Wikipedia is a wonderful thing… You can discover all sorts of things you never knew before, assuming of course that someone didn’t change the facts or make something up out of thin air that is.
While it does have information in it, it really shouldn’t be the only source for information one uses. It also isn’t such a good idea to copy that information into a book… for the most part…
- Title: Incubus and Succubus
- Author: Alan Toner
- Length: 26 Pages
- ASIN: B00F2QMK5A
- Publishing Date: September 8, 2013
- This work at Amazon.com
The work tells of:
Incubus and Succubus takes a look at the so-called “sex demons”, said to have plagued mankind for centuries. As well as featuring a chapter on the most famous succubus of all, Lilith, the book also contains chapters on what incubi and succubi really are, the “Night Terrors” phenomenon, incubi and succubi in fiction, and more.
What happens when you take a series of quotes from Wikipedia, join them together into a haphazard book and then sell it? Well, that is what this book is basically. It is a summary, for the most part, of what one could find by searching for information about Succubi or Incubi on the web, specifically Wikipedia. It becomes quite obvious that this is the case when the list of Succubi and Incubi in fiction appears and it is, almost word for word and order for order that which appears in the Wikipedia article on the subject.
There is no real thought to the work, no investigation or consideration of anything written in the work at all save for a single page of thought that really did not add anything to the conversation about the myth of Succubi and Incubi.
I hesitate to call this a book, it is more of a pamphlet, and one that is less than engrossing by any means for myself at least and I think for anyone that has done the barest amount of online research about Succubi or Incubi.
Also I found it irritating that there is all sorts of author information at the beginning of the work that pushes the actual content to the point where it cannot be seen in previews on Amazon. It feels dishonest to me at least.
At least the author had the decency to price this work at 99 cents when I read it.
I’m giving this work a half pitchfork out of five.
Short, really very much a cut and paste work with little in it that one could not find in Wikipedia in the first place. A single page of thought does not help to make this work any better.