Myths of the Dog-Man

This book is a fascinating one, but it has its flaws. I strongly recommend people to read this book, but I'd also like people to know about its shortcomings.As C. Simon has said in his reply to a comment given by "A Customer", this "A Customer" guy needs to elaborate, or otherwise it's only a piece of cheap slander. But otherwise, to some extent I agree with this person. Though I find much of David White's work fascinating, there are so many mistakes in this book, I can't be sure if I can rely on any of them besides the things that I already know. Here are some examples.1. The author states that the earliest Chinese reference of a dog-man myth is the one in the "Shān Hăi Jīng", which he dates way back to the 4th century BC, without noting his source of chronology. The problem is that there is a whole lot of controversy among scholars concerning when the "Shān Hăi Jīng" was formed. Though not all scholars have reached an agreement, the present day climate among scholars in China and Japan would be that the earlier part of the text dates only back to the first half of the 3rd century BC. Now, this may seem trivial to most, but considering that the author uses this date to confirm that the "Shān Hăi Jīng" is the OLDEST Chinese text writing about the dog-man makes it difficult to dismiss such inaccuracy. I know, it's a simple mistake or just a lack of research, but still it is worth mentioning. And this is only a moderate example of his misinformations.2. The author notes that the word "Ainu" has the same root as the Japanese word "inu", which means "dog". He also notes that these words may be linked to the word "Inuit", too. However, we should know that there is no linguistic evidence to back this theory up. Contrary to popular belief, the Ainu and Japanese languages are not at all closely related. And there is no linguistic proof which links "ainu" with "inu". After all, the Ainu did not actually consider themselves descendants of a "dog", rather they boasted their lineage from a godly "wolf". Needless to say, the language spoken by the so-called "Inuit" people has even less connection with the Japanese and Ainu languages. Therefore, what the author says about these three words are, at best, a typical example of folk etymology and bad research.3. The author mentions a certain 5th Century Japanese emperor by the name of "juliaku", of which I can assure no Japanese has heard of. I suppose it's the emperor "Yuulyaku" he's talking about. I know, names are difficult to foreigners, but really, would you trust a scholar who writes about an American president named "Vasinthon" ? Again, poor research, too poor. Yes, and he doesn't give his source here, too.4. The author mentions a story about a dog-man and Emperor "Juliaku", which he says is written in the Japanese text, "Kojiki", which is from the early 8th Century. However, the only story relating "Yuulyaku" to a dog in the book is one where the emperor receives a white dog as tribute. As you can see, this has nothing to do with a dog-man. On the other hand, there is another 8th Century Japanese text called the "Nihon-Shoki" or "Nihongi", and here, there is a story about a certain lord (Ayashi-no-Komaro) in the Harima district who refused to pay tribute to the Emperor "Yuulyaku" and hence was utterly vanquished by the emperor's troops. Upon surrounding the revolting lord, the emperor's forces set fire to let him burn to death, but at that moment, a white dog the size of a horse came jumping out of the fire, and when one of the emperor's lieutenants, Kasuga-no-Ono-no-omi-Ohki, slew this dog, it turned into the lord, Komaro. Now, THIS is a story about a dog-man. It's quite apparent that the author mistook the two stories which originate from two different texts, but could this have happened if he at least bothered to check the text? Believe me, not many of you may have heard of the "Kojiki" nor the "Nihon-Shoki", but they are Japanese classics that are taught even in elementary schools in Japan. Again, would you rely on information concerning Celtic mythology given from a scholar who cannot tell the "Mabinogion" from "Beowulf" ? Heck, I wouldn't.I'll stop here, but don't think I didn't find more of such in the book's Chinese sections. I just wanted you to get the picture.The problem about the above mistakes is quite clear when we consider the fact that the author aimed through this book to shed light upon the ideological phases of ethnocentrism seen in past major civilizations; most of all Western civilization. He criticizes the perspective which Edward Said called "orientalism", but yet, he too has fallen into that category by failing to appreciate non-Western culture with the same attention he gives to Western culture. David Gordon White clearly lacks knowledge concerning the Far-East, especially Japan, and this is not a fault in itself. The problem is that he fails to acknowledge that fact, and even more so by misguiding readers as if he has decent command of Chinese and Japanese mythology when he actually doesn't. Though his book is rich in notes and his bibliography is astonishingly abundant, he somewhat fails to list the sources from which his knowledge on Japanese mythology has come from. And though, English translations of the "Kojiki" and "Nihon-Shoki" are fairly easy to come by, nonetheless, he seems not to have read them. If you're a scholar, this is no way ideal. As one person commented above, and I quote : "Talk about a great resource for the fiction writer ...", this kind of reaction is what I describe as not being ideal. Writers using inaccurate information, hence spreading it. Though it may be a petty mistake for most Westerners, no one nation enjoys wrong information given out about their past emperor, especially when the emperor is a hero like "Yuulyaku". I know that the author doesn't claim to be a specialist in Japanese mythology and that he barely makes any statement about it, but the fact that every single piece of information that he gives out about Japan has a flaw speaks of something, doesn't it?Lastly, as I've said, this book is a fascinating one. You should read it. I certainly recommend you to. But just do so with care. And if you're a student of the area or a scholar, make sure you double check any information you might want to borrow from this book. There may be a lot more to learn than you think...I apologize for my comment being so long, and also for my poor English. It isn't my first language, so I'd appreciate it if you would read it accordingly. Thanks!!

David White's "Myths of the Dog Men" is a fascinating read. It is a non-fiction work about past Eurasian fictional notions, specifically about the way dogs and dog-headed men appear in myths in China, India, and Europe. Our oldest companion, dogs naturally play important roles in human culture and were/are a source of fertile imaginings, but White is interested in a specific myth-complex that he sees as having common origins and mutually influencing relationships.White's collection of dog-man myths, motifs, and images are not collected in a scattered, Frazerian way; he translates his rather unusual topic into a fascinating, insightful, and satisfyingly comprehensive book that does not fall prey to "patchwork" problems so often encountered in works that analyse recurrent myths in different societies. White covers issues of Orientalism and other ethnocentric bigotries about liminal ethnic groups from the earliest times as well as covering religious and romantic/entertainment motivations for constructing and repeating these myths. He also suggests a possible origin of these myths in that cauldron of ethnic crossways, Central Asia (what is sometimes called Serindia or the Silk Road region).All in all, Myths of the Dog Men is a valuable and interesting work. It is a valuable scholarly book that provides the reader with information, theory, AND entertainment, and for that reason I highly recommend it for both specialist and interested layperson. Talk about a great resource for the fiction writer ...