Conan vs Tarzan

[md62]

Who's your favorite?

For me it is Tarzan.

[Libaax]

For me very easy choice.


Conan is the fantasy "hero" if you can call him that.

Not for the comics but for the amazing stories by Howard.

[cdarlage]

I like them both, but having to choose one, I chose Conan.

[Roquefort Raider]

Tarzan is certainly a more striking character; he ranks with Fu Manchu, Dracula, Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes as far as universal recognition goes.

Conan is nevertheless my favorite, if only because Howard was a better writer than Burroughs. There are very few "inferior" Conan tales, while the truly good Tarzan stories aren't even in the majority.

In the comics, both characters have a long and illustrious career; both have had their ups and their downs, with moments of sheer brilliance. Burne Hogarth and Russ Manning on the one hand are balanced by Barry Smith and John Buscema (when matched with a good inker) on the other. I'd say Tarzan was probably slightly better served because of his much longer career in the funny papers.

[Red Oak Kid]

Gotta go with Tarzan. I think he is a more accessible character and I like the fact that despite the way he was portrayed in movies, Tarzan is an educated man who can speak three languages and prefers living in the jungle over civilization.

[Drusilla lives!]

I'd have to say Conan.

[benday-dot]

I voted Tarzan.

I agree; however, with the assessment of Roquefort Raider, that the works of REH, read better than Burroughs. In terms of excitement and skill of execution the works of Conan gets my pick.

But it is the "idea" of Tarzan which takes the prize for me.

The exaltation of the primitive in an era of post-Victorian splendour, of a westerner, from civilization's zenith, raised by apes in a machine age, effecting a moral code judged superior to the corruption and softness of a rank progress beyond the jungle paradise is a motif so rich in possibility and potential.

Throw in Jane and you get lots of Freudian subtext.

As ROK suggested, the Tarzan story plays in themes more appreciable and increasingly more universal than other fictional excursions into the barbaric. Who of us in this super developed and immensely technoligized world, seemingly more than ever removed from its natural beginnings, doesn't dream about becoming Tarzan for a spell?

[B. Kuwanger]

Gotta go with Conan, although I haven't read the stories from Burroughs himself. I just could never get with that "white man of the jungle" feel that I got from Tarzan and his many ripoffs. Conan is the greatest warrior in what's written (very thoroughly) as a very great age of warriors, and that fact always compels me to read about his adventures.

[Red Oak Kid]

Vote For Tarzan The Ape Man

[earl]

I've read bunches of Conan comics, but never really any Tarzan. There are quite a few of the Kubert DC run in the 2 dollar boxes at my local shop. Are they worth reading? I know the artwork will probably be solid, but I figure the stories might not be that great.

[whiteshark]

I voted Conan.

More variety in stories with Conan than Tarzan.

[i*love*comics*247]

I vote for......

Tarzan

[Sir Tim Drake]

I voted for Conan because, come on, he's Conan.

I would also remind everyone that Conan the Barbarian #61-63 featured something of an unannounced Conan-Tarzan crossover. The character of Amra was explicitly based on Tarzan.

[bigbluntz]

Someone should post this under comic book rumbles and see who really wins:biggrin:

[Roquefort Raider]

I would also remind everyone that Conan the Barbarian #61-63 featured something of an unannounced Conan-Tarzan crossover. The character of Amra was explicitly based on Tarzan.

And we know who won! Nyah-nyaaaaah!!! :wink:

I think benday-Dot makes a very good point in pointing out why Tarzan is a more memorable and universal character than Conan.

One of the appeals of Conan is that he's a regular guy. Oh, sure, he's much stronger than the average fellow; he's also brave and proficient at many things and has traveled so much and done so many things that his memoirs would (and do) make fascinating reading material. But as Howard himself put it, he's a distillation of many characters that his author met: gamblers, oil prospectors, pirates, fighters... All colorful gents, but real (or at least realistic) people.

Tarzan defines a whole new class of character. Although Mowgli paved the way, Tarzan really is the true archetype of the man raised by beasts and who manages to be comfortable in both the human and the animal worlds. I agree with whiteshark that past Tarzan stories have on the whole been less varied than Conan's, but that's not for lack of potential: as Dark Horse showed in the early 90s, there are plenty of very unexpected directions in which writers could send Tarzan. In and of himself, he's more than just a great character: he defines a whole new type of character.

[B. Kuwanger]

Well I'd say Conan means a lot as a dominant male icon. When you read about Conan in his world, you want to see him kick every ass and sleep with every woman. I can't think of a character that did what he has done for 70 years before Howard made him do it or as well as he does it.

Someone should post this under comic book rumbles and see who really wins:biggrin:

Ask Wolverine (http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/5459/user21441169372333.jpg)

[Dusty.]

Conan.
The Roy Thomas, John Buscema, and Ernie Chan Conan series was one of the greatest runs in comic history, actually.

[Red Oak Kid]

If the question was which character has been portrayed the best in comic books then I would vote for Conan.

But the question is who is your favorite character of the two.

RememberTarzanspelled backward, isNazrat

[Reptisaurus!]

Tarzan. Because Joe Kubert.

[InfoBroker]

I choose...

not to choose. I like them both, for very different reasons. There are many creative comments that I agree, especially that Howard was a much better storyteller than Burroughs. To date I have only managed to fully digest the first book (Tarzan of the Apes), and the Jungle Tales of Tarzan (but here too, Kipling did it better). But the entire canon of Conan (which take note ROK, canon is a vowel swap of Conan) has been read several times by me. At least the pure Howard stuff. Some of DeCamp's stories are lacking, and his historical alignment of Howard's stories are a bit skewed.

But the main reason I remain on the sidelines, is because on a character basis, these guys don't really share much similarities to one another. Tarzan to Kazar, or Mowgli makes better sense. (Tarzan beats out Kazar, but loses to Mowgli)

-jb the "sorta like comparing the Hulk to Dr. Who or something like that there" ib -

[Red Oak Kid]

I choose...

not to choose. I like them both, for very different reasons. There are many creative comments that I agree, especially that Howard was a much better storyteller than Burroughs. To date I have only managed to fully digest the first book (Tarzan of the Apes), and the Jungle Tales of Tarzan (but here too, Kipling did it better). But the entire canon of Conan (which take note ROK, canon is a vowel swap of Conan) has been read several times by me. At least the pure Howard stuff. Some of DeCamp's stories are lacking, and his historical alignment of Howard's stories are a bit skewed.

But the main reason I remain on the sidelines, is because on a character basis, these guys don't really share much similarities to one another. Tarzan to Kazar, or Mowgli makes better sense. (Tarzan beats out Kazar, but loses to Mowgli)

-jb the "sorta like comparing the Hulk to Dr. Who or something like that there" ib -

Your fancy words make Tarzan head hurt.

Tarzan Smash!

[InfoBroker]

and a...

"Ka Nama Kaa Lajerama"

right back atcha!

You hairless ape.

-jb the "with green skin no less" ib -

[Red Oak Kid]

and a...

"Ka Nama Kaa Lajerama"

right back atcha!

You hairless ape.

-jb the "with green skin no less" ib -

***CROM!! ***

[destro]

Conan. For the Howard stories, not the often mediocre Conan comics which completely neutered him. Some of them were fun, but none ever even came close to the original stories. I enjoy the better Roy Thomas/BWS/Buscema stuff for what it is, but it ain't Conan.

I like Tarzan as well, but I really only enjoyed the 1st Tarzan book. The 3 others I tried didn't come anywhere close and were quite bland. I had a similar reaction to John Carter, the 1st three books were brilliant, after that..bleh..

I found all of the Howard Conan stories to be quite entertaining on the other hand.

[mgs]

Conan, but I have to say, it's probably b/c of the times I was born in. I see the appeal of Tarzan, but he's been so far out of general consciousness for so many years, that his character is not strong in my memory.

Whoever holds the license to Tarzan is doing a horrible job.

[InfoBroker]

***CROM!! ***

excuse me sir. I'm with the Quotes and Dialogues Division of the Comical Book Council of Connoisseurs. The proper phraseology in this situation would be "By Crom!" We mustn't abuse a character's verbal expositions in such a callous manner.

Please kindly adhere to proper heroic vocal etiquette. in the future.

- jb the "It's Clobberin' Time" ib -

[Roquefort Raider]

But the main reason I remain on the sidelines, is because on a character basis, these guys don't really share much similarities to one another. Tarzan to Kazar, or Mowgli makes better sense. (Tarzan beats out Kazar, but loses to Mowgli)


Except Mowgli did turn his back to the jungle for good when he got married... The traitor!

[Lone Ranger]

Tarzan

I like Conan, but I looooove Tarzan

[Deathstroke]

I'm a Conan guy.

[Red Oak Kid]

Can apes vote on this poll?

If so, Tarzan is going to win.

[Cherokee Jack]

Oot gleek-----me vote for Tarzan.

[InfoBroker]

Can apes vote on this poll?

If so, Tarzan is going to win.

And with that, despite all my previous fancy pancy elocution, Mac has helped Tarzan snag another "swing" voter.

-jb the "ook oook, ack ack... back to the trees" ib -

[Greg Hatcher]

I love them both, but I voted for Conan. Mostly because I think he... how shall I put this? He travels better. The Conan comics have had superior material by a variety of creators, and quite a few of the pastiche novels are good too. The Conan movies were not bad, though not nearly as good as we all were hoping. The TV live-action and cartoon Conan series were both admittedly execreble, that's one place where Tarzan takes it (I wish someone would get the Filmation Tarzan and the Ron Ely series on DVD, stat.) That's not even taking into account that I think the Howard Conan stories are generally superior to almost anything Burroughs did, except for maybe the Mars books and The Mucker.

Whereas you look at Tarzan and there's not nearly as many GOOD original comics. Kubert, Hogarth.... who else did memorable Tarzan originals?

By the same token, there's a lot more crappy Tarzan material out there. Bad movies, bad comics, etc. Even the original books themselves are wildly uneven. When Burroughs was on, he was terrific -- but for the last dozen or so Tarzan books it reads like he was faxing it in. Howard's Conan was pulpy but it never read like he was hacking it.

So for me Conan edges out the win. It's close, though.

[benday-dot]

Whereas you look at Tarzan and there's not nearly as many GOOD original comics. Kubert, Hogarth.... who else did memorable Tarzan originals?


I think in the comic books, artistically speaking, they draw about even. Besides Kubert and Hogarth Tarzan had Russ Manning and Jesse Marsh... both very good.

[benday-dot]

Here's a newish book about Tarzan (http://www.amazon.com/Tarzan-Alex-Vernon/dp/0820332054/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239238156&sr=8-1) if some might be interested in the character from a more scholarly point of view. I've read generally positive reviews about this book, though I see one guy on this post wasn't much in love with it.

[Red Oak Kid]

Altho Tarzan predates Conan by over a decade, they both began in the pulp magazines. Tarzan made the leap from pulps to books, comic strips, comic books, radio shows, movies etc.

Conan on the other hand, didn't become widely known until the comic book. His stories did appear in paperbacks in the 60s, but they were not huge sellers, even then. I submit it was the comic book that led to the movie and his wider acceptance by the masses.

I think more people can identify with Tarzan than Conan.

[InfoBroker]

Whereas you look at Tarzan and there's not nearly as many GOOD original comics. Kubert, Hogarth.... who else did memorable Tarzan originals?

Hal Foster, Russ Manning (Already mentioned, but here 'cause I really like his work), and John Buscema come to mind (practically immediately).

-jb the "vine-swinging/sword slinging" ib -

[benday-dot]

Tarzan, the Ape Man... the Kinks knew what the universal story was all about.

Apeman
from Lola vs. Powerman (nice comicbookish title)1970

I think Im sophisticated
cos Im living my life like a good homosapien
But all around me everybodys multiplying
Till theyre walking round like flies man
So Im no better than the animals sitting in their cages
In the zoo man
cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees
I am an ape man
I think Im so educated and Im so civilized
cos Im a strict vegetarian
But with the over-population and inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape man
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man
Im an ape man Im a king kong man Im ape ape man
Im an ape man
cos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
Compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an ape man
In mans evolution he has created the cities and
The motor traffic rumble, but give me half a chance
And Id be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle
cos the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury to be like an ape man
Im an ape, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man
I look out my window, but I cant see the sky
cos the air pollution is fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape man
Come and love me, be my ape man girl
And we will be so happy in my ape man world
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man
Ill be your tarzan, youll be my jane
Ill keep you warm and youll keep me sane
And well sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an ape man
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man.
I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an ape man.

[yetibreath]

Who did the UK Tarzan comics of the 70's, I used to love those? Were they US reprints?

[InfoBroker]

Who did the UK Tarzan comics of the 70's, I used to love those? Were they US reprints?

Which part of the 70s?

Take a peek at these comical book covers (http://www.comics.org/covers.lasso?seriesID=30957&skip=0&show=50) produced by Top Sellers LTD in England. Point at any that might look familar.

!972 and before, chances are high that you were seeing Dell/Gold Key reprints with art by Russ Manning the most likely of their many artists who worked on Tarzan.

In early 1972 DC comics signed with ERB Inc. to produce new Tarzan material and distribute it in the States. Joe Kubert was the editor and main artist. Several of those covers in the 100 - 105 range and there abouts are poor man's production reworks of Joe's excellent work. The interior material could have been reprints from his canon of Tarzan work, or might still be Russ Manning material as he was assigned by ERB inc, to do the Tarzan newspaper strips (sunday and Daily).

Five years later, Marvel was licensed the Tarzan franchise, and John Buscema was doing the art. Marvel was printing and distributing their own full colour British line in this time frame, which included the weeklies (printed in England) and the monthlies. The later were same size and page count as the American product which was a easy to do since they used the same Sparta Illinois presses, and even the same plates and ink. Only the price label was changed to insure denominational dispositions.

Hope that helps...

-jb the bloomin' ib -

[namor]

What ? No love for Ka-zar?...just kidding guys.

[Jeff O.]

Someone should post this under comic book rumbles and see who really wins:biggrin:

In any comic-book rumble, Tarzan must be given a few bonus points for having been featured on what may be the very first GOOD-GUY CROSSOVER BATTLE COVER in comics history:

Tarzan vs. Li'l Abner -- 1936 (http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=206017&zoom=4)



__________________

[mgs]

oh my!

I wonder if Dark Horse has the Tarzan license after re-reading my Tarzan/Superman books last night?

[Ahab]

Tarzan for me.

Burroughs' later tales in the Tarzan series do get rather repetitive.

But "Tarzan of the Apes" and "Tarzan the Terrible" and "Tarzan the Untamed" more than make up for any shortcomings in the series as a whole.

[Libaax]

Altho Tarzan predates Conan by over a decade, they both began in the pulp magazines. Tarzan made the leap from pulps to books, comic strips, comic books, radio shows, movies etc.

Conan on the other hand, didn't become widely known until the comic book. His stories did appear in paperbacks in the 60s, but they were not huge sellers, even then. I submit it was the comic book that led to the movie and his wider acceptance by the masses.

I think more people can identify with Tarzan than Conan.

Thats pure Tarzan bias. Conan got strong revival even before the comics. Sure the comics helped make him more mainstream at the time.

The fact there is a 100 differrent collections with Conan stories is because Robert. E Howard and not the comics.

Howard has almost all his work in print. Tarzan isnt as much read by fantasy fans as Conan today. Heck John Carter,Mars books are almost as famous in the reading world. Old Tarzan movies dont make big difference in how people read Tarzan today compared to the many Conan books.

Sure movies wise Tarzan is huge, but not many know he was written by someone like ERB. Inside fantasy,book readers today Conan isnt smaller. He,REH are mentioned everytime people talk about fantasy history. Tolkein created High Fantasy and REH created Sword and Sorcery,Heroic Fantasy. Created in they made them popular.

[benday-dot]

Thats pure Tarzan bias. Conan got strong revival even before the comics. Sure the comics helped make him more mainstream at the time.

The fact there is a 100 differrent collections with Conan stories is because Robert. E Howard and not the comics.

Howard has almost all his work in print. Tarzan isnt as much read by fantasy fans as Conan today. Heck John Carter,Mars books are almost as famous in the reading world. Old Tarzan movies dont make big difference in how people read Tarzan today compared to the many Conan books.

Sure movies wise Tarzan is huge, but not many know he was written by someone like ERB. Inside fantasy,book readers today Conan isnt smaller. He,REH are mentioned everytime people talk about fantasy history. Tolkein created High Fantasy and REH created Sword and Sorcery,Heroic Fantasy. Created in they made them popular.

But if you jump outside the narrowish realm of swords and sorcery and fantasy consumers, and relate to the average person the names of Tarzan the Ape Man and Conan the Barbarian the contest of recognition is clearly in Tarzan's favour.

Is there anyone who isn't at least passingly familiar with the name of Tarzan... that he is a white guy living in the jungle, that he was raised by apes? Is there anyone who is unfamiliar with the phrase of "Tarzan and Jane"?

Conan, since the late 60's has certainly gained in renown (the comics and the movies have definitely helped him close the gap in name recognition) but for the most part he has resided only as supreme in the sword and sorcery subculture.

Tarzan has always been the more universal character to the mainstream consumer.

[InfoBroker]

Thats pure Tarzan bias. Conan got strong revival even before the comics.

Not exactly. There was the very small print run of Gnome hardbacks in the 50s, and thenot much larger Lancer paperbacks in the 60s. The Lancer books had a fractional (very fractional) print run compared to Tarzan. In fact, due to the special spinner racks with nothing but ERB related paperbacks, I'm fairly confident that even the Venus series outsold the Conan books.

Sure the comics helped make him more mainstream at the time.

Based on the way the interest in the material developed in Hollywood, Roy Thomas and Marvel not only helped, they pretty much carved the path for Conan going mainstream.

I can assure you that more Lancer paperbacks were sold during and after the establishment Thomas/Smith/Buscema comics runs than before. And it wasn't because Glenn Lord was all that great of a marketing agent for the Howard Estate.

The fact there is a 100 differrent collections with Conan stories is because Robert. E Howard and not the comics.

Just to be clear,I am definitely on the side of those that feel Conan is a much better realized character, with higher quality stories than Tarzan, but in term of sheer bulk of material, there are far more films, more serials, more TV series, more comics, more comic strips, more radio shows, more pins, more bubble gum cards, and just plain more merchandising of Tarzan than Conan. If you want to just go by book publishing, a lot more forests have been sacrificed to distributing Tarzan material over the past century or so than Conan.

Sure movies wise Tarzan is huge, but not many know he was written by someone like ERB.

Probably as many if not more that realize who wrote Conan.

In general, I would agree with your observation that younger generations of fans appreciate the canon of Howard's Conan material, more so than Tarzan, but unfortunately I think that has as much to do with how poorly the really good Tarzan material has been compromised by the broader and more mediocre material, including a lot of campy (but still fun from the right perspective) movies and other (some quite poor) adaptations.

The concept of the character of Tarzan, his premise and his cast of characters is very strong. As is the structure of Conan. But as I said in my first appends here, I don't think a head to head comparison is all that telling. They don't really have a lot in common. So the preferences comes down to mainly difference in taste.

In terms of Comics, Conan has had a more loyal adaptation (and again a larger canon of quality material to work from). Definitely benefited from Roy Thomas' loyalty and devotion at the start. Also didn't hurt that comic fandom was reacting and doing adaptations of REH material that predated Conan #1 and helped Roy pitch a sword and sorcery comical book to a publisher that had absolutely no interest in the material.

But when the loyalty to the Tarzan material is just as strong, the canon of Tarzan quality comical tales is also just as strong. See Foster(who surprisingly didn't like the character of Tarzan but still turned out some wonderful material), Hogarth, Manning, Kubert, and once again Roy Thomas/John Buscema for excellent examples.

-jb the "I like the good Tarzan tales and the good Conan Tales" ib -

[InfoBroker]

Except Mowgli did turn his back to the jungle for good when he got married... The traitor!

Indeed. How dare he grow up and have a rite of passage moment!

That Kipling fellow sure blew it when it comes to milking and merchandising a premise. So what if he had fancy wordsmith skills, and could weave a broad range tales spanning a tremendous breadth of genres. Apes and wolves sell better than would be kings and Gunga Dins.

It also somewhat ironic that this female centric ending, was written by this same Kipling who coined the saying "A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke."

- jb the "for the female of the species is more deadly than the male" ib -

[destro]

30 years ago I would agree that Tarzan was more recognizable. Today though, I don't think many people know who he is, especially people under 30. I think the "me Tarzan, you Jane" thing would get you a lot of blank stares today.

On the other hand, almost everyone who grew up during the 80s knows who Conan is because of Arnold.

[InfoBroker]

Today though, I don't think many people know who he is, especially people under 30.

If we segment just the movie conscious populations, it depends how far under 30 you go, because the bulk of under 20s crowd are muttering "Arnold who?" while having no problem relating to a tree surfing and sliding Tarzan (and Jane) given the Disney movie and television series of recent vintage.

While the "Me Tarzan, you Jane" movie stereotype might indeed be slipping as a generational thing, I thing the blank stares could be just as attributable to greater awareness of the real Tarzan mythos due to more loyal adaptations.

-jb the ib -

[Red Oak Kid]

If we segment just the movie conscious populations, it depends how far under 30 you go, because the bulk of under 20s crowd are muttering "Arnold who?" while having no problem relating to a tree surfing and sliding Tarzan (and Jane) given the Disney movie and television series of recent vintage.

-jb the ib -

Ohhhhh....good point. I had totally forgotten about the Disney Tarzan. Not forgotten so much as been only vaguely aware of it.

I could be wrong, but outside the fans who go to fantasy and comic conventions, I don't think the Conan movie is well remembered. I think Arnold's Terminator character has left his Conan movie in the backwater of people's consciousness

I think the crux of this argument is the difference between fan boys and the general public. Even in this day and age the general population; ie those who don't go to conventions and don't have Lord of the Rings posters on their walls, know the name Tarzan and have a general knowledge of his story.

But the original question of the poll was which is your favorite character, and on this comic book message board, Conan is clearly the winner.

But if the question was, which character is more widely known by the masses, I think Tarzan would win.

[40footwolf]

Conan is THE original barbarian, and he could kill Tarzan with his teeth, so I voted Conan.

[Roquefort Raider]

Conan is THE original barbarian, and he could kill Tarzan with his teeth, so I voted Conan.

Mmmmmmh... I'm not sure about that; Tarzan did kill a few critters with his teeth in the Burroughs novel...

[InfoBroker]

Looks like the rumble is now officially on!!!

Yea... and Tarzan can summons an elephant stampede with his bare lungs. Conan needs "flint and fire" to do the same. He's such a putz!

-jb the "diggin' for issue nine of Conan now" ib -

[Red Oak Kid]

Yea... and Tarzan can summons an elephant stampede with his bare lungs. Conan needs "flint and fire" to do the same. He's such a putz!

-jb the "diggin' for issue nine of Conan now" ib -

Now, now there's no need for name calling. I'm sure we can debate this like gentlemen.

[InfoBroker]

awwwww... what's the fun of a rumble without some name calling and mud slinging and some beer and a few rowdy dancing girls from Numedia and, and ...

Hey? Isn't that Red Sonya tripping the light fantastic over there on the bar table?

-jb the "drinks are on the house" ib -

[InfoBroker]

Actually, I think this is the second time I've called Conan a putz in this forum. The last one had something to do with Jim Steranko's Talon character IIRC.

-jb the "lost in the Hyborean Age" ib -

[berk]

Actually, I think this is the second time I've called Conan a putz in this forum. The last one had something to do with Jim Steranko's Talon character IIRC.

-jb the "lost in the Hyborean Age" ib -Arrgh, don't remind me of that unrealized Steranko project. I always wish he'd gotten round to doing a Talon story, based on those few sketches.

Tarzan vs Conan: I agree with RR, benday-dot and the others who point out that Tarzan's the more archetypal character, while the Conan stories are better written. Conan's more of a literary creation, while Tarzan goes back to mythical figures like Enkidu (Gilgamesh's friend), or Achilles (raised in the forest by half-man/half-beast Chiron). etc.

[destro]

I think the whole "ape man" type character is somewhat known. The idea of someone raised by animals, swinging on vines, talking to animals, etc. I'm just not sure if the average person summons up Tarzan in their mind anymore when they are presented with this idea. Actually that is a bit sad.

[berk]

I think the whole "ape man" type character is somewhat known. The idea of someone raised by animals, swinging on vines, talking to animals, etc. I'm just not sure if the average person summons up Tarzan in their mind anymore when they are presented with this idea. Actually that is a bit sad.I'm surprised the Burroughs estate or whoever controls the copyright now hasn't hire someone to write some new Tarzan novels. The one Philip Jose Farmer did a few years ago, Dark Heart of Time, was quite good, I thought. Maybe it didn't sell very well, because it seemed to have been left open for a sequel, but it never happened.

[destro]

I'm surprised the Burroughs estate or whoever controls the copyright now hasn't hire someone to write some new Tarzan novels. The one Philip Jose Farmer did a few years ago, Dark Heart of Time, was quite good, I thought. Maybe it didn't sell very well, because it seemed to have been left open for a sequel, but it never happened.

Well he has been marketed a bit in a kiddy way with the Disney stuff. Personally I think he is much more interesting as a mature character. It seems like a huge waste of a good character. Though I prefer Conan I still think that there is a lot that could be done with Tarzan.

Conan has a bit of an advantage here, other than a short lived cartoon series he has always been used as a grown up (or at least marketed towards teens) character.

I read an article in Filmfax awhile back about all of the on again/off again plans to do a John Carter movie over the years. If people are still considering that then I think we will see Tarzan make a comeback at some point. John Carter is really off people's radar screens, personally I would go with a Tarzan movie 1st.

[Libaax]

But if you jump outside the narrowish realm of swords and sorcery and fantasy consumers, and relate to the average person the names of Tarzan the Ape Man and Conan the Barbarian the contest of recognition is clearly in Tarzan's favour.

Is there anyone who isn't at least passingly familiar with the name of Tarzan... that he is a white guy living in the jungle, that he was raised by apes? Is there anyone who is unfamiliar with the phrase of "Tarzan and Jane"?

Conan, since the late 60's has certainly gained in renown (the comics and the movies have definitely helped him close the gap in name recognition) but for the most part he has resided only as supreme in the sword and sorcery subculture.

Tarzan has always been the more universal character to the mainstream consumer.

Thats what im saying. Tarzan might be slightly bigger in mainstream where people have distant memories of the german swimmer Tarzan movies. Same as mainstream people think Conan is lame Arnold movie.

In genre fiction Conan destroys Tarzan. I know a few people old readers who have read Tarzan original stories while many more has read REH stories in the last decades. The fantasy readers know who REH are.

Narrowish realm of fantasy you are talking about are the reason everything REH wrote are in print. Conan has been milked in huge numbers.

Thats why Conan is better remembered today.

Mainstream people dont care enough to read Tarzan,keep the him as strong as he was in pulp.

[Roquefort Raider]

Thats what im saying. Tarzan might be slightly bigger in mainstream where people have distant memories of the german swimmer Tarzan movies.

Mmmmh... You know, Libaax, we're both big R. E. Howard fans but I would still think that Tarzan's popularity in the general public is much, much bigger than Conan's... and even then, as you point out, what awareness of Conan there is in that public is unfortunately due to the Arnold movies.

In genre fiction Conan destroys Tarzan.

At this particular moment this is absolutely true (and I'm overjoyed)! There has been a very welcome revival of Howard's work in the past decade, while the Tarzan novels have apparently faded in the background. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, though, due to the hard work of a few dedicated fans and scholars. As recently as the 80s the Tarzan novels were available everywhere in the US, while the Conan stuff was either the sub-par DeCamp-Carter pastiches or the decidedly crappy TOR-published pastiches.

Fantasy fiction is however only read by a small part of the population, and as a popular icon I don't think Conan is in the same league as Tarzan. He'd be more of a second-leaguer, like Doc Savage, Zorro, or James Bond; well-known, but not universally so. Tarzan belongs to the really big league along with Dracula or Sherlock Holmes; the kind of archetype that's instantly recognized by everyone across many generations.

To determine what character belongs where, I'd suggest the grandma test : who would Grandma recognize among these characters?



But to all the Tarzan lovers who are gloating over my admission that the jungle lord is better known than Conan: never forget that Tarzan tried to have a relationship with Teeka! My man Conan may have had sex with a lot of ladies, but never with an ape!!! So there!!! :biggrin:

[Cei-U!]

I've read and enjoyed all 24 ERB Tarzan novels and every REH Conan story. Given that relatively broad perspective, I'm comfortable saying that Tarzan is the deeper, more mythologically redolent character while Conan's is the richer, more interesting mileau. If I could only re-read one canon, it would be Howard's (on the other hand, I'd rather read Manning's or Kubert's Tarzan comics over any existing Conan comic, good as they are).

Cei-U!
Oh, yeah: I voted for Conan!

[Libaax]

Mmmmh... You know, Libaax, we're both big R. E. Howard fans but I would still think that Tarzan's popularity in the general public is much, much bigger than Conan's... and even then, as you point out, what awareness of Conan there is in that public is unfortunately due to the Arnold movies.



At this particular moment this is absolutely true (and I'm overjoyed)! There has been a very welcome revival of Howard's work in the past decade, while the Tarzan novels have apparently faded in the background. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, though, due to the hard work of a few dedicated fans and scholars. As recently as the 80s the Tarzan novels were available everywhere in the US, while the Conan stuff was either the sub-par DeCamp-Carter pastiches or the decidedly crappy TOR-published pastiches.

Fantasy fiction is however only read by a small part of the population, and as a popular icon I don't think Conan is in the same league as Tarzan. He'd be more of a second-leaguer, like Doc Savage, Zorro, or James Bond; well-known, but not universally so. Tarzan belongs to the really big league along with Dracula or Sherlock Holmes; the kind of archetype that's instantly recognized by everyone across many generations.

To determine what character belongs where, I'd suggest the grandma test : who would Grandma recognize among these characters?



But to all the Tarzan lovers who are gloating over my admission that the jungle lord is better known than Conan: never forget that Tarzan tried to have a relationship with Teeka! My man Conan may have had sex with a lot of ladies, but never with an ape!!! So there!!! :biggrin:


Actually a swedish company own the copyright to Conan as a movie. Its worth alot like Sherlock Holmes,Bond. Actually James Bond is in the first league of the likes of Sherlock Holmes. He is worth billions.

Also i know Tarzan mainstream popularity is big. Mainstream people have actually seen Conan films while how many are still alive from Tarzan era movies.

Thats why i think he is a bit overrated by you in mainstream popularity. He isnt like Sherlock Holmes he hasnt had 100 films,tv shows in the last 40 years.

Anyway i dont care about mainstream. I was saying in fantasy field Conan is royalty Tarzan isnt like that today. Conan has more books in print than many fantasy characters today, fantasy field is small procent of all readers but still one of the biggest genre and Conan has sold in many millions.

[Slam_Bradley]

http://www.trickfilmwelt.de/DisneyTarzan_Serie.jpg

How quickly they forget.

I'd be willing to bet the farm that with people 18 and under Tarzan is more recognizable than Conan by orders of magnitude.

[Roquefort Raider]

Actually a swedish company own the copyright to Conan as a movie.

Paradox owns all of Robert E. Howard's stories and trademarks, actually, except for the compromise it has with Red Sonja LLC over the Red Sonya character.

(I wonder how it will enforce its copyright over stories that are now in the public domain, though). But you're right : the Conan name and franchise is worth many millions of dollars. I'm not saying Conan isn't a valuable property, or that he's not well-known: I'm saying that he hasn't yet attained the kind of mythological status that Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes or Dracula have.

Mainstream people have actually seen Conan films while how many are still alive from Tarzan era movies.

http://www.actadvantage.org/Images/g_dbase/11425T.jpg

That Tarzan movie alone made a lot more dough than the Conan ones!

Thats why i think he is a bit overrated by you in mainstream popularity. He isnt like Sherlock Holmes he hasnt had 100 films,tv shows in the last 40 years.

Well, no, certainly not that many. He still did pretty well, though. Apart from the above-mentioned Disney movie and its inevitable sequel and associated TV cartoon, there was the bad movie Tarzan and the lost city in 98; before that there was the excellent Greystoke; there was some nondescript Tarzan TV show in the 80s; there was the Bo Derek movie Tarzan the ape man; there was a Batman/Tarzan TV show in the 70s, there was the Ron Ely Tarzan TV show in the 70s... I'd say Tarzan and Sherlock have had about the same exposure in different media. But that's not really my point: in terms of universal recognizability, I'd say both Tarzan in his leopard loincloth and Sherlock Holmes with his deerstalker hat are way up there among the truly iconic images of popular culture.

Cheers,

- Ben

[Red Oak Kid]

Also i know Tarzan mainstream popularity is big. Mainstream people have actually seen Conan films while how many are still alive from Tarzan era movies.



I don't know what years the Tarzan Movie Era encompasses, but those movies are still shown endlessly on tv. As a kid in the 60s I lost count of how many times I saw the MGM series.

Those Tarzan movies can be bought or rented on dvd.

It's bizarre to define people who know who Tarzan is as only those who saw the Tarzan films in their original theatrical release.

Several generations of people, worldwide, have seen those movies on tv, tapes and now dvds.

[destro]

I haven't seen a Tarzan film on television since the 80s, with the exception of Greystoke and even that is rare. Of course I could have missed them, but they aren't on often.

I see Conan on television flicking through the channels at least once every few months. I think some of you are downplaying what a big hit the Conan film was. It is still well remembered today. Not on the level of Terminator or Predator, but it is up there.

I'm surprised that so many people in this thread are so down on the Conan movie. Yeah the 2nd one was lame, but I thought the 1st one was probably the best you could expect out of Hollywood. Arnold was a perfect choice to play him. I don't get to say that too often! Sure it took a lot of liberties with the Conan story, but not as many as they usually do with films like this. Definitely not a true classic, but core of Conan was there for sure.

[InfoBroker]

Amazon (US) search of Tarzan
* DVD (146)
* Books (21,164)
* VHS (161)
* Home & Garden (1,271)
* MP3 Downloads (305)
* Kindle Store (142)
* Music (90)
* Toys & Games (59)
* Everything Else (57)
* Apparel & Accessories (48)
* Video On Demand (36)
* Office Products & Supplies (24)
* Health & Personal Care (18)
* Software (18)
* Video Games (16)
* Sports & Outdoors (14)
* Baby (9)
* Home Improvement (9)
* Electronics (6)
* Gourmet Food (4)
* Jewelry (3)
* Beauty (2)
* Automotive (1)
* Musical Instruments (1)

Search on Conan -doyle -brien -zip
* Home & Garden (194)
* Books (3,992)
* DVD (84)
* Electronics (1)
* Apparel & Accessories (49)
* Health & Personal Care (2)
* Toys & Games (201)
* Music (47)
* Everything Else (65)
* Sports & Outdoors (8)
* Office Products & Supplies (7)
* Video Games (16)
* Software (9)
* MP3 Downloads (162)
* Kindle Store (67)
* VHS (56)
* Video On Demand (15)

Mainstream or genre, not sure where people are getting the idea that awareness, access, knowledge of Tarzan has dwindled in the past decade or two in this the Current Age of Instant Access. He'll win this iconic awareness contest going forward for a long time to come given that he is overall more Soccer Mom approved that the Cimmerian bloke.

And be aware, while I tried to thin the ranks of a lot of excess non Conan the Barbarian paraphernalia, there are still things creeping into that not heavily filtered search (like the Bayeux Tapestry Prints featuring Conan du Lac... which I found curiously interesting). Probably some for Tarzan as well, but I think its a save bet that the Conan search numbers are more padded than the Tarzan ones.

I didn't do a search of Amazon UK nor AU, but I welcome others to feel free do so...

-jb the "take a peek at the automotive entry for Tarzan" ib -

[InfoBroker]

I haven't seen a Tarzan film on television since the 80s, with the exception of Greystoke and even that is rare. Of course I could have missed them, but they aren't on often.

This reminds me of one of my high school art teachers and her shock that Nixon won the 1968 presidential election. She didn't vote for him, none of her friends voted for him, so how did he win? (She's from Boston). Then she took a job here in the fly-over states. Her point of view and perspective was broadened significantly.

My point here is you aren't being objective in your observations, it's based on your viewing habits without much extrapolation outward to a broader range of tastes and people.

Off the top of my head, and using tvguide.com as a very very minor reference aid:

The Legend of Tarzan animation show is still making the daily rounds on UPN and WB stations. The Tarzan movies, especially the pre-Hayes code ones cycle through showings on Turner Classics moves 2-3 times a year, and sometimes they marathon them across a string of Saturn-day mornings. I know the later because I spend a lot of time snapsteaming TCM over the last twn years, and before that VHSing AMC (when it was still classic).

re: the Arnold Conan Movies:
I have to be limited in my critique of them, in that I have not been able to sit through more than ten minutes or so of either one of them.

For some people, I am sure they are just the right movie and they got to watch for the first time at just the right age, moment to become ardent fans of them. And that is fine, Nothing wrong with it at all.

And to be fair to Conan, the only Arnold movie I have watched all the way through is the second Terminator movie. Which I greatly enjoyed.

- cheers-

-jb the "still a bigger fan of Conan material, really I am" ib-

[Slam_Bradley]

I just noticed that I haven't actually answered this.

Having read about half of Howard's work and the vast majority of Burroughs' I feel I can say that neither are even # 1 within their respective author. I certainly prefer Solomon Kane and possibly El Borak and Bran Mak Morn to Conan. As for Burroughs, Billy Byrne is my favorite of his creations. I'm also pretty fond of Carson Napier as a character though I'm luke-warm on most of the Venus novels.

That said, overall, I prefer Tarzan to Conan. I think the character works better in multiple settings, from pure adventure to fantasy to SF to what-have-you.

[InfoBroker]

I I'm also pretty fond of Carson Napier as a character...

me too, but I'm even more fond of Princess Duare.

-jb the "reaches for his MWKaluta box of comical books" ib -

[Roquefort Raider]

That said, overall, I prefer Tarzan to Conan. I think the character works better in multiple settings, from pure adventure to fantasy to SF to what-have-you.

Not to mention geriatric porn (as per the works of P. J. Farmer)!

[mgs]

http://www.trickfilmwelt.de/DisneyTarzan_Serie.jpg

How quickly they forget.

I'd be willing to bet the farm that with people 18 and under Tarzan is more recognizable than Conan by orders of magnitude.

Amazon (US) search of Tarzan

ahhh....both good points. I may retract my statements...

[Libaax]

Disney could make a hit out of anything because Walt Disney name. They have.

I wasnt talking about a disney animation. They practicly own the market for western movie animation.

Tell me people know more Casper Van Dien Tarzan movie or Christopher Lambert movie than Arnold Conan movies.

Thats the kind of movies im talking about. Not how famous the real old ones are and if not people have seen them on tv,dvd or not.

That shouldnt be hard to understand right ?

I have seen the old tarzan movies on tv but i have never heard about anyone who have actually watched them. I know they are famous, i wasnt talking about them but the fact they arent any famous Tarzan movie or tv shows since the real old days.

[benday-dot]

sorry double post.

[benday-dot]

Disney could make a hit out of anything because Walt Disney name. They have.

I wasnt talking about a disney animation. They practicly own the market for western movie animation.

Tell me people know more Casper Van Dien Tarzan movie or Christopher Lambert movie than Arnold Conan movies.

Thats the kind of movies im talking about. Not how famous the real old ones are and if not people have seen them on tv,dvd or not.

That shouldnt be hard to understand right ?

I have seen the old tarzan movies on tv but i have never heard about anyone who have actually watched them. I know they are famous, i wasnt talking about them but the fact they arent any famous Tarzan movie or tv shows since the real old days.

I don't follow. Would you accommodate an animated Tarzan film if Pixar made it, or a lesser known company? A Tarzan movie is a Tarzan movie n'est pas? If it's a movie that tells the story of Tarzan whether through animation or live action, whether by Disney or another studio it's still no more, no less than a Tarzan movie... and this case attesting to the characters abiding fame and mythos. And that seems pretty easy to to understand.

[Reptisaurus!]

Tell me people know more Casper Van Dien Tarzan movie or Christopher Lambert movie than Arnold Conan movies.

I'd say that here in America the Weissmuller Tarzan is WAY more deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness than Tarzan. The famous yell, "Me Tarzan, You Jane."

It's possible that if we limit the discussion to "Who's l1980s era movies are better known" that Conan wins (he probably does) but who cares? Tarzan's been vastly more popular in other decades, and is far better known over-all.

Could be different in Sweden, of course.

[InfoBroker]

Tell me people know more Casper Van Dien Tarzan movie or Christopher Lambert movie than Arnold Conan movies. Thats the kind of movies im talking about. Not how famous the real old ones are and if not people have seen them on tv,dvd or not.

That shouldnt be hard to understand right ?



Which people? You keep changing the parameters from to genre only to mainstream (but not anyone who watched the "old" Tarzan movies, and not anyone who watches animation movies or tv series).

But OK, you want us to just segment the 1980s Tarzan movie and 1980s Conan movie...

Conan the Barbarian
Release 1982
Theatrical Release Total US Gross $38,264,085
Rentals $21,730,000


Greystoke
Release 1984
Theatrical Release Total US Gross $45,900,000
Rentals $23,200,000

Gory details http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1982/0CNN1.php and http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1984/0GRYS.php...

-jb the ib -

[InfoBroker]

I've read and enjoyed all 24 ERB Tarzan novels...

Being a soul that could never get past a couple of Tarzan novels in their entirety (Tarzan of the Apes, and the Jungle Tales of Tarzan), and being that I greatly admire your insights and tastes in comics and literature (well except for your opinions about Jack Kirby's Iron man, but then what would be the fun if we agreed on everything), I wouldn't mind a pointer to any other Tarzan books that you enjoyed. I'd be especially interested in a tale of Tarzan, beyond the youthful prime years, mellowed and matured, but dealing with the struggles of staying active and robust, competing as it were, against his youthful prime.

Others are welcome to chime in with their recommendations for classic Tarzan tales as well.

-jb the "identifying a bit with the struggles of competing against those youthful years" ib -

[Roquefort Raider]

Being a soul that could never get past a couple of Tarzan novels in their entirety (Tarzan of the Apes, and the Jungle Tales of Tarzan), and being that I greatly admire your insights and tastes in comics and literature (well except for your opinions about Jack Kirby's Iron man, but then what would be the fun if we agreed on everything), I wouldn't mind a pointer to any other Tarzan books that you enjoyed. I'd be especially interested in a tale of Tarzan, beyond the youthful prime years, mellowed and matured, but dealing with the struggles of staying active and robust, competing as it were, against his youthful prime.

That would be a Philip José Farmer pastiche, I'd say. But novels like Tarzan the untamed and the son of Tarzan feature the jungle lord as a proper respectable Englishman, fully dressed and stuff. (Dark Horse had a few Tarzan stories set in the modern days, and it was fun to see how the immortal Tarzan and Jane had hidden their longevity by adopting new identities).

Others are welcome to chime in with their recommendations for classic Tarzan tales as well.

Tarzan of the apes and the return of Tarzan can be read as one novel. They introduce the character, and everything feels new and fresh. After that, the son of Tarzan tries to do the same thing, and it sort of works because Korak is not an echo of his father: he travels the same road, but in the other direction so to speak): raised by people but ending up with the animals. His reunion with his family was a moving moment.

Tarzan the untamed, with its fight against the Germans in WWI and the possible death of Jane (which was supposed to be "true" when it was first written), is also pretty powerful.

After that, Tarzan the terrible is anything but, since it introduces the great concept of Pal-Ul-Don (an African land where dinosaurs still exist). Cool world building in there. Personally, I think that the best Tarzan novels are the ones where his family is heavily involved, since it gives him something he could lose. (We know it's not as if he could die, himself).

The other Tarzan novels are mostly formulaic. There are good stories here and there, but they mostly feel like "this week's episode of Tarzan".

[Lone Ranger]

I think very highly of 'Son of Tarzan', as Korak the Killer became a very appropriate nickname. There is a real savagery to his character that never really came through in any of the comics.

I love 'Jewels of Opar' and 'Beasts of Tarzan' has its moments.

I agree with Ben about the importance of having the fate ofTarzan's family hang in the balance - it always adds a real sense of urgency to the character and alters his decision making.

I've probably read 7 or 8 of the books, now and I dig 'em all.

[Phantom Druid]

Conan. Howard was a great writer. See the film The Whole Wide World if you get a chance

[InfoBroker]

Tarzan of the apes and the return of Tarzan can be read as one novel... After that, the son of Tarzan tries to do the same thing, and it sort of works because Korak is not an echo of his father:..Tarzan the untamed, with its fight against the Germans... Tarzan the terrible is anything but, since it introduces the great concept of Pal-Ul-Don

The other Tarzan novels are mostly formulaic. There are good stories here and there, but they mostly feel like "this week's episode of Tarzan".

Thanks for the list RR, very much appreciated. IIRC, Kubert cover at least three of these. Not sure about Son and Terrible, but I also trailed off on buying Tarzan from DC circa late 1975 or thereabouts, so its possible that one or both or those might have squeeze in. I shall wander to comicals.org later and do some investigating.

I shall probably go digging for the three you mention that I have not read in the raw. If I space the reading out, I'm sure I will find them entertaining. I tried in my late teens to read the Tarzan series straight through, but it turned into a bit of a struggle, and I got side-tracked by Carson of Venus, which I did get all the way through, but there were far less books, and even then it became repetitive. MWKaluta's series which was discontinued far too soon, was helpful in keeping me motivated to finish them. His visualization of Venus was very vivid and inspiring to this particular artist.

I see with your list that we are dealing with books early on in the series. I did a check on the publication date for Terrible because I was curious about its relationship to King Kong which it predates by a decade or so.

The 20s would have been an interesting time to watch the development of fantasy fiction.

-jb the adding to his reading list ib -

[InfoBroker]

I love 'Jewels of Opar' and 'Beasts of Tarzan' has its moments...I've probably read 7 or 8 of the books, now and I dig 'em all.

Did you get an opportunity to find Kubert issue for the adaption of the first Tarzan book missing from the set I sent you a couple of years back? In 1972, I was already a big Kubert fan, but when DC and Joe took over the comical book rights to Tarzan, my admiration for him went even higher. Those were great comical reads in that time frame.

Jewels of Opar was Marvel's first adaption and I do have some fond memories of those early issues. But I was also a bit busy with College activities so my attention to comics was a bit lax. Should I ever get my comical book in a more accessible order, I shall go digging for these. I don't have much memory of them, not as vivid as the Kubert books, so it should make for a nice nostalgic moment.

I think I have the early 70s paperback of this novel tucked away somewhere as well. It too will be tagged for a search and read session.

-jb the bookwormish ib -

[Roquefort Raider]

Did you get an opportunity to find Kubert issue for the adaption of the first Tarzan book missing from the set I sent you a couple of years back?

I remember those issues; I first got them for the John Carter back-up stories. But I had to admit that the Burroughs / Kubert Tarzan story was first rate!!!

[Trey]

Google hits

Tarzan: 12,300,000
Conan: 33,500,000

Conan the Barbarian: 770,000
Tarzan of the Apes: 223,000

Robert E. Howard: 15,700,000
Edgar Rice Burroughs: 688,000


No contest, Conan is more popular. Thou the TV show definitely skews the results for "Conan"

I voted Conan, his world is more fascinating. As It is written as if its historical fact, that there was a Conan who roamed these ancient lost civilizations.

[benday-dot]

Google hits

Tarzan: 12,300,000
Conan: 33,500,000

Conan the Barbarian: 770,000
Tarzan of the Apes: 223,000

Robert E. Howard: 15,700,000
Edgar Rice Burroughs: 688,000


No contest, Conan is more popular. Thou the TV show definitely skews the results for "Conan"

I voted Conan, his world is more fascinating. As It is written as if its historical fact, that there was a Conan who roamed these ancient lost civilizations.

I suspect most people Googling the two would opt for the first and most simple search you queried, i.e. Tarzan or Conan

You mention the tv show. Very good. But also, you must take into consideration the author of Sherlock Holmes, Conan Doyle. Do an advanced search, filtering out the terms O'Brien- Arthur-Doyle and you get a much different and closer result.

I got 15,400,000 for Conan and 14,000,000 for Tarzan.

Conan still leads, but who knows what else in a Google search could be skewing the results for either side. How many of the results actually refer to the two characters we have in question?

As to the expanded phrases... "Conan the Barbarian" has likely gained more usage than the less frequently employed Tarzan of the Apes or "the Apeman". Could it be because everyone unequivocally knows the latter character simply by the instantly recognizable name Tarzan? Whereas, Conan may more often need his modifier "the Barbarian" than would his jungle rival needs his in the cause of clarification.

Conan is fairly "hot" these days; however, I am still doubtful that worldwide and over multiple generations Conan has more name recognition than Tarzan.

[InfoBroker]

You must have also forgotten the quotes when searching for "Robert E. Howard"
Which means a heck of a lot of Roberts and Howards made for even more skewering of your results. Including Howard the Duck I'll wager.

jb the (Results 1 - 10 of about 62,500 for "Robert E. Howard" - Results 1 - 10 of about 86,400 for "Edgar Rice Burroughs") ib -

<edit>

Results 1 - 10 of about 99,500 for "Conan the Barbarian"
Results 1 - 10 of about 20,100 for "Tarzan of the Apes"

But as BD suggests, the former is a generic title that usually goes hand in hand with reference to Conan, whereas Tarzan does seem to do a lot more standing alone.

Maybe a more similar ciriteria of comparison might be:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,410 for "Conan of Cimmeria"

[Trey]

My google skills lack refinement. Well done.

[Rev. Calibos]

Conan. You can tell a wider variety of stories with Conan and I've always preferred the fantasy aspect of the books over what I saw in Tarzan's books and comics.

[Herr Mike]

lol

I don't know who would win, but there would be a lot of bronzed skin, grim visages, shaggy manes, steel thews, and rippling muscles...