This is not a collection of short stories. I'm not sure why many users label it as so, but this is non-fiction and an encyclopedia. Borges cites a lot of other authors. One of the negatives I have with this book is it's very little of Borges words and more of what he thought of other writers words based on these creatures. This is my first Borges book too. I want to read his other stuff soon, but read this first because it was shorter. I still liked this though. I wonder what Borges would have though of yokai? While this contains a lot of beasts, it lacks things from Japan. Not sure if he knew about yokai or not, but they would fit perfectly in this book. ( )

My own fault for not getting the illustrated version, but it was fun looking up the various beings ( )

The Book of Imaginary Beings is a slightly disappointing compendium of various mythological, folkloric and fictional creatures, of "sphinxes and griffons and centaurs" and the like (pg. 14), arranged alphabetically. Part of the disappointment comes from the fact that it lacks as a reading experience. It's very dry and academic; a reference book that its primary author, Jorge Luis Borges, says should be dipped into at random, "just as one plays with the shifting patterns of a kaleidoscope" (pg. 12). Coming from the pen of the esteemed Borges, you expect something literary, but the book has little in the way of flair and, despite the kaleidoscope analogy, the text does not shapeshift playfully as Borges could do with such nuance in his short stories.

Realising and accepting, with some disappointment, that this book is a dry mythological bestiary, and not another string to Borges' literary bow, the willing reader still finds that the book is lacking as a reference book. It's far from comprehensive (off the top of my head, there are no yetis or chupacabras, and no doubt I could think of more) and though it benefits from Borges' erudition (he writes of delving into "the mazelike vaults of the Biblioteca Nacional in search of old authors and abstruse references" (pg. 11)), The Book of Imaginary Beings is more a primer than an encyclopaedia.

It is further weakened by its breadth; it does commendably well to embrace Anglo-Saxon, Greek, Norse, Latin American and Chinese mythology, but fictional contributions (there are entries entitled 'An Animal Imagined by Kafka' and 'A Creature Imagined by C. S. Lewis') muddy the waters a bit as to what the book is trying to achieve. Ultimately, the book survives in print because of the continued literary credit of its author, which it struggles to match, and as a reference book it has long since been superseded by the 0.0001 seconds of a Google search. The internet, in its ugliest facets, could well have found its place in this bestiary, but then again, it's a monstrous, sentient labyrinth that would have been inconceivable even to Borges' imagination. ( )

More than a hundred descriptions of imaginary creatures are presented, ranging in length from a single paragraph to a couple of pages. Described on the cover as a “whimsical compendium”, I wonder where the whimsy went. It reads like a technical paper rather than a master writer’s presentation of fantastical beasts. The entries are alphabetical and seemingly exhaustively researched from ancient texts. I’ll put it on the shelf next to my dictionary. ( )

This is a book past its Best Before date. It's a bestiary that covers fantastical creatures from mythology and literature, including the well-known and the obscure. I also introduces a bunch from single and recent pieces of fiction (like Kafka & CS Lewis). Good representation of Europe and Asia, not so good (to non-existent) coverage of indigenous people of the Americas, Australia and assorted islands.

Great concept, but without fabulous full colour illustrations, this can be better covered with a google search. Wikipedia has a perfect synopsis for this book, so I'd recommend reading that instead. This was a book I'd pick up and read an entry or two and it took me ages and ages to get through because the writing was overwhelmingly dry and uninteresting. It did have some moments, but I had to read a lot of boring words to get to it. Illustrations would have helped because the text wasn't evocative enough to spark my imagination.

Recommended for: creative people looking for inspiration and who live in 1967.

Why I Read This Now: Well "now" doesn't actually apply, as I'm sure I started reading this in 2019. Possibly 2018. But I did read the whole stale 197 pages and finished it today. ( )