Roger Clarke (1)

A enjoyable discussion of classical British ghost hunting and the role of mediums in spiritualist seances, as well as the ways in which "ghosts" have changed with the times (e.g., clothing choices), but it's mostly a tour through specific hauntings and mediums and their histories, which, while enjoyable, isn't really telling us much of anything about how the investigations were done (except for some obvious flaws), let alone a plan for making future investigations scientifically rigorous.

So fun book, worth a read if you like this sort of thing, but don't expect to get a serious analysis of scientific exploration of the supernatural.… (mais)

Aargh I'm so annoyed by this book. I've been wanting to read it for years because I'm an inconsistent atheist and I low-key believe in ghosts. I'm so disappointed! This book takes a scattershot approach to famous hauntings - Clarke will be like "... Poltergeist activity reminiscent of the Little Whittingdon Ghost Badger of 1733 or the 1982 Chipping and Sodbury Ghoulie Phenomenon" and you're like "ooh! that sounds good!" but then he'll just change the subject completely and you're just like "huh". In fact, he changes the subject so frequently that you have to keep a really close eye on what's happening or you'll get confused - it's like listening to my Grandad tell stories but I don't even get a chocolate biscuit out of it.

But! The thing that's really bothering me is that I can see at least one point where he Did Not Do The Research - he's talking about Japanese cinema, and he claims that they got the hair-in-the-face ghost girl thing from an M.R. James story. Um, no! White people did not invent everything! I lived in that part of the world for a while, and ghosts with hair-obscured faces are a well-established tradition. Grr!

As a child, I read loads of books with titles like "50 true spooky ghosts that will GIVE YOU THE WILLIES" and honestly they were more entertaining and possibly better researched than this. Ugh, avoid.… (mais)

I read the Penguin paperback version of this book and have to say: it is not a very attractive publication. There are several pictures included, but there are all in black and white and of a rather dubious quality. For example: there is a picture of a room with a supposedly haunted bed, but you can barely make out the bed. These illustrations are far too small and too grainy, so one has to wonder why there were included at all. Already the cover itself is a cliché. A door opening onto some darkness lurking behind it. It seems to me, little love went into the formal presentation of this volume.

But now to the content:

While I enjoyed some parts of the book several chapters felt really plodding.

For example “The house that was haunted to death” is sheer torture to get through. The ordeal the people in this haunted mansion were suffering is not presented in a way that would make it interesting to the modern reader.

There is a lot of information included in this book with numerous footnotes at the end. You have to really pay attention and I am not sure whether it is worth it. It would be different, if Clarke was a particularly engaging and entertaining writer, which he unfortunately is not. While he does inject some dry humour into his tales now and then, mostly this is rather dull stuff. The author fails to conjure up a suitable atmosphere of dread, and so despite being told about all the ghostly goings on, you do not really feel that they are anything particularly extraordinary let alone scary. The prose feels rather functional. Bill Bryson he definitely ain’t.

If you are looking for some fun read about the paranormal, I would recommend “The dead roam the earth” by Alasdair Wickham. Clarke’s book, is far too scholarly and dry.… (mais)