Take a photo of a barcode or cover
perid0t 's review for:
Cryptids, Creatures & Critters: A Manual of Monsters and Mythos
by Rachel Quinney, Rachel Quinney
This was a Netgalley ARC read!
I think this is a 3.5, so giving it 4 stars is me being generous. I liked the art, and I found several critters that were new to me.
I am however confused about the intended audience of this book. At first, I thought it was aimed at children. It makes sense. Cute drawing, content warnings under the labels mentioning innocent things like "alcohol" and less innocent such as "Animal Death" which gave me the initial impression of an parent reading to an child and deciding to skip the entry with the Chupacabre because it was said it caused multiple pet deaths.
But then the Goatman entry arrived with the "bestiality" tag and that gave me whiplash. I can just imagine a child looking at their parent and going "what is bestiality?". Which, maybe I'm clutching my pearls here but that isn't something I want coming out of anyones mouth. The actual entry was rather innocent saying that some tales said the goatman was "the offspring of a farmer and a goat" which.. is a lot more acceptable than seeing the word bestiality somehow.
(Other content warnings I wouldn't want a child to see include Sexual Assault and Genital Mutilation)
The cover also goes under this. It is like a book made by two people and both thinking they're making the book for different audiences. The actual text in the book feels like it is written like non-fiction, it features reported sightings, even going as far as naming people who has stated they've seen the creature. There is even some entries (like the Chupacabre) where the author points out arguments over what the creature might actually be (A dog with mange). However, the cover doesn't say "here is a nonfiction book about creatures we might be sharing the earth with", it says "here is a cute little book about imaginary beings". Even ignoring the art style (which I personally love), it features a creature that isn't very well known and is on the more whimsical side. (Why the artist decided to draw it like an alien thumbelina when the reports mention a creature several meters tall I don't understand either)
The content warning wasn't always consistent either, the Jersey Devil didn't have any but mentioned multiple sheep killing. (So should have had the Animal Death warning like the Chupacabre did, but it seems the Chupacabre got that because it mentioned sheep, farm animals and pets. Seeming to value the pet part a lot more than the being accurate part).
Featuring around a 100 different creatures, it's obviously an selective bunch. Most of these types of monster manuals are. I was pleasantly surprised to see several I wasn't aware of (which is saying a lot considering how big of a fantasy fan I am). But, if the intended audience is younger, why include the two bestiality entries? If it's aimed at an adult audience, why not choose a more serious cover?
I think this is a 3.5, so giving it 4 stars is me being generous. I liked the art, and I found several critters that were new to me.
I am however confused about the intended audience of this book. At first, I thought it was aimed at children. It makes sense. Cute drawing, content warnings under the labels mentioning innocent things like "alcohol" and less innocent such as "Animal Death" which gave me the initial impression of an parent reading to an child and deciding to skip the entry with the Chupacabre because it was said it caused multiple pet deaths.
But then the Goatman entry arrived with the "bestiality" tag and that gave me whiplash. I can just imagine a child looking at their parent and going "what is bestiality?". Which, maybe I'm clutching my pearls here but that isn't something I want coming out of anyones mouth. The actual entry was rather innocent saying that some tales said the goatman was "the offspring of a farmer and a goat" which.. is a lot more acceptable than seeing the word bestiality somehow.
(Other content warnings I wouldn't want a child to see include Sexual Assault and Genital Mutilation)
The cover also goes under this. It is like a book made by two people and both thinking they're making the book for different audiences. The actual text in the book feels like it is written like non-fiction, it features reported sightings, even going as far as naming people who has stated they've seen the creature. There is even some entries (like the Chupacabre) where the author points out arguments over what the creature might actually be (A dog with mange). However, the cover doesn't say "here is a nonfiction book about creatures we might be sharing the earth with", it says "here is a cute little book about imaginary beings". Even ignoring the art style (which I personally love), it features a creature that isn't very well known and is on the more whimsical side. (Why the artist decided to draw it like an alien thumbelina when the reports mention a creature several meters tall I don't understand either)
The content warning wasn't always consistent either, the Jersey Devil didn't have any but mentioned multiple sheep killing. (So should have had the Animal Death warning like the Chupacabre did, but it seems the Chupacabre got that because it mentioned sheep, farm animals and pets. Seeming to value the pet part a lot more than the being accurate part).
Featuring around a 100 different creatures, it's obviously an selective bunch. Most of these types of monster manuals are. I was pleasantly surprised to see several I wasn't aware of (which is saying a lot considering how big of a fantasy fan I am). But, if the intended audience is younger, why include the two bestiality entries? If it's aimed at an adult audience, why not choose a more serious cover?