How do I know if I'm reading a good/up to date history book?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Years ago, on another site, I got sneered at for expressing enthusiasm for a history book that this other person, apparently a historian specializing in the field, viewed as outdated and laughably wrong. As a layperson, I didn't know of any way to see how current the scholarship on a subject is or to see how well-regarded a history book is. And online bookseller reviews are badly compromised even just for general consumer purposes.

So, historians of ENWorld, if I want to read an approachable history book without being a historian myself, how do I know if I'm reading something up to date, or if I'm just filling my head with nonsense?

 

[Retreater]

Generally speaking, in the library world, we remove history books 5-10 years after publication. (Unless it's a standard or classic.)

 

[Rabulias]

Years ago, on another site, I got sneered at for expressing enthusiasm for a history book that this other person, apparently a historian specializing in the field, viewed as outdated and laughably wrong.

Disclaimer: I am not a historian, and all this is IMO. You don't indicate the time period covered by this history book. It can be a matter of opinion about a history book being "laughably wrong," especially if it is focused on relatively recent history. There are numerous significant and important events of the past 60 years, and while a history book could document the facts of the events completely and accurately, I don't think their full historical impact can be assessed just yet (some of their effects may have not even taken place yet).

Obviously some older history books will be products of their time, and should especially be viewed with an awareness of any biases or agendas (conscious or subconscious, intentional or unintentional) their authors may have held. There are also a number of history texts being produced today to meet more political requirements than academic rigor. That's about as much as I want to say considering the ENworld rules, but one can look to the news over the last few years to see the aspects of history that may need a more careful and critical evaluation in a modern history textbook.

I would ask this expert to offer some more specifics about the book's faults. You can then judge their critique, and if it's valid, you can learn some other things to watch for in history books.

 

[GMMichael]

So, historians of ENWorld, if I want to read an approachable history book without being a historian myself, how do I know if I'm reading something up to date, or if I'm just filling my head with nonsense?

Read something that goes against conventional wisdom (but doesn't assert that the earth is flat)?

 

[Clint_L]

We tell our history students that they should never rely on a single secondary source (e.g. history book) when studying a particular historical event or period, and they should strive to find sources that reflect a diversity of perspectives.

And then they go to Wikipedia.

 

[Clint_L]

Read something that goes against conventional wisdom (but doesn't assert that the earth is flat)?

Approach this advice with caution. Generally speaking, the experts know what they are talking about. Definitely check credentials, peer review, publication history, etc.. History gets a lot of cranks.

One thing I might suggest is to try to find history books that aren't all by authors from your own nation, or a close ally. Or your own gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic, or cultural background. Mix it up.

 

[Parmandur]

Years ago, on another site, I got sneered at for expressing enthusiasm for a history book that this other person, apparently a historian specializing in the field, viewed as outdated and laughably wrong. As a layperson, I didn't know of any way to see how current the scholarship on a subject is or to see how well-regarded a history book is. And online bookseller reviews are badly compromised even just for general consumer purposes.

So, historians of ENWorld, if I want to read an approachable history book without being a historian myself, how do I know if I'm reading something up to date, or if I'm just filling my head with nonsense?

I would recommend the subreddit "Ask a Historian". Actual high level historians will then argue about the topic and you can see how that particular work stands in the academy.

 

[Joshua Randall]

All history is biased but some is more biased than others. You have to use judgement, common sense, and triangulation of other experts’ opinions.

 

[Rabulias]

Read something that goes against conventional wisdom (but doesn't assert that the earth is flat)?

I am reminded of the joke/apocryphal story about a library weeding their science books in the 1980s and removing the book that says "man will likely land on the moon one day."

 

[Reynard]

A history book doesn't have to be biased to be wrong. It might just have been written before new primary document discoveries, new archeological evidence or new scientific advances that might shed light on the subject.

I am a fan of narrative nonfiction history. I try to search for reviews and online discussions of the books in general. As I am.a particular fan of WW2 and Cold War espionage, you can guess what ends up clogging my feeds...

I also really enjoy Great Courses history lecture series. I may be wrong but I feel like you are less likely to get outright bias in those than some pop history books.