What do you think?
Fabulous Creatures: And Other Magical Beings
Discover the world of Crytozoology in this fabulous field guide to the denizens of the supernatural realm from gnomes, fairies, and elves to unicorns, dragons, and minotaurs. Featuring more than 600 color illustrations, this is a treasure trove of fun and fascination for the entire family.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1999
About the author
Joel Levy
145 books65 followersJoel Levy is a writer and journalist specializing in science and history. He is the author of over a dozen books, including The Little Book of Conspiracies and Scientific Feuds: From Galileo to the Human Genome Project.
Phobiapedia
is his first book for children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 7, 2015
When I realized that this is supposed to be non-fiction, I was all: oh this going to be a feast.
Sure, nice try by the authors at the start. But if the fabricated egyptian papyrus, the letter to the American president or the mentioning of giants wasn't enough, they used the drawing of a white horse with a horn as a unicorn. And the problem is that middle ages unicorns were depicted with cloven hoves.
Actually, sometimes the book seems to be trying to look authentic with its papers and pictures but when it treats the stories of Sinbad, and Sinbad himself, as fact, you know its made up.
In other cases it got kind of ridiculous: that "plesiosaur" that was once dragged out by japanese fishermen was not "recently" confirmed to be a shark. It was pretty clear back then according to my knowledge. They examined the rotted thing and threw it back into the water.
Indeed this was pretty stupid, pretty quickly. Bad enough that they think a Tuatara is a lizard, but they claim that dragons might be descended from theropod dinosaurs like Velociraptors, even though they share barely, if any, a resemblance with each other.
Forget that they try the old "Maybe Nessie is a plesiosaur" route but they also consider Jason and the Argonauts, Odysseus and Hercules as predecessors for cryptozoologists.
And sure book, that Thai statue of a "Rooster man" is of course the same as a European "basilisk" (technically what they show here is a cockatrice but whatever).
And then they just got lazy: That "griffon" on the picture is so obviously and totally fake. The wings aren't even big enough for a glide. And that they do things like this is especially odd, considered how much effort they seemed to have spent on other things. You see, while many drawings in this book could never be of living beings, some like that Catoblepas look like they could be actually living beings, except for the weird eyes, and others like the Leucrocuta would need only a few adjustments in the designs and it could depict actual animals that could have evolved without any problems.
And then they have things like the harpies and the mermaids that look nothing like their "real" counterparts and this "werewolf" doesn't even look remotely lupine or canine for that matter. Imagine the body of a gorilla, give it the paws of a dog and the head looks like:
Actually, this constant up and down in this book, makes me really wonder whether this book is supposed to be taken seriously or not. Especially later when they talk of giants, nymphs, elves, faeries, dwarves, pixies, lephrechauns, banshees, orcs, goblins, gremlins, trolls, ogres, apemen and now even vampires. How is that still cryptozoology?
I would not be surprised that this book is supposed to be some satire on cryptozoology or just some second grade book where the makers knew it was silly and went all out with it.
Sure, nice try by the authors at the start. But if the fabricated egyptian papyrus, the letter to the American president or the mentioning of giants wasn't enough, they used the drawing of a white horse with a horn as a unicorn. And the problem is that middle ages unicorns were depicted with cloven hoves.
Actually, sometimes the book seems to be trying to look authentic with its papers and pictures but when it treats the stories of Sinbad, and Sinbad himself, as fact, you know its made up.
In other cases it got kind of ridiculous: that "plesiosaur" that was once dragged out by japanese fishermen was not "recently" confirmed to be a shark. It was pretty clear back then according to my knowledge. They examined the rotted thing and threw it back into the water.
Indeed this was pretty stupid, pretty quickly. Bad enough that they think a Tuatara is a lizard, but they claim that dragons might be descended from theropod dinosaurs like Velociraptors, even though they share barely, if any, a resemblance with each other.
Forget that they try the old "Maybe Nessie is a plesiosaur" route but they also consider Jason and the Argonauts, Odysseus and Hercules as predecessors for cryptozoologists.
And sure book, that Thai statue of a "Rooster man" is of course the same as a European "basilisk" (technically what they show here is a cockatrice but whatever).
And then they just got lazy: That "griffon" on the picture is so obviously and totally fake. The wings aren't even big enough for a glide. And that they do things like this is especially odd, considered how much effort they seemed to have spent on other things. You see, while many drawings in this book could never be of living beings, some like that Catoblepas look like they could be actually living beings, except for the weird eyes, and others like the Leucrocuta would need only a few adjustments in the designs and it could depict actual animals that could have evolved without any problems.
And then they have things like the harpies and the mermaids that look nothing like their "real" counterparts and this "werewolf" doesn't even look remotely lupine or canine for that matter. Imagine the body of a gorilla, give it the paws of a dog and the head looks like:
Actually, this constant up and down in this book, makes me really wonder whether this book is supposed to be taken seriously or not. Especially later when they talk of giants, nymphs, elves, faeries, dwarves, pixies, lephrechauns, banshees, orcs, goblins, gremlins, trolls, ogres, apemen and now even vampires. How is that still cryptozoology?
I would not be surprised that this book is supposed to be some satire on cryptozoology or just some second grade book where the makers knew it was silly and went all out with it.
August 13, 2019
Funny! Well written.
May 2, 2012
Fun to read or just flick through. Visually appealing and pleasing - it looks fantastic, the illustrations are great, the way it’s done is great. The whole concept of the mystification is brilliant. But it’s disappointing from the content point of view and the style of writing is kind of lame. In my opinion it’s an awesome book, an exciting, entertaining and sort of educating reading for kids... and that is all. I like it though, but for very simple reasons: I appreciate the concept and the artworks looks amazing.
August 22, 2013
I like how this book is structured in an imitation of a science book, but there are obvious tell-tale signs of falsehood XD although, if anyone wanted to know a lot about certain mythical creatures, this is a great book to check out.
I can't say I was amused when they took pictures of real human beings and referred to them as "specimens." Did they agree to that?
I can't say I was amused when they took pictures of real human beings and referred to them as "specimens." Did they agree to that?
February 20, 2016
4*
Nice book, not only for children, lot of creatures and interesting information. For everybody who like to dream about fantasy animals.
Nice book, not only for children, lot of creatures and interesting information. For everybody who like to dream about fantasy animals.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews