REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL 1995 EDITION
So yes, I do indeed very much appreciate that with his 1995 picture book Sharks (textually intended for older children above the age of seven or so and penned educationally but not too densely), author Seymour Simon certainly provides a thorough, balanced but also not ever scientifically overwhelming introduction to sharks (their physiologies, their various behaviours, what sharks eat, how different shark species reproduce, and yes indeed, that sharks are not really all that much of a threat to humans, that most stories showing sharks as horrible and evil killing machines are fantastical, ridiculous and sensationalistic, such as for example Jaws and most sharks are ruthless man-eaters movies or of course also sharks as monsters waiting to devour masses of humans novels).
However, if Seymour Simon really wants to rehabilitate sharks, why are oh so many of the accompanying photographs close-ups of gaping shark mouths and their pointed teeth? For if I were a child looking at many of the photographs featured in Sharks, I would both likely be frightened and also consider sharks in general as very much potentially dangerous to my health and well-being (and while Seymour Simon’s printed words of course show that the majority of shark attacks on humans are generally cases of mistaken identity, of predatory sharks believing that a swimmer or a surfer is possibly a seal or another type of prey animal, in my humble opinion, far too many of the included pictures visually seem to show sharks as frightening and dangerous, and yes, that is from my point of view most unfortunate and annoying). Combined with my massive annoyance at the lack of any bibliographic materials whatsoever in Sharks and that there is also no information and details provided by Seymour Simon’s text as to shark evolution (and that many scientists actually consider sharks in general as being pretty well living fossils), while as a general introduction to sharks I do rather grudgingly recommend Sharks, my star rating for Sharks also reflects my growing frustration and will only therefore be but two stars maximum (and no, I do not know whether the 2006 edition of Sharks might contain secondary sources, but the original, Seymour Simon’s 1995 edition, most definitely does not include a bibliography, and that is a huge academic lack and faux pas as far as I am concerned).