For those who read ghost stories on the regular, this collection is perhaps marred slightly by the fact that a good 50% of it is comprised of regularly collected works, or at least the sorts of works that you would have seen. Then, again, for those who do not read a lot of ghost stories and are looking for a collection to give a nice, firm introduction to the sub-genre, I do not know if it would precisely suit because the story choice is somewhat odd, which I will get into towards the end of this review, but nevertheless again leaving you with about 50% of the stories being more valuable than others. That is not to say that it is a bad collection, in fact it is a quite good collection with a couple of caveats, it is just a bit out-of-place in some ways.
I personally was interested in this collection because of my previous experience with Klinger collections and his sometimes over-exuberance of footnotes. Which, in this case, is not the reason to track down this book. The footnotes are there, and sometimes helpful and interesting, but rarely do they truly inform and they are unevenly distributed. M.R. James' "Oh Whistle," for instance, has some nice ones and the final story, Georgia Pangborn's "The Substitute," has a pair of helpful ones, but others seemingly have sparse footnotes for footnotes' sake. Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Grey Champion," has some of the historical elements explained, such as who King James II was, but not others. Charles Dickens' "The Signal-Man," only warrants a single footnote, effectively telling us what a railroad signalman even is...which is fair, but smacks of filling an imaginary quota rather than actually informing the reader.
This editorial quibble aside, and with the assumption that few other readers actually come into the collection for the footnote-value, we can mostly now focus on the choice of the stories. As said, these are mostly fair to great choices. On the great side of things would definitely include Johann August Apel's "The Family Portraits," which is fairly rare collection to be anthologized and yet is directly cited by Mary Shelly in the context of Frankenstein's inspiration. Frank Stockton's "The Philosophy of Relative Experience," which is more speculative fiction than ghost story but nevertheless brings up interesting things to say about the ghostly story.
Many of the others are informative of the ghost story experience. M.R. James is a definite for inclusion, and honestly any number of his stories would have made sense to have here. Edith Wharton's "The Lady Maid's Bell" is a strong story of the "gentle" type that only gets better upon repeat readings (it is easy to miss the humor and how carefully Wharton stages certain topics on a first pass). Morton and Klinger provide a good mix of ghost story types: some involving tragedy and horror and others involving spiritualism or romance. You get a good sampling of baroque and gothic writing, as well as more plain and more literary takes. They also give several examples of ghost stories used to promote certain causes or ideals such as feminism.
As for missteps, I think there are a few. For one, Wilkie Collins' story, "Mrs. Zant and the Ghost," is one of the longer stories and is overall less interesting in the context of a ghost story. It does provide an example of what might be called a romance-with-ghosts-as-a-catalyst type tale, but there are other, shorter ones that could have provided more room to fill some gaps this book has to be a proper overview type. You then have a pair of pairs, as it were, where they did not need to repeat certain tropes. There are two ghost-stories-as-propaganda tales—Hawthorne's "Champion" and Arthur Machen's "The Bow-men"—where either would have sufficed. Hawthorne's is less repeated, though Machen's is better written. A flip of the coin, perhaps. You also have two stories from the spiritualist viewpoint featuring the ghost/spirit as the POV character, "Since I Died" by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps and "Shell of Sense" by Olivia Howard Dunbar. Again, either/or would have been enough to provide a sample of the style (I prefer Dunbar's story, because I feel like it more encapsulates the philosophy of spiritualism, though Phelps is a better writer, here).
The overall misstep, which would actually be a boon for some readers, can be spotted relatively easily by looking at the table of contents. When you have an overview of the ghostly tale and the authors are Edith Wharton, Charles Dickens, Henry James, Mark Twain, Sir Walter Scott...etc etc...you get the feeling that this is meant less to be an overview of the ghost story, and especially not meant to be one made up of "forgotten classic tales," but instead is meant to be an editorial jab to say, "See, ghost stories are literature, too!" Which is a shame, because anyone new to the sub-genre will come away with a nearly perfectly wrong picture of the ghost story (which is assuredly more M.R. James than Henry) and will perhaps think they have read some obscure stories instead of generally reading many of the better known ones. Even putting aside "forgotten," where are the even slightly more in-genre writers like E.F. Benson, J. Sheridan le Fanu, Oliver Onions, Bithia Croker, and so on, that would have allowed the editors to paint a more accurate picture of the historical development of the genre?
These complaints aside, though, it still does have several points to its merit, and several things to say.* It is definitely not a perfect collection of forgotten tales, but there are several that it brings to light that even the more die-hard genre fans might miss. It fails to truly show the ghost story in its own light, but does help to show how far reaching the ghostly tale is throughout literature as a whole. It suffers trying to find a precise reader, but provides everyone with some good stories and makes an enjoyable excursion.
=======
* Just not, as it were, in the footnotes.