tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post8192063997668444911..comments2024-03-26T21:58:50.501-04:00Comments on MPorcius Fiction Log: Three adventures set on Venus by Leigh BrackettMPorciushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15515742639389937221noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-57502759496190572472014-10-29T05:50:32.054-04:002014-10-29T05:50:32.054-04:00I have not read Burroughs beyond the first three B...I have not read Burroughs beyond the first three Barsoom novels and the first Tarzan book. I will defer to your knowledge of his other works regarding eugenics, etc. Tarzan, well, certainly the idea of primitive vs. modern society is apparent in the novel, but Burroughs seems so hell-bent on making Tarzan exhibit how the primitive man is superior to the civilized that I'm not sure how balanced the the commentary is. But again, I know there are many other Tarzan novels, so I will trust to you that Burroughs takes the idea further.<br /><br />I like your breakdown of political correctness. It echoes my own theoretical vs. practical belief of how Westerners actually handle the concept. That being said, I still think we've come a long way since Burroughs' day in terms of social equality. Race and gender imbalances still exist, but Americans have made significant strides in their actual behavior as well as the lip service they pay the ideas underpinning said behavior. For example, at the time Princess was written, women could not vote, nor were they given many opportunities for education. I don't mean to put words in Burroughs' mouth, but given his treatment of Dejah Thoris, it seems he wanted to maintain that situation, i.e. to keep her at home as an object of desire, baby-maker her main function. With jobs, voting rights, and roughly half the places in universities occupied, the situation is obviously different for women today. Accordingly, there are few novels which portray women in such simplistic roles, which is why I was calling Burroughs' a 'sexy rebel'. Of the writers you mention who tip their cap to Burroughs, few are of modern times. In fact, only two are still alive, but at that are quite old (Wolfe and Moorcock). As scuh, it would be very interesting to poll modern writers to see their feelings toward Burroughs' oeuvre. I think Michael Chabon may be the best example. He appreciates Burroughs' sentimental value, but recognizes the issues inherent to the novels.<br /><br />There is an interesting interview you might be interested in with Chabon specifically about Barsoom here:<br /><br />http://www.wired.com/2012/03/michael-chabon-geeks-guide-galaxy/all/Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07796098208589965362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-30611094768797149742014-10-27T22:18:00.136-04:002014-10-27T22:18:00.136-04:00Regarding eugenics and primitive vs modern society...Regarding eugenics and primitive vs modern society I was talking more about Burroughs' body of work as a whole; the eugenics stuff is in the Venus books and in the Tarzan books Tarzan often contrasts life in Europe with life in the jungle. I thought <i>Gods of Mars</i> was evidence of religious skepticism on the part of Burroughs. I agree that Burroughs main objective is to entertain, but I think Burroughs did pay attention to current events and did address them. A book of his I have not read is, I understand, an attack on socialism, and his novel <i>Beyond Thirty</i> AKA <i>The Lost Continent</i> is influenced by the First World War. <br /><br />I found the Burroughs as sexy rebel biker analogy odd because I don't think of Burroughs as a rebel--with his widespread influence and long list of important fans, from Bradbury and Heinlein and Brackett to Wolfe and Moorcock and Farmer, I think of Burroughs as a member of the SF establishment that other people rebel against. <br /><br />The sexy rebel image brings to my mind somebody like Henry Miller.<br /><br />Still, you are probably right that some of today's fans of Burroughs like him because they feel like rebels reading such old-fashioned work.<br /><br />I don't know if the "politically correct" are in the majority or the minority, probably they are in the majority in powerful influential institutions in the West, like the government, higher education, and the media, but in the minority worldwide, with lots of people outwardly politically correct, saying the things they know they are supposed to say and acting in such a manner as to escape lawsuits and boycotts, but privately thinking something else and, when nobody is watching, acting in ways that are not quite politically correct. <br /><br />Are Burroughs' values mainstream today? I think that is an interesting question. Obviously everybody today says they are against imperialism, but at the same time the Obama administration is eager to intervene in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Liberia, etc. Of course they say they are intervening to help the local people and defend Western interests, but didn't 19th century European imperialists and 20th century Cold Warriors, whom many supporters of the Obama administration would denounce, make the same claims about their own interventions?<br /><br />Carter and the Heliumites think Helium is better than other Martian polities, but don't most people think their own town, country or culture is better than everybody else's? I've lived in the Northern US all my life, and people are always denouncing the Southern states. When I lived in New York it was normal for people to denounce the South, the MidWest, in fact every other place in the United States. Presumably Europeans often have bad things to say about the US, Japanese and Chinese have bad things to say about each other and about the West, and so on. <br /> MPorciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515742639389937221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259460772864393968.post-53029637223675572062014-10-27T11:00:46.183-04:002014-10-27T11:00:46.183-04:00As personal opinion is inherently unassailable, yo...As personal opinion is inherently unassailable, you’ve put us in a difficult position. :) You state “I also enjoy [Burroughs’] Victorian attitudes”; you prefer his writing, which is “clear and straightforward” and his stories, which are “optimistic”; you say Brackett’s “settings and action are not nearly as memorable as those in Burroughs”. Enjoyment, preference, memory—these are the most personal of things. How can I disagree? <br /><br />For the record, I too enjoy comparing a piece of writing from yesteryear to our world now. I too enjoy the Barsoom novels to some degree. (I had to stop after Warlord, however, as the formula became overmuch.) And I too have some memories of John Carter’s story that will outlive turning the last page. That being said, I also see Barsoom as Big and Simple. He bad, me good, we fight. There woman, me want. Fight for woman, then me become king of world… For as imaginatively delightful as the details are, the story truly never achieves any degree of sophistication beyond that simple outline, and for that does not engage me as other works do. Surely you disagree, and thus for our opinions, we must agree to disagree.<br /><br />Regarding the more objective elements of your argument, I too have a healthy skepticism of political correctness. In the 21st century it seems to create issues where none existed, not to mention it often runs the risk of being a mere paper exercise. As such, I question Burroughs’ stories not for reasons of political correctness, but the sheer humaneness of its underlying assumptions. <br /><br />Victorian values, while “romantic” on one side, are backward on the other. Slavery, class suppression, lack of women’s rights, empire building at the expense of other cultures, etc.—these are the most basic assaults on civil rights that were supported. The era simply does not represent social equality or government practice that does not involve the poor treatment of the majority for the benefit of a minority. Apropos, John Carter subjugates other peoples and species to further his own romantic interests. I would like to see the story of the soldiers who are forced to fight under Carter. “Hey Billy, here what ol’ Carter asked for now? He wants a night march. Goddamn, I don’t give a rat’s ass about him and his princess. I got my own wife at home to worry about. But here we are, fightin’ in his silly war…” <br /><br />Regarding race, while Burroughs does complicate the social outlay of Barsoom in the novels beyond Princess, there remains in place the idea of a racial hierarchy, and the subjugation inherent to said hierarchy. Time and again the reader is reminded about the cultural and intellectual superiority of the people of Helium, an idea supported by Carter’s conquest of others to better his own, and by default Helium’s, situation. <br /><br />The discussion of the state, eugenics, religion, and the comparison of modern vs. primitive societies you mention, I confess I missed them. The narrative is so swamped with fight scenes, chases, captures and escapes, and mooning over Dejah Thoris that I have to believe these are tertiary elements—at best—in comparison to the overall intention of Barsoom: to deliver pure entertainment.<br /><br />Again, I don’t mean to detract from Burroughs’ creativity or gusto for storytelling. Barsoom is truly fantastic and reading the stories is addictive I readily admit. But the underlying social assumptions are backwards, from politically correct to humanism. <br /><br />Regarding your comment on my rebel biker analogy, I’m a bit at a loss. You consider “modern cynics” to be on the outside looking in (or at least perceive themselves to be). By this I assume you mean that the politically correct are in the minority (we’re talking the average politically correct person, not the freaks who want rights for dust motes). Taking this further, you would seem to imply Burroughs’ values remain in the majority. Do I understand correctly?Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07796098208589965362noreply@blogger.com