One doesn't have to read too many of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan novels (in sequence) before smacking headlong into "The Great Korak Time Discrepancy." Briefly, Tarzan son Jack was introduced as an infant in The Beasts of Tarzan (1914), but when he made his second appearance in The Son of Tarzan (also 1914) he was 12 years old. The events of Son are set ten years after after Beast and cover a span of six years. But after that, Jack (or "Korak") joined the British Royal Air Force and was present at the battle of the Argonne (Oct/Nov 1918). As Philip Jose Farmer put it: "How could Tarzan's son be born in 1912, run away in 1913, battle mangani, lions, black warriors, Arabs, and such, and, in 1918, fight on the Argonne front?"
I have read this far in the series before and knew I'd have to deal with this discrepancy sometime, and, if my purpose holds, that time is rapidly approach. Farmer puts forth his own explanation in Tarzan Alive; Alan Hanson has a theory of his own in his self-published Tarzan Chrono-Log; most recently I have read Henning Kure's article "A Tarzan Chronology."
A strict interpretation of the timeline as presented within the novels themselves places the events of The Son of Tarzan (published in 1914, remember) circa 1922-1928. Farmer's explanation is that "Jack" and "Korak" are two different people, and that Korak is Tarzan's adopted son. I never did like that explanation, however, because it seems developed specifically to fit Tarzan into a specific point on Sherlock Holmes/"Bulldog" Drummond chronology (not a good enough reason in my estimation). Kure's solution is to push the year of Tarzan's birth back from 1888 to 1872. But then he goes on to "prove" his theory by presenting an elaborate astrological chart based on the assumption that Tarzan was born in 1872.
Interestingly, both Farmer and Kure cite the story "Tarzan Rescues the Moon" from Jungle Tales of Tarzan because it deals with a total eclipse of the moon. Farmer concludes that this story is fiction: "'Tarzan Rescues the Moon' could not have happened. It takes place in 1908. In it, a full eclipse of the moon occurs. At this time, or at any time from 1907 through 1909, no such eclipse, partial or full and observable from the equator in Africa, happened."
Kure uses the eclipse to bolster his own theory: "The last story of Jungle Tales of Tarzan features a lunar eclipse, which may be the one which occurred on November 16, 1891, at 1:20 a.m. Jungle Tales opens in the spring of 1888 and concludes in November of 1891." I like the fact that both Farmer and Kure consult actual scientific records to place these stories on their respective timelines.
Both Farmer and Kure regard the Tarzan novels to be volumes in a biography of an actual, living person, and that Burroughs not only fictionalized them, but also oftentimes purposefully misrepresented certain facts. As such, the events of any given story must have happened before they were recorded. I do not labor under that assumption. For example, I would generally have no problem placing the events of The Son of Tarzan circa 1922-1928, despite having been written in 1914, were it not for the fact that Jack/Korak must also "later" (relatively speaking) appear as a soldier in WWI. The integrity of the narrative must be maintained.
The Meuse-Argonne offensive is what a physician acquaintance of mine would call a "fixed point in time," therefore the events of Son must be on a sliding scale and take place between 1907-1913. In other words, I prefer Kure's solution, although I reject his (astrological) reasoning. Korak appears in only three other Tarzan novels from this point: Tarzan the Terrible, Tarzan and the Golden Lion and Tarzan and the Ant Men. I have never read these three novels before, but I will keep the information I have presented here in mind as I do in case there are further discrepancies and I need to alter my own version of Tarzan's timeline.
If my friend Bob is reading this post and chooses to comment, I'm certain what he will say.
He's probably right.
Replies
If my friend Bob is reading this post and chooses to comment, I'm certain what he will say.
Bob sez: "I'm eating off-brand corn chips right now."
I have a collection called The Annotated Sherlock Holmes, which, in addition to all the Conan Doyle stories, contains numerous articles discussing the ways in which dedicated Sherlockians have attempted to explain the various contradictions and omissions in the stories. I'm fine with the idea Doyle and Burroughs deliberately included false and contradictory details in the stories to protect the "real" Holmes and Tarzan.
The Baron said:
I, for one, was not certain he would say that.
*SIGH*
I'm not going to get any cooperation today, am I?
Of the theories presented, the one from Kure makes the most sense. I think it is best to view everything Burroughs wrote as taking place in an alternate universe, Earth ERB, where occurrences in time and space are not quite in line with what happens in our world.