This book is an imaginative account of the haunting of Borley Rectory, apparently "the most haunted house in England" and the investigation of it by ghost hunter, showman, charlatan - make up your own mind which - Harry Price. Set between the 1920s and the 40s, it takes us to a world where the relatives of those who fell in the First World War are exploited by false(?) mediums. The mediums who are in turn turn hunted down by the indefatigable Price. But Price has a problem. He is being supported and his "laboratory" accommodated by the Spiritualist movement, whose pet mediums he keeps debunking. So it may seem very convenient when an opportunity arises to investigate a serious haunting. Will Price, and his assistant, Sarah Grey, encounter something much darker and much nastier than they expect?
Based on real events, the story is told, mainly, in Grey's voice, in a dusty manuscript found years after the events it narrates.
So, is it really any good?
I don't like to have to dissent from the general tone of positive reviews, but I had some problems with this book. I feel it's almost two different books, one rather mundane, the other eerily effective.
The first part, following what actually happens at Borley, seemed rather plodding to me. Frankly, nothing much happens: Spring moves his characters to Borley and back, introduces a journalist (a real person), Vernon Wall, to inject some tension, and tries to animate a conflict between him, Price and Grey. But to me, it didn't convince. This comes to a climax in a scene where Wall leaves Borley for London and Grey apparently faces a choice - him or Price? - that is referred back to repeatedly and is apparently an emotionally key episode to all three. But somehow the writing never matches up to that, I simply ended up puzzled as to why everyone behaved as they did.
It doesn't help that the writing is, in paces, slightly garbled. For example, consider this description of a haunting:
"...One night, Marianne found pebbles behind her pillow; another time, just outside the Blue Room, she was struck in her face by some unseen force only to be turned out of bed, three weeks later, in one night!"
Struck in her face by some unseen force - horrible. Turned out of bed three times in one night - ghastly. But... three weeks between the two? This just reads oddly.
Spring has clearly carried out an admirable amount of research, which he generally deploys with skill - but in some places, and this is one, I think the contents of his notebooks have been dumped into the story without being completely digested. Another example is towards the end of the book, where there is confusion about who owns the Rectory by then - we are told that in the 1940s the Rectory was about to be disposed of "by the Rector" so that Price had to act quickly, then that (earlier) it had been sold to a Captain Gregson, who filed an insurance claim only to have it rejected.)
I realise this may seem picky, but glitches like these bring the reader (well, me) up sharp and make it hard to stay in the book, as it were.
So do numerous phrases ("video camera", "glamour modelling", "photo shoots", "State-of-the-art", "I like unconventional", "hijacked my thoughts", "the Rectory is in lockdown" which belong more in the 2000s than the 1920s or 30s. More seriously, there are howlers such as "mitigated against" (for "militated") and - in a book that features Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes's famous saying "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" is misquoted as "when you have eliminated the improbable..." making it into a nonsense. All this is, I think, simply poor editing. It is a great shame when an author is let down by stuff like that: the point of editing a book is to pick up things which the author, having read the text seventeen times, simply can't spot any longer.
And indeed, I found it very hard to keep going with this book, all the way through the first two thirds. I didn't believe the characters, I kept tripping over the writing, and not much happened.
I am very glad to be able to say, though, that the book did improve. As the story went on, it did become less of an account of "bumps in the night", flying bars of soap and heaving tables and turned into some much more subtle and chilling. It is actually difficult to say more without giving away some of the secrets of the book. But it is worth reading that first section for the sake of the ending.
That gives me a dilemma in rating the book - sometimes I find that the hardest part of a review. if I had to judge the first part on its own, I would award it no more than two stars. For the ending, I'd give four. So overall - three stars.
I think that Neil Spring is a very promising author. I hope that he writes more - and that those books are decently edited!