What do you think?
A Study of Dragons, East and West
Few symbols saturate human civilization so broadly and thoroughly as those of the ubiquitous and enigmatic dragon. This compelling book examines, compares, and analyzes the appearance and symbolization of the Eastern and Western dragons and treats them as the crystallization of human cultures. It shows that Chinese dragons resemble one another but suggest different ideas in different contexts, while Western dragons have different appearances but often denote a single concept. As one of the most notable achievements of dragonology, this book offers astonishing new insights into dragons as zoological «fact», psychological archetypes, and ideological symbols.
- GenresDragonsNonfiction
238 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 1992
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
March 26, 2020
I had to DNF at around 40% because I was no longer reading, just barely skimming the pages.
This book started off strong, and the explanation on Chinese dragons felt well-researched and clearly explained. Because of "lack of space" Korean, Japanese and other Eastern countries dragons were glossed over. It mentions Bhutan was named "land of dragons" but never goes into that either.
The real problem starts when we get to the European dragons. There was a lot that I felt wasn't true, mostly in the meanings of the imaginary. Then there were the conclusions drawn on... I'm not even sure. There were tangents that seemed to have nothing to do with anything, and then suddenly, a conclusion.
Statement.
*story that provides no evidence at all*
as you can see CONCLUSION.
Uhm... no, I don't see that. In fact, a lot of this doesn't even ring true. I can tell that the writer has done a lot of research, but he doesn't quite use it in a way that would substantiate his statements. ANd that is such a pity, for this could have been good.
Once I started doubting one part (western dragons) suddenly, I was unsure about the Chinese dragon part as well. I have no reference for Chinese dragons as I don't know much about them... But if it was similar to the Western dragon section...
Overall, I feel like had this book been "A study of dragons in China" it would have been a lot better. Right now, it's lacking.
This book started off strong, and the explanation on Chinese dragons felt well-researched and clearly explained. Because of "lack of space" Korean, Japanese and other Eastern countries dragons were glossed over. It mentions Bhutan was named "land of dragons" but never goes into that either.
The real problem starts when we get to the European dragons. There was a lot that I felt wasn't true, mostly in the meanings of the imaginary. Then there were the conclusions drawn on... I'm not even sure. There were tangents that seemed to have nothing to do with anything, and then suddenly, a conclusion.
Statement.
*story that provides no evidence at all*
as you can see CONCLUSION.
Uhm... no, I don't see that. In fact, a lot of this doesn't even ring true. I can tell that the writer has done a lot of research, but he doesn't quite use it in a way that would substantiate his statements. ANd that is such a pity, for this could have been good.
Once I started doubting one part (western dragons) suddenly, I was unsure about the Chinese dragon part as well. I have no reference for Chinese dragons as I don't know much about them... But if it was similar to the Western dragon section...
Overall, I feel like had this book been "A study of dragons in China" it would have been a lot better. Right now, it's lacking.
October 30, 2019
The strength of this book lies in its coverage of the Chinese dragons, I wouldn't call it complete, but it is definitely an introduction into the topic that covers a wide range and is full on to be recommended.
However, whole its treatment of Japanese, Korean and Miao dragons clearly were never meant to be more than short introductions, it does already show that the title is misleading as “East” is almost entirely Han-China here. But that is still a comparatively minor issues as this is clear from the content and so self-explanatory. What isn't is when this book tries to cover the dragons from the “West.” And at first it did sound promising as he defines “Western dragons” as those from the Middle-East and Europe, and rarely are these two regions set in the same exclusive category so I was intrigued, even though I completely disagreed with his statement that in that region the dragon's symbolic content is homogeneous (evil or obstacle to overcome in all narratives). But that was a minor point and his statements regarding the varied meanings of Chinese dragons made up for it to a degree (they also showed that “Eastern” dragons have been "decimated" in some fashion when it comes to how they are usually portrayed today). And his first chapter ended well, but afterwards the problems came, still mixed with good stuff, though.
The first problem was that he was of the idea that the majority of world myths grew like branches from an Egyptian trunk, and that no dragon from any other place predates the Egyptian dragon. But is that true? What makes something a dragon in his mind?
The oldest found dragon figurine is from China, but the dragon he talked about probably would not have been recognized as such by the general public if not pointed out. Wouldn't they have been classified under the categorizations of “Quasi-dragons” that he mentioned here? Then again, he did point out that the Chinese dragon's evolution, so to speak, is the process of its standardization and beautification. Sounds to me like they basically killed a lot of creativity and diversity in the process, something the Chinese dragon suffers until today if you ask me. And all these homogenizing definitions you find online do it no justice either.
And unlike the “standardized and dignified” Han dragons, Miao dragons assume a variety of lively forms, including centipede, flower, worm, and crab dragons, dragons with human heads and snakes' bodies and ox dragons are most popular among Miao dragons. Based on aa quick google search their physical diversity is a big as that of European dragons.
As for the Japanese dragons: The old Japanese sea-gods were often female water-snakes. The cultural influences which reached Japan from the south by way of Southeast Asia-before the coming of Chinese ideas-emphasized the serpent form of the dragon and its connection with the tropic ocean. Only later did the Chinese influence change them into the forms known today.
And as for Korea: Buddhist monks from cobra worshipping India partly corrupted the gentle dragon by introducing Buddhist doctrines and Indian ambivalence toward the Nagas. As a result, Korean dragons grew to be fiendish and filled the land with fear and magic. Merry old dragons of the past became horrid water-snakes, lurking in every pool, and filling lakes with terror.
Mostly fine so far, but when it didn't seem to occur to him that there is no clear border between Eastern and Western dragons as the “Indian dragon” served stylistically and symbolically as a bridge between the East Asian and Western dragons, my worries returned.
And they intensified when he claimed that the seven-headed dragon is found in almost all Indo-European myths and folktales. Which is odd as in my country so far, I only know one story with a seven-headed dragon, the others had only one. Sure, he might be right, but that would be an odd coincidence if I read so many tales already and only encountered such a dragon once.
And he strictly adhered to his claim that Western dragons are symbolically homogeneous, representing evils or obstacles. Not that I understood everything that was written here. I mean, can you understand this here:
So the exogenous dragon, originated in subservient areas, was considered to be naturally inferior to an indigenous European dragon-slayer, whose esoteric role in the exoteric non-European word was to conquer, discipline, and exterminate antagonistic peoples and pagan creatures.
I can make some sense of it, but definitely not all.
And he seems to treat Old Testament stories somewhat as history apparently and claims that the Old Testament allusions to Egypt and Pharaoh as Rahab or the dragon arose as a result of the oppressive role that Egypt and the Pharaoh played towards Israel before the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. Even though that story, based on archeology, never happened. He also claims that all Western dragons possess a sexual duality. But based on what? I never encountered that anywhere and you would think it would be mentioned at least occasionally. But despite that he later claims that the Western dragon as a symbol represents the female. And how does he define dragon if he says that all western ones can breathe fire and smoke? And why does he only associate them with fire, death and underground when a traditional element is their wings? I came to think he made the mistake that he avoided with the eastern dragons: ignoring folk traditions and lore. He seems to draw almost entirely from certain myths and so-called high literature.
His solely negative depiction of snakes here runs into the same problem as that of dragons in what he calls the West. How is that possible? And could it be that he constructs an East-West dichotomy here?
And the thing is, that he straight up says that some positive traits of dragons in European tradition show the western dragon lore to be more various than he had described. Then why did he claim that they are always considered evil in prior places? And why did he associate Medusa and the other gorgons with dragons?
And he claims that the dragon is enshrined in another part of the world, where, representing almost everything opposite to the western dragon, it symbolizes water, life, and heaven instead of fire, death, and underworld. But he not only mentioned aquatic dragons but also had mentioned Tiamat, who did symbolize water. And maybe I would belief what he stated if he hadn't omitted almost 3/4 of the "West", at least based on how he defined it in the beginning. My own country is only mentioned on 2 pages!!! And my country has several tales of dragons who punish bad behavior and reward good deeds as well as those that are associated with storms and lightning or eat stone; and Germany definitely belonged to the West by the time he wrote this book.
So, when it comes to “the West” this book is sadly very unreliable in my mind.
The author showed his strength regarding Han-China, at least as far as I can tell (I have seen two tales of dragons from Pu Songling's stories that do not fit what he presented here). The author claims that the dragon had been a totem of the primitive Chinese tribes. The Chinese emperors seized this powerful symbol and possessed it for thousands of years. And the modern Chinese people have taken it back for themselves with the Western inspiration and the awakening of nationalism. Which gave me some nationalistic vibes here.
And according to him only since the middle of this century, with the decline of folk religion and the upsurge of modern nationalism, has the mythological dragon as a national symbol regained a dramatic advantage over Dragon King, the Chinese folk god of the waters.
And that is not positive in my mind as it only strengthened this idiotic East vs. West bullshit by ignoring the folk dragons. Something this author also seemed to have run afoul of. And to be honest, this looks quite odd in places. And not in writing but rather in how the quality in the Eastern (meaning Chinese) dragon section differs when compared to the "Western" section. The latter was often somewhat chaotic, jumping around and of course omitted huge parts of the geography of Europe and the Middle East. But this "Eastern" section is strangely much more organized and easier to follow. He can easily work out three dragon categories here with their own traits each, e.g. according to him the Dragon King, unlike the mythological dragon, is:
-associated with hydraulic agriculture (it is only implicated with water)
-concrete and supposedly responsive
-influenced by Buddhism and Hindu folk beliefs disseminated from India
-belonging to folk religion and local legends
-both a constructive rain-god and a destructive flood-devil
However, for some reason he mentioned things about European dragons now that he had not mentioned in its chapter and it is information that I find questionable. You see, he claims that the European dragon also takes human shape occasionally, becoming a giant or ogre.
And while I know at least one example (several the other way around), he doesn't mention one. He only states that "today" dhrakos and sdrage mean ogre in Greece and Calabria. He only mentions Chinese dragon kings in human form. And suddenly he claims, despite his earlier statements, that the Western dragon has had an indestructible bond with water since Egyptian times, but that rather the negative aspects of water are emphasized. But he did not list this as an associated element earlier in the book.
And he often writes so that one could always claim that he never spoke in absolutes if you ask me. And even then, his takes on Western dragons seems somewhat confused."
I shortly hoped he would talk about the Nordic dragon on the world tree, but alas no... and that is weird. Why is there so much missing here? Especially stuff that is easy to find.
I cannot say for sure with the "Eastern" (mostly Chinese) dragons, but with the "Western" ones I am absolutely sure that a lot is missing here. For instance, we have the Scandinavian tale of Silberweiss and Lillwacker, the Russian tale of the Terror of Kiev, the Persian tale of Gushtap. It took him long enough to mention something from Russia, but it doesn't save his take on Western dragons though.
I had to look up the St. George story because while he states him as a dragon slayer, he only stated that he "attached it to the girdle of the "damsel in distress." According to Wikipedia the dragon was tame then and only killed later by George when the townsfolk had converted.
And in regard to the East, at about half-way into the book he finally mentioned the Japanese dragons again, for one page!!!!!
And based on what he wrote there would be several interesting things, but he focuses so much on China. It is interesting what he writes but why that focus? Due to lack of focus?
I am also not sure what he means sometimes or why he draws certain associations and conclusions. He states that in the folktale of the Sun and Moon Pool, the two dragons are called elong (evil dragon). Is he referring to that tale from Taiwan? It does sound like the one about the Sun and Moon lake. And why does he think this story associates the dragon with fire? Because of the "Clouds of smoke" or the sounds "like that of a fiery explosion"? Because poison seems to be the dragon's element here, not fire.
And as to the association of dragons with whales and crocodiles, I do agree that the whale and the dragon have only one major feature in common-size. As this is, technically, correct as there are big and small whales as well as big an small dragons. But I doubt he means that.
And he claims that a fatal weakness of someone named Qi's argument lies in the physical appearance of the Chinese dragon, which is standardized and is based on the body of a snake rather than a crocodile. But how does he know? Some of them are shorter and might as well be based on crocodiles, they resemble them as much/little as snakes. And in Pu's stories alligators are compared to dragons.
And of course, the author mentions dinosaurs. Well I will forgive him as in the 90s feathered dinosaurs weren't a big thing.
And he claims that a human fear of reptiles is more genetically transmitted than culturally transmitted. Without being taught, most people love the huge dangerous lion and tiger but detest harmless lizards and toads. Well, if he says so. Apart from toads not being reptiles, his argument is flawed already by the lack of fear/detest towards turtles and smooth-skinned frogs. And how many people detest lizards?
Furthermore, he claims that in China the dragon plays its esoteric role not by arousing affection or intimacy but by inspiring awe and veneration-the desirable attitude in a society demanding respect for parental and political authority. Then why did it not arise in the West? Such demands existed there as well.
And I had the feeling that some more nationalism was here. You see he stated that to the Chinese, however, the mythological dragon is an embodiment of national history and dominant ideology. In most cases, they seek identification with the dragon rather than with the dragon slayer. It is particularly true for Mao Zedong who changed from a challenger to a creator. Oh really? Because based on his actions, I would say that Mao is a poisonous folklore dragon. Furthermore, he stated that in contrast we may take the Dragon flag as representative of ancient China's conservatism, collective obedience, centralized hydraulic state, xenophobia, and cultural continuity. Badly wounded, the dragon was not dead. The spirit of the dragon may shine again, recovering its glory in a new form. Which really reeked of nationalism.
And at this point I asked myself: did he ever actually mention any Western folktales? I cannot remember. Maybe his claim that dragons of myth, folklore and religion in the "West" are all the same meaning wise caused him to ignore folktales in this study. A mistake he did not seem to make with Chinese dragons.
And not only could I not find any of these Chinese folktale collections here, but it would be nice if he had such a list of sources for "Western" dragons. And that bibliography looks... sobering.
In the end, this was only an ok book, quite disappointing in places to be honest.
However, whole its treatment of Japanese, Korean and Miao dragons clearly were never meant to be more than short introductions, it does already show that the title is misleading as “East” is almost entirely Han-China here. But that is still a comparatively minor issues as this is clear from the content and so self-explanatory. What isn't is when this book tries to cover the dragons from the “West.” And at first it did sound promising as he defines “Western dragons” as those from the Middle-East and Europe, and rarely are these two regions set in the same exclusive category so I was intrigued, even though I completely disagreed with his statement that in that region the dragon's symbolic content is homogeneous (evil or obstacle to overcome in all narratives). But that was a minor point and his statements regarding the varied meanings of Chinese dragons made up for it to a degree (they also showed that “Eastern” dragons have been "decimated" in some fashion when it comes to how they are usually portrayed today). And his first chapter ended well, but afterwards the problems came, still mixed with good stuff, though.
The first problem was that he was of the idea that the majority of world myths grew like branches from an Egyptian trunk, and that no dragon from any other place predates the Egyptian dragon. But is that true? What makes something a dragon in his mind?
The oldest found dragon figurine is from China, but the dragon he talked about probably would not have been recognized as such by the general public if not pointed out. Wouldn't they have been classified under the categorizations of “Quasi-dragons” that he mentioned here? Then again, he did point out that the Chinese dragon's evolution, so to speak, is the process of its standardization and beautification. Sounds to me like they basically killed a lot of creativity and diversity in the process, something the Chinese dragon suffers until today if you ask me. And all these homogenizing definitions you find online do it no justice either.
And unlike the “standardized and dignified” Han dragons, Miao dragons assume a variety of lively forms, including centipede, flower, worm, and crab dragons, dragons with human heads and snakes' bodies and ox dragons are most popular among Miao dragons. Based on aa quick google search their physical diversity is a big as that of European dragons.
As for the Japanese dragons: The old Japanese sea-gods were often female water-snakes. The cultural influences which reached Japan from the south by way of Southeast Asia-before the coming of Chinese ideas-emphasized the serpent form of the dragon and its connection with the tropic ocean. Only later did the Chinese influence change them into the forms known today.
And as for Korea: Buddhist monks from cobra worshipping India partly corrupted the gentle dragon by introducing Buddhist doctrines and Indian ambivalence toward the Nagas. As a result, Korean dragons grew to be fiendish and filled the land with fear and magic. Merry old dragons of the past became horrid water-snakes, lurking in every pool, and filling lakes with terror.
Mostly fine so far, but when it didn't seem to occur to him that there is no clear border between Eastern and Western dragons as the “Indian dragon” served stylistically and symbolically as a bridge between the East Asian and Western dragons, my worries returned.
And they intensified when he claimed that the seven-headed dragon is found in almost all Indo-European myths and folktales. Which is odd as in my country so far, I only know one story with a seven-headed dragon, the others had only one. Sure, he might be right, but that would be an odd coincidence if I read so many tales already and only encountered such a dragon once.
And he strictly adhered to his claim that Western dragons are symbolically homogeneous, representing evils or obstacles. Not that I understood everything that was written here. I mean, can you understand this here:
So the exogenous dragon, originated in subservient areas, was considered to be naturally inferior to an indigenous European dragon-slayer, whose esoteric role in the exoteric non-European word was to conquer, discipline, and exterminate antagonistic peoples and pagan creatures.
I can make some sense of it, but definitely not all.
And he seems to treat Old Testament stories somewhat as history apparently and claims that the Old Testament allusions to Egypt and Pharaoh as Rahab or the dragon arose as a result of the oppressive role that Egypt and the Pharaoh played towards Israel before the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. Even though that story, based on archeology, never happened. He also claims that all Western dragons possess a sexual duality. But based on what? I never encountered that anywhere and you would think it would be mentioned at least occasionally. But despite that he later claims that the Western dragon as a symbol represents the female. And how does he define dragon if he says that all western ones can breathe fire and smoke? And why does he only associate them with fire, death and underground when a traditional element is their wings? I came to think he made the mistake that he avoided with the eastern dragons: ignoring folk traditions and lore. He seems to draw almost entirely from certain myths and so-called high literature.
His solely negative depiction of snakes here runs into the same problem as that of dragons in what he calls the West. How is that possible? And could it be that he constructs an East-West dichotomy here?
And the thing is, that he straight up says that some positive traits of dragons in European tradition show the western dragon lore to be more various than he had described. Then why did he claim that they are always considered evil in prior places? And why did he associate Medusa and the other gorgons with dragons?
And he claims that the dragon is enshrined in another part of the world, where, representing almost everything opposite to the western dragon, it symbolizes water, life, and heaven instead of fire, death, and underworld. But he not only mentioned aquatic dragons but also had mentioned Tiamat, who did symbolize water. And maybe I would belief what he stated if he hadn't omitted almost 3/4 of the "West", at least based on how he defined it in the beginning. My own country is only mentioned on 2 pages!!! And my country has several tales of dragons who punish bad behavior and reward good deeds as well as those that are associated with storms and lightning or eat stone; and Germany definitely belonged to the West by the time he wrote this book.
So, when it comes to “the West” this book is sadly very unreliable in my mind.
The author showed his strength regarding Han-China, at least as far as I can tell (I have seen two tales of dragons from Pu Songling's stories that do not fit what he presented here). The author claims that the dragon had been a totem of the primitive Chinese tribes. The Chinese emperors seized this powerful symbol and possessed it for thousands of years. And the modern Chinese people have taken it back for themselves with the Western inspiration and the awakening of nationalism. Which gave me some nationalistic vibes here.
And according to him only since the middle of this century, with the decline of folk religion and the upsurge of modern nationalism, has the mythological dragon as a national symbol regained a dramatic advantage over Dragon King, the Chinese folk god of the waters.
And that is not positive in my mind as it only strengthened this idiotic East vs. West bullshit by ignoring the folk dragons. Something this author also seemed to have run afoul of. And to be honest, this looks quite odd in places. And not in writing but rather in how the quality in the Eastern (meaning Chinese) dragon section differs when compared to the "Western" section. The latter was often somewhat chaotic, jumping around and of course omitted huge parts of the geography of Europe and the Middle East. But this "Eastern" section is strangely much more organized and easier to follow. He can easily work out three dragon categories here with their own traits each, e.g. according to him the Dragon King, unlike the mythological dragon, is:
-associated with hydraulic agriculture (it is only implicated with water)
-concrete and supposedly responsive
-influenced by Buddhism and Hindu folk beliefs disseminated from India
-belonging to folk religion and local legends
-both a constructive rain-god and a destructive flood-devil
However, for some reason he mentioned things about European dragons now that he had not mentioned in its chapter and it is information that I find questionable. You see, he claims that the European dragon also takes human shape occasionally, becoming a giant or ogre.
And while I know at least one example (several the other way around), he doesn't mention one. He only states that "today" dhrakos and sdrage mean ogre in Greece and Calabria. He only mentions Chinese dragon kings in human form. And suddenly he claims, despite his earlier statements, that the Western dragon has had an indestructible bond with water since Egyptian times, but that rather the negative aspects of water are emphasized. But he did not list this as an associated element earlier in the book.
And he often writes so that one could always claim that he never spoke in absolutes if you ask me. And even then, his takes on Western dragons seems somewhat confused."
I shortly hoped he would talk about the Nordic dragon on the world tree, but alas no... and that is weird. Why is there so much missing here? Especially stuff that is easy to find.
I cannot say for sure with the "Eastern" (mostly Chinese) dragons, but with the "Western" ones I am absolutely sure that a lot is missing here. For instance, we have the Scandinavian tale of Silberweiss and Lillwacker, the Russian tale of the Terror of Kiev, the Persian tale of Gushtap. It took him long enough to mention something from Russia, but it doesn't save his take on Western dragons though.
I had to look up the St. George story because while he states him as a dragon slayer, he only stated that he "attached it to the girdle of the "damsel in distress." According to Wikipedia the dragon was tame then and only killed later by George when the townsfolk had converted.
And in regard to the East, at about half-way into the book he finally mentioned the Japanese dragons again, for one page!!!!!
And based on what he wrote there would be several interesting things, but he focuses so much on China. It is interesting what he writes but why that focus? Due to lack of focus?
I am also not sure what he means sometimes or why he draws certain associations and conclusions. He states that in the folktale of the Sun and Moon Pool, the two dragons are called elong (evil dragon). Is he referring to that tale from Taiwan? It does sound like the one about the Sun and Moon lake. And why does he think this story associates the dragon with fire? Because of the "Clouds of smoke" or the sounds "like that of a fiery explosion"? Because poison seems to be the dragon's element here, not fire.
And as to the association of dragons with whales and crocodiles, I do agree that the whale and the dragon have only one major feature in common-size. As this is, technically, correct as there are big and small whales as well as big an small dragons. But I doubt he means that.
And he claims that a fatal weakness of someone named Qi's argument lies in the physical appearance of the Chinese dragon, which is standardized and is based on the body of a snake rather than a crocodile. But how does he know? Some of them are shorter and might as well be based on crocodiles, they resemble them as much/little as snakes. And in Pu's stories alligators are compared to dragons.
And of course, the author mentions dinosaurs. Well I will forgive him as in the 90s feathered dinosaurs weren't a big thing.
And he claims that a human fear of reptiles is more genetically transmitted than culturally transmitted. Without being taught, most people love the huge dangerous lion and tiger but detest harmless lizards and toads. Well, if he says so. Apart from toads not being reptiles, his argument is flawed already by the lack of fear/detest towards turtles and smooth-skinned frogs. And how many people detest lizards?
Furthermore, he claims that in China the dragon plays its esoteric role not by arousing affection or intimacy but by inspiring awe and veneration-the desirable attitude in a society demanding respect for parental and political authority. Then why did it not arise in the West? Such demands existed there as well.
And I had the feeling that some more nationalism was here. You see he stated that to the Chinese, however, the mythological dragon is an embodiment of national history and dominant ideology. In most cases, they seek identification with the dragon rather than with the dragon slayer. It is particularly true for Mao Zedong who changed from a challenger to a creator. Oh really? Because based on his actions, I would say that Mao is a poisonous folklore dragon. Furthermore, he stated that in contrast we may take the Dragon flag as representative of ancient China's conservatism, collective obedience, centralized hydraulic state, xenophobia, and cultural continuity. Badly wounded, the dragon was not dead. The spirit of the dragon may shine again, recovering its glory in a new form. Which really reeked of nationalism.
And at this point I asked myself: did he ever actually mention any Western folktales? I cannot remember. Maybe his claim that dragons of myth, folklore and religion in the "West" are all the same meaning wise caused him to ignore folktales in this study. A mistake he did not seem to make with Chinese dragons.
And not only could I not find any of these Chinese folktale collections here, but it would be nice if he had such a list of sources for "Western" dragons. And that bibliography looks... sobering.
In the end, this was only an ok book, quite disappointing in places to be honest.
May 3, 2019
Most of the book isn't light reading and could be adapted from a scientific work (which it is) to a more popular format with broader historical and cultural context. That said, it does give a great overview of dragonology and the first few chapters are very fun to read and contain some interesting and understandable (to a layman) ideas about origins and significance of the dragon.
October 24, 2014
This may be the best single scholarly book on dragons (yes, I know, you ask how many 'scholarly' books are there on an imaginary creature?) Well, there should be more like this one. It is as the title promises a look at the mythology, social meaning and psychological meaning of dragons in pretty much every culture that has ever existed and throughout history. Though the research and documentation are immense Zhao nonetheless writes in clear and straightforward language so there's never trouble following his drift, even when discussing complex and obscure ideas. I wanted a book that would basically give me an overview of global dragon lore and it did just that. It's an expensive book but worth it.
June 23, 2024
Difficult to comprehend at some points but I found it helpful as a solid introduction to dragons within (mostly Chinese) folk religion and culture.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews