Fun illustrations, but not as well written, researched, or organized as the same author’s Illustrated History of UFOs. There’s probably just way more to this subject than the other, which makes the task of narrowing, sorting, and coherently arranging the material harder. Old Norse aptrganga, haugbui, or draugar, varieties of corporeal ghost that I know a good bit about, don’t even get a mention, and many others from around the world that are mentioned receive no explanation.
The book also gets weirdly ideological, as when we’re told twice that ghost hunters are usually white men (so what?), or when the author suggests that 19th century mediums like the Fox sisters were harassed because they were powerful independent women (as opposed to, say, suspected or even proven frauds), or that “white lady” legends are meant to reinforce the patriarchy, or when “appropriation” comes up, as in this sentence: “Today the property [Sherman Ranch in Utah] is marketed as Skinwalker Ranch, appropriating a creature from Navajo mythology.” A normal person might say it is “named after” the skinwalker, but whatever. As wide-ranging and as spare as the text is, with simple one-sentence or one-paragraph explanations of many people, stories, and events, these are odd directions to go.
Conversely, some explanations are unbelievably vague, as when an infographic of a “Catholic exorcism kit” is shown to contain “assorted cloths and candles.” Other information is just wrong.
There are also a ton of typos and generally bad writing. Whoever copy edited this book did the author a huge disservice.
I’ve mostly dwelt on what disappointed me about this book but it’s still fun and I love the format. It’s great to leaf through even when you’re not actively reading it. If you’re interested in this kind of thing, though, Boardman’s UFO book is much better.
If you absolutely have to have something on ghosts, Roger Clarke’s Natural History of Ghosts, which I read a few years ago and is recommended in the back of this book, is probably your best bet, despite having some similar organization problems and, alas, no fun illustrations.