The Ghosts of Happy Valley did have its good points. I particularly appreciated the focus on the current problems of the Happy Valley area as well as it's controversial past, and Barnes' final observations that we should perhaps be more focused on these (especially rapid and increasing environment destruction) then the legacy of the so-called 'Happy Valley set'.
But, on the whole the book suffered from being extremely convoluted. Barnes jumps back and forth constantly, from past to present, and from past to other points in the past, with no consistency whatsoever. It makes The Ghosts of Happy Valley a difficult read, as you struggle to keep track of what point in time Barnes is addressing (not to mention who is who, and who was married to who). Just a little bit more structure really would have made a difference.
This is muddled further by the fact that the author is obviously well-connected with the descendants of those she is writing about, and personally knew others (in the later generations of white settlement in the area). However she avoids giving any specific details about her position, which I find intolerable from an "acknowledgement of personal bias" point of view, but also her vague references to how much visiting some areas or speaking with some people meant to her couldn't be fully understood by the reader.
That in itself probably would have only dragged it down to a three for me, but Barnes' personal bias has, in places, an even more damaging effect which I found unforgivable and means some statements in the book come across as at best misinformed, and at worst, racist. Two examples:
- on multiple occasions Barnes writes off the reports of black primary sources (who were young household staff in the heyday of Happy Valley) who don't support her arguments in favour of white secondary sources (who she otherwise consistently argues throughout the book often make major errors, due to a lack of fact checking or even visiting Kenya when writing) because "natives in the area often just say what they think you want to hear" (approx. quote). This is given no further justification. In other words, we should take white secondary sources at their word, even though they are proven to be inaccurate elsewhere, because apparently black natives lie?????!!!! Really???!!!
- when visiting a black native household (obviously living in a state of poverty), the author is confronted by many giggling children. Later, when she visits the outdoor latrine, she is met by another child of the household with water so she can wash her hands. This child is deferential (or shy) and does not giggle. The relating of this story is immediately followed by an explanation that in this area it is common for unwanted children to be sent to relatives as servants and are then often abused (Barnes specifically mentions sexually). It is heavily implied that this shy child is one such instance. There is no other context given. REALLY!!! A child not giggling at the sight of a stranger and being sent to serve you = serious (probably sexual) abuse??? The author is either making heavy and dangerous assumptions, in which skin colour and/or social status appear to be a large factor, or just not giving the reader enough information to form an informed picture of what is happening in this scenario. Either way, it's just straight out wrong and shouldn't have a place in this text.
As it is, these last factors means The Ghosts of Happy Valley can only have a one star (and would have less if I could give it). The examination of current Happy Valley concerns was interesting, but not enough to make me want to recommend this book to ANYONE, EVER.