I am, of course, very supportive of folklore and its application to cryptozoology, but I didn’t understand this review at all. I have Ben and Joe’s book (Ben even autographed it for me) and while I thought it could have used some additional traditional NA stories about water monster, I don’t agree with the review criticism (or at least what I think it was saying…??).

One thing that is interesting about Native American accounts of the sasquatch, and their accounts of scientifically known animals, is that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in what’s being said. Every animal, from the deer mouse on up, has fantastical powers and qualities. None is portrayed as a simple critter. And pictorial evidence of the sasquatch in West Coast native cultures differs not a jot from the way in which other animals have been depicted. The only difference is the details of the pictures.

One problem with skeptics - one that should be appropriately highlighted here - is the skeptical tendency to seize on the wildest claims, and discuss only those, or in the alternative, to insist that the silly stuff be given equal weight with everything else. It’s pretty obviously off base that “to accurately understand eyewitness accounts, researchers can’t pick and choose. They must consider all reports, focusing not just on the unidentified but also on the misidenfied. Only with this scientific and statistical understanding does a valid picture emerge…” Um, well, wrong there. A valid picture, which we must presume means one that a scientist would buy as worthy of further research, can only be obtained by focusing on the commonalities among reports, as one cannot, by definition, “focus” on outliers that leave nothing to search and could easily be the products of overactive imaginations, True Believers, or just plain liars. If I told you that I saw pink, green and violet moose on my recently concluded trip, would you jump on that track if you were a scientist? Boy, I would hope not. But now, if 650 people from a small Maine town took their sightings of such critters to the press, as a body, things might be a bit more interesting to me.

There lies the big problem with lake monsters, folks. What are the commonalities? What is the Loch Ness Monster? A plesiosaur? A giant slug? The Radio City RockOtters?

The sasquatch is a bipedal ape. If you think it’s anything else, I’ll take the bet. Provided it exists, of course.

THAT, to me, is the difference between a whassit? and something science might want to look into. One thing that can be pretty clearly sussed from folkloric accounts is the commonalities on which a search can be based. And science can take it from there.

P.S. I’m not a skeptic in anyway, I know sea monsters are real. But like I said, proof would be nice.

Well said, MM!

I think Jerome Clark also hit the nail on the head when he said that in some cases these folkloric accounts could very well be the only records of sightings that were not taken serious by anyone else. Perhaps some of the old accounts can offer interesting insights into the habits or behaviors of these possible cryptids or of other anomalous experiences, as well as how time has tempered the perception of these stories. While I think folklore should not be relied on too heavily in a scientific undertaking, I feel it can be a valuable tool when delving into some of the history behind certain cryptids and definitely is useful for inspiring debate and speculation that can yield good theories.

Again, I haven’t read the book myself, so anyone correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like the research done on this book was done in a scientific way, using scientific methods while using folklore only as a tool. It does not seem that Mr. Radford was trying to write a book on folklore, but rather on a scientific analysis of cryptozoological phenomena with some folklore thrown to illustrate the history and psychological effects of these animals. If that is the case and this is mostly a scientific study, then it seems odd that a folklorist give this sort of review. I do not see any scientists trying to review books on folklore, so it is curious to me.

After providing examples of interviews, document analysis, and photographic evidence, the analysis and conclusions fall into the category of “stating the obvious” or a recount of the observational methods employed.

Am I missing something here? Sure, a psychological study would be interesting, but criticizing the book for not having that is kind of like someone giving a bad review to movie because a character they were attracted to didn’t get naked onscreen.