Scan barcode
ageekybibliophile's review against another edition
5.0
Another creepy read, this one I feel was scarier than the other one (The ghosts on 87th lane) As this one creeped me out when I was a child. Remember sitting with my papa watching this tv show called Strange but True, and this was a case on it. It creeped the hell out of me so when I found the book in a charity shop I had to buy it and read it!! Yeah I probably won't read it again, mainly for the fact it creeped me out that much. I kept thinking I was being watched when I read it even when others were in my house!! A gripping yet scary read from start to finish.
oh_renard_lit's review against another edition
dark
informative
mysterious
slow-paced
2.5
Great for readers interested in the paranormal, the unknown, who like horror movies... A bit dull and monotone in its writing but a nice testimony of how cases as such happen. Kind of scary if you read before nighttime !
teameak's review against another edition
3.0
A short review from me - a fascinating case that I've been interested in for awhile but I felt the book tapered off a little. Whilst the author states not to expect excitement on every page, by half way through it was so repetitive not with events but with opinion and theory that I gave up reading the rest of it. A shame as I've come to love this style of book based on true events.
zarco_j's review
3.0
This was a good read, not great but good. I'd heard lots about the case but had been itching to get my hands on a copy of this book.
If you've watched the Enfield Haunting or Conjuring 2 you'd be familiar with the premise behind the story, but don't expect the 'scares' or jumps or to be honest the Warren's in this book.
Enjoyable if a little dry.
If you've watched the Enfield Haunting or Conjuring 2 you'd be familiar with the premise behind the story, but don't expect the 'scares' or jumps or to be honest the Warren's in this book.
Enjoyable if a little dry.
pillywiggin's review against another edition
3.0
This is the classic study of the Enfield poltergeist. It is at times dry reading, but definitely not sensationalized as many "true haunted house" books are. The author is convinced the poltergeist activity in this case is real, which probably colors his interpretation of some of the events.
jayfr's review
3.0
This was a good read, not great but good. I'd heard lots about the case but had been itching to get my hands on a copy of this book.
If you've watched the Enfield Haunting or Conjuring 2 you'd be familiar with the premise behind the story, but don't expect the 'scares' or jumps or to be honest the Warren's in this book.
Enjoyable if a little dry.
If you've watched the Enfield Haunting or Conjuring 2 you'd be familiar with the premise behind the story, but don't expect the 'scares' or jumps or to be honest the Warren's in this book.
Enjoyable if a little dry.
seddso's review against another edition
5.0
Terrifying. Mainly because this is no Hollywood blockbuster, or Blair Witch project , but a story that I remember hearing about in the seventies. If you scare easily, leave it alone.
corncobwebs's review against another edition
This is one of those books I finished out of my sheer inability to not finish books I've started. I wanted to read it in preparation for the new Conjuring movie, but it turns out that Ed and Lorraine Warren didn't even investigate this case!
Where to start? It was poorly written and paced; it read more like a list of these so-called poltergeist events and was riddled with typos and weird punctuation. Honestly, I feel like this could have been a good book if it was approached completely differently (and actually had an editor who was awake). The author claims to have a background in journalism and writes the story from the perspective of trying to find scientific evidence of poltergeists. It would have been way more compelling if he had dropped the scientific angle (because it all boils down to pseudoscience anyway) and just focused on the feelings. As soon as you try to try to explain anything in logical terms, it looses all semblance of spookiness. I guess the author would tell me that I'm missing the point; that the whole objective is to gather scientific evidence to prove that this otherworldly dimension exists. And I guess that's fine; but if that's the approach you're taking, don't pepper your book with statements that are purely conjecture and then call it "science." Don't use phrases like "Had he been caught in the slipstream of a passing flying saucer?" [actual quote] and expect me to take you seriously.
Don't get me wrong, I love a good ghost story and I don't completely disbelieve in the paranormal. I just think that this particular story would have been much better served if the author had approached it as a work of fiction, rather than as a work of science.
Where to start? It was poorly written and paced; it read more like a list of these so-called poltergeist events and was riddled with typos and weird punctuation. Honestly, I feel like this could have been a good book if it was approached completely differently (and actually had an editor who was awake). The author claims to have a background in journalism and writes the story from the perspective of trying to find scientific evidence of poltergeists. It would have been way more compelling if he had dropped the scientific angle (because it all boils down to pseudoscience anyway) and just focused on the feelings. As soon as you try to try to explain anything in logical terms, it looses all semblance of spookiness. I guess the author would tell me that I'm missing the point; that the whole objective is to gather scientific evidence to prove that this otherworldly dimension exists. And I guess that's fine; but if that's the approach you're taking, don't pepper your book with statements that are purely conjecture and then call it "science." Don't use phrases like "Had he been caught in the slipstream of a passing flying saucer?" [actual quote] and expect me to take you seriously.
Don't get me wrong, I love a good ghost story and I don't completely disbelieve in the paranormal. I just think that this particular story would have been much better served if the author had approached it as a work of fiction, rather than as a work of science.