Submitter: This book last circulated in 1970 (thank goodness) and was withdrawn from the juvenile section of a mid-size academic library. I’m all for drawing similarities across living organisms, but the illustrations of the dead chicken innards are just creepy and I can totally understand the expression on the androgynous human’s face if that were the outside of my body (seems to be missing a few things). Also, if dissecting a chicken is supposed to tell us about, well, us, then why do you spend most of the book explaining how we’re different? And what is on the table on the cover? Chestnuts? Chicken hearts? You decide.
Holly: This book is for children?? Its format and vocabulary are very mature. The little darlings on the cover have been put off their chicken nuggets for a while, I think.
Submitter: This book had been sitting in our reference section for I don’t know how long. A while ago we weeded those books for space and the cover just made me flinch. Poor Teddy, sacrificed in the name of science! As you can see in the chapter heading, the cutaways shown there aren’t even real interiors, nor are these animals shown later with proper guts, like the ducky on p. 32-33. (The fish image on the cover page is also the image used for Chapter 3.) I’m sure there are much better resources for dissection available online. After this, it’s going to our Friends.
Holly: Why would this be put in the reference section? As Submitter pointed out, the book doesn’t even portray real animal organs. It’s sort of a serial killer training manual for children. Creepy!