SuperficialJuly 3, 2008 7 out of 7 found this review helpful
It must be easy to write a book like this. Simply gather a bunch of - for the most part - well known Urban Legends, and retell them in a superficial way.
The trouble with this book is that very few of the legends are actually debunked. We are led to believe that some of the stories may actually be true. But which ones? If you want to know, you won't find out here. Jack has obviously done no real research. You could write a book like this by using an internet search for Urban Legends. Where he has debunked them, it has been in the most cursory fashion.
Incidentally, the Hook Legend. The most obvious debunk to me is to ask the obvious question: what mental asylum would allow a one handed psychopath to keep his hook? I suppose the Mad Axe Man gets to keep his axe, does he?
SuperficialJuly 3, 2008 3 out of 4 found this review helpful
It must be easy to write a book like this. Simply gather a bunch of - for the most part - well known Urban Legends, and retell them in a superficial way.
The trouble with this book is that very few of the legends are actually debunked. We are led to believe that some of the stories may actually be true. But which ones? If you want to know, you won't find out here.
Jack has obviously done no real research. You could write a book like this by using an internet search for Urban Legends. Where he has debunked them, it has been in the most cursory fashion.
Incidentally, the Hook Legend. The most obvious debunk to me is to ask the obvious question: what mental asylum would allow a one handed psychopath to keep his hook? I suppose the Mad Axe Man gets to keep his axe, does he?
My Aunts Doctor Told Me That...December 8, 2006 32 out of 36 found this review helpful
There's an urban legend doing the rounds that an author may have done his 'research' simply by visiting one noted urban legend debunking website. And then written his booked based on the content from said website.
Sound implausible?
We'll all the eveidence points to just that very thing happening with 'That's Bollocks!'. Indeed, the incorporation of 'urban legends' deliberately planted on said noted website in order to prove that you should not always believe a source just because it has been reliable in the past or has an air of truth about. However, the author does not seem to have realised that these so-called urban legends were effectively truth tests created by the site authors in order to prove a point.
If it is the case that the 'research' for this book simply consisted of re-hashing the genuine work of others, then it represents very poor standards at best, outright plagiarism at worst.
