The Science Of Monsters: The Origins Of The Creatures We Love To Fear (2013) - Plot & Excerpts
Well, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either. It was repetitive, often felt flimsy, and filled with interruptive footnotes that are mostly just lame jokes by the author. You get a good idea of where humans came up with the construction of chimeras, for instance, but there are few actual examples of how that came to be that felt solid to me, with which I walk away with the feeling that I could say "this is how/that's why." It's more "this is probably how that happened." Heavy on the speculation, light on solid evidence. i should of just flipped to the conclusion and saved myself a lot of time. Because its here that Kaplan makes his only interesting point, a historical overview that frames monsters as undergoing a gradual transition from being entirely 'other worldly' and largely supernatural creatures, to shifting (especially in recent times) to having much more to do with human psychology. Apart from that his 'cool' science writing style is aggravating and smacks of the 'hip' adult come to 'hang out' with the kids. could of been so much better, oh well.
What do You think about The Science Of Monsters: The Origins Of The Creatures We Love To Fear (2013)?
Fun read! Gives plausible explanation to many popular myths and legends like Zombies and werewolves.
—Dancer1322
The author was on NPR's science Friday right before Halloween and his content was fascinating!
—Pink
Started slow and speculative, but became more interesting during the second half.
—qianviola10
A 2013 staff nonfiction favorite recommended by Thomas.
—aimeem1023056
