Of course one could make a very good argument for withholding said evidence: the personal privacy of the one who must give it, but if she has so decided, why endure the inevitable ridicule of someone merely going through the motions? I actually suspected it would turn out to be a deliberate attempt to further obscure the truth, but, no, it turned out to be a case of Jane (and the author) not bothering to think it through.įourth, though it represents a change from the original, there was a certain logic to portraying Jane and her father as atheists, given their professions in this version, but why was it necessary to portray them as such obnoxious atheists? There is one very ugly scene that doesn't advance the plot in any way in which Jane and father while away the voyage to Africa by cruelly baiting a missionary couple that has the misfortune of sharing the ship with them. Third, other than as the necessary gimmick to introduce Jane to ERB, why was Jane giving controversial presentations to skeptical audiences with most of her evidence tied behind her back? Readers are presumably supposed to blame the skepticism on sexism, but in truth it is Jane's fault for not presenting her strongest evidence. Second, while it was an intriguing idea to have Jane tell her story to ERB himself, why was it necessary to portray ERB as so utterly seduced by her beauty, to the point that he is making disparaging comparisons between Jane and his own real life wife, the mother of his children? Why did we have to know she was the sort of woman he frequently fantasized about but heretofore believed existed only in his imagination? Why did he have to be portrayed as inviting her back to an apartment that his wife and children are conveniently absent from? As behaving like the world's clumsiest philanderer? I assume it was intended to be funny, but it just made me uncomfortable. In this case as other reviewers have noted, the idea that a woman would confess a story containing intimate sexual details about herself to a male total stranger would be hard to believe in 2012. But it places limitations the author needs to be aware of. Let's start with the frame story, a perfectly acceptable storytelling device, often used by ERB himself, in order to increase the sense of realism. Robin Maxwell hadn't gotten a few things wrong. The cover illustration was magnificent! How could it possibly fail to be great? But as I read my way through it, my discomfort grew until it transformed itself into horror. I had read and loved ERB's Tarzan books, I had read and loved most of the pastiches, and the premise sounded absolutely brilliant: Tarzan's story from Jane's point of view. Tarzan: The Metrosexual of the Jungle, I honestly expected to love this book. Its 2012 publication will mark the centennial of the publication of the original Tarzan of the Apes.more Jane is the first version of the Tarzan story written by a woman and authorized by the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate. When danger strikes, Jane finds her hero, the key to humanity’s past, and an all-consuming love in one extraordinary man: Tarzan of the Apes.
TARZAN AND JANE FULL
But she quickly learns that the lush jungle is full of secrets-and so is Ral Conrath. Rising to the challenge, Jane finds an Africa that is every bit exotic and fascinating as she has always imagined. When dashing American explorer Ral Conrath invites Jane and her father on an expedition deep into West Africa, she can hardly believe her luck.
A budding paleoanthropologist, Jane dreams of travelling the globe in search of fossils that will prove the evolutionary theories of her scientific hero, Charles Darwin. The only female student in Cambridge University’s medical program, she is far more comfortable in a lab coat, dissecting corpses, than she is in a corset and gown, sipping afternoon tea. Jane Porter is hardly a typical woman of her time. A budding paleoanthropologist, Jane dreams of travelling the globe in search of fossils that will prove the evo Cambridge, England: 1905.