Tarzan And The Shame Of Jane

The first known appearance of the phrase “Tarzan and the Shame of Jane” in print is elusive. Some claim it was a misprinted title in a 1934 issue of Argosy magazine. Others argue it was the working title for a rejected chapter in Tarzan and the Leopard Men (1935) that dealt with Jane’s temporary captivity by a rival tribe.

However, most literary detectives agree on one thing: The phrase did not originate as a story, but as a critique.

In the 1970s, feminist literary critic Joanna Russ wrote a scathing essay titled “The Shame of the Adventurer’s Wife,” using Tarzan and Jane as archetypes. Russ argued that Jane’s character arc across the novels is one of constant degradation. She transforms from a spirited, intelligent American woman—who can hold her own in conversation—into a silent, anxious figure waiting on the periphery of the narrative. tarzan and the shame of jane

Russ posited that the greatest "shame" of Jane was not her own, but the shame projected onto her by the author and the reader: the shame of loving a "savage," the shame of abandoning civilization for the flesh, and ultimately, the shame of becoming obsolete once Tarzan’s manhood is proven.

Over time, fan communities conflated Russ’s essay with a real story. The search for “Tarzan and the Shame of Jane” became a holy grail for collectors, a metaphor for a story that should exist but doesn’t. The first known appearance of the phrase “Tarzan

In early 20th-century literature, a "good" woman did not have primal desires. Yet Jane explicitly desires Tarzan because of his savagery. In Tarzan of the Apes, she watches him kill a lion and feels a "thrill of admiration." The shame here is narrative punishment. Throughout the sequels, Jane is repeatedly kidnapped, silenced, or left behind. Her desire for the wild must be atoned for through suffering.

For over a century, the legend of Tarzan has dominated the collective imagination. Edgar Rice Burroughs’ “Lord of the Apes” is a monolithic figure of primal masculinity: the orphaned nobleman who transcends civilization to become the king of the jungle. His companion, Jane Porter, is often relegated to the role of the damsel in distress—the civilizing voice whispering in his ear to wear clothes and use a knife. However, most literary detectives agree on one thing:

But among die-hard Burroughs scholars and collectors of rare pulp fiction, there exists a controversial, quasi-mythical reference to a lost narrative: “Tarzan and the Shame of Jane.”

Depending on who you ask, this story is either a forgotten 1920s serial, a suppressed manuscript from the Great Depression, or a modern apocryphal tale that reflects our changing views on gender and colonialism. While no canonical story by this exact title appears in the official Burroughs bibliography (which spans 24 novels), the phrase has become a powerful critical lens used to analyze the darker, psychological undertones of the Tarzan mythos.

This article explores the origin of the phrase, the implied narrative of "shame," and why this hypothetical story remains one of the most discussed "lost" artifacts in adventure fiction.