Enjoyed reading Tarzan And The Linguist. You did a very good job as always. I would also like to continue our chronology discussion if you don't object. First, I would like to say I love to read your stuff. You are extremely intelligent and a Burroughs whiz. If the truth was known, I am probably your number one fan. Besides all this respect on my part, there is an issue to be discussed, that is the Tarzan chronology.
 |
| ERB-APA #41 |
You have clearly presented your views and I have clearly presented mine. You have had enough time to study my theories for contradictions to the provided information by Burroughs. I in turn have had enough time to study your theories and search for contradictions to the provided information by Burroughs.
 |
| Alan Hanson |
You took your shot at showing the ERB community where my research contradicts Burrough's provided information. Now I have taken my shot at showing the ERB community where your research contradicts ERB, the author's, provided information.
 |
| James Michael Moody |
In the last issue, you attempted to defend your theories, and still claim to stand by your first presentation. I will defend my research if you can find anything that contradicts Burrough's provided information.
 |
| Alan Hanson |
In your response, you bring up the "right", "wrong", and "true", words that I always use. To me, the true Tarzan chronology is the one that sticks closest to Burrough's provided information. The further one strays from the provided information of ERB, the author, the further from a true chronology one will have. By the way, in its present form, my chronology isn't the "true" chronology either. To be completely true I must adhere to Henning's full moon research.
 |
| Tarzan The Lost Adventure |
Now for the "right" and "wrong" words. "Right", like "true", is when information is presented which agrees with the stories as presented by ERB, the author, and "wrong" is when information is presented that disagrees with the provided storyline of the Tarzan series. When I read your 1888 chronology it does not tell the same story Burroughs' series did. Therefore, I have no other choice but to say that it is wrong. Sorry. Let's take a look at your defense.
 |
| The Tarzan Series |
- Inserting Jungle Tales Of Tarzan into Tarzan Of The Apes.
Alan Hanson: First of all, the main problem with Jungle Tales Of Tarzan is not how much time to allow for its events, but rather that Burroughs allowed no time at all for it to take place in the context of Tarzan Of The Apes.
 |
| Ronald William Kerby |
Mike Moody: I do not agree with this statement. "I have shown in Tarzine #22 and ERB-APA #28 that this is not true. The way I envision it is that ERB, the narrator, was so wrapped up in the story of Tarzan's birth to family hood the author purposely left out some of the in-betweens to get to the end while he has the reader's attention. Later ERB, the author, was so intrigued with Tarzan's adulthood among the Mangani that he went back and wrote in more detail about those events.
 |
| Tarzine #22 |
Alan Hanson: This problem of inserting Jungle Tales Of Tarzan into Tarzan Of The Apes is the same whether you use the 1872 or 1888 starting date.
Mike Moody: I beg to differ ol' buddy, but I have already shown how to insert Jungle Tales Of Tarzan into Tarzan Of The Apes in Tarzine #22 and ERB-APA #28. I had no trouble doing it with an 1872 approach, and I did it so that it agrees with the information provided by ERB, the author. It is the 1888 approach that falls short.
 |
| ERB-APA #28 |
Alan Hanson: You say I was wrong to do that because "The gestation period of a gorilla is two hundred sixty-five days which is most likely the same as the Mangani, or at least close." Mangani is a totally new species created by Burroughs, and they have great differences, both physically and intellectually, from Bolgani. For a person who prides himself on sticking to the facts, you're taking a shot in the dark assuming these two creatures would have the same gestation period.
 |
| John Buscema |
Mike Moody: First, I would like to agree with Alan that the Mangani and Bolgani are different species. That is Burrough's stated fact. It is also a fact by ERB, the author's, descriptions that both are apes and are very similar to each other. We know for a scientific fact that the gorilla's gestation period is two hundred sixty-five days. We will never know for a fact what the Mangani's gestation period is. As a theory to work upon, I see nothing wrong with assuming the two different creatures are reasonably close in a physical sense, as long as I do not disagree with Burroughs' provided information. I find it amusing that when I applied this theory to my 1872 chronology back in ERB-APA #28, it was great research on my part. Now that I apply this research to your 1888 chronology, and it does not work, it is outrageous.
 |
| John Buscima & Rudy Messina |
To me, it is not wrong to assume something based on a known fact and insert it into the sphere, as long as it does not contradict what Burroughs' wrote. When an assumption is wrong, is when it disagrees with what Burroughs' wrote without solid proof.
 |
| Edgar Rice Burroughs |
I would like to ask you a question, Alan. Which is better? Assuming that the gorilla and Mangani are close enough on the scale of life, that their birthing is reasonably the same. And using this approach the information is then applied to what Burroughs wrote with no contradictions, as I did. Or, as in your 1888 chronology, totally ignore Gazan's growth as a timetable. My challenge to you sir is to present a different birth theory that lets us use Gazan's growth to test your Jungle Tales Of Tarzan theories.
 |
| Teeka & Gazan |
2. Accounting For The Events Of Tarzan Rescues The Moon
Alan Hanson: You openly admit that your entire chronology is anchored on this one event. Ok, if this is a lunar eclipse, then you're right about everything and I'm wrong. That admitted, then, the burden of proof falls on you.
 |
| John Buscema |
Mike Moody: I do not see how the burden of proof falls upon me, because I am following ERB, the author's, provided information. It is you who has strayed. Although Burroughs did not come right out and say "This is a lunar eclipse," he did in his implications all but say it. "See! Goro is emerging from the belly of Numa," and, sure enough, the moon was gradually emerging from whatever had devoured her, whether it was Numa, the lion, or the shadow of the earth; ERB-Jungle Tales Of Tarzan.
 |
| Carlos Arguello |
You say my entire chronology is anchored on this one event. When I began my 1872 chronology I started at Tarzan's birth and worked my way through Jungle Tales Of Tarzan and the eclipse event. I then studied lunar eclipses and added it to ERB, the author's, presented information. I would like to make it quite clear. The lunar eclipse perfectly fits with Burroughs' presented information in all cases. I did not choose a lunar eclipse and build Burroughs' information around it. Many things other than the lunar eclipse point to the 1872 chronology, however. The lunar eclipse is what convinced me of the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt though.
 |
| Thomas M. Aranda |
Alan Hanson: I'll admit that it is the general impression that comes across to the modern reader, but those who observed it, namely Tarzan and the Mangani, were not exactly trained astronomers.
 |
| Thomas Yeates |
Mike Moody: I would like to point out to Alan, that the passage indicating the lunar eclipse was supplied by Burroughs, not Tarzan or the Mangani.
 |
| Joe Jusko |
There is not much I have to say here for this is Alan's very weakest point. He did say one thing, however, that I would like to comment on.
 |
| J. Allen St. John |
Alan Hanson: You may disagree with my judgment here, but it deals with the problem as surely as your solution does.
.jpeg "J. Allen St. John") |
| J. Allen St. John |
Mike Moody: Your theory may deal with the problem as surely as my solution does, but there is one big difference. My 1872 chronology agrees with the information that is provided by ERB, the author. Your 1888 chronology goes against what ERB, the author, wrote.
 |
| Frank Frazetta |
Alan Hanson: Well, in Tarzan Of The Apes doesn't ERB "clearly" state that the Greystoke's sailed from Dover on a "May morning in 1888"? Isn't Jane's letter in the cabin "clearly" dated"February 3 (?), 1909"? It seems to me Mike, that a person can't describe as clear only statements that agree with his chronology and cast aside others that don't as being deceptive.
 |
| Robert Abbett |
Mike Moody: I would like to say that it is indisputable that ERB, the author, wrote the above dates into his stories, but I would quick and strongly like to point out that it is not explicit that he meant them. ERB, the author, wrote in chapter one, "I do not say the story is true, for I did not witness the happenings which it portrays, but the fact that in the telling of it to you I have taken fictitious names for the principal characters quite sufficiently evidences the sincerity of my own belief that it may be true." ERB-Tarzan Of The Apes.
 |
| E.R.B. The Narrator |
Although ERB, the author, does not plainly write about changing any dates, it is very obvious that he is trying to protect the Greystoke's identity. Now let me ask you this. Would it be enough to protect the Greystoke's identity if Burroughs merely changed their names? Remember ERB, the author, clearly writes the English nobleman sails from Dover, England on a bright May morning in 1888, to Freetown capital of Sierra Leone. From there the young newlyweds embarked on the Fuwalda, a barkentine of about one hundred tons.
 |
| Fuwalda |
This is a lot of information provided by ERB, the author. If it were all true, would changing a nobleman's name be enough to protect his family's identity? Of course not. As further proof I know of no researcher who has ever been able to come up with information on the Fuwalda, which hints that this is a false name also. The very fact that ERB, the narrator, uses the sailing date 1888 makes it shaky if you think about it. But this in itself is not what clearly proves that 1888 is not the true sailing date.
 |
| Fuwalda |
The proof is that one can not use the 1888 sailing date, and form a Tarzan chronology that tells the same story as presented by ERB, the author. Phil Farmer did not do it. I could not do it. Sorry ol' buddy, you did not do it either.
 |
| Fuwalda |
On the other hand, let's use an open mind just for one moment. Suppose ERB, the author, did change dates along with some names, etc. I have shown that using a chronology starting in 1872 can be formed that allows Jungle Tales Of Tarzan to be inserted into Tarzan Of The Apes exactly as Burroughs describes. Down to the lunar eclipse, and other events occurring at Tarzan's described ages. Neither Phil nor your 1888 chronologies can claim this. Using the 1872 approach Korak and Jack are the same people. Both you and Phil in your 1888 chronologies must go against Burroughs, and say the two are not the same person. Using the 1872 approach there is no Korak time discrepancy.
 |
| Robert Abbett |
Using the 1888 sailing date The Son Of Tarzan either has to be cast completely out, or Korak made into another person. This is not the information I digested while reading the Tarzan series. After examining all the information, not just one or two passages, I feel there is overwhelming evidence provided by ERB, the author, that undoubtedly indicates the Claytons did not sail in May 1888, although Burroughs clearly wrote that they did.
 |
| Joe Kubert |
Alan Hanson: One final thing has to be said concerning ERB's practice of referring to the passage of long periods of time. You disagree with my dating of Tarzan Rescues The Moon, saying my dating makes Tarzan nine-teen years, and seven months, old when in fact, Burroughs twice noted that Tarzan was twenty years old in the story. Burroughs is simply approximating here. He is reminding his readers that roughly two decades have passed since the events that put this in motion. Certainly, it is not only allowable but preferable, to approximate nineteen years and seven months as twenty years.
 |
| Sam Glanzman |
Mike Moody: I strongly disagree with Alan when he says ERB, the author, is simply approximating here. Alan says this because his 1888 chronology does not live up to what Burroughs described. My 1872 chronology agrees with exactly what Burroughs wrote. If you will note Alan's age theory is not backed up by anything Burroughs wrote or hinted at, but it is based solely on his personal opinion.
 |
| Thomas M. Aranda |
This is a problem Alan has avoided bringing up although I have twice brought it to his attention, plus wrote articles on the subject. When one reads Alan's chronology he assumes that Edgar Rice Burroughs, who wrote the story, is the same guy that went to England and obtained the story.
 |
| Pablo Marcos |
We definitely know this is not so. See ERB-APA #8 and Tarzine #34. Edgar Rice Burroughs, the narrator, is from Virginia and participates in the stories themselves. Edgar Rice Burroughs, the author, is from Chicago, Illinois. and gets the credit for writing the Tarzan magazine publications, but does not participate in the stories.
 |
| ERB-APA #8 |
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
James Michael Moody is a lifelong fan and collector of Edger Rice Burroughs. Over the past forty-five years, Moody has contributed over two hundred articles to various ERB-related fanzines. He also manages an unauthorized Tarzan blog titled Greystoke Chronologist: James Michael Moody. There, the researcher chronologies the Tarzan books starting in May 1872 (known as the pushback theory) instead of the more accepted date, May 1888.
James Michael Moody also authorizes the action-packed Sci-Fi fantasy adventure Unium series. Pioneers On Unium, published December 31, 2019, Exiled On Unium, published August 25, 2022, and Swordsman On Unium, published on July 15, 2024.
\
No comments:
Post a Comment