What do you think?
Rate this book
All You Need to Know About Dinosaurs
Discusses what is known and still unknown about the dinosaurs, chronology, bird-hipped species such as stegosaurs and hadrosaurs, reptile-hipped creatures such as the carnivores, and the question of their extinction
96 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1991
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 17, 2025
A pretty good 1st book for Norell ( www.amazon.com/review/R1WG99MWEV6BLZ/... ): 4/5
If you're anything like me (I.e. A life-long dino fan born in 1987 USA), you probably grew up with at least some of Norell's work. This was especially true for me in 2000, when both "Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated" was published ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3476348912 ) & the "Fighting Dinos" exhibition opened. I was too young for Norell's 1st book, "All You Need to Know About Dinosaurs" (henceforth AY), when it was published in 1991, which is partly why I wrote this review. The other part is to help set the record straight. There isn't much info online about AY other than Cathryn A. Camper's overly-critical review (See "Editorial Reviews"). AY is basically an older, more junior version of "The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3528027045 ), not as good, but better than Camper gives it credit for in 3 major ways:
-1) Camper's claim that "most readers will probably be able to come up with at least a couple of questions not answered in these pages" seems to miss the point: AY is "all you NEED to know about" dinos circa 1991, not necessarily "all you WANT to know"; As indicated by the 1st Norell quote, this is made pretty clear from the beginning.
-2) Camper claims that "the writing style is so lackluster it's likely to draw yawns from even the most attentive readers."* As someone who isn't the most attentive reader, I disagree. That said, Norell's AY paragraphs ARE pretty long & dense compared to those of other, similar books. Fortunately, his paragraphs have since gotten relatively shorter & snappier. This is especially apparent when you compare the 2nd & 3rd Norell quotes (which serve analogous roles in their respective books). My only other writing-related gripe is several misspelled animal names throughout AY (E.g. Aragosaurus/Chondrosteosaurus/Opisthocoelicaudia/Euhelopus are misspelled as Aragosaurs/Chondrostosaurus/Opisthocoelidea/Euhelops, respectively).
-3) Camper claims that "the black-and-white illustrations are fairly standard; some are good, but [Knight's] are so old they've been updated with captions in order to agree with the text." Again, she seems to miss the point: To quote William Simpson ( http://web.archive.org/web/2021062307... ), Knight's interpretations "aren't always perfect, but to an amazing degree, given all the new knowledge we have gleaned about dinosaurs since then, his paintings hold up extremely well"; This is especially apparent in AY (E.g. "The Tyrannosaurus, in the foreground, the largest carnivore ever to walk on land, is shown correctly according to new research, with its tail held off the ground almost horizontally"), though I do think the inclusion of more & newer paintings would've helped support & break up the text.
*This criticism is especially weird given that she recommends Benton's "Dinosaur and Other Prehistoric Animal Factfinder" in another review (See "Editorial Reviews": www.amazon.com/Looking-At-Ceratosauru... ). As you may remember, Benton's popular writing is infamous for, among other things, its "plain toast-dryness" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3490240441 ).
Quoting Norell: "Paleontologists, like other scientists, require that their theories are based on observations and evidence. Unfortunately, the only evidence we have is fossil bones, plus our knowledge of geology and living animals. Fantasy, therefore, has little role in science, and even though it may be fun to think about herds of sauropods being attacked by packs of hungry theropods, such ideas are not scientific and should not be portrayed as such. Think about this as you read what follows and when evaluating the claims of paleontologists in the newspapers, movies and on television."
Quoting Norell: "In the next two chapters we will take a look at the two great dinosaur groups and examine some of the features common to each. In a few cases we will explore how clues discovered in the fossil bones can give us a deeper understanding of dinosaurs in general, and what other information—like trackways and fossil stomach contents—might tell us about dinosaur biology. Finally, we will compare some dinosaurs with living animals. This last comparison gives us our best idea about what dinosaurs were like and the factors leading to their success."
Quoting Norell (See "The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour"): "To recap, Dinosauria (despite recent challenges) is divided into two groups, Saurischia and Ornithischia. Here we will lay out the ground plan for the genealogy of the animals that we will explore in more detail in later chapters."
If you're anything like me (I.e. A life-long dino fan born in 1987 USA), you probably grew up with at least some of Norell's work. This was especially true for me in 2000, when both "Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated" was published ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3476348912 ) & the "Fighting Dinos" exhibition opened. I was too young for Norell's 1st book, "All You Need to Know About Dinosaurs" (henceforth AY), when it was published in 1991, which is partly why I wrote this review. The other part is to help set the record straight. There isn't much info online about AY other than Cathryn A. Camper's overly-critical review (See "Editorial Reviews"). AY is basically an older, more junior version of "The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3528027045 ), not as good, but better than Camper gives it credit for in 3 major ways:
-1) Camper's claim that "most readers will probably be able to come up with at least a couple of questions not answered in these pages" seems to miss the point: AY is "all you NEED to know about" dinos circa 1991, not necessarily "all you WANT to know"; As indicated by the 1st Norell quote, this is made pretty clear from the beginning.
-2) Camper claims that "the writing style is so lackluster it's likely to draw yawns from even the most attentive readers."* As someone who isn't the most attentive reader, I disagree. That said, Norell's AY paragraphs ARE pretty long & dense compared to those of other, similar books. Fortunately, his paragraphs have since gotten relatively shorter & snappier. This is especially apparent when you compare the 2nd & 3rd Norell quotes (which serve analogous roles in their respective books). My only other writing-related gripe is several misspelled animal names throughout AY (E.g. Aragosaurus/Chondrosteosaurus/Opisthocoelicaudia/Euhelopus are misspelled as Aragosaurs/Chondrostosaurus/Opisthocoelidea/Euhelops, respectively).
-3) Camper claims that "the black-and-white illustrations are fairly standard; some are good, but [Knight's] are so old they've been updated with captions in order to agree with the text." Again, she seems to miss the point: To quote William Simpson ( http://web.archive.org/web/2021062307... ), Knight's interpretations "aren't always perfect, but to an amazing degree, given all the new knowledge we have gleaned about dinosaurs since then, his paintings hold up extremely well"; This is especially apparent in AY (E.g. "The Tyrannosaurus, in the foreground, the largest carnivore ever to walk on land, is shown correctly according to new research, with its tail held off the ground almost horizontally"), though I do think the inclusion of more & newer paintings would've helped support & break up the text.
*This criticism is especially weird given that she recommends Benton's "Dinosaur and Other Prehistoric Animal Factfinder" in another review (See "Editorial Reviews": www.amazon.com/Looking-At-Ceratosauru... ). As you may remember, Benton's popular writing is infamous for, among other things, its "plain toast-dryness" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3490240441 ).
Quoting Norell: "Paleontologists, like other scientists, require that their theories are based on observations and evidence. Unfortunately, the only evidence we have is fossil bones, plus our knowledge of geology and living animals. Fantasy, therefore, has little role in science, and even though it may be fun to think about herds of sauropods being attacked by packs of hungry theropods, such ideas are not scientific and should not be portrayed as such. Think about this as you read what follows and when evaluating the claims of paleontologists in the newspapers, movies and on television."
Quoting Norell: "In the next two chapters we will take a look at the two great dinosaur groups and examine some of the features common to each. In a few cases we will explore how clues discovered in the fossil bones can give us a deeper understanding of dinosaurs in general, and what other information—like trackways and fossil stomach contents—might tell us about dinosaur biology. Finally, we will compare some dinosaurs with living animals. This last comparison gives us our best idea about what dinosaurs were like and the factors leading to their success."
Quoting Norell (See "The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour"): "To recap, Dinosauria (despite recent challenges) is divided into two groups, Saurischia and Ornithischia. Here we will lay out the ground plan for the genealogy of the animals that we will explore in more detail in later chapters."
Displaying 1 of 1 review