Magonia on Giants
Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 24th, 2011
True Giants: Is Gigantopithecus Still Alive?
Magonia has posted a new review of True Giants. Peter Rogerson and John Rimmer are folkloric Forteans, and the tone of this review is not surprising. But, as they say, at least Peter read the book, Peter and John felt it was worthy enough to headline it in the review, and we appreciate that.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
From the Magonia Blog review of “True Giants”:
“Folklore and mythology of giants is indeed global, which pretty much proves it does not represent any real animal.”
Does that sentence make any sense to anyone else? Because it sure as shite doesn’t to me.
dylan: I’m with you. I’m not sure I’ve seen anything stated in so few words that represents so little thought. Wow.
Total logical equivalent statement: “Everyone knows about tigers, which pretty much proves they aren’t real.” In fact that is almost the exact same sentence, in logical terms. (And thought devoted. Took me a second or two.)
Yep, I think “Magonia’s” review was a little too harsh and abrupt. I am probably as far as you can get from being sold on the idea of true giants roaming around the globe presently, but I still applaud Loren and Mark on their work. At times, they are reaching very, very deeply into folklore, that can get a little dangerous, but in this case, it is the “nature of the beast”. I just don’t see how it can be avoided, in this case. Loren and Mark are putting literature out there and that is a good thing. ‘True Giants’, at the very least least, puts a spotlight on a mostly ignored topic. About 10,000-30,000 years ago, the world was filled with creatures that resembled humans in many respects (and some would be labeled “giants”), that is fact. I think it is only logical to review the idea that maybe some of these creatures lived into historical times, thus being incorporated into folklore. While I can see how True Giants will come up against some heavy criticism. I for one enjoyed the book and appreciate the risk the authors took in putting this research out there for future generations.
OK, don’t want to jump on these guys too hard.
I don’t change anything in my comment above. Both statements take a very arguable premise – there is much in the hairy hominoid discussion I would not call myth or folklore – and jump to calling it proof. My tiger example shows what a bad idea that is (and yes, if the sasquatch, yeti et al are real, they’re as real as the tiger or you or me).
But at least they do say about one book they review: “Robert W Morgan’s Bigfoot Observer’s Field Manual does just what the subtitle says, and should be of interest to cryptozoologists in or planning expeditions in North America.”
I took the myth/folklore comment as a blanket dismissal of hairy hominoids. Which does say something about reading before you post, yes. But also says something about thinking before you write. Particularly if one’s comment might discourage someone else from reading everything one wrote.