Let me start by saying that I am very much in the intended audience for this book. I adored Ghostland: In Search of a Haunted Country by Edward Parnell, I am interested in ghosts, I love a reflective memoir blended with history and/or cultural criticism and, like the author, I am a professional academic in a humanities field. I was so excited to be approved to review it. Sadly, it ended up being quite a disappointment.
The blurb sells it as a 'part-memoir, part cultural exploration', focusing on British ghost stories. I was hoping this would be to Northumbria/the North-East what Ghostland, marketed in a very similar way, was to East Anglia. Let's get some things out of the way - there is no element of 'memoir' to this book; although some stories focus on Northumbria, they are by far not the focus on the book and the 'culture' at the heart of the book is folklore, not popular and/or literary culture as expressed in films, novels, poems and on TV (which is fair enough, but it could have been made clearer in the marketing material). It is a book about the folklore of ghosts. This immediately puts it in quite a different publication category, armed with a much broader existing literature and a different set of comp books. Think A Natural History of Ghosts by Roger Clarke rather than whatever niche Olivia Laing carved for herself by blending musings with criticism. Within this context, Haunted does not work for three reasons: the main argument of the book is unconvincing, it is unclear what it adds to the extensive literature on ghosts and, most importantly, it is not actually focused on ghosts, as we meet witches, Banshees, faerie folk and other elements of broader British folklore.
Let's start with the main argument. Gilbert operates from the presumption that what interests people about ghosts is the personal experience of the contact. I paraphrase, but the gist of it is that we are interested in the person who met the ghost, what exactly they saw and heard, their experience of it, and not the story or even the identity of the ghost itself. This assumption is not supported by referencing any existing research or any substantial data the author collected. It is just stated as a fact. As someone with a lifelong fascination with ghosts, nothing could be further from the truth for me - I don't give a toss about our Jimmy seeing a ghost of a Blue Boy and how it affected him, I want to learn who the Blue Boy was, why they became a ghost and what drives them to still haunt the closet of their family home. Oh, but that's just your experience, you might say. Given that the author provided to evidence to the contrary, at this point it is their word against mine, and my word is more integral to my experience as a reader than the author's is.
This assumption drives the structure and the content of the book. The chapters are loosely connected by certain themes - familiar and intimate ghosts in the first chapter, the archetype of the White Lady in the second, witches and witchcraft in the third, ghosts below ground in the fourth, haunted properties and their value in the fifth and, VERY loosely, hauntings in professional and public setting in the sixth. Most of the chapters are structured around some sort of a balance between retellings of ghost stories collected by the author and her analysis of them and their context. The earlier chapters in particular are very heavy on the stories and very thin on analysis, which makes them functionally useless, as the author did not provide any information on her research methods or research questions. The chapters read like a collection of fire camp legends, with no context or specificity. It is not even 'my friend X told me XYZ', Gilbert might as well have made them all up herself. I do not expect a methods chapter and a literature review in a trade book, but some sort of an explanation of how her data was collected and why and how she intended to use it is sorely missing from the book. She operates from a premise that all the stories were real to the people who told them, which is a heck of a premise (there are lots of reasons as to why someone might want to share a ghost story which allegedly happened to them, none of which bar 'they believed the experience happened' are discussed by Gilbert).
What is the purpose of the book? To provide some raw data for future folklore research (in which case any researcher would need a bit more context than 'this story happened to Kate')? Or is this an anthropology trade book, exploring the world of people who believe in ghosts? In this case, Gilbert needed to drastically cut the (often very boring) stories themselves and provide much more analysis of why people believe certain things. She very rarely managed to achieve a balance between her own voice and the unnecessarily detailed stories - only Chapter 4 really managed to draw me in with its stories of Cornish miners and the London Underground. Even in that chapter, there are much better books on the hauntings of the Tube out there - what is this one adding?
This brings me to my last criticism - the lack of focus. The whole witchcraft chapter and theme seemed completely tacked onto a book about ghosts in an attempt to bulk it up and make the narrative more widely appealing beyond the 'ghost' crowd, pushing the book into the wider 'folklore' market via the 'witches are feminist' trope. The rest of the chapters also jump from topic to topic at the speed of light, never giving any of Gilbert's ideas, let alone the stories she collected, any space to breathe. Chapter 6, technically focused on the theme of 'public ghosts', was the most grievous offender in this respect. It felt like the author threw everything from the archetype of a haunted school swimming pool to the Stone Tape Theory at it to see what sticks (spoiler alert - none of it does).
What a disappointment in so many ways.
Thank you NetGalley and Bonnier Books Ltd for the e-ARC in exchange for an honest review.