About this title: Originally written in 1912, in the first of the acclaimed and legendary series, Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle, an English nobleman raised in the African jungle by apes rediscovers his human heritage.
Note: This is a general synopsis. Each listing is described below.
Binding: Hardcover
Publisher: whitman
Date Published: 1964
Description: Very Good. 219 p.; 18 cm. Ballantine Books F745. Copyright, Frank A. Munsey Company, 1912. Copyright renewed by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. 1939. First printing: July 1963. authorized unabridged with ape-english dictionary read more
Binding: Mass-market paperback
Publisher: Signet Classics
Date Published: 1990
ISBN-13:9780451524232ISBN:0451524233
Description: Very good. No dust jacket as issued. Light edge and corner wear. No marks. Mass market (rack) paperback. Glued binding. 288 p. Tarzan. Audience: General/trade. read more
Binding: Mass Market Paperback
Publisher: Ballantine Books
ISBN-13:9780345283771ISBN:0345283775
Description: Good. Spine is well creased. Covers show wear at the edges and corners. Good Grade C average reading copy. Binding is Mass Market Paperback. Pages tanning. Used books may have price stickers. Most orders ship on the next business day. read more
Description: Very Good. 0812572386 This mass market paperback book is in REAL GOOD SHAPE! ! FIRST EDITION! Some creasing of the spine and minor signs of wear from reading--nothing major! Remains of retail sticker on back cover. SMOKE FREE HOME! Do not settle for worn, torn, throwaways. Pay a few pennies more for a book that looks a crease or two away from near new! ! ! read more
Description: Good. No dust jacket as issued. Cover has some wear on corners and spine with small chips and creases and a crease on back cover; tanned pages appear to be unmarked. Mass market (rack) paperback. Glued binding. Audience: General/trade. read more
Binding: Paperback
Publisher: Ballantine
Date Published: 1984
ISBN-13:9780345319777ISBN:034531977X
Description: Very Good. No DJ Issued. Very good. No dust jacket as issued. Mass market (rack) paperback. Glued binding. 245 p. Tarzan, 1. Audience: General/trade. read more
Edition: First Edition
Binding: Cloth
Publisher: Whitman Publishing Company
Date Published: 1964
Description: Good + to Very Good- No Jacket. Hard Cover. 8vo-over 7¾"-9¾" Moderate to heavy wear; boards starting to loosen, exterior spine split along front hinge. PON/price on FEP. Interior is VG. (Store Display-Fantasy) read more
"Books are banned for many of reason. They can be banned for the content of the language, violence, drugs, the questioning of humankind. Who bans books? The government, schools, and libraries ban books. I believe books shouldn't be banned because I believe mostly everything an author writes about is true or could happen in real life. Some books weather actually non- fiction or not they have a message to get across to readers. Banning of books, I feel like is preventing information from being spread and its increasing ignorance in this world because of the lack of resources people have to gain knowledge.
I think a book shouldn't be banned because once a book is banned in the particular places including libraries and schools, Where are people suppose to go to gain access to the book. Banning of books is causing even more of a problem. We already have a limited amount of resources. People learn better in different ways by different sources. Some people don't have the sources that others do. For an Example, most things I've learned from my parents and friends. But there are people that can't find out about things from others. So they either have to experience it or they could just read about a character in a book experiencing it through the character's journey.
Since some books are banned for language, religion, humanity, and violence; I am going to touch on these issues. A book should not be banned because of it questioning mankind. Everyday people challenge mankind like doctors and scientist. People ask questions when their lost or don't understand something. So I propose the question, What defines a human being? Physical traits or mental? Explain? I can't even answer this question. A book called Grendel was banned because it questioned humanity. A monster was ripping up peoples' bodies and eating them. But does that really make him a monster? Before this monster was created people judged it because of the way it looked and didn't treat it with respect so they are also at fault and should be guilty. Another book is Tarzan of the apes. The controversy issue was evolution and how animals and human relate. If you question our humanity, It can help us change the monsterist things about it.
Another reason of why books are banned is because of the use of language. In some literature there are racial slurs, profanity, explicity. But language is the realism of life. As humans we are not perfect and if we could speak proper without using any profanity it would be great; but I mean lets be serious. Language is a way of expressing ones self. If we aren't allowed to express how we feel then we feel hindered. Although I agree there is a time and place for everything and certain language is not appropriate all the time. But a book should be our way of escaping our hinderness. We should feel the free when writing something verses actually speaking it.
Thirdly, some books are banned because of their violence. But isn't violenec apart of our everyday lives even if it's not directly affecting us. You can't turn on the news without hearing that some one has been shot, robbed,or raped. And isn't the American history based around violence due to the many wars we have fought including the soldiers in Iraq now. If violence didnt play a role in our lives dont you think it would be boring. Same as for a book. Since violence is normally acted out by the opressor it would be unusually for it to be in a book. So if you can't act it out it has to be visual. Due to the fact that you can't actually see how the violence is inflicted you only can use your creative imagination to visualize.
Besides the fact that some books are banned for questioning mankind, language, and violence; they are also banned because of religon. Some books don't really point the finger at practiced religions specifically but is more so about what one believes. Under this category books are even banned for their symbolic meaning, magical powers, santanic verses,intelligent design, and evolution. I think that everyone's opinion should be voiced. Everybody doesn't have to agree with it but as long as it gets out then it's up to the person to decide weather or not they agree too. Taking away these books can leave the world ignorant and lacking more knowledge. In the book "God are you there, It's Me Margaret" is about a pre- teen going through puberty and trying to find her spirituality. This book can help guide other teens with the same problem .But if its banned how will they be guided and by whom? Chronicles of Narnia and Bridge to Terebithia are other books which have magical creatures and a made up worlds but even though the characters and settings may be fiction the problem which lie beneath sends a real message to people.
So books can be banned for many reasons including their sexual content, language, questioning of mankind, violence, drugs, and religious beliefs. The government bans these book and libraries and schools. But why ban books? People have limited resources already and if these books are not available to the public in libraries or at schools how else are they suppose to gain access of them. Everybody learn in different ways. Some obtain their knowledge from books. So if books are banned then some people stay ignorant or lack knowledge on a specific subject. Uusing words to speak is how we express ourselves. To ban a book because of language is hindering the writer from expressing themselves and helping others do the same. And violence is apart of our lives regardless if we want it to be or if it directly effects us or not. It's life. So to try to cover up these things that go on in the world to sugar coat it would be a lie."
"I think most people have at least a vague concept of the Tarzan story and its characters. There have been many official Tarzan movies over the years and many stories and other movies that refer to or borrow from the Tarzan mythos. To a large extent, I went into this first Tarzan book (there were over 20 books written) with a pretty good feel for what to expect from the storyline. Despite that, I found some unique elements that I didn't expect.
The adventure story within the book is pretty much what I had expected from the movies and TV shows I'd seen. There were a few elements where movie-makers had taken some liberties (possibly with concepts from other books and sometimes to make things more "screen worthy" - such as "me tarzan, you jane" which never happens in the book). I actually found that the adventures of the book were pretty fun to read and kept the pace of the book moving rather well.
The book dealt a lot with exploring the character of the characters and the concept of what makes a man. At some times, these sections of narrative were interesting and insightful. At other times, these segments felt poorly informed, assumptive and racist/misogynistic . Generally speaking, the negative aspects of character development distracted me from the positive workmanship to the point that I had a hard time placing any validity on any of the characters.
Scientifically speaking, Tarzan's development in the wild is completely unbelievable and his later development of "human" traits is likewise unbelievable. Setting those concepts under the "suspension of disbelief" clause used in fiction, I then got hung up on the behavior of the animals and especially of the other humans.
The Women are as helpless lumps of life with their main purpose in life being to provide something that man can provide for and save from hardship and peril. The Men are inconsistent and can either be heartless self-centered ingrates willing to hurt (or kill) anyone for their own advancement, well-intentioned heroes who are physically incompetent and unable to follow through, or complete idiots unfit to do anything productive at all. Tarzan is the only "true man" and as such he finds himself ostracized and unable to find a happy existence either in civilization or the jungle (though he definitely prefers the jungle).
Despite not being a fan of the way the characters were portrayed or the way everyone interacted with each other, I still enjoyed the story and there's a part of me that wants to read some of the other books simply for the fun, fluffy enjoyment of wild adventures. Burroughs writing style was fluid and rich and provided for a quick and enjoyable read. This is a book worth reading for the fun of it and to look at its influence on the media and culture of the 100 years since it was written.
"It occurred to me that I had never read any of the Burroughs Tarzan books. When I was in Junior High, I had read all of his "John Carter of Mars" series and really enjoyed them. About 10 years ago, I tried re-reading the first of that series, "A Princess of Mars" and found it to be completely juvenile. I gave up at about 20 pages in and never looked back. For some odd reason though, when I was at the library last week, I decided to give the first book in the Tarzan series a whirl.
I have to admit, I was impressed. Oh to be sure, the book shows its age and the entire premise of the book is not credible, but if you suspend disbelief and let yourself be carried away in the narrative, it's really quite a good adventure novel.
I can't say that I read it out of nostalgia, since that would have required having read the book and having loved it at some point in the past. I do however, love the history of at least certain forms of entertainment. I've been a fan of the old Tarzan movies way back when, and it was fun to see the "official" origin of the character.
The novel wasn't exactly what I expected, but it did reveal the tale of a young boy raised by apes and "assimilated" into their "culture" while still struggling with the mystery of his beginning. Despite the extreme improbability of the events depicted, Burroughs' direct writing style is sufficiently engaging to carry the reader along with the story. It's a page turner.
For me, the book ends either somewhat tragically, or at least as a cliffhanger. Tarzan doesn't achieve his final goal and the reason he walked away from the jungle and learned the ways of civilization by the end of the book. It leaves the reader wondering what's going to happen next. He's discovered his true origins and heritage, but doesn't reveal them to the people who need to understand him the most.
Of course, there are over 20 sequels to this novel, and so plenty of room to resolve any of the strings left loose by the end of this book. I actually found myself wondering what was going to happen next and I think it would be fun to find out by reading "The Return of Tarzan"."
"I must say, I was expecting more from this book. It takes inspiration from a wide array of very good adventure novels, but manages to be more bigoted than the colonial literature that inspired it and less factual than similar books written thirty years before.
One of the major inspirations is H. Rider Haggard's early pulp adventure stories, including the tales of Allan Quatermain. Like Tarzan, these stories take place in the depths of colonial Africa, but the attitudes and portrayal of other races are far more insulting in Tarzan than in Haggard's books, despite the fact that Haggard was writing his books thirty years before.
Of course, having actually visited Africa numerous times during the Colonial period, Haggard had a much better idea of what was actually going on there. African tribes are portrayed as savage nobles in Haggard, which is a rather silly portrayal, but Tarzan's tribes are made up of ignorant, warlike cannibals.
Throughout Tarzan, one consistent theme is the popular colonial concept from the previous century that 'Blood Will Out'. This was a theory that genetic traits were responsible for social classes, and that if a prince were raised by pig farmers, he would instinctively know how to bow and pick out a salad fork.
Some stories even indicated that a nobleman could defeat any commoner in a sword duel, even if the commoner were a soldier and the noble had never held a sword before. While Tarzan does not stretch credulity quite that much, it does state that Tarzan naturally understands the concepts of honor, bowing, marriage, and social class.
This explanation is also meant to underscore how Tarzan could learn to read simply by looking at books. Though he might come to recognize some of the symbolism, Burroughs takes for granted that he could understand not only that the pictures represented people, but other complexities such as 'lights' and clothes'.
Even if he could decipher the pictures, coming to understand the text without a key is a nearly insurmountable task, as Burroughs would have known from the Rosetta Stone of popular Egyptology. Even if he could see that the symbols for 'Man' coincided with pictures of human beings, coming to understand the use of articles and copulas would be many degrees more difficult. Without training in linguistics or the scientific method, solving such problems is unlikely, especially alone.
Now, assume that he could decipher the pictures and intuit the meaning of things he'd never seen before. Assume that he could break down the code of letters, words, sentences, tone, and symbolism (which his letters indicate). Even so, there is no explanation how he could have known how to spell his own name, as he had no phonetic understanding of how English actually sounds. Yet he signs his letters 'Tarzan'.
There are also some errors in the portrayal of animal behaviors. For example, lions are depicted as solitary, and jaguars are unable to climb trees. While Natural History was still in its early stages at this point, there were plenty of accurate accounts (including Haggard's) from which to draw inspiration. Likely, Burroughs was more influenced by the sensationalist tales of 'Darkest Africa' than the experiences of actual travelers and experts, such as Haggard and Conrad.
The 'apes' in the series are particularly interesting, as they share little resemblance to any great ape, descending instead from evolutionary ideas about early humans. It is unsurprising that Burroughs would pick up on this popular contemporary idea. His 'apes' use tools, make music, communicate by spoken language, eat meat, perform social rituals, and commit war on one another.
Of course, any ape with these traits would have been driven to extinction by competition with humans. This helps to explain why Gorillas survived, since they are herbivores, and hence do not compete with humans for resources, and live in mountainous, jungle regions too remote to easily settle.
If a warlike and omnivorous species of protohumans were to survive, they would have to be in an isolated pocket of jungle or perhaps an island, an idea which Burroughs later explored in 'The Land That Time Forgot'.
Burroughs is a creative and ingenious author, combining concepts from natural history with sci fi and adventure stories. However, his plots are often unfocused, simply leaping from one moment to the next as he leaps from one idea to the next, He will sometimes squander opportunities for plot or characterization, instead focusing on excitement and adventure.
The conflict which drives the plot is often external and artificial, even though he ignores much more obvious elements. For example, the romance between Tarzan and Jane goes off without a hitch. This is despite an inability to communicate and the fact that Tarzan is a frighteningly powerful and alien figure. Pride and Prejudice creates an entire plot three times the length of Tarzan based on the fact that it's hard for two people to get together, and they are both well-off, attractive nobles from the same culture.
Burroughs overrides the development of a romance by the constant insistence that Tarzan's nobility is evident to Jane, mitigating any frightening elements of her animal attraction to him. Despite immediately recognizing his nobility in his every thought, step, word, and deed, she is unable to recognize that he actually is a noble, even when he gives her a picture of his father, Lord Greystoke. She responds how he looks exactly like Tarzan, but Burroughs tells us through third person narration that she never even imagines that they might be related.
So, Burroughs invents an implausible and difficult reason to maintain conflict by doubt of Tarzan's birthright, but squelches the opportunity to present a troubled love story, even though it would be the most likely result of the situation.
It is almost as if he cannot bear to provide more than a moment of fleeting hardship to his characters, and when he needs a man's life threatened by the natives, instead of using an established character, he brings a new one on the spur of the moment.
Burroughs combines many sources of inspiration in his books, and creates vivid, fast-paced adventures. However, his brand of wild, free-wheeling adventure seems to work better on Mars, where there is no fact-checking or colonial philosophizing to strain his credibility. The romanticized idealism in Burroughs' high adventures cannot be sustained on a world as small and mean as Earth."
We guarantee every item's condition, as described on Alibris. If you are not satisfied that an item is as described, return your purchase for a refund.
rating
