Not really all that creepy (and I guess I am to a certain point rather grateful for this, since too much of the latter, since overly exaggerated creepiness and uncanniness does tend to much too often give me quite vivid nightmares and feelings of terror), but I have nevertheless not all that much enjoyed Seymour Simon’s 1979 Ghosts.
For one, although too much vividly described horror does tend to make many ghost stories too much for me, I also still want these tales (if or when I happen to encounter them) to be both engagingly written and imaginative. And well and in my humble opinion, for NONE of the nine ghost accounts included in Ghosts have I actually found Seymour Simon’s text to be sufficiently interesting and engaging, but majorly superficial and rather boring, with not even the many depictions of gruesome occurrences, of death and destruction getting much more than a tediously yawning ho-hum reaction from me.
And for two, the combination of fact and fiction in Ghosts, l do find this kind of annoying and confusing, as though Seymour Simon really cannot or does not want to make up his mind as to whether his nine ghost accounts are true or not, therefore making his stories neither believable or not believable, making his tales at best pretty wishy-washy (and yes, I certainly would prefer the stories of Ghosts to either just be tales considered to be true or ones considered to be fictional and legendary and not this rather problematic and strange mixture of neither one or the other).
So would I recommend Ghosts? Well, not really, because I personally do not think that the nine featured stories are either all that interesting or all that engaging (and the confusing mish-mash of potential truth and potential fantasy really does make me consider Seymour Simon’s text as at best problematic and quite majorly lacking), and that there are so so so many superior books on "true" ghost stories out there.