Hoaxsters and Jokesters

I grabbed this book off the shelf, expecting it to be a delightfully informative reference work about hoaxes throughout history, but after reading it in some depth, I have to say I was disappointed with Gordon Stein's Encyclopedia of Hoaxes. When I gave it to a colleague last night for her estimation of it, she said that she would prefer to see this book in the circulating collection--and I would agree: it does NOT belong in reference. This book is not consistently well-written, and its definitions and scope are about as mixed as my feelings about it. While it has a lot of historical information on a subject which ranks fairly high in popular interest, and while I could see the book going home with a few wide-eyed middle school or high school students, its quality as an encyclopedia is vastly overrated.

First, the book does not apply a consistent definition of the word "hoax" as it is most commonly used, and tends to include pranks, jokes, myths, and debunked theories. For example, I felt the page on "Hugh Troy's hoaxes" probably didn't belong in the PR hoaxes section. In my opinion these were practical jokes committed by one person which never really affected a multitude of people. When I see things like this, I have to wonder at the editorial decisions.

There is a lengthy discussion of the plausibility of Noah's Ark being real, with short shrift given to the numerous Noah's Ark archaeological hoaxes made during the middle of the 20th Century. While this is a good article for critical analysis of Bible mythology, I'm not sure an "Encyclopedia of Hoaxes" is the proper format.

It's not a bad book though--as I said, I could see this book being checked out by students and people with any interest in hoaxes or fabrications. It has sections on literary, political, medical, photographic and religious hoaxes. The section called "Hoaxes That Were Not Hoaxes" includes some important events like the broadcast of the dramatization of War of the Worlds. But it's important to note that, for most people, a hoax is an event, not a misguided theory accepted by generations throughout history. So the book's discussion of Cannibalism as hoax-that-wasn't-a-hoax here never fully gets off the ground for me, partly because it is very confusingly written, and partly because the only part of his argument that even includes a hoax (a knowing attempt to deceive someone) is the argument that tribes used to falsely accuse each other of cannibalism. The rest of Stein's argument rests on validating or refuting one scientist or anthropologist after another. Stein simply goes too far, and loses sight of the thing most people would look for in this book: a simple breakdown of events that were fraudulent and their eventual outcomes. If Stein intended on merely debunking commonly-held myths, he probably could have written a very different book.

What's worse is that some of the discussions are very poorly-written. Several times I've puzzled over a passage that describes events way out of order, such as in the convoluted description of the many trips Arthur Vectis Freeman made to get the coffin he claimed was Lord Kitchener's (p. 214). It jumps around chronologically and makes no sense. I read that paragraph three times and am still thoroughly baffled. I was also confused by other articles when illogical references are made to people and organizations ("the company"--which company? "the man with him" --what man? we have not been introduced!).

I won't be recommending this book anytime soon. I'm giving it poor ratings for quality. But I believe that, in the circulating collection, this could still be a very popular book.

Dewey Decimal Number: 001.9

Rating: 2Q, 4P