Burroughs Books

A note to real Tarzan fans: DO NOT bother reading the last Tarzan book, the missing manuscript finalized by Joe Lansdale. The book is really awful, it has totally lost the Burroughs original touch and feel. I was SOOO disappointed after reading the book that I was really furious. It was hard to recognize this Tarzan as the same person Burroughs was writing about. You have been warned!

First, let me say I like Lansdale's other work, and I respect his clear love for Burroughs' characters. Still, he was not the author to finish Burroughs' final Tarzan novel--if anyone was. Much as with that other pulp-era barbarian, Conan, Tarzan is at his best when handled only by his creator. For anyone else to write a Tarzan novel--even one begun by Burroughs himself--is the equivalent of invading a man's home and sleeping with his wife: It's just wrong. For the most part, the story's a by-the-numbers Tarzan novel without the sexually charged tension of Tarzan's encounters with La or Nemone or the breathtaking pace of Burroughs' midperiod Tarzan adventures. As conceived by Lansdale, Ur is a moderately interesting city, though a bit dark for a Burroughs novel. Also, Lansdale cheats us of the seemingly promised confrontation between Tarzan and the giant king of Ur, while the language Tarzan uses is out of line with Burroughs' creation. Finally, having Tarzan meekly submit to Fate and walk to Pellucidar is something the Burroughsian Ape-man would never do. Overall, while this book is a noble effort, it falls short on too many levels to be really worth the effort other than as a curiosity.

I eagerly awaited this book for about 15 years, ever since I learned that there was an unfinished Tarzan story by Burroughs, but I was quite disappointed by what was done with ERB's manuscript. Compare Lansdale's version with the synopsis of ERB's 80 page manuscript in the appendix to the Porges biography of ERB. Lansdale really butchered many elements already worked out by ERB. I understand it's very hard to match the quality of ERB's storytelling, and I don't like to overly criticize people, but it doesn't seem that Lansdale even tried to write a decent book. It reads to me like a hack job, with little regard for style or the character created by ERB. For example, would ERB have written "Keep your mind off the loincloth, dear?" I don't think so. Nor is ERB's Tarzan a braggart. His character is existential. But not so existential that he would just give up on Jane and enter Pellucidar. In the Dark Horse 4 part serial version of this book, there are so many errors as to believe that Lansdale was half asleep when he wrote this. For example, there are characters in certain scenes which are actually someplace else in Africa in a different part of the storyline. Tell me Lansdale didn't just write this book as quickly as he could. As for the reviewer who criticised ERB's supposedly dense style and praised Lansdale's stilted 3 word sentences and then said, "Well, I've read all the Tarzan, Barzoom, and Pellucidar novels at least twice, so I guess I'm well-informed also"... All I can respond to that is, if you've read Burroughs' Mars books so many times, why don't you know how to spell Barsoom? And one more thing, ERB's style is elegant, the thing which makes his stories immortal. Philip Jose Farmer should have been given the chance to finish ERB's last Tarzan novel (I'm not referring to his Tarzan pastiches A Feast Unknown and Lord of the Trees, which were meant to be humorous, not true adaptions of ERB's character). At least he understands the character better (read THE DARK HEART OF TIME for an example of this). This book gets 2 stars, not for Lansdale's efforts or lack thereof, but because of the occasional glimpse of a paragraph penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the Master of Adventure.

Same old sceanrio in a Tarzan story, spend your valuable time reading the earlier books in the series, you'll be happy you did!

I did not necessarily have high hopes for this book. As a pre-teen and teenager I was in love with the writing of Burroughs and Robert E. Howard, as well as their most famous characters, Tarzan and Conan, respectively. And I have had a lot of respect for the company controlling Burroughs's copyrights for not dumping a lot of Tarzan pastiches on the marketplace as has happened with Conan. But having watched hack after hack literally destroy Conan, my expectations for this book were fairly low.

Fortunately, I was somewhat surprised. While it definitely lacks Burroughs's tone in many places, it's relatively true to the original character. Lansdale appears to be a decent enough writer and I think he has a lot of respect for the Tarzan mythos. He wisely introduces one of my favorite characters into the storyline, Jad-Bal-Ja (the golden lion), but I ultimately wasn't overly impressed with what I considered the science fiction aspects of the story, e.g., the bug-like monster.

Not that Burroughs didn't frequently troll the waters of science fiction in Tarzan, it just seemed to lack a degree of originality. The downer ending was also something of an oddity. Admittedly, "Tarzan of the Apes," the one that started it all, had a downer ending, but for the most Burroughs generally wrapped up his Tarzan stories with a semblance of "everything is now right in the world." Okay, so maybe I'm being picky.

I do recommend this book. It is an entertaining read and is never boring. I guess anyone who tries to pick up where my favorite authors left off is usually going to face some negative criticism.

Back to the Stone Age follows the adventures of Lieutenant von Horst of the airship O-220 in
Pellucidar as he attempts to find his fellow crew members after being separated from them during
a titanic herbivore stampede caused by hundreds of saber-toothed tigers conducting a mass
slaughter. Getting lost in Pellucidar, Edgar Rice Burroughs' world within our world, is rather easy to
do since it is virtually impossible to get one' bearings there. The Sun remains fixed in the center
of the sky and the horizon curves upward so even the tallest peaks tend to merge into the
background. This sort of enviorment tends to lead to much aimless wandering about, interrupted frequently
by the most unlikely of coincidences as characters separate and meet again a timely manner. This
precludes a coherent plot structure, but Von Horst does have some interesting adventures.

Allready sai

Even though it was clear by the time ERB wrote this, the Pellucidar books were starting to falter, I greatly enjoyed this book. I have a few reasons for this: One, Von Horst (or Von) is a likeable hero who isn't quite as gratuitously stupid as some of Burroughs' other heroes. For another, I just liked the spunky, matter-of-fact heroine, La-ja. She's easily one of ERB's best heroines despite being cast in the standard mold of such a character. While parts of the book seemed overdone (ie, the Mammoth Men portion), others were quite appealing(the Gorbuses, Von's living death in the trodon cave). For me then this was a satisfying read that more than paid off when in the end Von finally fought Gaz. Surely not among ERB's best but definitely far above his worst.

Having been a young gay man in New York during the era covered in these photos, I found myself a bit bemused by this book. A large number of the photos are of skinny lads with their shirts off or grimacing drag queens, whereas my own memories are of more varied crowds. The photos themselves are very much alike, and soon begin to blur one into the other. The photographer was not blessed with an artistic or selective eye. Nevertheless, the photos are a historical record, if a partial one.

The picture captions, however, are nothing short of awful. Written by the gay poet and Beatnik icon, Allan Ginsberg, they read like the giddy outpourings of a junior high school glue sniffer. The publisher has seen fit to print each caption twice, once in type and once in Ginsberg's handwriting - a dubious bonus. They have no real relation to the pictures, which might have been made more interesting with some focused comment.

The cover has been tarted up with art work that suggests Day-Glo flower stickers.

not much to say- a bunch of pics from back in the day- the hot pants and hair and moustaches are interesting to view-

A paradox, a paradox
We've heard in flocks.
But not quite like this paradox.

Edgar Rice Burroughs died in 1950. The first Hugo was awarded in 1953. Yet one year, a Burroughs story was nominated for a Hugo-- and I do not mean for a "retrospective" Hugo. It competed against a number of modern short stories. How did this come to pass?

In the early 1960s, in the midst of a "Burroughs boom" among book publishers, Burroughs's son Hulbert discovered an unpublished novella in a safe. The story was the fourth of a series of Pellucidar stories that appeared in _Amazing_ between 1941 and 1942. (The others were "The Return to Pellucidar," "Men of the Bronze Age," and "Tiger Girl.")

The new story, "Savage Pellucidar," was published for the first time in the October, 1963 issue of _Amazing_ to a certain amount of fanfare. It was nominated as one of the best pieces of short
fiction for the year. (And was beaten by Poul Anderson's "No Truce With Kings.")

The four stories were assembled into a "fixup" novel in 1963, _Savage Pellucidar_, the seventh and last Pellucidar book. I have a certain fondness for it because of its unusual publishing history. But honesty compels me to say at the outset that it is really not a very good novel. It features Abner Perry, David Innes, Dian the Beautiful, Hodon the Swift, O-aa the cave girl, and the cannibal who is _not_ named Dolly Dorcas as they bumble about from one aimless capture-and-escape episode to another. The villain, Fash, is a bit smarter. But not much. The traps he sets (and which the heroes fall into) wouldn't fool a normal nine year old child.

Sometimes Burroughs compensates for such faults by a kind of mythical, dreamlike dazzle to the setting. But myth is best done with a poker face, and _Savage Pellucidar_ is written strickly for laughs. It does not tap into the world of dreams, and it shows us little that is new about Pellucidar. There is a certain good cheer to the stories that is somewhat mitigating. (They were, after all, written just before World War II, and have the optimism of the day.) But _Savage Pellucidar_ remains the weakest book in the series.

"Savage Pellucidar" was the seventh and final volume in the Pellucidar ("At the Earth's Core") series of Edgar Rice Burroughs, which makes it the third longest ERB series behind the adventures of Tarzan and the Martian books. What we have here are three novellas that were originally published in "Amazing Stories" in 1942 ("The Return to Pellucidar," "Men of the Bronze Age," and "Tiger Girl"), along with a fourth ("Savage Pellucidar") that was published later.

"The Return to Pellucidar" has David Innes, the Emperor of Pellucidar, finally settling an old score with Fash, the King of Suvi. "Men of the Bronze Age" actually has to do with their efforts to find both Dina the Beautiful, who flew off in Abner Perry's balloon, and O-aa. This continues in "Tiger Girl," where one of the damsels in distress is rescued, with the other being saved in "Savage Pellucidar" (and Abner planning to make a submarine).

This brings the Pelluicdar adventures, which have taken place over 40 years at the Earth's Core while 150 have passed in the world above, to a close. "Savage Pellucidar" is a below average ERB adventure, following the standard pattern (the hero has to find and rescue the woman he loves), but there is nothing really new in terms of the wonders of Pellucidar. You can put this one in the ERB pot-boiler category.

Just another Great tool to witness to the millions of catholics trapped in the false cult of "catholicism". The best tool, however, is the King James bible.......

This is a great little book but unfortunately the authors have the title of the book wrong. A more fitting title would have been "The facts on a make-believe Church". The so called "facts" have nothing to do with reality. Most of their "research" it seems, has been done internet websites without much credibility.

The authors have gone as far as blatantly adding their own opinion and presenting it as a "fact". For example, the book states something like this:

"Mary may be venerated in the Catholic Church and any Catholic will tell you that worship is given to God alone, but to us it looks like Catholics worship Mary".

This is laughable and pathetic methodology.

Other places of the book has blatant lies, for example, in the section of the dogma of Papal Infallibility and the history behind it. There is not a shred of truth in the way they have presented this and if I were the authors I would be embarrassed to have such a weak straw man book out bearing their names as the authors.

The saddest thing about this book is that it is on sale and multitudes of less informed Protestant Christians will read it and accept it as "fact".

If I want the facts on Islam, I won't go to a Jehovah's Witness and likewise if you want facts on the Roman Catholic Church, don't go consulting Protestant books. Especially not this one.

Two thumbs down for this book.

I noticed this at local Catholic College Bookstore. This book back cover leads one to believe this short book would give the facts on Catholicism in a concise manner and fair manner. Inside the authors often quote catholic sources out of context or quote selectively to show the Catholic faith is in collision with the text of the Bible. It never gives the Catholic Answer to these charges. Its fairly obvious that this book was written to dupe the less informed. The cleverly written back cover description obviously fooled some people at my local Catholic college into purchasing it. I have since brought it to attention of the bookstore manager to ensure its removal.

When people are going to tracts for their information on the Catholic Church, they are begging to be misinformed. This booklet is 58 pages and it claims to present "facts" on the Catholic Church. The obvious problem with that is that 58 pages is probably not sufficient for some of the single issues dealt with in a half a page (which are about half the size of normal book pages).

The book is full of lies and half truths. Papal Infallibility is "demonstrated" false, because of what August Hassler said. The section on papal infallibility ends with the author saying the history of the Church has demonstrated that it is not infallible. That is literally what the last sentence says That is a decieving line, because any serious Catholic knows what Ankerberg and Weldon are getting at. They are implying that because the Church has acted immorally it must not be infallible. No, the Church teaches that it will not teach error, not that it's members won't sin. Beyond that, the authors do not give one example of how the history of the Church proves the pope to be fallible when speaking ex cathedra.

They also give blatant disregard to the standing of Mary in the Church. They devote about 2 mini pages to her. Volumes have been written on the topic, but we are supposed to be convinced with 2 pages. The fact that they do not understand the Church's position does not bother them either.

Basically, Weldon and Ankerberg do not know what they are talking about. They claim the Church errs, because it accepts tradition over the Bible, even though it is only through Church Tradition that we even have a Bible. Regardless of what the authors want to tell themselves, the Church established by Christ made the Bible. The Bible did not make the Church.

There is a reason they didn't write a book on the topic, only a large tract that can be read in about an hour. It is because these little books are generally not taken serious by serious Catholics, but people who know nothing about the Catholic Church will be convinced that it is not the True Church.

Only read this if you are already convinced that the Catholic Church is wrong and you will do anything to support you view. Otherwise, this is a good fire starter.

I am an ex-Catholic, youngest of 11 children, went to mass every Sunday of my youth, confirmed etc. Then I was saved and learned the difference between religion and faith, fear and grace, history and truth. When Chist said "it is finished", it really was. We are justified by Christ work on the cross, nothing else, we are saved by grace, nothing else. There are good Christians in the Catholic church, but one will have a very hard time growing in their relationship with the Lord, by staying within a doctrine that places church history and papal perfection on par with the word of God. Just try and find a Bible in a Catholic church and that tells you pretty much what you need to know. This book is wonderful and absolutely accurate on revealing the false teachings within the Catholic church and how they clash with SCRIPTURE. No matter what I say, you will not understand until God has removed the scales from your eyes, and only he can do that.

This is not a serious book, it is just a pamphlet. Mr. Burroughts is totally biased and just uses misleading arguments. Reading this book was a total waste of time.

This is such utter drivel that Amazon should not lower itself to offer such unmitigated tripe. If there were ANY scholarly work to back this purely religious tract, it might have redeeming value. As it is, this 'book' is nothing more that some right-wing religious crackpot's effort at 15 minutes of fame. Would that I could cut that to 15 seconds ... and get my friend's money back for buying this platitudinous twaddle.

Another reaction to scholarly works which posit anything contrary to "the truth" contained within the Bible.

Let me quote Carl Sagan (yes, yes, I know that he was a professed atheist, but bear with me here):

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

What really burns me down about pieces like this is that in the case of belief, there seems to be this imbalance of fact. Not so much that there is an blatant absence of factual, testable evidence that there really was/is a Jesus or God for that matter to begin with, but that when confronted with any actual evidence contrary to these, the problems begin. And the problems are these: even though all of what Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hopi Indians, or whoever is primarily based upon faith and belief, anything contrary or challenging to these must be automatically backed up by extraordinary or incontrovertible evidence.

WHAT? Wait, let me get this straight: You have faith in something that you have little to absolutely no proof of, and yet when scholarly work presents evidence to the contrary of what you believe based upon faith and little to no proof, that scholarly work needs to back up what it has found with mounds of factual, provable evidence? Does anyone else see a problem here?

Look, the FACT of this matter is that until people just get their heads out of their collective rears about their "beliefs" and learn that anything, and I mean ANYthing is vulnerable to being DISproven, and when they decide to OPEN THEIR MINDS to other possibilities, this world will be pretty much the most messed up place ever. This piece attempts to block that open-mindedness and fails miserably.

Reactionism to anything that threatens a dogma or a belief without incontrovertible or compelling factual evidence is bunk. Those who write reactionary pieces expect and criticize this from contrary writings. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standard? Simply because it is the so-called "Word of God?" I believe that this God would hold things to a higher standard.

Just because it is written and has been ratified (and edited) by a council which was politically motivated and charged by an emperor to meet his needs and not those of the truth and the people does not make it truth. And the belief (notice I wrote "belief" and not "fact") that there is no way whatsoever that it can be proven as divinely inspired and that the men (note, no women there) who were charged with ratifying and editing the "Gospels" were lead by the Holy Spirit to do anything. More likely they were paid very well and got exactly what their leaders desired: more power and control over the masses, more land and more influence, and finally more wealth so that they could continue to contain the beliefs of the uneducated. Today we call this "Fascism." Then it was called "divinely inspired."

And speaking of Fascism, this work is tantamount at an attempt to silence critics of the Bible. This act, unabated by the Constitution of the United States, would also move well into the realm of Fascist propaganda. Thank God (?) for men who saw that the tyranny of not only that states but the churches as well should not govern the people. Now THAT is what I would call "divinely inspired!"

Simply stated: when reactionary rhetoric can complete a factual, evidential treatise which can counter Biblical criticism, then the masses will listen with a discerning ear and see what is fact and what is fiction (faith?). Until then nice try....

[...].

This reads like a zealot's response
to facts he can't bear to be true.
It doesn't matter that you can verify Erhman's facts for yourself.
This 'pamphlet' is the kind of fluff that is actually embarrasing to all who can think rationally.In grand apologist tradition, if you can't refute the facts resort to evasion and gibberish. I honestly feel sorry
for these folks.

Nearly everything in this book that's worthwhile is cut-and-pasted from public-domain sources. It's capped-off with an appendix that includes a personal email exchange between the author and Ehrman, evidently without Ehrman's consent. This in itself demonstrates the sheer lack of professionalism in this book.

EDIT ADDED IN JUNE 2007: Reading this book last year ultimately spurred me to write my own book which has just been published; so, ultimately, I guess that Mr. Burroughs' book had a good influence on me after all! See Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"

I myself am a friend of an entire masonic family for 13 years. I got this book after I first noticed the "anti-masonic" rhetoric online and I could not believe it at all. I was convinced that there was nothing wrong with what my friends participated in.
However, Ankerberg & Weldon do a very nice common-sense approach to give the obvious differences between Christianity and Masonry. Through my personal experiences with my friends (who also claim to be Christians) I began to sense something was very wrong, and reading this book confirmed it. My friends eat, breathe, talk and excrete masonry, so I have seen quite a bit.
I have taken many of the topics in this book, and along with other sources, and discussed them with one of my masonic friends. She has confirmed all of them through her words and actions.
A friend at my church also presented this book to a mason he works with who also confirmed that everything in it is accurate. But yet, he is so deceived that he persists to let this fraternity use him.
I cannot cover everything here, but Ankerberg and Weldon actual give an approach that just scratches the surface. You will want to learn more. What I have learned is this (confirming with my masonic friends): they swear oaths that are verbally vile and bloody, put ropes around initiate's bodies--including the neck, make the initiate alter his clothing. They promote making good men better, but provide no provision for "bad" men. They discriminate against people who they consider having "bad mental qualities" even though they have neither medical or legal licenses to make that judgment. They also promote brotherly support of one another, but when my masonic friends had a devastating fire in their home, not a single fraternity member showed up to help them.
I don't even need to be a Christian to confirm these things. Just a little discernment is all that is needed. I wish every mason, not even just Christian ones, will read this booklet. It's very short and can bring some things into perspective, even for those of other religious beliefs. These authors I think do a nice job demonstrating how this fraternity is disrespectful for all religious beliefs, not just Christianity.

John Ankerberg is a master of destruction against virtually every institution except his special outlook an christianity. This book, like his whole series, takes ideas and presents them completely out of context. If your a hate mongerer, this books for you.

I started to read the book in hopes of finding out more about Freemasonry. I soon found out that Mr. Ankergerg simply put Masonry on a hit list. He is not an expert on Masonry and in fact makes up much of what he writes about the Fraternity..I wonder how someone who is so full of hate can consider himself a man of God? A much better and factual book on Freemasonry would be "Born In Blood" by John J. Robinson.

Sincerely & Respectfully Bro. Manny Blanco Moreno ValleyLodge # 804 Moreno Valley, CA

Dear Readers, please be VERY careful with this work. It is written by anti-Masons with the sole goal of presenting anti-Masonic propaganda. This is not a book of facts, it is a book of falsehoods - proven falsehoods under the guise of facts. John Ankerberg & John Weldon have been peddling this nonsense for some time. Buyer beware.

The best advice regarding the written word is to carefully consider the source and motivation for writing it. With that in mind, one sees a steady flow of uninformed, sensational (yes, even malicious) attacks upon the Masons. They carefully ignore mentioning Christian leaders as Norman Vincent Peale, Methodist Bishop Carl Sanders, and the late president of Baylor University (Southern Baptist) Abner McCall- all 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Masons. It's ALL about portraying Masonry as a non-Christian (it's NEVER claimed to be Christian) or as some "alternative religion". My long held stance is that it's a handy way for these "evangelists of ignorance" to fill their coffers in the same way the National Enquirer does. The unwashed mob is still out there, watching TV and sending their hard-earned dollars in to "ministers" who probably know better than what they're saying, laughing all the way to the bank...

Not Burroughs' best writing or most provocative -- but is there really any bad Burroughs' writing? The most interesting aspect is reading his handwriting in his own journal, a plus for all journal keepers out there who like to read the cursive word. A definite must for hardcore WSB fans.

Any chance this will be published in paperback? $59 is steep. So unfortunate the price keeps most of us degenerate Burroughs' readers at arm's length from owning a copy.

I do not received This item; Tarzan Volme Twelve: Tanzan and the Mad Man, Tarzan and the CastaWays e Tarzan and the Twins

THIS BOOK DOES NOT CONTAIN THE COMPLETE BOOK, "TARZAN AND THE TARZAN TWINS". It only contains the short story, "The Tarzan Twins", retitled here as "Tarzan and the Tarzan Twins". Confused? I'll explain:

In 1927, E.R. Burroughs wrote a book for younger readers titled, "The Tarzan Twins". Then in 1936, he wrote a sequel called, "Tarzan and the Tarzan Twins with Jad-Bal-Ja the Golden Lion".

Later, in 1963, Canaveral Press released a book called "Tarzan and the Tarzan Twins", which contained both of the above stories in one book.

This book, however, only contains the first of the two stories, retitled.

Sadly, I bought this book specifically for the second Tarzan Twins story (or THE SECOND HALF of "Tarzan and the Tarzan Twins") but it was not included. I already have the first story. (It is available right here on Amazon for about eight bucks, if you're interested.)

On another note, though, it is great to see almost all of the Tarzan novels back in print. Perhaps the publisher could release a thirteenth book, containing the second Tarzan Twins story and "Tarzan: The Lost Adventure"...

From 1923 to 1956, a coalition of European powers governed Tangier, Morocco, and called the city "The International Zone of Tangier," which William Burroughs referred to as the "interzone," a word he later used as the title for one of his manuscripts. During its years as an International Zone, Tangier became a notorious magnet and haven for smugglers, spies, outcasts, artists, and expatriates-a place where nations, languages, and cultures could mix wantonly. In the years following World War II, Paul Bowles, William Burroughs and Alfred Chester left America and eventually settled in Tangier (Bowles permanently; Burroughs and Chester temporarily), where each of them wrote some of their major works.

In Colonial Affairs, Greg Mullins reassesses the "interzone literature" of these three writers in relation to queer and postcolonial theory. Each writer receives an entire chapter's worth of analytical scrutiny, with close readings of their major texts, in which Mullins purports to find evidence of what he refers to as "colonial desire" and "colonial nostalgia," as well as other examples of "colonial discourse." A fifth and final chapter, "Translating Homosexuality," deals with Paul Bowles's collaborations with Larbi Layachi, Mohammed Mrabet, and Mohamed Choukri. Here, Mullins raises some interesting points about translation and the issue of "authenticity," but he comes to questionable conclusions, such as "The Bowles translations can best be understood as an erotic exercise in their own right, an exercise that reflects the patron/client model of sexual commerce between West and East in Tangier."

The arguments that Mullins advances are both compelling and intriguing, but his attempt to map the rigid coordinates of postmodern theory onto the slippery and erratic topography of these six highly eccentric writers falls short of being totally convincing. To say that Bowles, Burroughs, and Chester perpetuated or embodied "the structures and stereotypes of colonial discourse" seems far fetched at best; in the act of turning their backs on America and immersing themselves in the crucible of Tangier, where the demarcations between language, culture, nationality, and sexuality were in constant flux, their project (and common denominator) was primarily one of self-discovery, or even a deconstruction of the self altogether, in order to get to a place beyond, the true "interzone" of the subconscious. That the work of these three writers "variously celebrates, critiques, and attempts to evade the double bind of colonial sexuality" seems moot in this light, while the fact that they "reordered reality through their writing" is a given that hardly warrants further discussion. As for Choukri, Layachi, and Mrabet, their entrepreneurial savoir-faire and large doses of egomania about their literary endeavors hardly jibe with the "patron/client model of sexual commerce."

Originally begun as a dissertation, Colonial Affairs frequently veers off into totally unrelated terrain (such as the roots of postmodernism in the work of Burroughs, Freudian fetish theory in the work of Chester, etc.). Nonetheless, Mullins has provided us with an engaging portrait of these three writers and their lives in Tangier, and an intriguing reinterpretation of their legacy, which has more in common with Rimbaud's "disordering of the senses" than the "horror" that Mr. Kurtz lamented in Conrad's Heart of Darkness.