The Werewolf Book: The Encyclopedia Of Shape-Shifting Beings

by Brad Steiger

With 250 entries, this filmography and resource is the encyclopedic guide to all things lycanthropic and a fascinating compendium of comparative mythology and folklore. Delving into the 15th century to uncover the origins of the werewolf legend, it is an eye-opening, blood-pounding tour through the ages, landing on the doorstep of creatures like hirsute mass-murderer Charles Manson and canine-directed Son of Sam. A helpful chronology of lycanthropic activities dates back 140,000 years, to the first mixing of human and lupine blood.

Genres: Werewolves, Reference, Nonfiction, Horror, Paranormal, Research, Mythology

432 pages, Paperback

First published January 28, 1999

Reviews

[Andre · Rating 1 out of 5]

To say that this book was strange and weird would be the understatement of the year (despite that it was only March when I finished it).
Although the author left out some of the ridiculous examples of the first edition (like gargoyles) I still wonder why he included some entries and ignored other topics altogether. And what do many of them have to do with werewolves anyway or even lycanthropes? By what modus oparandi did he choose them?
Many of his inclusions of serial killers and rapists only make sense if you equate such behavior with some sort of wolf inside humans. But why a wolf? The only part of the Canis lupus species that existed worldwide is the dog and that one he clearly doesn't mean. Most people in history never knew another kind of wolf, so why should it be an internal wolf? Why not a tiger, a crocodile or a wolverine?
For some cases I definitely know that the referenced sources did not state what he said and many of the beings he described… well they don't really have connections to werewolves to begin with but rather have some sort of similarities to them and in my opinion that is not enough to justify having them in a book that claims to be an encyclopedia on shapeshifting beings, not when they are not even shapeshifters.
He often just glosses over topics or seems to be selecting for the stuff that fits his views. Which makes me question whether he is really interested in the research on the subject or simply wants to collect the stories that fit his viewpoints. It seems as though he rather collects what he deems fitting; by whatever definition of werewolf he has because based on the book it seems to be so broad that the book should be thrice as thick.
He might praise the artwork, personally I know hobby artists who can do better. In addition many of the pictures do not fit the text they are supposed to illustrate.
All in all for a book of nearly 400 pages and such a wide variety of topics the sources are rather small of number and I have my doubts how much research he actually did. And there is the next big flaw of the book: it is not an encyclopedia and for the reasons already mentioned and it's no werewolf book either. For it to be one it would have to focus on werewolves but it doesn't and rather wanders in all directions in the realm of folklore and entertainment industry.
All in all it's rather some weird collection of stories, sources and topics (often either citing the authors books or having no reference at all) which the author saw fit to collect for one reason or another.
If you can actually think critically you might be able to use this book without just believing in what it says.
If you have to keep this book, do it. But I beseech all who read it to not, I repeat not, stop at this book; use it as a sort of hint into certain directions but not more.
Considered the nature of his book I am also highly skeptical of his "chrolology" (I didn't do a typo I swear) on werewolves.


Of course I can back up my statement with examples from the book (BEWARE SPOILERS!!!):

His theory that wolves taught humans cooperative parental and hunting behavior is ridiculous for two points:
1. Many men ignored that and only provided material goods throughout history but did not actually raise "their" children.
2. Chimps already hunt cooperatively but our ancestors should have learned that from wolves?

He ignores that many people of America and Europe also believed to be descended from dogs (which he doesn't seem to include in the term "wolf" – albeit I admit that this seems to be treated inconsistently throughout the book, however considered what he considers "werewolf-like" I guess it's safe to say that he doesn't see dogs as wolves).

Why does he insist on calling Anubis a jackal-head if he says himself that Anubis was also called the Great dog and dogs were greatly revered in Egypt? Why should dogs benefit from a jackal-god? And the role he described for jackals in African mythology doesn't fit Anubis at all and Egypt was clearly not separate from the other regions of Africa so why should they have such a different role for the jackal? If what he claims about jackals is true that is.

Werewolves don't always have red eyes despite what he writes. Many stories I know don't mention red eyes at all (which would be a very obvious sign of a werewolf). If they do mention eyes its either metaphorically (e.g. diabolical gaze and the like) or human eyes and especially for Norse and Germanic people shifting shape to animal form it was said that the eyes remain the same because the soul remains the same.

Several of his entries (the Basque of Louisiana, Cat Men and woman, Chindi, Chupacabra, Coyote people etc.) lack any sources apart that he printed names of people who might have told him that and others have absolutely no source presented at all.

Why is Bathory in a book about werewolves? Even if she didn't drink blood, her obsession with it because she believed it to be rejuvenating is still closer to vampires than to werewolves.

With the Beast of Gevaudan he ignores accounts of people describing it as an actual wolf, respectively the description of the beast that was actually caught and was identified as the beast by witnesses but not as a wolf (the description rather fitted a striped hyena, or a wolf-dog/dog). Also he ignores theories saying that Chastel was the actual murderer and the beast his pet.

If he speaks so much about Native Americans, than he should know the story of the boy who became a wolf by living with them. He also doesn't mention becoming a werewolf via excommunication or a punishment for sin.

What do Black Dogs, his chapter on blood, Ceasg, the Bogy have to do with werewolves? And who says that all Native Americans honored their kill? We are talking about hundreds of cultures, so how does he know?

He states that a Burxsa is part vampire and part werewolf. But why is a woman shapeshifting into a bird part werewolf? Because she became a cannibal? Since when is man-eating a sole trait of wolves?

The wolfman, Dracula and Frankenstein were also assembled for the film Van Helsing (which he later does mention and even stated that the three monsters were in it) so his statement that the three had last met in "Abott and Costello meet Frankenstein" is false no matter how you look at it.

And human kind should have started as peaceful herbivores? With our intestines showing obvious signs of a broad omnivorous died? Does he have any clue of zoology or anthropology? Our ancestors already ate meat long before they left Africa and definitely before they met wolves. Even if they would have copied the behavior from a carnivore there would have been plenty of them around to copy from (e.g. lions, leopards, African hunting dogs, hyenas etc.).

And werewolf or lycanthrope doesn't equal cannibal, long before modern romantization of the topic there was fiction and folklore portraying werewolves as either neutral or actually benevolent without any hint of man-eating.

I would say that the dog and the wolf pretty much surpass the cat when it comes to inspire devotion and dedication as well as animosity and abhorrence. The cat has been so widely distributed so long as these two so the canines definitely had much more time to incur all sorts of reactions in humans.

Weird that he names his chapter about children raised by animals simply as children raised by wolves although he mentions only three cases of children being raised by/living with canines. And that "werewolf boy of Moscow" he mentions was also called dogboy.

He states the Chupacabra as a dog-like creature but the majority of the descriptions he offers have no resemblance to canines. He only mentions one case where it was said that a dog had been shot and the man who had shot it was furious and had claimed that carcasses had been switched.

His paragraph on detecting werewolves is flawed and unreliable since in many stories the traits he mentions do not appear in addition the few vampire detecting traits he mentions were invented by the film industry.

Why does he mention the Adlet under the section "dog people" but not the dog-heads of Eurasia and Australia? Especially the former are widely known.

Why is Enkidu considered werewolf-like? Because of his hairy body? Should we consider Bigfoot as werewolves now too? Well considered that he included the Almas in his book perhaps that is his opinion. Why is Enkidu the first literary expression of w werewolf-like being in his eyes?

Why is Fenrir a werewolf in his eyes? That one was the son of Loki and a Giantess without any mentioning of shapeshifting abilities. What definition of werewolf does he even have, I wonder.

While he claims that "priests throughout the Western world are coping with steadily growing demands for exorcism" it is strange in my eyes that his examples are nearly exclusively of British or US-American origin (only one from France) although the term Western World has no clear definition but from a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are directly derived from Western European cultures, i.e. Western Europe, the Americas (North and South America), Australia, New Zealand and Israel. So there are a whole lot of countries missing and as usual he doesn't give any exact data.

What proof is there that the earliest accounts on werewolves were regarded as connected with the full moon? The oldest know tale speaks of a man being transformed by a goddess (Ishtar changing the shepherd into a wolf).

His information on the East Asian fox-shifters is very limited (nogitsune is just one type of japans fox, not the term for all of them).

And "Gypsies" (a term not used outside the English language) or better the Romani people have adopted the dominant religion of their country of residence, while often preserving aspects of older belief systems and forms of worship. Most Eastern European Romanies are Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, or Muslim. Those in Western Europe and the United States are mostly Roman Catholic or Protestant (particularly in southern Spain many are Pentecostal). In Turkey, Egypt, and the Balkans, the Romanies are split into Christian and Muslim populations. So his gross generalization of their beliefs is definitely incorrect.

He claims jackals to be connected to the Underworld but gives no examples for this and only states that this is due to their connection to Anubis. What he does describe for jackals is rather the direct opposite of Anubis.

His facts about silver bullets are incorrect, at least if he meant that there was only one account of actually bullets being used, since silver (if not in bullet form) was quoted by other authors and in other tales to be used against werewolves. In addition his statement that the story about the killing of the Beast of Gevaudan when Chastel shot the beast with supposedly a silver bullet is a contradiction to his earlier entry on the Greifswald werewolves when he claimed that the students in the story had used silver bullets. In either case that story is false.
His story of the werewolves of Greifswald seems not just to be told differently, it is incorrect. The original source (which he referenced as "Die Volkssagen of Pommern and Rugen" [Folktales of Pomerania and Rügen] from 1840) called the tale "Die Währwölfe in Greifswald" and only stated that they used inherited silver buttons. There is no mentioning of them using goblets, belt buckles or anything other of silver and certainly no mentioning that they melted it down to make bullets. So at least two elements of the story he seems to have made up.
While not incorrect to the same degree the tale about the Werewolf Rock is similarly not told exactly the way he did, so he seems to be taking "artistic liberty" in addition the book referenced for this tale ("Deutsche Sagen" by the Brothers Grimm) also contains other werewolf stories so why did he not include them as well?

He claims that Artemis had a pack of wolves, but none of her symbols include the wolf but the hunting dog. And she had a pack of dogs and not wolves (given to her by Pan). And I don't know of a she-dog called Maira in greek mythology, only of a male called Maera. And I could find "Lokroi" as a name of a colony but not a person.

Strange that he mentions Montague Summers but seemingly ignores that one's findings on the topic.

I don't know whether he can read German or not but if he can it's very strange that he never seems to have read "Der Werwolf" or "Das Mohrbach Monster," both books could have shown him the errors in this one.

He fails to mention that the first appearance of the werewolf form of the character OZ in Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a humanoid wolf while the later depictions of him (as well as other werewolves) where more ape-like and had no distinctively canine elements anymore in their looks.

And where is the pentagram stuff he states actually stated in folklore? Sounds more like things made up for movies.

How does he know that in all instances of ritual sacrifice the followers would absorb the victims' essence or the "original tale" of Red Riding Hood or that every culture had tales of serpent people who ruled the planet?

Skin-walker is not a word for werewolf, which should be obvious because the Skinwalker in the story the author mentions is not described as canine but first as "what appeared to be a calf" and later as "tall and skinny half human and half something that looked like a cow." The only thing connected to canines in that story is the name of the alleged Apache woman (her last name was Wolf) and the mentioned tree where "the Wolf Boy was buried." No canine-monster appeared in the story.

Many stories exist in which normal people could fend of alleged werewolves (so they were not all of superhuman strength) and where werewolves were killed by totally mundane means (stabbing, slashing, burning, strangled, killed by dogs etc.).

Stating that you can only become a werewolf in ancient tales via voluntary or involuntary sorcery is a gross simplification and he totally forgets divine punishment in the respective chapters.

The description of the "image of the Wolf" in the paragraph about spiritual shapeshifting reads as if it's taken from some romanticized environmental book that barely has anything to do with real wolves.

He neither has proof for his statements that vampires and werewolves are universal nor for the one that they were linked throughout history. And does undead equal vampire for him? And how does he know that every vampire has superstrength? The "real" vampires he mentioned seem to lack this trait.
He also claims that vampires and werewolves play one another off in folklore of most cultures to the point of often being indistinguishable, but again no proof for this statement.

He simply states that the wolf is one of the most popular of all clan and totem animals among Native Americans and in many European clans but (like so many others I read ) he provides no proof of this. In his entry on "Wolf, the Grand Teacher" his examples are only Roman, Turkish, Teutonic, Osage and Seneca. And he again came with the statement that humans learned communal living from wolves, but this is a statement without basis. Since all gorillas and chimps live communally and especially the Bonobos are known for their peaceful nature as much as their sex lives so it is definitely more likely that such traits already existed when our species evolved. Also he provides no evidence for his statement, he simply states it as "likely," but no basis whatsoever. Why is it likely?
And "many tribes around the world" believed that their ancestors had once been wolves? If he considers dogs as wolves than this statement might be true but based on his book this does not seem to be the case. And he again provides no proof of his statement.

Why doesn't he simply call the "domesticated wolves" dogs? Since obviously that is what they were based on what he wrote.

And even in 2010 Germany had more wolves than just thirty and if he knew of them he should have known that wolves don't need to "run free to hunt their natural prey." The longest settled area in Germany among the wolf-territories is an in-use army area, so hardly wide and open country and the wolves use villages and roads as territory borders.

And his entry of the Worgen of Warcraft is wrong. The Worgen started as druids that assumed a wolf-form and only later, due to the Scythe of Elune, become these giant man-wolves (or better elf-wolves at the time). And they didn't call themselves the Druids of the Scythe at first but Druids of the Pack. And when they were sealed the nation of Gilneas didn't even exist yet. And the Worgen were forced to ally with the Alliance because Gilneas was attacked by the Forsaken not because of the world's plight.
It is all depicted in one five-part comic issue, not long, you can read it in less than 15 minutes.

As of 2011 there was already evidence that dogs did not evolve about 135000 years ago but much later.

He regards the two possessed men cured by Jesus as werewolf/ghoul-like. Why?

[E · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unfortunately, Steiger's references are questionable at best in this book. Most of the entries cite his own works and some even cite "The National Enquirer", of all things. Oh, and he also manages to refer to every serial killer and even Bigfoot as a werewolf-like.

For those looking for a properly researched book on werewolves in folklore and history, you'll definitely want to look elsewhere. This is all hearsay, pop culture, and the author's own opinions.

[Tiffany Lynn Kramer · Rating 1 out of 5]

My take away from this encyclopedia: 1st Steiger wasn't satisfied with the amount of material he found on shapeshifters so he felt it necessary to include sections on kappa, ghouls, and necrophilia to name a few. 2nd by his reasoning all serial killers classify as werewolves regardless of their modus operandi.

[Monster · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to expand your interest in werewolves and other shape shifters beyond fiction, to the realms of history, science and the occult, start with this book. Not only does The Werewolf Book have entries on all manner of shape shifting beings from myth, and accounts of supposed real life were-critters, it also encompasses the books and movies that influenced the image of shape shifting and werewolves throughout history and made it what it was today.
Nothing is treated as trivial. Even the effect comedy, such as Abbot and Costello's monster movies, has had on the mythos, is dealt with respectfully. While the encyclopedia isn't exhaustive in its entries, it does offer a plethora of titles to seek out for further research. Certainly a core reference for the study of shape shifting beings, The Werewolf Book is an essential part of collections that cater to researchers, occultists or fictionists.
Contains: some disturbing descriptions of witch trials and tortures
Review by Michele Lee

[Michele Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to take your study of werewolves and other shape shifters out of fiction and into the realms of history, science and the occult this is the books to start with. Not only does The Werewolf Book have entries on all manner of shape shifting beings from myth, and accounts of supposed real life were-critters, it also encompasses the books and movies that influenced the image of shape shifting and werewolves throughout history and made it what it was today.
Nothing is treated as trivial, not even the effect comedy, such as Abbot and Costello's monster movies, has had on the mythos. And while the encyclopedia isn't exhaustive in its entries it does offer a plethora of titles to seek out for further research. Certainly a core directive in the study of shape shifting beings The Werewolf Book is an essential part of collections that cater to researchers, occultists or fictionists.
Contains: some disturbing descriptions of witch trials and tortures

[Tracie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Another disappointment. Another mistitled book. Far more pages devoted to serial killers than werewolves. Granted some of the killers claimed to be werewolves and I am ok with their inclusion but most did not. Page fillers. Also numerous articles on vampires and zombies. Not their relationship to the title beast but stand alone articles. This books saving graces are that the information is correct (or as correct as it can be) and actual sources are cited. Not a rigorous academic citation but it is something.

[Steve Asher · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been a reader of Steiger's work for many years now. All in all, I thoroughly enjoy this book. It gives a wide overview of lycanthropy from many countries and eras. It was pretty well written. He tried to include a lot of references as well as many photographs and illustrations. If you are looking for an extensive study of any certain case, look elsewhere. However, if one is looking for a good book that is full of werewolves and other were-creatures read on. I also suggest picking up Steiger's Real ghosts, Restless Spirits, And Haunted Places.

[Willow · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is if anything, very entertaining. I think some of the stuff in here is a questionable, but I wasn't looking for a book with hard core facts. There is a lot of werewolf lore, werewolf folktales, movie summaries, tidbits about cannibalism, serial killers, witch hunters, vampires, succubae, and the Malleus Maleficarum. It’s definitely a mix bag. I wanted to get some interesting tidbits on werewolves and I definitely got some from this book.

[RunningRed NightBringer · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'll get this out of the way to start: This book sucks. The only reason I own it is because I like werewolves and sometimes you need to track what bullshit people are publishing.

The book claims to be an "encyclopedia of shape-shifting beings" and that is a big fat lie.
Why? Because most of the entries have shit all to do with werewolves or shapeshifters.

The book starts off with a "chronology of werewolves" so why is he mentioning the Knights Templar, Jekyll and Hyde, the Black Death and the Charles Manson?
Either two possibilities. Either Brad is a complete fucking moron who doesn't know what a werewolf is, or he's padding the shit out of the list because he can't be bothered to actually research history. Oh, a third possibility is: "both".

The bulk of the book is the encyclopedia part, containing entries which may or may not actually relate to werewolves, most of which are about werewolf movies. And if this was just a book on werewolves and shapeshifters in film that would be fine.

Brad doesn't even list examples of werewolf literature or non-fiction, except in an appendix. And by 1999 there were plenty of books about werewolves. I know because I worked in a bookstore and was always searching for them.

As with the chronology, there are many WTF entries. WTF do serial killers, zombies, incubi, or familiars have to do with werewolves or shapeshifters.

Brad is a tabloid writer. He's more interested in the sensationalism. Which is why he thinks when someone stabs another person with a knife that makes them a werewolf. He is neither an actual author or researcher. Shit, most of the entries are copied from other sources. And half the sources cited here are other books Brad's written. I've seen some of his other work. It's similarly slapdash, lazily written and treating rumors as fact.

The entries that actually could be said to be related to werewolves or shapeshifters are presented as actual historical fact, and not legends and lore.

One entry that interested me and my fellow therians when this book came out was an entry about us. Well, sorta. Instead of actually including entries on therians, online werewolves, or hell even furries, he has one entry on Howls:
"Howls" are conventions of werewolves-or rather, those men and women who enjoy role-playing as werewolves. The first Howl was the 1994 Harvest Howl organized by Smash Greywolf in Ohio. According to a posting on alt.horror.werewolves (AHWW) a Howl is "basically a gathering flesh (or fur) of readers of AHWW to socialize, get to know about one another, howl at the moon, leap over raging bonfires, and share the camaraderie that exists among members of the cyberpack."

Yeah. Besides the inaccuracies of that entry, most of it was copy-pasted from the newsgroup.

So, if you're interested in learning more about werewolves and other shapeshifters of legend and lore, skip this book. There are better resources out there.
If you're interested in werewolves and want all resources, even the ones pulled out of the writer's ass, go ahead and pick up a copy.

[RedDagger · Rating 1 out of 5]

Avoid. If you want an accessible work on werewolves, read Adam Douglas' The Beast Within: A History of the Werewolf.

The introduction starts by informing us that this is an encyclopaedia of shape-shifting in general (with werewolves merely taking the center stage). The very first entry is for a wildman, that has nothing to do with shapeshifting (or werewolves).

The introduction goes on to inform us that passive plant-eating humans learned how to hunt from wolves(?), meaning wolves taught us bestial aggression(??), meaning violent crime is often a form of lycanthropy(???). He then quotes "30,000 individuals charged with werewolfism in France alone between 1520 and 1630" (this number is several orders of magnitude too large; it's estimated there were several hundred werewolf witch trials across Europe in total).

These two are a taste of this book: many entries that have nothing to do with shapeshifters or werewolves, and many, many factual errors. For a casual reader, some amount of inaccuracy can be hand-waved, but this book goes far beyond that, to the degree that it would be one hell of an effort to go into detail just how bad this book is.

Read another book, please.

[Jeff Pedersen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting. I think i could have given it five stars if the stuff about the inquisition didn't make me angry. I wasn't angry about the way he talked about it but it made me angry when I think back to the way people behaved towards the unknown at the time and the horrible things they did to the people that were more than likely innocent of what they were accused of. not to mention the oddness of killing certain animals because, you might not know if it's servant of the the devil. I know that superstition had a lot to do with it but for fucks sake, those people didn't deserve what happened to them.

[Ronel Janse van Vuuren · Rating 5 out of 5]

A comprehensive book about shape-shifting, with a focus on werewolves from all over the world. I enjoyed the in-depth look at how werewolves changed through time because of popular beliefs. And who would have thought that "Beauty and the Beast" is actually a werewolf tale? All the folktales gathered within make for an intriguing read. The films and TV shows mentioned rounds out the modern culture aspect.

A great resource that I will consult again.

[Samantha Shelby]

DNF. Had barely started reading this book and had found errors. Page 9: Nepthys was married to Set, not Anubis. Page 18: wendigo and skin walkers are not the same thing, and are not even lore from the same tribes. I would take the information in this book with a grain of salt.

[Cyndi Cloutier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice resource for all thing shifters. It's more than just werewolves it covers info on different shifters, mummies, vampire and the like.

[Mary Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book of some well known werewolf lore.

[Minh · Rating 5 out of 5]

why it won't let me read it?

[Bryan Whitehead · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading The Vampire Book, I was really looking forward to digging into this tome. I assumed that if I enjoyed a book about vampires despite not really caring all that much about them, I should really get a kick out of a work on werewolves, which have always been some of my favorite monsters. Sadly, I ended up feeling really let down by author Brad Steiger’s effort to cover all things lycanthropic. To be sure, this book contains some useful – even interesting – information. But far too much of the text is devoted to topics only tangentially related to shapeshifting, subjects such as serial killers, demons and Bigfoots. Further, Steiger devotes a lot of his cites to such lofty sources as Fate magazine and the National Enquirer, not to mention his bad habit of citing his own work. Copiously. Other problems range from minor typos to more serious fact errors. Now, I don’t need a dry, academic treatise on the subject; indeed, I’d prefer the opposite. But even for a less serious consideration of werewolves and their kin, this is more ice than Coke.

[Comicfairy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Been studying shape-shifting beings for years as research for a series of books I am writing and rarely do I come across a compendium this helpful. This book was recommended to me awhile back as one of the best werewolf (and shape-shifter) books out there and it didn't dissapoint. Easy to read, very comprehensive, with every chapter featuring a letter. Many of the entries were very movie/tv-laden though, which was my only real beef with the title.

[Samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will make you wonder what goes through some people's minds when they do the weirdest things. This book will also bring up the question of just how sane you are for reading it. It has everything from Jeffery Dauhmer to snakewomen and everything imbetween. If you ever wanted to know if some one is more insane that you just read this book.

[Paige · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay so here's the thing. It covers all these werewolf legends including movies. It's not an earth shattering book but it does open you up to your own theories. It's basically just tells you all the stories and legends about werecreatures. It has a feeling like a research paper though. I have a feeling many of the entries where part of some college paper.

[Kirsi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Steiger is all too interested in what this and that sex pervert made behind this and that bush than werewolves. Too much serial killers and other sadists who have zero werewolf connection, while sprinkling his voyeuristic sleaze with misuse of "psychotic" as synonym to "depraved". Wikipedia has good article about psychosis, Brad. And stop blaming wolves for all the HUMAN violence.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like to skim through this book whenever reading books with shapeshifters as characters and around Halloween. It's extremely interesting and entertaining. I love supernaural subjects and would suggest that anyone else who is to pick up this book.

[Kerri Simpson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think it was pretty decent. I mean if your looking for 101 facts on werewolves then good luck. Some of the origins folklore and movie books and references were pretty interesting. Definitely a good place to start for referencing fictional things for stories.

[Cara · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting collection of information about werewolves and other shape-shifters, including even vampires and witches since they lore used to be closely intertwined.
I wish there had been less emphasis on some of the movies, but all and all, it was a good, quick read.

[Jim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow this is bad

The author would have done better to just pull the matching wikipedia articles for each entry. Poorly and inconsistently written, with an awful lot of opinion being presented for an encyclopedia.

[Regina Hunter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Movie guide and nothing more...

[Kristine · Rating 5 out of 5]

My 3 favorite things to read and write about are: werewolves / shape - shifters, vampires, and witches. I wouldn't be able to write about werewolves or shape - shifters at all without this novel.

[Addison · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this one back when I was maybe thirteen years old. If I'm not mistaken, it was one of the first books I ever checked out of the library.

It was a lot more impressive back then.

[Lori Schiele · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book truly is an encyclopedia. It gives lists and descriptions of movies, books and other shape-shifter items that are out and about in the world at the time the book was written.

[Rosanna Leo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent resource for the paranormal author, or fans of the genre. Very detailed and fun.