What do you think?
Rate this book
Poltergeists
Analyzes cases of poltergeist phenomena and hauntings throughout the world since the sixteenth century
- GenresNonfiction
1000 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1979
10 people are currently reading
38 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
August 26, 2022A monograph about poltergeists from the late 1970s. It aged *really* well, I was surprised. Some of these books are just piles of case material, which is not as interesting to me. Here there was both a lot of that *and also* a lot of analysis, and the case material was presented in a way that it fed into the analysis, so it held my attention.
But here is what blew me away.
The authors rated 500 cases along 60+ parameters and then did cluster analysis. Yes, in the seventies. They had to involve a whole computing center at their local university, who developed software for this purpose. This is not like now, where you just fire up SPSS/R/whatever you have. It took decades *after this book was published* for these analyses to become common in the social sciences.
It gets better: *the authors share their raw data*, so if you want, you can do your own analyses - I checked and some people have indeed done so. This has to be one of the earlier examples of open science, definitely in anything related to human behavior.
Beyond that, I also liked that the focus wasn't on "are poltergeists REAL," I mean, regardless of how you define "real," these events happen. Whether they are all due to conscious or unconscious fraud, or not, they can be studied in either case. Here the authors tried to focus on whether there are subtypes of poltergeist events, can we speculate about the mechanics, etc. which to me seemed like a more fruitful approach. It even yields information related to the fraud question, e.g., do better-documented poltergeist events feature fewer unusual occurrences? (They don't seem to in this database.)
A lot of the data is from Western Europe and the US, it was surprising to me as an Eastern European that there were something like 19 cases from Eastern Europe (I just counted on my fingers, so I might be off) excluding pre-20th-century cases which geographically fell into East Germany in the 1970s. (And those weren't very numerous either.) Many other regions also have poor coverage, like Africa, most of Asia, etc.; this just took me off guard because I am from Eastern Europe and know of many documented poltergeist cases. Now I am wondering if I should write those up in English, in my nonexistent spare time...!
I really liked that the authors did an experiment about whether poltergeist events could be caused by localized earth tremors. They say this was their scariest experience in all of investigating poltergeists, because a house almost collapsed on them! ...Ok, this does need some explanation. They obtained permission to install a shaking apparatus in a house destined for demolition and tried different types of shaking to see if these could result in unusual object movements. They didn't, by the way.
It was also helpful to know that some elements stereotyped as paranormal are actually very uncommon in poltergeist cases, e.g., metal bending. I wonder if metal bending became more common since then simply because it is more expected to occur. (Regardless of whether fraud or unconscious psychokinesis is the cause... I have to say that most of the metal bending I've seen was clearly fraudulent, but I've generally seen it done as a parlor trick and not in a poltergeist context. I would not in principle rule out non-fraudulent metal bending, though in poltergeist cases metal shattering seems more common and even that relatively rare.)
I also liked that the authors pointed out - in a very British way with a combination of understatement and sarcasm, but still - that most "physical mediumship" was very obviously fraudulent. Back when I examined these historical cases and looked at primary documentation, I was shocked how bad the "evidence" was. They say the same thing, but even until recently, very few other people were saying so. Even now I see people assume second-or third-hand that these were credible cases. Oh G-d no! Take five minutes to look at the photos, or more recent scholarly analysis (which generally reprints the photos). This is exactly the point Gauld & Cornell make: "it is impossible to look at the photographs of [specific case details] without being irresistibly reminded of strips of cheese-cloth, sagging perceptibly between their points of attachment." (p. 323 in my edition)
Something quite unrelated: the authors make a fascinating point about how people historically tried to explain these events, with demons, witches, etc. and make a prediction that soon enough, people will try to explain them with extraterrestrials. This was especially funny to me because it came true since the book had been published! An event in a village near where I grew up was initially reported in my local paper as "ALIENS!!" and it took a few days for it to be categorized as a poltergeist case probably with no aliens involved.
They do consider different causes that have been hypothesized over time, some to me more outlandish than others. Generally they end up discarding the more outlandish explanations, both physical or paranormal (yes, there are some very strange putative explanations even involving ordinary physics); or suspending their judgment before more investigation. (For example - I honestly don't think poltergeists are caused by ghosts, but I thought going in that there would be more evidence in favor of ghosts simply because people often imagine ghosts or even fake ghosts. The authors explore the topic of ghosts - "discarnate entities" - quite thoroughly and end up with not having enough data to endorse it.)
All in all, this was a fascinating read, I would definitely recommend it and not just because there aren't that many monographs about poltergeists - it stands on its own merits.
___________
Source of the book: Bought with a Bookshop gift card I got from Kathryn S. Thank you so much Kathryn!!
But here is what blew me away.
The authors rated 500 cases along 60+ parameters and then did cluster analysis. Yes, in the seventies. They had to involve a whole computing center at their local university, who developed software for this purpose. This is not like now, where you just fire up SPSS/R/whatever you have. It took decades *after this book was published* for these analyses to become common in the social sciences.
It gets better: *the authors share their raw data*, so if you want, you can do your own analyses - I checked and some people have indeed done so. This has to be one of the earlier examples of open science, definitely in anything related to human behavior.
Beyond that, I also liked that the focus wasn't on "are poltergeists REAL," I mean, regardless of how you define "real," these events happen. Whether they are all due to conscious or unconscious fraud, or not, they can be studied in either case. Here the authors tried to focus on whether there are subtypes of poltergeist events, can we speculate about the mechanics, etc. which to me seemed like a more fruitful approach. It even yields information related to the fraud question, e.g., do better-documented poltergeist events feature fewer unusual occurrences? (They don't seem to in this database.)
A lot of the data is from Western Europe and the US, it was surprising to me as an Eastern European that there were something like 19 cases from Eastern Europe (I just counted on my fingers, so I might be off) excluding pre-20th-century cases which geographically fell into East Germany in the 1970s. (And those weren't very numerous either.) Many other regions also have poor coverage, like Africa, most of Asia, etc.; this just took me off guard because I am from Eastern Europe and know of many documented poltergeist cases. Now I am wondering if I should write those up in English, in my nonexistent spare time...!
I really liked that the authors did an experiment about whether poltergeist events could be caused by localized earth tremors. They say this was their scariest experience in all of investigating poltergeists, because a house almost collapsed on them! ...Ok, this does need some explanation. They obtained permission to install a shaking apparatus in a house destined for demolition and tried different types of shaking to see if these could result in unusual object movements. They didn't, by the way.
It was also helpful to know that some elements stereotyped as paranormal are actually very uncommon in poltergeist cases, e.g., metal bending. I wonder if metal bending became more common since then simply because it is more expected to occur. (Regardless of whether fraud or unconscious psychokinesis is the cause... I have to say that most of the metal bending I've seen was clearly fraudulent, but I've generally seen it done as a parlor trick and not in a poltergeist context. I would not in principle rule out non-fraudulent metal bending, though in poltergeist cases metal shattering seems more common and even that relatively rare.)
I also liked that the authors pointed out - in a very British way with a combination of understatement and sarcasm, but still - that most "physical mediumship" was very obviously fraudulent. Back when I examined these historical cases and looked at primary documentation, I was shocked how bad the "evidence" was. They say the same thing, but even until recently, very few other people were saying so. Even now I see people assume second-or third-hand that these were credible cases. Oh G-d no! Take five minutes to look at the photos, or more recent scholarly analysis (which generally reprints the photos). This is exactly the point Gauld & Cornell make: "it is impossible to look at the photographs of [specific case details] without being irresistibly reminded of strips of cheese-cloth, sagging perceptibly between their points of attachment." (p. 323 in my edition)
Something quite unrelated: the authors make a fascinating point about how people historically tried to explain these events, with demons, witches, etc. and make a prediction that soon enough, people will try to explain them with extraterrestrials. This was especially funny to me because it came true since the book had been published! An event in a village near where I grew up was initially reported in my local paper as "ALIENS!!" and it took a few days for it to be categorized as a poltergeist case probably with no aliens involved.
They do consider different causes that have been hypothesized over time, some to me more outlandish than others. Generally they end up discarding the more outlandish explanations, both physical or paranormal (yes, there are some very strange putative explanations even involving ordinary physics); or suspending their judgment before more investigation. (For example - I honestly don't think poltergeists are caused by ghosts, but I thought going in that there would be more evidence in favor of ghosts simply because people often imagine ghosts or even fake ghosts. The authors explore the topic of ghosts - "discarnate entities" - quite thoroughly and end up with not having enough data to endorse it.)
All in all, this was a fascinating read, I would definitely recommend it and not just because there aren't that many monographs about poltergeists - it stands on its own merits.
___________
Source of the book: Bought with a Bookshop gift card I got from Kathryn S. Thank you so much Kathryn!!
December 7, 2025
I have no idea what this book is supposed to be. It claims to be essential reading for anyone who is interested in parapsychology and the paranormal, but is actually just a load of writing made to look vaguely like an authentic scientific study.
The author (don’t be fooled by there being two names on the cover) has made up his mind about what poltergeist phenomena are, and then rubbishes anything to the contrary. Cases are presented as authentic, even though they have been shown to be hoaxes, because they suit his blinkered opinion (singular). The way he insults anybody and any ideas different from his own is shameful.
What you require from any scientific study is research and analysis as free from personal bias as possible. What this serves up is a fairly random collection of claimed poltergeist cases, presented with his own strong bias, and claimed to be scientific study, which it is not.
If you are considering purchase of this book, like me, you were probably encouraged to do so as essential background reading for the study of parapsychology. I would strongly advise you to ignore this pressure, and find a better book that studies the subject in a more scientific manner, something that will give you useful information instead of simplistic personal opinions.
The only valuable function of this book is to outline a large number of varied cases, for you to then research yourself, rather than relying on the opinions presented by Gauld. The only reason I give this two stars rather than one is that it does serve as some form of compendium of cases, but I suspect you could do much better elsewhere.
The author (don’t be fooled by there being two names on the cover) has made up his mind about what poltergeist phenomena are, and then rubbishes anything to the contrary. Cases are presented as authentic, even though they have been shown to be hoaxes, because they suit his blinkered opinion (singular). The way he insults anybody and any ideas different from his own is shameful.
What you require from any scientific study is research and analysis as free from personal bias as possible. What this serves up is a fairly random collection of claimed poltergeist cases, presented with his own strong bias, and claimed to be scientific study, which it is not.
If you are considering purchase of this book, like me, you were probably encouraged to do so as essential background reading for the study of parapsychology. I would strongly advise you to ignore this pressure, and find a better book that studies the subject in a more scientific manner, something that will give you useful information instead of simplistic personal opinions.
The only valuable function of this book is to outline a large number of varied cases, for you to then research yourself, rather than relying on the opinions presented by Gauld. The only reason I give this two stars rather than one is that it does serve as some form of compendium of cases, but I suspect you could do much better elsewhere.
August 27, 2024
Great book on the topic by two serious-minded parapyschologists that essentially takes the form of a literature review with a bit of associated statistical analysis. As such it's quite dry and only really recommended for anyone with an existing interest in the topic, but the writers are objective and curious investigators who refuse to bend primary sources to fit any preconceived explanations. The result is a cross-cultural and historical overview that allows the reader to consider commonalities, contradictions, and trends in these strange stories. As the writers state, no one explanation fits neatly (except of course the lazy but popular "they're all lying"), and a bit of rough and ready 1970s multivariate stats demonstrates some interesting clustering in the corpus of well-documented cases. A great read if you're like me and love this stuff, but probably a nightmare slog otherwise!
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews