What do you think?
Rate this book
Dogs in Philippine History
This book chronicles the Filipinos' cultural and historical encounters with dogs since the earliest documented existence of a domesticated dog in the Philippines nearly 4,000 years ago. It hopes to be of help in understanding Filipino culture and in fostering responsible furrenthood. History attests to how our culture loves dogs.
653 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2023
7 people are currently reading
34 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 14, 2025
I’m finally done with this book.
⁜ First, the positives.
✦ Alfonso clearly loves dogs. We’re on the same boat here. I like dogs too, although I like bigger, chonkier ones — like those pit bulls who look ripped and mean but turn out to be extremely goofy.
✦ Lots of great pictures and references. Lots of old-timey pictures of people with their dogs, and some of the pictures are even from Ye Olde Filipinas. Love that.
✦ The print quality of this book: fantastic. Love the way this book was laid out, and the pictures in this book are printed full color and sometimes even full page. Paper quality is also fantastic. Great smell.
✦ Fair amount of interesting information about Philippine history.
As an example, one of the chapters I found the most interesting was “Asocena”, where Alfonso investigates and details Filipinos’ depiction as “dogeaters.” He points out that:
He also later on details the example of the Spaniards focusing on the Cordillerans’ “taste for dog-flesh,” but notes that “[i]n Mayoyao culture, a dog is sacrificed only whenever there is a sick family member.”
It’s always fun to find out more about your country.
That said … *takes a deep breath* (SEE, I CAN LEET SPEAK TOO, FELLOW MILLENNIAL) *starts typing furiously* (are you annoyed yet)
⁜ Now, the negatives.
✦ Alfonso doesn’t have yet the skill to write both interestingly and sparingly. Unlike, say, Ambeth Ocampo or Felice Prudente Sta. Maria.
He mentions that these are more like “feature articles” lodged together in one book, but he had the time to reshape them into a single coherent narrative, or at least make sure that there was stronger connective thread through them other than they’re about dogs.
He also gives too much information. He wants to show he’s done the work, which makes you think—what am I? Your thesis panelist or your reader? Why can’t you respect my time and edit strongly?
Like the Patrasche chapter — I get why he’s setting up the background, but holy shit you do not need that much background to start getting into Dog of Flanders. Tang ina naman preeeeee.
✦ The biggest negative: who edited this book? Was it even edited? For a book trying to be academic, there are way too many typos, misspellings, doubtful sentences, and grammatical errors.
If there was an editor, were they afraid of critiquing Alfonso’s work because of his title? Or was the editor a friend? Was the editor a professional editor?
If there wasn’t an editor, my god, how proud is Alfonso of his grasp of English that he thinks he doesn’t need one? Bro, even native English speakers have their works edited by fellow native English speakers.
Some examples:
p.191 “tarabutab is defined only as sea bubles” ➡ sea bubbles
p.265 “their discovery seems did not prosper to effect government actions against rabies” ➡ I don’t know what ‘prosper’ is trying to do here, but maybe ‘their discovery seems did not succeed in affecting government actions’ or ‘properly affect government actions’. Affect = verb; effect = noun.
p.325 “Engr. José Luz Bautista of Lipa, Batangas sporting raicing attire with a Greyhound” ➡ ‘racing attire’
p.331 “Engr. José Luz Bautista of Lipa, Batangas sporting a raising attire and posing with a Greyhound.” ➡ ‘sporting racing attire’
p.398 “Spined in a circle”: it’s spun, and even if it were spinned, you misspelled it, bro.
⁜ tl;dr — Would have been more interesting and snappier if it were more strongly edited. And possibly more respectable.
⁜ First, the positives.
✦ Alfonso clearly loves dogs. We’re on the same boat here. I like dogs too, although I like bigger, chonkier ones — like those pit bulls who look ripped and mean but turn out to be extremely goofy.
✦ Lots of great pictures and references. Lots of old-timey pictures of people with their dogs, and some of the pictures are even from Ye Olde Filipinas. Love that.
✦ The print quality of this book: fantastic. Love the way this book was laid out, and the pictures in this book are printed full color and sometimes even full page. Paper quality is also fantastic. Great smell.
✦ Fair amount of interesting information about Philippine history.
As an example, one of the chapters I found the most interesting was “Asocena”, where Alfonso investigates and details Filipinos’ depiction as “dogeaters.” He points out that:
Not even the words kinuba and kuba are indigenous in Philippine vernaculars, for these are from the Spanish word curva (‘curve’). The lack of an indigenous term for dog meat dish suggests the probability that the rampant consumption of the meat may have been brought about by our Spanish colonial experience, thus, the Hispanized coinages, asocena, kinuba, and kuba.
He also later on details the example of the Spaniards focusing on the Cordillerans’ “taste for dog-flesh,” but notes that “[i]n Mayoyao culture, a dog is sacrificed only whenever there is a sick family member.”
It’s always fun to find out more about your country.
That said … *takes a deep breath* (SEE, I CAN LEET SPEAK TOO, FELLOW MILLENNIAL) *starts typing furiously* (are you annoyed yet)
⁜ Now, the negatives.
✦ Alfonso doesn’t have yet the skill to write both interestingly and sparingly. Unlike, say, Ambeth Ocampo or Felice Prudente Sta. Maria.
He mentions that these are more like “feature articles” lodged together in one book, but he had the time to reshape them into a single coherent narrative, or at least make sure that there was stronger connective thread through them other than they’re about dogs.
He also gives too much information. He wants to show he’s done the work, which makes you think—what am I? Your thesis panelist or your reader? Why can’t you respect my time and edit strongly?
Like the Patrasche chapter — I get why he’s setting up the background, but holy shit you do not need that much background to start getting into Dog of Flanders. Tang ina naman preeeeee.
✦ The biggest negative: who edited this book? Was it even edited? For a book trying to be academic, there are way too many typos, misspellings, doubtful sentences, and grammatical errors.
If there was an editor, were they afraid of critiquing Alfonso’s work because of his title? Or was the editor a friend? Was the editor a professional editor?
If there wasn’t an editor, my god, how proud is Alfonso of his grasp of English that he thinks he doesn’t need one? Bro, even native English speakers have their works edited by fellow native English speakers.
Some examples:
p.191 “tarabutab is defined only as sea bubles” ➡ sea bubbles
p.265 “their discovery seems did not prosper to effect government actions against rabies” ➡ I don’t know what ‘prosper’ is trying to do here, but maybe ‘their discovery seems did not succeed in affecting government actions’ or ‘properly affect government actions’. Affect = verb; effect = noun.
p.325 “Engr. José Luz Bautista of Lipa, Batangas sporting raicing attire with a Greyhound” ➡ ‘racing attire’
p.331 “Engr. José Luz Bautista of Lipa, Batangas sporting a raising attire and posing with a Greyhound.” ➡ ‘sporting racing attire’
p.398 “Spined in a circle”: it’s spun, and even if it were spinned, you misspelled it, bro.
⁜ tl;dr — Would have been more interesting and snappier if it were more strongly edited. And possibly more respectable.
December 25, 2025
This book was a gift from my daughter last Christmas. It took me almost a year to finally finish it because of work. The author did a lot of research to make this book. There are some chapters that made me sad. But there are a lot that make dog lovers happy as well. I recommend this book not only to dog lovers but also those who are not accustomed to pets for the hopes that they would understand us.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews