After the writer's delightful book about Haunted Savannah (his home base), I had very high hopes for this one. However, this one was so different in tone. Indeed, except for a few notable exceptions, this one was more of a historical research book than one detailing the thrill of experiencing hauntings.
New Orleans is one of my favorite cities. If there is a place that is more of a "melting pot," I couldn't name it. People are free to be whoever they want to be. There is a remarkable tolerance of live and let live ... and some of the most amazing food on the planet. (For my taste, only Japan comes ahead of it.)
I had taken one of the ghost tours while there and it was a great deal of fun. The guide was a delightful storyteller ... a little like a gossipy uncle ... and I was thoroughly entertained.
The writer has taken the same laudable position that he took in his Savannah book. If a story is patently false (and, therefore, maligning innocent ... or somewhat innocent ... people), he wants to set the record straight. This was fine in his first book as he still had many goosebump-raising tales to relate along with personal encounters and those of his colleagues.
For the New Orleans book, he doesn't have all of those connections. Consequently, the vast majority of the book becomes a "here is what we're told, but here is what is true" narrative. I don't believe that is what many Readers of a Haunted History are expecting. In fact, I found only one experience that matched the best of what was found in the Savannah book, and that occurred during his visit to the Hotel Villa Convento. That one raised the goosebumps.
So, if you are looking for an extended history lesson, you've come to the right place. If you want to feel that thrilling "rush" that came from Haunted Savannah, you should probably keep looking.