Part 9 Tarzan And The Lion Man: A Review
May 24, 2008
A Review
Themes And Variations
The Tarzan Novels Of Edgar Rice Burroughs
#18 Tarzan And The Lion Man
No. 9 of 10 parts
by
R.E. Prindle
First published on the ezine, ERBzine
Conclusions And Prospectus
A careful reading of the output of the ’30s reveals a developing antagonism, war if you will, between the Communists, the Jews and ERB. The attempt to shut down non-Communist writers appears to have been extended to ERB, forcing him into self-publishing in 1930 with Tarzan The Invincible being the first title. this was followed by its sequel Tarzan Triumphant.
The two titles would seem to indicate he met that challenge successfully.
Then in a seemingly unrelated event MGM released the movie version of Trader Horn in 1931. Trader Horn seems to have led MGM to sign Burroughs on for his Tarzan character shortly after the movie’s release. MGM would then go on to film six Tarzan features over a ten or eleven year period from 1932 to 1942. All the movies were profitable yet after the release of Tarzan’s New York Adventure MGM sold a stellar property to the Sol Lesser Company even allowing Johnny Weissmuller and Sheffield to go with the sale. O’ Sullivan chose to abandon the series.
The entire MGM series used Trader Horn footage transferring it to the Tarzan series as Tarzan’s home base. Over the years they incorporated scenes relying on Tarzan And The Leopard Men and Tarzan And The Lion Man. It would appear they sudied the series closely. Compare this description of Lady Barbara Collis’s flight in Tarzan Triumphant with the scene used twice in MGM movies of the plane approaching the Escarpment. Triumphant, p. 10:
…and when there loomed suddenly close to the tip of her left wing a granite escarpment that was lost immediately above and below her in the all eveloping vapor…
There can be little doubt that the intent was to defame the character of Tarzan with the release of Tarzan, The Ape Man, first of the series. Ten years later in Tarzan’s New York Adventure he is still the ignorant lout he was as the feral boy of the first film after having been the ‘mate’ of the seemingly well bred, well read, intelligent Jane played by Maureen O’ Sullivan. After ‘finding’ a son in 1939, three years later, ‘Boy’, as he was generically named, speaks intelligently and is able to write a note telling his mother he will be gone for a day. At the same time Tarzan is still going around speaking pidgin English like ‘Tarzan kill’ or ‘Me Tarzan, you Jane.’ There’s a guy who isn’t even listening to Jane talk to him. I personally find this amazing. The question then is why didn’t MGM develop the character in a more intelligent manner.
Also, the question arises as to why the character wasn’t made a profit center for MGM as Charlie Chan was for Twentieth Century Fox. As Burroughs notes in ‘Writer’s Markets And Methods’ in 1938 in reference to the Chan movies, the public was hungry for the serialization of popular characters during the thirties. There were nearly fifty Charlie Chan films made, some years at a clip of four. The astonishingly strong and continuing appeal of Tarzan would certainly have justified the attept to produce two or more a year. Certainly an annual film. After assuming the license from MGM beginning in 1943 Lesser released a film a year in a very profitable manner. So, as he found plenty of ideas the argument that MGM exhausted the story potential of the character doesn’t hold up. Something else was going on.
That something else was the role of Burroughs as an anti-Communist and in Jewish eyes, an anti-Semite.
It is important to have an idea of the Jewish role in history as they are invariably in antagonism to the citizens of their host country. One need look no further for an explanation than the Old Testament story of Cain and Abel. The story encapsulates the Jewish attitude toward the other peoples of the world.
The story involves God or in other words, a higher authority, Abel who becomes the the higher authority’s favorite and Cain who is rejected by the higher authority. Abel presents his offering to God or the higher authority and Cain his. Abel’s offering is an exploitation of the natural increase of the flocks. In other words cattle do all the labor while Abel harvests them. Cain labors in the fields offering the produce of his labor which is rejected as unworthy.
Once the higher authority chooses the offering of Abel he makes him his favorite. Abel then lords it over Cain who quite naturally resents this. Cain then invites Abel into the field where he kills him. Eh voila! The origins of Semitism and anti-Semitism. The problem of anti-Semitism is solved.
Now, the Jews will compulsively repeat the story of Cain and Abel after the Freudian manner endlessly over the millennia as the story is encoded in their brains.
Now for the application. In 1995, BenZion Netanyahu published his mammoth volume titled, The Origins Of The Inquisition In Fifteenth Century Spain. BenZion is the father of Benyimin the former Prime Minister of Israel. Mr. Netanyahu’s large sized, eleven hundred pages, book investagates the problem in excruciating and verbose detail. Mr. Netanyahu chats on interminably in an attempt to deny the obvious. It’s as though he believes that if he talks long enough the truth will go away.
Mr. Netanyahu notes that in every instance over the last twenty-five hundred years the Jews have at first been warmly received by the host nation only to have this affection turn to such a hatred over a period of time that the Jews are either killed or thrown out. He examines the problem in fifteenth century Spain. His conclusion is that the cattle, or anti-Semites as he styles them, are at fault while his Jews are as blameless as Abel. Thus he avoids answering the question of why this is the invariable result of Jewish cohabitation in a society.
For Jewish historians there are two versions of Jewish history. One is the annals of the Jews and the other is the history of anti-Semites. This is how the Jews organize their story. Any thing critical of Judaism automatically falls into the category of the History of anti-Semitism. One of the most persistent objections to Judaism over the last twenty-five hundred years is that the Jews see the non-Jews or Cainites as cattle meant to contribute to Jewish welfare. Even though the idea is clearly contained in the story of Cain and Abel the Jews have always considered the charge what they call an anti-Semitic slur. However Mr. Netanyahu describes the system perfectly in his overlong essay. This isn’t history. This is one long whine.
Skipping a repetitious millennium or two let us skip along with Mr. Netanyahu to fifteenth century Spain.
Our author erroneously established the origins of anti-Semitism in the Hellenic and Roman periods of the Middle East. He chose to completely ignore the blueprint of Semitism and anit-Semitism as presented in the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. For him he has the inexplicable paradox of every people warmly receiving the Jews into their midst while after a period of time universally and brutally rejecting them. He appears to be genuinely so obtuse as to be unable to understand this.
The history of the Jews in Spain goes back at least to the Roman transportation to Spain after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
While the usual tradition of the Jewish historian, Heinrich Graetz and others, is to portray the Spain before the expulsion as an idyllic sojourn in ‘The Land Of The Three Religions,’ Mr. Netanyahu presents a picture of cultural conflict under the Visigothic kings down to the expulsion.
Of course the Moslems occupied Spain from c. 700AD until they were completely expelled in +1492. The Reconquest began almost immediately, while by c. +1100 when Mr. Netanyahu reaches the beginning of his central story was successful over most of Spain. Following the scenario of Cain and Abel the Jews were able to insinuate themselves into the role of middlemen between the kings of the various kingdoms, or higher authorities, and the indigenous Spaniards, or cattle who Mr. Netanyahu disparages as Christians as though the conflict were of a religious nature rather than a cultural one. Spain was a multi-cultural society that functioned as all multi-cultural societies must until one culture establishes itself as the Top Dog.
We have the classic situation of the Abelites farming their Cainites as a human herd of cattle. The cattle produce the wealth, the middlemen reap the harvest. Thus the kings appointed the Jews tax collectors and tax farmers.
There is no more vicious or unopular job than that of tax collector. Even today when governmental functions are institutionalized and no longer personal the resistance is still strong. The Jews had the advantage of segregating themselves as a distinct culture so that they escaped the opprobrium they would have felt if they had been native tax farmers living amongst their brethren.
In the nature of tax farming per se there is no reason to believe that the Jews were any more honest or gentle than any other tax farmers. Exploiting their human cattle as tax farmers the Jews then dug deeper by acting as loan sharks after having expropriated the wealth of the Spaniards as taxes. Interest or usury as it was called was forbidden the faithful by the Catholic Church so miraculously, almost, the loan sharks had the field to themselves, not ever a shard of competition. And they took advantage of it. So for roughly two or three hundred years the Jews exploited their human kine unmercifully. Mr. Netanyahu acknowledges this although with a different characterization.
As Abel exploited his position as favorite of God with Cain who, becoming exasperated, killed Abel so in 1391 driven past their endurance the Spanish cattle rose up, as Mr. Netanyahu puts it, to virtually exterminate the Jewish population. As exaggeration no doubt. Mr. Netanyahu virtually equates the uprising with the Stalin-Hitler period in Central and Eastern Europe.
In the interests of brevity we will now skip another four hundred years or so to the post-Revolutionary period of 1913 to the present. The story was the same in every society the Jews infiltrated; one of expulsion or slaughter during this intervening period. There is no aberration in history over the period from 1913 to 1945; it is all a continuation of the Abel and Cain story; Semitism and its inevitable reaction. Underline the word inevitable. The United States will not be immune to this reaction.
From 1300 to the French Revolution Jews had been expelled from every Western European country while being placed under civil disabilities in Central and Eastern Europe. The French Revolution reestablished opportunities for them. They quickly reestablished their role as middlemen.
By the time of the Revolution State functions had been depersonalized and institutionalized. The law of fiat by the king had been replaced by the ‘Rule of Law.’ Thus, while individual rulers who remained goyim were still important, they functioned under the higher authority of the ‘Law.’ The term Majesty indicates the concept of The Law had replaced the Royal authority.
Thus to regain their position of middlemen Jews had to subvert the Law. This has been all but completely accomplished in our own time. In the interim between 1913 and 1953, actually, the Jews fully exasperated their Central and Eastern European host States, thus during the Stalin-Hitler period from 1928 to 1953 Nazis and Communists took the psychological solution of inviting Abel out into the field and killing him. Both Stalin and Hitler began to systematically exterminate the Jews. This should surprise no one familiar with the Cain and Abel story and history.
Stalin was assassinated on the eve of the execution of the order to round up Eastern European Jews for transportation to the gulags in the far North. Not only a virtual but an actual death sentence. Thus the Jews in Europe would have been all but destroyed.
I hope this is suffiecient background for us to now return to the story of Burroughs, Tarzan, MGM and the Judaeo-Communists of Hollywood.
it is an accepted fact today that the various national CPs were all 50 to 60% Jewish. Insofar as Jewish Cultural ends coincided with Communist goals, which were not entirely synonymous, all Jews may be said to be Communist sympathizers. After the establishment of Israel in 1948 a rift occurred between the two cultural factions that resulted in a rejection of the Jews by the Communists.
We know that ERB became suspect as an anti-Semite after 1919 and I suspect a confirmed one in AJC/ADL eyes, at least by 1924’s Marcia Of The Doorstep, reinforced by Tarzan Triumphant a few years later. :Little is known of ERB’s attitude toward the Jews before 1919. He must have been aware of the Jewish presence in Chicago.
Gus Russo in his volume Supermob describes their arrival in Chicago in this manner. p. 4:
This community…was centered around the intersection of Halsted and Maxwell Streets, where the population was 90% Jewish. Over the next twenty years (after 1871) an estimated fifty-five thousand Eastern European Jewish immigrants crowded into this tiny locus. So dense had this ghetto become that one social scientist determined that if the rest of the city were similarly clotted, Chicago would boast, instead of two million residents, over thirty-two million people, half the population of the entire country.
We know that ERB was familiar with the area because Billy Byrne, the Mucker, came from the area, so ERB must have observed the Jewish community in this habitat. With further arrivals that brought the Jewish population of Chicago to 350,000 the area of Lawndale was colonized.
Hollywood in the thirties was rapidly changing. (When wasn’t Los Angeles rapidly changing?) Beginning in the thirties a remendous influx of revolutionary and conspiratorial Jews arrived from Germany, especially after 1933. At the same time the Outfit began to annex California as its own crime colony. As part of this organized crime influx came the generation of Jews from Lawndale in Chicago as the so-called financial wizards of the Chicago Outfit. Thus the whole charater of LA Burroughs knew from the teens and twenties changed much for the worse. It will be remembered that ERB was a neighbor of the Sicilian mobster Johnny Roselli in the late thirties while gangsters became prominent in his work beginning with Danny ‘Gunner’ Patrick of Tarzan Triumphant and the assassins of The Swords Of Mars.
As far as I know ERB was too discreet to discuss his opinions of Jews other than what can be gleaned fromt the novels. It does seem clear that he knows who he was dealing with.
We know he was an anti-Communist which was enough to have him shut down as an author, while it is probable that the Jews considered him an anti-Semite which is another reason for him to be brought into line. The means of doing this was to control him economically while subverting his character of Tarzan. It was a fairly easy matter to break him financially, but the strength of the appeal of Tarzan was such and the means applied so covert, that when MGM gave up after Tarzan’s New York Adventure the ape man had been too strong for them.
So, when the string of six MGM Tarzans began in 1932 the intent was to diminish Tarzan to a laughing stock, but the character was too much for them while the movies became extremely profitable. Even then the Studio abandoned the lucrative series in 1942. This is inexplicable unless something is going on behind the scenes.
For the next essay I am going to concentrate on the last of the MGM movies, Tarzan’s New York Adventure primarily because it seems to be directly related to the situation around Tarzan And The Lion Man. It is highly improbable that Lion Man was not read by those involved with this project at MGM. They must therefore have reacted to it. The novel very likely has concealed messages that escape us but which they would have picked up. The movies also have concealed messages which were directed at Burroughs. If I am right Tarzan’s New York Adventure is a lecture tha was directed at the old Lion Man, Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Go to part 10 of 10 Tarzan’s Excellent New York Adventure
Part 5 Tarzan And The Lion Man: A Review
May 19, 2008
A Review
Themes And Variations
The Tarzan Novels Of Edgar Rice Burroughs
#18 Tarzan And The Lion Man
Part 5
by
R.E. Prindle
First published on the ezine, ERBzine
Tarzan, Obroski And Burroughs
Burroughs has been ridiculing Obroski right along as an arrant coward. Wherever the action is, Stanley isn’t. When it’s over he shows up ready to fight. When a call for the safe job of kitchen help is made after the porters desert Stanley raises his hand.
The cowardice is in contrast to his magnficent physique. Standing 6’8″ or 9″ in his bare feet while his strength is as prodigious as that of Tarzan. No one in the safari has yet seen Tarzan but he and Stanley are as identical twins. When Stanley becomes fever stricken and disappears from the story the movie cast will confuse Tarzan for Obroski providing some amusing moments.
Over the oeuvre Burroughs uses the divice of a Tarzan double a number of time times. Esteban Miranda in Tarzan And The Golden Lion/Ant Men, here as Stanley Obroski and again in Tarzan And The Forbidden City as Brian Gregory stand out. The doubles are quite obviously aspects of Burroughs’ own character. As the doubles are all cowardly, inept or both one has to assume they represent Burroughs as he perceived himself before becoming a success while Tarzan represents Burroughs as a success. There was obviously a constant psychic tug of war between the two Burroughs. This was something ERB was desperately trying to resolve in favor of the Tarzan persona.
The quesiton is, was he ever successful in resolving the problem by psychologically integrating his personality? At several times in the corpus he seems to have succeeded even to the extent of killing off his old persona. But then there are doubts and Brian Gregory appears a few years later.
If I live long enough I will try a comparison of Miranda, Obroski, Gregory and Burroughs. Notiice the progression of the double from Spanish to Slav to Anglo. The Spaniard was the epitome of worthlessness at the turn of the century while the Slav though higher was despised. Gregory as an Anglo would indicate that Burroughs may have reconciled his self-esteem at least.
As a more or less irrelevant aside it is known that Tennessee Williams (1911-83) was a Tarzan fan. He was twenty-three years old when Lion Man was issued while A Streetcar Named Desire was staged in 1947. It may seem tenuous to make the connection between the names of Stanley Obroski and Stanley Kowalski but there it is. There are resemblances between Stanley-Naomi and Stanley-Blanche allowing for the fictionalizing powers of Williams. There is no proof that Williams specifically read Lion Man that I know of but it is neither impossible or improbable given his admiration for the character. Perhaps the germ of Stanley-Blanche was placed in Williams’ mind in 1934-35 germinating away in his subconscious to blossom eleven or twelve years later. I don’t say it’s so but it is worth investigating.
In the construction of this novel the story of Obroski and Tarzan forms Ring Three. The story moves from Ring Two, The Safari and will segue into the inner ring.
In Chaper 8, The Coward, Burroughs devotes six pages to explaining or rather justifying the character of Obroski. In justifying Obroski Burroughs is justifying himself which is why he took such pains with this book.
During the last Bansuto attack in Chapter 8 Obroski panicked. As the Bansuto attacked from one side Obroski ran off in the opposite direction. Unfortunately the Bansuto were on both sides and Obroski ran into their open arms. Now cornered Obroski fought from reflex: pp. 46-47:
Death stared him in the face! Heretofore Obroski’s dangers had been more or less imaginary; now he was faced with a stark reality.
Terror galvanized his mind and his giant muscles into instant action. He seized the black and lifted him above his head; then he hurled him heavily to the ground.
The black, fearful for his life, started to rise. Obroski fearful for his own, lifted him high overhead and again cast him down. As he did so a half dozen blacks, closed upon him from the tall surrounding grasses and bore him to earth.
His mind half numb with terror, Obroski fought like a cornered rat. The blacks were no match for his great muscles. He seized them and tossed them aside, then he turned to run. But the black he had first hurled to the ground reached out and seized him by an ankle, gripping him; then the others were upon him again and more came to their assistance…In all his life Stanley Obroski had never fought before. A good disposition and his strange complex had prevented him from seeking trouble and his great size and strength had deterred others from picking quarrels with him.
So, while Obroski was a coward when he had time to consider, in the grip of terror he was quite capable of using his great strength and size to fight back.
His cowardice was not his fault or part of his nature. Burroughs reflects further. p. 45:
We are either the victims or beneficiaries of heredity or environment.
Obroski was obviously the result of nurture. Thus we have no responsibility for what we are and can take no credit as we are either victims or beneficiaries. This is a fairly serious position statement.
Stanley Obroski (Burroughs) was one of the victims. Heredity had given him a mighty physique, a noble bearing and a handsome face. Environment had sheltered and protected him throughout his life. Also everyone with whom he had come in contact had admired his great strength and attributed to him courage commensurate with it.
Never until the past few days had Obroski been confronted by an emergency that might test his courage, and so all his life had been wondering if his courage would measure up to what was expected of it when the emergency developed.
He had given the matter far more thought than does the man of ordinary physique because he knew so much more was expected of him than of the ordinary man. It had become an obsession together with the fear that he might not live up to the expectations of his admirers. And finally he became afraid- afraid of being afraid.
It is a failing of nearly all large men to be keenly affected by ridicule. It was the fear of ridicule, should he show fear, rather than the fear of physical suffering, that Obroski shrank from, though perhaps he did not realize this. It was a psyche far too complex for easy analysis.
It is impossible to know for certain at this time what psychology texts Burroughs had been studying but ‘a psyche far too complex for easy analysis’ points in the direction of Freud, Jung or both. ERB seems to have been involved in Depth Psychology of some sort. David Adams finds traces of Jung. I am not prepared to concede so much at present but David may be much more sensitive on that score than myself. I don’t rule it out although I would lean more to Freud as the better known. Still, as I find ERB to be a very inquisitive guy there is no reason he couldn’t have known of both. Either would likely have been mentioned in his varied reading and we know he was an omnivorous reader.
At any rate it seems clear that Obroski’s heredity was overridden by the conditioning of environment. Unable to overcome the conditioning or hypnotic suggestion he became as we find him.
There seems little doubt that here ERB is explaining himself. Obroski and Tarzan are identical in stature and abilities but in order to realize his Tarzanic potential he must overcome his environmental conditionings and assume his proper being.
Whether the emergency Tarzan/Burroughs is facing in his difficulty with MGM or something else it seems likely MGM as the struggle is placed in the context of the MGM/BO Studios filming Trader Horn/Tarzan, The Ape Man.
So Obroski is captured by the Bansuto and made prisoner in their village. Here he encounters Kwamudi, captain of the safari Blacks and a couple porters who had been captured after deserting. Obroski learns that the Bansuto are cannibals and that he will be the man who came to dinner.
Burroughs gets in some sly humor here. Bound and starved Obroski complains about his treatment. p. 51:
“This is no way to treat people you’re going to eat.” grumbled Obroski. “You ought to get ’em fat, not starve ’em thin.”
ERB has already given notice that he is in psychological mode. He says that Obroski’s psyche is too complex for easy analysis, whatever that might be. That’s what we all say and it’s bosh. When I was younger I thought my psyche so unique and complex I wanted to offer myself to science as a specimen. As my own self-psychoanalysis evolved I realized the only thing that made it so complex was the resistance involved in facing the fixations. So with Burroughs. In a few pages he lays out out completely the problem he is facing in symbolical or dream imagery. Only resistance anf fear prevent him from breaking on through.
A psychoanalyst could lay your whole problem before you but if you weren’t ready to deal with it, in other words, overcome the resistance, you wouldn’t be able to see it. You’d think he was talking about someone else. So here ERB lays out his whole problem before you but if you weren’t ready to deal with it, in other words, over come the resistance, you wouldn’t be able to see it. You’d think he was talking about someone else. So here ERB lays out his whole problem. Whether he resolved it is a matter of debate. David Adams thinks not while I have not yet made up my mind.
The problem he is dealing with is his central childhood fixation of John The Bully. I have already gone into this in Doubles and Insanity but it won’t hurt to give a variant interpretation as this very key incident meets with a lot of resistance from Bibliophiles on its own.
As has been noted Burroughs was plagued by dreams of appearing naked in public. Nakedness is a significant theme in the oeuvre. Tarzan himself runs around naked except for a skimpy g-string; so Tarzan’s natural condition and Burroughs dream fears mesh. He has made a virtue of necessity.
In psychological terms John The Bully so emasculated Burroughs that he lost his offensive and defensive armor which is to say to the civilized man his clothes. Burroughs always says of Tarzan that his veneer of civilization went no deeper than his clothes. Nothing could be clearer than the relationship to ERB’s situation on the corner. ERB explains the nature of nakedness to the civilized man. p. 58:
“He says for you to take off your clothers, Bwana.” said Kwamudi, “he wants them.”
“All of them?” inquired Obroski.
“All of them, Bwana.”
(Note the excruciating deliberateness as ERB painfully drags this scene out.)
Exhausted by sleeplessness, discomfort, and terror, (Here ERB makes excuses for himself.) Obroski had felt that nothing but torture and death could add to his misery, but now the thought of nakedness awoke him to new horrors. To the civlilized man clothing imports a confidence that is stripped away with his garments.
So, in real life, Burroughs had been psychologically stripped naked by John having lost his self-confidence. This is an accurate understanding. When he constructed his alter ego, Tarzan, he made him naked in his uncivilized state, hence full of self-confidence though naked, but then clothed him handsomely in his civilized state in which he was uncomfortable. Thus ERB attempted to resolve the problem.
Now when John bullied ERB he forced a split in his personality. while his physical self was humiliated his psychological self split off symbolically taking to the trees for refuge. Hence Tarzan’s fabulous arboreal exploits while he views so many scenes from above in a tree.
Now comes the very interesting scene in Rungula’s village where Tarzan suffers the shock of recognition as he looks down on his own replica from the tree to the ground.
Tarzan is in no rush to visit Rungula’s village, perhaps indicating resistance. Here’s how ERB describes it. p.61:
Tarzan of the Apes was ranging a district new to him, and with the keen alertness of the wild creature he was alive to all that was strange or unusual. Upon the range of his knowledge depended his ability to cope with the emergencies of an unaccustomed environment. Nothing was so trivial that it did not require investigation: and already, in certain matters concerning the haunts and habits of game, both large and small, he knew quite as much if not more than many creatures that had been born here.
For three nights he had heard the almost continuous booming of tom-toms, faintly, from afar; and during the day following the third night he had drifted slowly in his hunting in the direction from which the sounds had come.
Surely an old jungle baby like Tarzan could understand the language of the drums? That is called procrastination.
And so on the third day ‘He was arisen.’ Hmmm. In Tarzan Of The Apes the birth of Tarzan replicated that of Moses and now Obroski is to die while a new Tarzan arises a la Jesus.
I had my attention called to this Moses part while visiting a Jewish site. The writer was marveling that Superman was Jewish and that his birth replicated that of Moses which it does. I had always thought that the two teenage Jewish boys who created Superman were replicating Tarzan’s birth and that may be equally true.
In the Moses story he is born to a Jewish woman who places him in an ark then puts it in the Nile on which he floats downstream to be rescued by an Egyptian princess who rears him among a different people. This story presupposes that heredity overcomes environment which is nonsense. One is not born a Jew one is educated into the identity.
Superman is born a Kryptonite, placed in a rocket ship that crashes into this goyish earth couple’s backyard. They then rear the Kryptonite child as their own who then has a double identity as an ineffective Earthman while retaining his Kryptonite powers. Thus the Jew represents himself as superior to the goy.
Tarzan too is born to a human mother who dies. He is lying in his cradle when the ape, Kala, snatches him up rearing him as her own. The different people Tarzan grows up with are apes. Thus he too has a double identity.
All three stories are identical while Moses is first, Tarzan second and Superman third. Thus in his first incarnation Tarzan appears to be a Moses figure.
In Lion Man Tarzan apperas to be born again when he absorbs his other split off half- Obroski. Thus on the third day Tarzan assumes a Christ like identity.
Many have noted that the intitials of John Carter and John Clayton are JC and they call attention to the fact that they are the same initials as Jesus Christ.
So, here we have Tarzan, a walking dead man so to speak, who after three nights -Good Friday to Easter Sunday- looks down on the other half of his split personality and recognizes himself. The two halves then begin a process of amalgamation becoming one again. So Tarzan/Burroughs is born again or arises from the dead.
Tarzan then unites the Old and New Testaments being at one and the same time both Moses and Jesus Christ. The old Adam and the new Adam. Fairly astonishing stuff. What does it mean?
Tarzan then hauls Rungula up into his tree i.e. John the Bully is brought up to Burroughs split off personality where Tarzan demands that he release Obroski i.e. John restore Burroughs other half to himself while at the same time making him promise to be always kind to Whites.
Obroski then leaves Rungula/John’s village where he joins Tarzan. Thus Burroughs symbolically reunites his split personality or in other words appears to integrate his personality. At least he makes the attempt.
At the very least he has analyzed himself to the threshold of integration. Whether he actually stepped over the threshold is open to doubt. As a comparison let us examine Feodor Dostoievsky’s great nineteenth century novel Crime And Punishment. There is no direct evidence that Burroughs might have read the book but the possibility exists that his curiosity led him to this very famous 1866 novel. If so, Dostoievsky’s analysis of Raskolnikov might have influenced ERB on the unconscious level. I had to read the novel three times to get a conscious grasp of it.
The novel concerns the character’s dependence on women. Raskolnikov is dependent on his mother and sister who make tremendous sacrifices of their own well being to put him through law school. Raskolnikov resents his dependence yet can’t tear himself from it even when offered a simple and easy opportunity to do so. His solution to his psychological problem bypasses analysis for an impossible external one. He decides to symbolically kill his mother and sister hoping thus to free himself. Psychologically this is not a viable method.
As his victim he selects an old female pawnbroker. This woman has large assets stored in her apartment. Thus Raskolnikov takes valuables from her in lieu of the money he is receiving from his mother. In the process he kills the old woman and when her daughter appears he kills her too. Thus he has killed surrogates of his own women. The pawn broker’s body lies before him. To free himself, according to Dostoievsky it is necessary for him to step over the body thus completing the crime. Raskolnikov cannot do this, walking around the body instead thus negating the benefits of his murder.
In Burroughs’ case his imaginary alter ego, Tarzan, convinces Rungula/John to release Obroski/Burroughs from custody. In other words, exorcise the fixation. However, psychologically Rungula/John cannot do this. It is necessary for Burroughs to confront his fixation and recognize it thus negating the hypnotic suggestion that made it his fixation that he is a coward thus freeing himself. That is the only way it can be done. Thus as Raskolnikov did not step over the pawnbroker’s body so Burroughs does not cross over the threshold of integration at this time.
Instead his imaginary self, Tarzan, attempts to teach his temporal self, Obroski, to be brave and fearless. Hence, in what might be seen as high comedy, Tarzan introduces the Faux Lion Man to the real lion. However Tarzan advises Obroski to be careful around Jad-Bal-Ja’s new love of whom Tarzan has no experience.
As soon as Tarzan disappears Obroski/Burroughs who had been freed by John scurries for the security of the lower terrace where he cowers until the Big Bwana’s return. Subsequently he catches fever not unlike Raskolnikov, if Burroughs read Crime And Punishment. Tarzan entrusts the unconscious Obroski to a native chief to nurse. From that point on Tarzan assumes both identities as the movie company who have never seen him and are unaware that he and Obroski are twinlike mistake him for Obroski which Tarzan lets them do. Obroski then dies.
If Burroughs thought he had solved his problem by wishing himself into the role of Tarzan he had to be mistaken. As Jung pointed out in Mysterium Coniunctionis one cannot will one’s fixations away. No matter what temporary success you may enjoy the fixation will out.
In the role of Tarzan Burroughs set himself an impossible task to perform. Tarzan is an ideal to hold before oneself for emulation’s sake but an impossible role to fill. Burroughs admitted this in his posthumously published novel Tarzan And The Madman in which in the end he simply gets into a plane and flies off into the sunset.
The story of the two Lion Men forms the third ring in the story. We will now examine the inner ring, the center of the storm, and then the other side of ring three, the parellel story of the two female lookalikes, Naomi and Rhonda.
Advance to Part 6: The Center Of The Circle
Greil Marcus In The Threepenny Review
March 16, 2008
Greil Marcus And His Problem Fathers
A Psychological Analysis
by
R.E. Prindle
Part I
Greil Marcus has a new article on his old theme in the Spring 2008 Threepenny Review. The way it is written it appears to have been a talk or lecture at some unidentified place. His obsession must be intense for while the theme is of an interesting psychological motif I don’t really understand why he thinks the theme is of such general interest it bears repeating so often.
If he’s looking for a psychological interpretation I am prepared to offer him one. It must be understood that I offer an objective analysis of that which M. Marcus has publicly aired. Whatever I say is based on what he says. No unkindness is intended. This version of his obsession is the fullest he has yet offered. To read the article go to: http://www.threepennyreview.com/samples/marcus_sp08.html
The main facts are these: M. Marcus’ father and mother met in 1944 during WWII. She had just graduated from Stanford in May or June. He, Greil Gerstley, came from Philadelphia. He was an officer in the Navy, apparently a full lieutenant so he may have been in uniform since shortly after hostilities began. They met in San Francisco which was crawling with Navy in 1944. M. Marcus either doesn’t know or doesn’t tell us but it would appear that as a wartime romance they met and married within a week or two. M. Marcus doesn’t tell us what Gerstley’s social status in Philadelphia was but it appears as though he came from an affluent background. We are left uninformed as to the time of year they met. I’m guessing September or October. Shortly after marriage the couple left for Seattle where Gerstley shipped out. He was subsequently lost at sea six months and a day before M. Marcus was born in the summer of ’45.
Approximately three years later in 1948 his mother married Mr. Marcus whose first name, I believe is or was Gerald. He apparently married the mother and adopted the son in one swift movement.
Thus, and this is crucial, for the first three years of his life of which he says he has only haunting memories, M. Marcus was Greil Gerstley. Even though he has only faint memories of the period this dual identity has left an indelible impression.
Now we get into what C.G. Jung calls the collective unconscious. M. Marcus is not responsible for any of his reactions. They all emerge from the true unconscious.
Gerald Marcus and his mother gave him siblings. M. Marcus’ half-brother Bill looks out for him and runs an internet alert. I have been in communication with brother Bill. In 1955 the family moved into a fine new home in Menlo Park, California. Menlo Park is a very affluent suburb on the San Francisco Peninsula so Gerald Marcus was a good provider. M. Marcus seems to have no complaints about his step-father. Indeed as Gerald adopted him on marriage it would appear that he was trying to sidestep unconscious psychological animosities by making another man’s child his own, at least in name.
Shortly after moving into the house in Menlo Park M. Marcus was toying with the radio and heard an announcement about American GIs fathering babies on Korean mothers and then abandoning them. M. Marcus immediately related that announcement to his biological father’s marriage to his mother and subsequent death that struck a subliminal chord related to the abandonment of the Korean children. Now the response is not rational but unconscious and fully explicable on that level.
At some later time M. Marcus saw David Lynch’s movie Blue Velvet. Certain homey scenes struck the subliminal chord of his father’s abandonment making him believe that the idyllic scenes were what he had lost with his father’s death or abandonment. He subconsciously perceived his father’s death or non-return as abandonment.
These are the facts for Part I.
In analysis there seems to be a sense of loss between birth and the age of three when his mother remarried. A blank spot in his life. When he questioned his mother (now deceased) about his father she had nothing to tell him as she had only known the man for two months or even less. Thus M. Marcus virtually knew this man he had never met almost as well as his mother. Whether he has been able to accept her statement or not he doesn’t make clear but there seems to be some doubt. Some nagging sense of the need for closure which cannot be obtained.
Now, M. Marcus carries the genes of Greil Gerstley and not those of Gerald Marcus. Therefore Gerald and his progeny must always have seemed foreign to him. M. marcus may have resented Gerald’s co-habitation with his mother. For instance my mother divorced my father when I was three although I have plenty of memories of my first three years, remarrying seven years later. I never thought about it then but I always resented my step-father having access to my father’s woman at the same time, my mother. The attitude comes from the collective unconscious and is not a conscious reaction. There is no defense against it. Therefore from three to ten M. Marcus probably suffered a degree of alienation from his step-father with some lingering resentment of his mother and that resentment was brought into focus in this new house when he heard of the abandoned Korean children. Even though his step-father was providing well M. Marcus believed, thought or hoped that his real father would have provided even better. Once again, the reaction was unconscious and could not be helped. Still this attitude must have distanced him from his step father a little probably causing some resentment on Gerald’s part.
When M. Marcus saw Blue Velvet with its idyllic opening scenes the subliminal message was that life would have been like that with Gerstley but that had been irrevocably lost when he ‘abandoned’ M. Marcus in the same way the Korean children were abandoned. I’m almost surprised that he didn’t change his name back to Greil Gerstley.
A secondary problem is with his mother. I suspect that he has a haunting feeling that perhaps Greil Gerstley may not be his father and indeed there is a chance that this is so.
M. Marcus makes a point of saying he was born exactly six months and a day after his father was lost at sea. but, he refuses to give us his birth date instead saying that he was born between VE and VJ days which leaves some lattitude. Nor does he give us the date the couple were married or the date Gerstley shipped out. His mother destroyed any letters received from Gerstley so that resource is missing.
Certainly apart from the wartime conditions of romance the hasty marriage might have implications. No one can now know but I suspect the fear haunts M. Marcus.
I know that children in his situation have real difficulties with their fathers. I have known adopted children who went to great lengths to locate a biological parent inevitibly being disappointed. For myself I never saw my father again but neither have I had real curiosity about him.
Greil Gerstley is gone from M. Marcus’ life and his is stuck with the frustrating situation of being able to do nothing about it except possibly accepting the fact that that was the hand fate dealt him. That’s how I’ve always dealt with this early part of my life. What can you do but play the cards you were dealt. Wartime conditions produce wartime results. What can anyone say or do?
Then one day M. Marcus almost miraculously learned the details of the day his father’s ship went down.
That in Part 2.