial intention would seem obvious – not to extol modern total-warfare, as Burger says, but to denounce it, and to satirize the ideology behind it. Burger’s afterword to Pirates of Venus (1931) condemns its object a bit less but it celebrates the space-faring protagonist Carson Napier for his incompetence in comparison to earlier Burroughsian heroes.

Another preface-writer, David Brin, who like Turtledove writes science fiction stories, detects “racism” in Beyond Thirty (1916), set in a devastated Europe three hundred years in the future. The world war having exhausted and wrecked European society, Europeans in their new Dark Age of primitive tribalism have suffered encroachment by the “Abyssinian Empire” and counter-encroachment by an expanding Chinese Empire. Burroughs represents the African elites as civilized; even the general soldiery is literate, which no European is. Of course, as was the actual Abyssinia of the early Twentieth Century, Burroughs’ future Abyssinia is a slave-keeping polity. The non-slave-holding Chinese represent a higher civilization than the Abyssinians. Burroughs’ Arizona-born hero comes to see in American-Chinese cooperation the best hope for salvaging Europe from its degeneracy. The Chinese of Beyond Thirty contradict the charge of anti-Asian bigotry laid against Burroughs by Burger, which in any case was quite weak. But what does a mere reader of Beyond Thirty know? Undoubtedly modern scholarship could find “racism” in my maiden aunt’s antimacassars.

Princess of Mars Burroughs Edition Cover Escape on Venus

Race provides a recurrent theme in Burroughs’ “Barsoomian” setting, but in no stereotyped way; the Barsoom novels have indeed partly the character of a racial utopia, with all skin-colors represented, and represented moreover as internally various in their moral and intellectual dispositions. In the Mars stories, among the wickedest of villains are the doughy-white “Holy Therns,” priests of a false and sacrificial religion. The dominant Martians belong to the red race, in whose ranks readers find once again the full range of characters from villains to heroes. A piece of Martian lore is that the Black Martians, who live near the South Pole, were the first Martians; they indeed refer to themselves as “The First Born.” Like the voyages in Homer’s Odyssey, Burroughs’ “Barsoom” novels proffer a veritable comparative ethnology of societies at different levels of moral development and technical sophistication. Technical sophistication is by no means invariably linked with moral development. Burroughs’ progressive critics never manage to glean that Burroughs never endorsed the idea of progress, but was rather its critic.

The preface-writers naturally find Burroughs rampantly condescending to women. They feel with near-unanimity the incumbency on them to apologize for the poster-like (as they see it) gorgeousness of the Burroughsian leading-ladies, like Dian the Beautiful in the Pellucidar stories, or the lovely, prodigiously talkative Oo-aa, from the late Savage Pellucidar, a knitting-together of four inner-world novellas written in the 1940s. Both Dian and Oo-aa are sturdy, resourceful, and intelligent, brave enough to shame a man, which they often do, and just as skilled with weapons as any male competitor. The apology, offered belatedly, and without consultation, and as though on Burroughs’ behalf, seems hardly in contact with Burroughs’ story telling.

Oo-aa

II. The Burroughsian Female and the Modern Male. I detect in these prefatory complaints and apologies the figural stand-in for a deeper anxiety that goes unspoken partly, I suppose, out of fear that speaking it will, to invoke the metaphor, spill the beans about a severe limitation in the contemporary literary sensibility, even, or perhaps especially, where it concerns popular narrative. Burroughs did not quite invent, but he refined and codified a robust popular masculine narrative, which, while celebrating heroic character, also promulgated the values of literate knowledge and philosophic inquiry. Burroughsian narrative also provides the locus for a non-systematic but incisive critique of the standing culture, as it became increasingly emasculated, regulated, and anti-intellectual in the middle decades of the Twentieth Century. This same masculine narrative entails, finally, a conception of the feminine that elevates the woman to the same level as the man and that – in such characters as Dian of the Pellucidar novels or Dejah Thoris of the Barsoom novels – figures forth a female type who corresponds neither to the desperate housewife, the overdressed prom-date, the middle-level careerist office-manager, nor the frowning ideological feminist-professor, but who exceeds all these by leaping bounds in her realized humanity and in so doing suggests the insipidity of the contrasting personality types.

In addition to apologizing for Burroughs in various ways, the preface-writers for the Bison editions emphasize the “escapist” quality of Burroughsian fantasy. Without pushing the paradox too far, I would say that A Princess of Mars, Lost on Venus, Pellucidar, and Beyond Thirty respond healthily to the increasingly unreal character of life itself in the emerging, submissive consumer-society of the Mid-Twentieth Century and beyond. One judges escapism by measuring it against that, from which it would escape. In addition, while Burroughsian narrative is unapologetically escapist, it is at the same time satiric and critical. Burroughs knows reality quite well; he understands it and he knows that his readership understands it. The social critique belongs to the shared experience of the story – the communion between writer and audience.

Tanar of Pellucidar Ace Cover Savage Pellucidar

Consider Burroughs’ own “Foreword” to Tanar of Pellucidar (1929). Like many “pulp” writers who took their cues from Nineteenth Century adventure fiction – from Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle or Rider Haggard – Burroughs often made use of the narrative “frame,” a prologue that explains how the author came to know of the events that he narrates. Often the gimmick in the Burroughsian “frame” is that the story Burroughs is about to tell, he is in fact going to retell from a manuscript given to him by the actual first-person narrator; or that he has worked up his notes from an interview with the party to whom the events of the story directly befell. Burroughs understood the exegetical paradoxes implied by narrative “frames.” He played with them deliberately, with Jorge-Luis-Borges-like deftness. He even split off from himself a kind of narrator-persona named “Burroughs” who poses as the author, taking delivery of manuscripts or recalling long messages from the fictional exotic “Elsewhere.” Tanar opens, not with a vista of some fictional exotic “Elsewhere,” but with a description of life on the actual Burroughs Ranch in what would become Tarzana in Southern California’s San Fernando Valley, a much-subdivided suburban community of “ranch-style” houses on fifty-foot-to-the-side allotments. This “real-estate development” became fully integrated into “The Valley” after Burroughs’ death.

The story of Tanar reaches Burroughs through the providential mediation of one Jason Gridley, “an orphan with an income,” who, “after graduating from Stanford… came down and bought a couple of acres at Tarzana, and that is how and when I met him.” Burroughs gets along amiably with his young neighbor, a radio-experimenter. Burroughs and Gridley go horseback riding together in the then-mostly-wild, now heavily built-up, Santa Monica Mountains; Burroughs listens with interest, although with defective understanding, as Gridley explains his theory of a new type of low-frequency radio-wave. Later, in Burroughs’ Spanish-style house, Gridley asks his friend about the purported reality of his stories. He wants to know whether John Carter, of the Mars stories, and David Innes and Abner Perry, of the Pellucidar adventures, are real. When he read about Barsoom and Pellucidar, Gridley says, “the inner world at the earth’s core was as real to me as the High Sierras, the San Joaquin Valley, or the Golden Gate, and I felt that I knew the Twin Cities of Helium better than I did Los Angeles.” Burroughs keeps a poker face. “I have never told anyone that it is true,” he replies; but he also says, “If damsels flee and villains pursue I must truthfully record the fact.”

 Solstice Canyon with View to the Sea

A short time later, on his equipment, Gridley picks up a transmission that purports to emanate from Pellucidar and which furnishes the main narrative of Tanar. In Tarzan at the Earth’s Core, the sequel to Tanar, Gridley voyages to the inner world to experience it himself.

The meaningful kernel of the Tanar “frame” consists in its memory of unfettered horseback riding in the Santa Monica Mountains. As a young cavalryman in the Arizona Territory in the 1890s, Burroughs had witnessed the closing of the frontier at first-hand. In the 1930s, on a smaller scale but in a way that struck him perhaps as even more poignant than what he witnessed in Arizona, he was seeing it again: Los Angeles was snaking its suburban tentacles along Ventura Boulevard and through the Arcadian San Fernando Valley, replacing farmlands and distinct towns with swaths of “tract” housing while it pushed roads – and access and demystification – into the mountains themselves. About the time I started reading Burroughs, I participated in the last chapter of this sad progress. In 1967, I could still hunt small game, in company with the Cunningham brothers, in the Santa Monicas above Malibu, but by 1972 when I went off to college, fences, threatening signs, and an unprecedented density of coastal-canyon housing now kept trailblazing audacity fully at bay, and under penalty of law.

Burroughs, who had a second house on the beach in Malibu, would have been even more familiar than I with the vestiges of the aborigines to be encountered in those summit-ridges and canyons – the petroglyphs, middens, straw-baskets, and abundant chipped-flint arrowheads. The Burroughsian landscapes are less “escapist,” in the final analysis, than “conservationist,” preserving in memory the primitive life of everyone’s remote ancestors.

Solstice Canyon

We find this same nostalgia, heightened, in the last but one of Burroughs’ completed books, the Barsoom entry called Llana of Gathol (1948), which like Savage Pellucidar consists of a knitting-together of four fairly independent novellas. In another elaborate “frame,” Burroughs meets his Martian protagonist Captain John Carter, late of the Army of Virginia, for the last time. Lanikai, Oahu, rather than Tarzana, provides the setting, Burroughs having left California to become a resident of the Hawaii Territory in his last years. Lanikai lies “a long way from Mars,” Burroughs writes; “its waters are blue and beautiful and calm inside its coral reef, and the trade wind sighing through the fronds of its coconut palms at night might be the murmuring voices of the ghosts of the kings and chieftains who fished in its still waters long before the sea captains brought strange diseases or the missionaries brought mother-hubbards.” In a dreamy mood Burroughs thinks to have a sudden vision of King Kamehameha on the volcanic slope above the shore, but the striding Hawaiian royal gradually resolves into the familiar Carter.

Burroughs says, “I never expected to see you again.” Carter replies: “You are the last of my Earthly kin whom I know personally. Every once in a while I feel an urge to see you and visit with you, and at long intervals I am able to satisfy that urge – as now.” Burroughs inquires about Carter’s Barsoomian people. He wonders whether Gahan, a character from The Gods of Mars, won the hand of Tara, a Princess of Helium. “Yes… They have a daughter, one whose character and whose beauty are worthy of her mother and her mother’s mother – a beauty, which, like that of those other two, hurled nations at each other’s throats in war. Perhaps you would like to hear the story of Llana of Gathol.”

Llana of Gathol Thuvia

III. The Chivalric Code. Nostalgia of the type on display in the Tanar- and Llana-related “frames,” tinged with a powerful sense of mortality, belongs to masculine narrative in that it tends to distance itself from the merely personal or egotistic in order to strive for closeness with the objective and the historical. The Llana “frame” puts Kamehameha, a larger-than-life historical personage who has since entered the realm of legend, in juxtaposition with the writer’s larger-than-life fictional creation the Warlord of Mars that readers might understand how the pith of reality nourishes the poetic figure. That people such as Kamehameha and John Carter have no place in the modern world – a world dominated by “missionaries” and “mother-hubbards” – signifies the ethical impoverishment of modernity. The rather subtle allusion to Homer and the Trojan saga belongs to this attempt to redeem modernity’s flatness-of-life by reuniting the suburban subject with the heroism and chivalry codified in myth. Early in his extra-planetary career, Carter observes: “The Martians are a happy people; they have no lawyers.” We transcend our petty egos and the bureaucratic restrictions of our lives in establishing contact with le beau geste in epic narrative, but we do so also in marriage and through our children. We are reminded of the phrase from Llana, “Her mother and her mother’s mother.”

Frazetta Battling the Green men

Marriage supplies an invariable theme in Burroughsian narrative, as does the valor of women. One might remark not only that the tale of Gahan bears the title of Gahan’s wife, but also that two previous entries in the Barsoom cycle refer to a central female character – A Princess of Mars and Thuvia, Maid of Mars (1916).

Whereas it is the case that, “no matter how instinctively gregarious one may be there are times when one longs for solitude,” as John Carter says in the first part of Llana; nevertheless the Burroughsian hero never thinks of himself as alone, but he, or she, is always, even in the necessary moments of withdrawal, acutely aware of the social – beginning with the matrimonial and parental – bond. The Burroughsian type of masculine narrative is not, however, a “romance,” in the sense of being a story exclusively or primarily about the emotions of courtship. Both parties in a developing Burroughsian match look, neither for prettiness nor handsome features, although these are incidental givens, but rather for a person of character equal to himself or herself, who honors custom and tradition. While the Barsoom and Pellucidar stories thrive on episodes of battle, privation, contest, captivity, escape, and victory, the courtship of the hero and heroine always looms large, and never simply as background. Often the commitment of either or both parties to strict observance of the courtship-code thwarts their strongly felt amorous impulses, promoting ritual scorn above the promptings of the heart.

At the Earth's Core Interior Illo

John Carter, new to the Red Planet in the inaugural Princess of Mars, instinctively puts himself at the service of a young woman, Dejah Thoris, captured by the barbarous Green Martians (among whom Carter ranks as a prisoner-trustee); but, in failing out of ignorance to address her under the proper etiquette, Carter alienates her for most of the novel. Duare, in Pirates of Venus, initially spurns Carson Napier, her earth man, for the same reason, as does Dian the Beautiful her suitor David Innes in At the Earth’s Core. In A Princess, Burroughs gives to Dejah Thoris a rhetorically powerful speech, which she makes early in her captivity when the chieftains of the Tharks call her for questioning. The Tharks had launched a savage attack against the scientific expedition, to chart the wind-currents of the Martian atmosphere and survey for resources, in which the Princess of Helium was taking part.

The Princess reprimands the action of the Green Martians for its savage nihilism, saying: “We were unprepared for battle… as we were on a peaceful mission, [which]our banners and the colors of our craft denoted. The work we were doing was as much in your interests as in ours, for you know full well that were it not for our labors and the fruits of our scientific operations there would not be enough air or water on Mars to support a single human life. For ages we have maintained the air and water supply at practically the same point without an appreciable loss, and we have done this in the face of the brutal and ignorant interference of you green men.” Reminding her captors that the Green Men owe to the Red men the maintenance of the Martian atmosphere and the conservation of the remaining water, Dejah Thoris asks, “Why, oh, why will you not learn to live in amity with your fellows?”

Carson of Venus Pirates of Venus

While revising this essay, I happened across a passage in the novel A Harvest of Stars (1993) by Poul Anderson that strikes me as apposite to my topic. Anderson’s character Anson Guthrie, a major and hunted dissenter against the prevailing politically correct regime (the puritanical “Avantists”), rehearses his literary preferences in a moment of repose before the resumption of the chase: “Kipling, Conrad, MacDonald, Heinlein, that ilk.” They were, Guthrie says, mocking the protocols of righteous censorship, “insensitive reactionaries,” not to mention “racists or sexists or whatever the current swear word is” and “they dealt with things that mattered.” Items of Anderson’s early work, especially his High Crusade (1960) and the “Ensign Flandry” stories, owe something to Burroughsian planetary romance, whose appeal he obviously grasped.  There is, in fact, a brief “John Carter” episode in A Harvest.

In Savage Pellucidar, both Dian and Oo-aa, physically separated from their husband-spouses, assume the role of Odysseus and strive against tribes, terrains, and oceanic expanses to return across the lonely distance to their mates. Oo-aa, captured in ambush by an arrogant polygamist who boasts of his plan to add her to his harem, stays angry and vigilant until, seaborne in her captor’s canoe she finds the fleeting but ripe occasion to kill him off with his own oft-brandished spear. Burroughs makes the rapine attitude of the captor as clear in its intention as it is ugly in its cast; it besmirches an ethos of female independence that belongs to the moral structure of all Burroughsian narrative. Dian, too, defends herself with lethal robustness against assailants. These women are equally adept at treating their wounded men aggressively. John Carter observes, regarding Barsoom: “Give a Martian woman a chance and death will take the back seat.”

ERB Foto-Portrait 02

IV. The Pleasure of the Text. In his preface to the Bison edition of Savage Pellucidar, Harry Turtledove, not content with leveling the usual speciously moral charges against Burroughs, also criticizes ERB’s writing. Savage Pellucidar depends heavily on “cliché,” Turtledove writes. As for style: “Read it for the story,” as Turtledove judges, implying the hackneyed quality of the prose. In introducing Tanar, however, Paul Cook dissents from the shared reservations of his fellow Bison-edition preface-writers, even to praising Burroughs as a talented prose practitioner. Cook writes: “Burroughs’ style owes a great deal to the languorous prose of late Victorian writers, particularly Robert Lewis Stevenson and Rudyard Kipling. He also owes something to Henry James in his use of long, complex sentences and Jack London for his compact narrative detail.” Cook remarks Burroughs’ “elegant prose” and his “grace and exactness of… word choice.” The ascription of Jamesian influence comes unexpectedly but does not flout plausibility given Burroughs’ own impressive literacy. Employing Jamesian syntax in settings Martian, Venusian, or Pellucidarian, fits well with Burroughs’ sense of humor, rarely out of play.

Burroughs likes to throw off original epigrams abruptly, often doing so seemingly without context. In Savage Pellucidar, for example, while Oo-aa’s mate Hodon explores how he might escape from imprisonment in a cliff-cave, Burroughs offers that: “Sometimes we are annoyed by the studied perversities of inanimate objects, like collar buttons and quail on toast, but we must remember that, after all, some of them are the best friends of man. Take the dollar bill, for instance – but why go on? You can think of as many as I can.”

Dali

The images of “collar buttons and quail on toast,” besides constituting all by themselves an utterly outré assemblage, something maybe for a painting by Salvador Dali, do call readers back to the world of commerce, bourgeois custom, and the present day. By so doing at a moment in the narrative of literal “cliff-hanging suspense” they open up quite abruptly the distance between the reader, in his comfortable sitting-room or library, and the prehistoric world in which Oo-aa and Hodon, and Dian and David, throw themselves lustily into the struggle for survival. The name “Oo-aa” is itself a joke, aimed at the magazine covers in the periodical, mass-circulation “pulp” venues where most of Burroughs’ stories first appeared, but one that the young lady herself abundantly lives down not least by sheer cave-girl prowess but also, importantly, by keen intellectual perception. Is there not, after all, a parallel with James’ heroines, like The Golden Bowl’s Maggie Verver; and does not John Carter, ex-Confederate officer, bear a strong family-relation to The Bostonians’ Basil Ransom?

I experience some hesitancy concerning my own suggestion. Let me, however, be bold. The commitment to chivalry – which modern people, in the flaccidity of their moral relativism, sneeringly disdain – powerfully motivates both the Jamesian and Burroughsian characters. This too belongs to masculine narrative.

Permit me also to return to my earlier claim that the epithets (“racist,” “sexist”), which the Bison-edition preface-writers feel compelled to invoke, as they excuse Burroughs for his being politically incorrect, substitute ritually for something else, a more deeply seated anxiety. The problem, for Burroughs’ nervous critics, is not, as any honest examination of Burroughs’ text will demonstrate, that Burroughs retails in demeaning representations of women, exaggeratedly male representations of men, or – God help us – in mean-spirited portrayals of despised Philippine guerrilla-rebels under the imagery of evil winged reptiles. He perpetrates none of this. Burroughs poses a problem for the effeminate mentality in that he makes a compelling case for pre-politically correct images of the masculine and the feminine – especially the feminine – that have deep roots in the Western tradition, as any revisitation of Beowulf or La morte d’Arthur teaches. The preface-writers, being despite themselves aficionados of that modern version of medieval epic, the planetary romance, they know this instinctively, but because they all have contracts with a university press, they act reflexively to suppress the intuition. The PC preface-writers are afraid of Dian the Beautiful and Oo-aa, who has “seven brothers” or “eleven brothers” or perhaps “thirteen,” all ready to defend her reputation.

Dian

Burger’s afterword to Pirates of Venus again offers itself as relevant: Carson Napier’s proneness to finding himself in a fix elicits Burger’s praise, as does the fact that on two occasions the female interest Duare has to come to the hero’s rescue. But why should he admire Duare and not Dian or Oo-aa? Political dogmatism explains the inconsistency. Burger also finds the anti-Communist satire – but not the anti-Nazi satire – in the first of the Venus novels awkward and embarrassing. Burroughs offered anti-Communist analysis as early as A Princess of Mars, where the savage Green Men correspond to a tribal collective, among whom “all property… is owned in common by the community, except the personal weapons, ornaments, and sleeping silks and furs of the individuals.” All adult males in effect own all the women in their “retinue.” John Carter remarks, however, that the Green Martian’s females “are in no sense his wives,” but on the contrary “their mating is a matter of community interest solely,” as supervised by “the council of chieftains. These moreover “control the matter as surely as the owner of a Kentucky racing stud directs the scientific breeding of his stock.” Lacking the basic institution of the family, with children never knowing mother or father, Green Martian society fosters a character “cold, cruel… gloomy, loveless” and “mirthless.”

In her rebuke to her captors in the same chapter, Dejah Thoris likewise traces the wretchedness of Tharkian society to its ruthless collectivism: Characterizing the Green Martians to their faces as “a people without written language, without art, without homes, without love; the victims of eons of the horrible community idea” – she also condemns their habit of “owning everything in common, even to your women and children,” which, as she says, “has resulted in your owning nothing in common.” Like Carter, the young woman diagnoses the collective mentality with intuitive keenness. She recognizes that the Green Men “hate each other as [they] hate all else except [themselves]” because of their stubborn and destructive social customs. People whom the critique of socialism strongly embarrasses can only find themselves embarrassed by the fetching, robust, and irrepressibly candid girl.

It would be refreshing to see a similar analysis in respect, say, of the liberal welfare-state of today, whose basic premise is that government bureaucracy trumps the family as the most competent agency in the fostering of healthily socialized individuals. Modern, politicized, conformist codes, and “organization” thinking, which is to say the regimes of liberal discourse, drastically limit individuation and autonomous judgment. In order to defend Burroughs, the preface-writers must simultaneously denounce him or express, as Burger does, their embarrassment over him. That Burroughs wrote muscular prose, not without art, goes some way in explaining his persistence as a “good read” sixty-five years after his death and more than a century after his first publication. In addition to telling a ripping yarn, however, Burroughs possessed moral perspective, which grew more acute, as the decades of the Twentieth Century ticked away and modernity increasingly revealed its ugly tendencies. Burroughs witnessed the attack on Pearl Harbor and became a war correspondent in the Pacific Theater. At the very end of his life he began a new interplanetary series in which the recurrent anti-war theme of his previous work came to the fore.

Hinton Outsider Cover

Epilogue: When my son was fourteen, he complained to his mother and me about his boredom in the eighth-grade reading class. What was the assignment, we asked. It was a well-known novel by S. E. Hinton, the basis of a “Brat-Pack” movie of the early 1980s, full of adolescent neurosis and truly cliché depictions of how mean-spirited teenaged upper-middle-class types in a small Midwestern town oppress and revile their working-class schoolmates. Hinton definitely fails to qualify as a writer of masculine narrative, although she fits perfectly in the feminized and multiculturalized environment of our own benighted and self-flagellating times. Hinton’s story telling foolishly augments adolescent misery and self-exculpation by turning them back on themselves in a misguided affirmative way. That is the worst possible gesture, and it is a pandering gesture, as far as it concerns outgrowing post-pubertal angst and achieving maturity of conscience. Hinton’s male characters, in particular, lack articulateness. Not one of them can envision the way out of his largely self-imposed impasse of frustration and petulance.

Hinton’s characters should all be assigned to read Tarzan of the Apes and The Warlord of Mars. They might usefully be fed steak dinners, too, or perhaps receive a blood transfusion whether they want it or not. In the 1960s, the temporal locus of Hinton’s novel, anyone could have acquired either title in the Ace edition – from the turning vertical display-rack at the local drugstore – for a paltry thirty-five cents. It would have been the equivalent of a steak dinner or a blood-transfusion.

Hinton provokes me to one more word about the supplementary charge of “escapism,” as laid against Burroughs by his tepid apologists. Of course Burroughs’ stories are “escapist.” The way to judge them, as I have already suggested, is to measure them against what they design to escape. In the 1920s it was the Babbitt-type sub-existence. In 2014 it is PC emasculation and the brutal Puritan-and-Nihilist Jihad of the Western Gnostic elites against their own native social traditions.

About these ads

12 thoughts on “Re-Post: Edgar Rice Burroughs and Masculine Narrative

  1. Pingback: Re-Post: Edgar Rice Burroughs and Masculine Narrative | Reaction Times

    • Thank you. As I recall The Outlaw is a Burroughsian version of the Walter-Scott-type historical novel. It is one that I haven’t read, but I will put it on my summer reading-list. Do you know The Mad King?

  2. Hmm.
    Now I feel bad that I didn’t keep that copy of his ‘Mars’ trilogy (John Carter) that I received Christmas 2012.
    I had asked for it thanks to seeing the film (which was enjoyable but silly, and, like Peter Jackson’s adaptation of “The Hobbit”, a total mess that defecated all over the source material), but after being told of ERB’s antipathy towards religion, and how that (I was told) factored in his John Carter books (the Holy Therns, I guess), I sent them packing. I was sad to find all that out, but then again I am fed up with reading books that trash religion and religious believers in general. We have so much of that today, and so I concluded that ERB was just another (though earlier) purveyor of it.
    But your essay on ERB doesn’t really make him seem all that bad! Now I’m sorry that I returned the books and thought ill of the man! Was I told wrong about ERB and his works? Now I feel like I was bamboozled.

    Also, if I may ask, what do you think of the other early 20th century king of pulp, Robert E. Howard? Got any essays on REH?

    • Dear Manwe: Cheap books, including the Mars trilogy, are available from Amazon. You should have one or two titles by ERB in your library. You can also find a good deal of ERB at the Gutenberg Project.

      The treatment of religion in the Mars books is noteworthy. When John Carter, whose initials provocatively are JC, overthrows the false and sacrificial religion of the Holy Therns, he undertakes a gesture that is culturally and characteristically Christian despite ERB’s pronounced skepticism about religious doctrine. Actual skepticism when combined with a sense of irony and a commitment to a traditional moral code puts ERB, as it seems to me, more or less on our side. His authorial ethos is undeniably anti-modern.

      Howard was a much more limited person than ERB and a much more limited writer. His work is a guilty pleasure, but a close analysis of his stories would reveal, I am afraid, almost no moral structure at all. REH’s characters are crude versions of the Nietzsche’s Superman, whose deeds occur in a realm beyond good and evil. REH was a nihilist, whose nihilism was crowned by his final, suicidal act. Sorry to be so harsh. As I say, Conan is for me a guilty pleasure.

      If ERB had a true successor, I would nominate Leigh Brackett; also, perhaps, Catherine L. Moore.

      Sincerely, TFB

    • It was a bit of mystery to me why Burroughs could not be published here after communists coming to power in 1948. Tarzan doesn’t seem to be ideological. Your article made it more clear, Mr. Bertonneau. Part of Tarzan’s adventures was published during Prague Spring 1968 and 1971. Then the door closed almost for 20 years. I did not know about his other books.

      I was excited reader of Tarzan when I was young. Also Karl May’s Old Shatterhand stories in Wild West and Wild East were important part of my unofficial education. I guess this German is less known in English-speaking countries but in Middle Europe whole generations grew up with him. Well, not anymore and that’s a pity because May wasn’t moral relativist, at least.

      I like fantasy. Of course, Tolkien belongs to my favourite writers but there were others whose writing style or strong imagination or both I enjoyed. I am talking about China Miéville, G.R.R. Martin and Polish writer Andrej Sapkowski.

      Thinking about them now in the light of what you wrote about Howard it seems to me that Sapkowski was a nihilist but it is long time ago I read his saga The Witcher so perhaps I am missing something. His world is similar to Tolkien’s with elves and dwarfs etc. but I remember endless strugle of young girl-fighter with amoral and corrupted world. Perhaps it was his reaction to Tolkien. Like if he was saying, look my fantasy world is more real than yours. At that time I liked this flesh and blood stuff.

      Miéville’s first book Perdido station is his best in my view. Probably, he is marxist. He doesn’t recognize any form. Everything is in state of flux or in state of becoming caused by social, natural or other greater forces. I remember he attacked Tolkien’s world as static and asexual. Well, nobody can criticize Miéville’s fantasy world for that. Yet, he invented awesome creatures and was able to create almost unbearable atmosphere.

      The Game of Thrones saga is not finished yet and I admit I did not read the last book. I really admire the depth of his invented world. All those nations and their relationships, histories, religions and politics. Some say they are lost in the great number of characters, events and connections among them. Some were bored with writing style I was not. I enjoyed it. But his world is missing something. It reminds me the real pagan world before Christ came, perhaps.

      If you know these authors I would very much like to hear your opinion about them.

      • Dear RT, thank you for writing. Tolkien I read once many years ago. I acknowledge him as a powerful writer and an important one, but I have never felt the need to re-read him. For what it is worth, my wife reacts more strongly in Tolkien’s favor than I do. These matters are inevitably tinged with subjectivity. Therefore I refrain from offering my mere impression as any sort of criticism. One of my colleagues (my office-mate, in fact) teaches a course devoted to Tolkien, which is popular and fills up every time she offers it. I take this as a small but hopeful sign that all is not lost culturally among college students.

        A died-in-the-wool liberal friend who shares my interest in science fiction gushed to me not too long ago about China Mieville, which put me off, I confess; but since it was a friend, I made an effort to read one of the novels. I had the same reaction to it that I had twenty-five years ago to Samuel R. Delany: I could not get past the “cutting-edge,” “in-your-face” tenor of the narrative, especially the weird sex, and I broke off after a few chapters. I forced myself through Delany (Triton, Dhalgren, and Stars in my Pocket like Grains of Sand) in the hope that maybe there was something profound going on that I was missing. I was not prepared to do the same for Mieville. Maybe I am wrong in my judgment. Again, these matters are tinged by subjectivity.

        George Martin I have read and enjoyed, but I refer to his work of the 1970s and 80s. Game of Thrones I know neither in its literary nor in its tele-serial form. I have avoided the tele-serial primarily because I want not to get hooked, which I suspect I would. I already watch too much television. Sincerely, TFB

      • Thanks for your reply. I understand your experience with Miéville. I had the same with Irving long time ago. I do not plan to try it in near future but I wonder how I would react to Miéville and Sapkowski now, after many years…

  3. Pingback: Mid-April Sunday Linkfest | Patriactionary

    • This helps to answer why boys don’t read. What boys are offered in secondary school as reading-matter is tedious and emasculate, so the boys come to associate the idea of reading with the ideas of tedium and emasculation. Or plain old tiresomeness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s