History

Historians come in many flavors – there are historians of ideas, war, diplomacy, economics, the family, revolutions, nations, science, food, and the list goes on and on. Most of these historians practice their “craft” in universities and colleges. Some are associated with war colleges, think tanks, the government, or private industry. There are good histories and bad histories just as there are good historians and bad historians. George Orwell once commented on a book by arguing that it was a “good, bad book” – I imagine there are also “bad, good books.” But one issue of academic versus popular history always emerges during the selection of titles for the Academic Book Review.

Use this Forum to suggest, argue, and debate this issue. For instance, must we “trust” only the academic historian? Is there a difference between the historian who writes for popular consumption and the historian who writes for the academic community? What about the historical novelist? Surely the novelist writes “history” as well as historical narrative – what are the implications of this? Is academic history more “serious” scholarship? What is scholarship? And what of the “history buff” or “enthusiast”?