In response to the discussion of heredity vs. learned behavior; the concept of Tarzan as an appropriate hero for young readers, and the popularity of ERB in general, I would agree that the reader's own ideals, values, and other character traits will result in differing opinion.

To some extent it depends upon one's one perception of the "natural human state"

Whatever ERB may have intended, his Tarzan was obviously perceived differently be different persons, as were the mangani. A fictional character exists, if at all, in the mind of the reader, and numerous interpretations of the ape-man undoubtedly exist, quite apart from the way ERB depicted him.

My own opinions are certainly grounded in my own belief that modern man is an inherently savage, brutal animal, acting instinctively in connection with his own self-interest, self-preservation, aggression, romance, and sexual behaviors.

Even in complex societies with vast numbers of laws, regulations, mores, and indoctrination, we daily see examples of this behavior. We also see it in football games, boxing matches, fist and arm pumping pro tennis players, and even golfers.

We see it in bar brawls, sibling rivalry, instant arguments between motorists; In fights between mates. We see it everywhere.

We are in my view, as is Tarzan, housed within a thin veneer of civilization, which while it may have existed for many thousands of years, is pretty thin nonetheless.

How much more advanced is modern man, in terms of intellectual abilities, than was Aristotle? Have we truly evolved since him?

Have we evolved since the early 1960's, when many of us discovered ERB, and when technological concepts such as this computer I am writing on were so far beyond any of as as to be almost beyond imagining?

If you took a random group of 100 new-born infants, fed and cared for them in a wild environment, but didn't teach them to talk; or read; or write; or to respect the wishes of others; or share; etc., then set them free as young adults in a pristine environment, do you think these individuals would be averse to rape, murder, and/or savage dominance over each other? I certainly don't.

To me, the concept of a group to provide comforts and protections; punishment of those who violate group behaviors to the detriment of the group, and other such matters are conceptual, and these individuals would not have any idea of such concepts.

However, I believe that we did evolve as a group spieces, and these individuals would tend to gather in groups relatively soon, as things go, quite apart from sexual attraction, as an instinctive behavior. To me, it would take much longer for these groups to conceive of the mutual protections rules within a group would engender.

This concept is highlighted in several books, wherein the hero teaches a new way of doing something to some tribe, the value of which becomes immediately evident to them. Thandar does this in a book I read recently.

I think we could be stripped of much of our celebrated "civilized values" within one segregated generation, much as Tarzan was segregated.

I also think his popularity to some extent resulted because these concepts reach a chord within us which touches us instinctively as to these savage roots. Not just in the Tarzan books. All of his male characters are dominating; violent, creatures who relish battle almost above all else. For all the royalty of JC, he almost singlehandedly decimates segments of entire Barsoomian cultures in his adventures.

This "love of battle" is inherent in ERB's characters, since it is inherent in many of us, including ERB.

We vicariously express these natural, evolved desires through his heroes, and find an expression for them in the battles and scenes he creates.

To present such a character as is Tarzan to a child is, to me, merely showing the child what he is himself. The child, whether six or sixteen, will respond to these concepts naturally, since their roots are within the child.

Children old enough to read have already been socialized to some extent; and it is noteworthy that in children who are not properly socialized we see examples of Tarzan-like behaviors.

Tarzan is god-like in his abilities; which is why he is so heroic to so many of us. However, I don't think it is so much that we ignore his "barbaric" faults, so much as we regard them as natural, and therefore not subject to condemnation. This is in any event how I perceive my own reactions to the books.

The arguments as to whether or not some of the books were written for children is largely immaterial to me. Child or adult, we all feel the passions which motivate his characters. When I sit here and prepare to battle for my Princess, I am John Carter, whether I happen to be six or sixteen or fifty. When I drop silently into the arena, I am Tarzan. ERB wrote for the child which is within all of us, irrespective of age, in my view.

Similarly his romance; with the aggression, possessiveness, and love; to me represent instinctive behaviors, as opposed to learned ones.

I longed to possess his heroines; to protect them; to love them; and to fight for them long before I had any cogent idea of sexual behavior and romance as I later encountered them as an adult. Boy-Girl attraction is evident even in children, a forerunner of the romance and sexuality they will later experience, but even at young ages they can identify with concepts of love, loyalty, possessiveness, etc.

I tend to think that monogamy itself may have instinctual, in addition to moral, roots. Diseases such as HIV almost certainly popped up on numerous occasions throught history, and such diseases would tend to decimate spieces which were polygamous much more so than those which were monogamous, which lived in groups. This is just speculation, however.

I don't see much "mother-love" in the books, other than Kala and Jane. Romantic love, however, is rampant, and I feel this may be as enjoyable by ten year olds as by adults.

I was glad he didn't write about children. Except when I was in grade school, I didn't want to read about kids. I wanted to read about magnificent warriors and beasts; and beautiful women. Most kids do, just as they admire Michael Jordan.

His treatment of the sex roles is also very realistic, in my view. In these days of political correctness and the apparent decision of most media to portray males and females as practically the same, it's easy to overlook the fact that we are very different creatures indeed.

Unlike racial differences, which are largely cosmetic and resulted over a relatively brief span of evolutionary time, sexual differences and roles have evolved over millions and millions of years. No amount of equal opportunity will make women, as a group, as aggressive, violent, strong, dominant, or savage as men.

We are the hunters, predators, and possessors. Our brains have fundamental differences and abilities. They are the gatherers, child-bearers and protectors; makers and preservers of families. In the modern world, females no longer have to spend all their time in this role, just as males no longer have to spend all their time hunting or protecting their mates. Each is free to live the role of the other, or some combination. Survival is no longer an issue with us as a day-to-day experience.

Thirty years of equal opportunity; or three hundred years, for that matter, does not alter instincts, drives, and tendencies which evolved over hundreds of millions of years. In the midst of modern society we can see these basic differences on a continual basis, just by looking at those around us.

Current thought about sexual identification difficulties, and/or preferences, tends to regard such matters as probably present at birth, and influenced and/or caused by genetic, hormonal, or other matters occurring prior to birth.

Burroughs depictions of male-female relationships are representative of these timeless traits and characteristics which define the behaviors of the sexes, and are as relevant today, in many respects, as when they were written.

Even his depictions of the supposed superiority of one race or tribe over another is just an example of how all races, tribes, and other identifiable groups have behaved, and continue to tend to behave, throughout history.

ERB often highlights the misuse of group power by a few, in his treatment of organized religions in his books; and in some other respects.

In any event, it's pretty clear that ERB struck a responsive note within millions of readers, including me, and I feel that this is largely do to these innate needs within us which he fed so eloquently.

Perhaps it is my own fierce individualism which I find represented so dramatically. More than anything else, ERB's heroes are rugged individuals. And of them all, Tarzan; raised alone, and fighting alone, is the most heroic.

Tarak