Now that Colin Wilson is (no longer) dead, (I mistakenly started writing this review thinking that he was, until a kind reader pointed out that, in this space-time universe, I was sorrily mistaken), I feel safe saying that though I enjoyed reading his books I would hesitate to recommend him (as a writer in general) to others for two reasons, the first of which is that he doesn't seem to like women. This comes across in odd comments he makes,, which I will attempt to find and cite. Aside from that idiosycnracy, he is fun to read if you enjoy a quirky writer who digresses, inserts unsupported opinions liberally and at random, and makes flagrant allusions to events, people, and books or citations that he never lists or explains-- which I do. He writes like a maiden aunt or blustery uncle who waves a hand at you and says, "oh you know mr. so-and-so, that time he embarrassed himself in front of everyone", which, of course, you have no idea who, or what, Wilson is referring to. The strange part is that he does cite some of his references, but it's definitely of sponge-cake consistency. (Something I myself am guilty of, so I find myself fond of the same in Wilson.)And see, above I said there were two things that would cause me not to recommend him but I only really hit on one, so there's another failure of mine. The kettle calling the sheep furry and all.That said in general about Mr. Wilson, I am re-reading "Poltergeists"-- so I may have something more compelling to say about it in the future. But don't hold your breath.For now I will say that I have read many books on the subject of poltergeists, it being a favorite subject of mine, and Wilson's should be read. He approaches the book in a scholarly way, detailing many of the classic cases of poltergeist cases throughout history and offering his own theories about what poltergeists may and may not be. (The current interpretation among psychical researchers is that Poltergeists are not ghosts-- as in conscious spirits of the deceased-- but are actually psychokinetic in nature-- that is a living human is the unconscious cause.)If you really like this stuff I suggest you also read Sacheverell Sitwell's (yes the brother of Edith) "Poltergeist- Fact of Fancy", as well as William Roll's book, also titled "Poltergeists".
I cannot discredit this book as not being well researched and thorough--it was thorough almost to a fault. This thick volume might be of more use to scholars and researchers in the field of paranormal research than for the average, curious "ghost enthusiast." There are definitely some scary stories in here, reportedly true, highly detailed accounts of poltergeist activity--often violent and therefore chilling. But they are not meant to entertain so much as to educate. This volume contains several chapters on things that could go way over the head of the novice paranormal fan; lots of info on PSK and psychic explanations for poltergeist activity, and maybe a little too much info on the "fanciful" such as faeries and sprites (which I almost found out of place and still don't quite understand the poltergeist connection--like I said, just a little over my head, sometimes yawn-inducing). However I must appreciate the thoroughness of this large volume. If you are looking for sheer thrills a la the movie 'Poltergeist,' however, this is not the book. But if you ever take up the pseudo-science of parapsychology, this should be one of your first textbooks.
What do You think about Poltergeist! (Fate Presents) (1995)?
Blurgh. This is a fairly useful overview on the subject, though the examples are a bit repetitious and descriptions overlong (the book could easily be 100 pages shorter and be just as comprehensive regarding basic information) but don't expect sound reasoning or sufficient evidence to convince you Poltergeists are real. It covers a lot of familiar ground if you've read books on specific poltergeists and you'll find yourself skimming the long digressions about fairies and black magic, which are totally off topic. As usual, the most fascinating thing regarding poltergeists is that descriptions of these destructive hauntings are remarkable similar for centuries. In a post-internet world it's easy to dismiss this, but the fact that a family in 1970's England could claim a laundry-list of paranormal events (some of them very specific and odd) that were written about in America a hundred years earlier? That's the one thing about poltergeists that really gives one pause. Unfortunately, rather than focusing on that aspect, this book makes enormous assumptions, masquerades as a scientific study, and is mostly filler since no proper documentation of a poltergeist event has ever really happened.
—James
An interesting theory surrounding what the 'noisy ghost' is. I had fun with this one and have had with one or two of this text's brothers in the intervening years. Wilson isn't an analytical thinker, but, then, that isn't why people come to such books as this. Those that do come to them are looking for comfort or a larger would view than is available today or they come, as I do, for the entertainment value. As entertainment this is a very valuable book. As an examination of the paranormal it is much the same as all his other books...deeply, deeply speculative and very, very poorly referenced.Take this for what it is and you will enjoy yourself.
—David
