This is not because the book does not deserve credit, but because the book does not follow the Victorian mold.
It is, however, fascinating to look at the way Sumner speaks of the new literature. He tells the tales of the different periodicals in intimate detail and involvement, and then refuses to admit that they intrigue him just as much as they do the avid readers of such material. This same occurrence is still visible in our culture today. An icon becomes popular in society, and then because of its fame, is picked apart for everything it's worth and dragged over the hot coals by critics. Not because it is necessarily bad, but because it brings a change to the culture, and people are not willing to accept that, or the fact that they helped spur the popularity in the first place. Therefore, denial is the easiest route. .
Stevens, on the other hand, would see the tale of Tarzan as a reflection of culture itself, and of its need for entertainment. He even says, "The majority have no genuine appreciation of art and literature, and seem sad because they are sadly in need of something interesting to think about." (47 Stevens). Stevens would view the book not as un-civilizing to the current culture, but as a reflection of society needing something interesting to ponder. Could apes raise a human? And would he be man or beast? .
He shows a belief in culture losing its interest in classical writing and taking an interest in newer tales. Stevens has the same view as Sumner does when it comes to this upcoming new media. "The Young American hears too often only a cheap and bastard wit, no true kin to fun; let us start him early with, The Rose and the Ring, and The Peterkin Papers, and the old-world caustic wisdom of Aesop."(48 Stevens). The difference between Stevens and Sumner is that Stevens sees the new styles of literature as a reflection of society, whereas Sumner sees the literature as an effect on society.