As an introduction to the concepts of academic historical writing, this is an excellent starting place. However, if you're looking for more in-depth reference information, especially regarding citations in the Chicago style and the minutiae of footnotes, it's more efficient to just google what you want.
I didn't find this too thought provoking, yet it does offer a nice overview of certain important concepts. As a students' handbook at university level I am not too sure about its value. There is probably more comprehensive and critical stuff out there.
William writes an excellently researched historiography book to help students in the history field know how to write as well as analyze history. He includes lots of examples from all over history to make his point and writes it in easy short chapters to understand. Overall I think this was a great book.
My only problem with it was the blatant disrespect and trashy comments about our former President Trump (at least in the most recent edition. It’s one thing to dislike him. it’s another to bash him in a book while he is president that he has no part in. Bashing him and the people who follow him show too much of your opinion on present political problems when there are other people years before that could have sufficed to make his point just as good. Again that was my only problem with it giving this book a
A good introduction to certain topics in historiography- however take this with a grain a salt as this book also includes what seems to be a polemic against postmodern critical literature; it is also very apparent he doesn’t even try to understand it.
Couldn't say exactly how this second edition adds to the scholarship of the first, although the case studies reflect a 2007 knowledge, especially in the "history in real time" and "history on the internet." The lessons of these succinct articles will probably not surprise any amateur historian, although I found it to be very readable all the same. It makes sense that genetics would supplant linguistics as the primary tool for determining which tribes were related to each other, but to learn exactly why, with examples is less expensive than a refresher course at a local college.
Watch for a famous comedian who became a part of history by toying with the historian's tools.
A good resource for those interested in pursuing the study of history at an undergraduate or graduate level. Williams splits each chapter into short segments on different aspects of studying and writing history. He doesn't deal much at all with historical schools of thought but it's very easy to read and provides great examples to clarify the points he makes. Definitely recommend it for anyone studying history at the academic level but not really for those only generally interested in history.
I read this book for my 300 level Historiography class at The University of Alaska Anchorage. We used this book extensively. Valuable to me since I am pursuing a degree in history. This book WOULD NOT be of interest to the average person though.
This has been a very helpful book while I've been working on my research paper. Not only does William's go over the basics of how to write a paper, but he tailors his tips to the would-be historian. Great for students and history enthusiast who wish to know more about how to be a great researcher.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Considering how dry and boring the topic is (academic skills of history writing), Williams did a great job making it interesting. He virtually bombs the reader with random historical fact related to each academic skill (I quite enjoy random historical facts; who doesn't?).
Dit boek is handig voor het ontwikkelen van geschiedschrijving als student, dus ergens heeft het zijn doel wel behaald. Alleen de vorming is erg vlak en repetitief naar mijn mening. Veel hoofdstukken bestaan voor circa 90% aan voorbeelden. Er zijn weinig kernzinnen die me raken en de voorbeelden zouden niet slecht hoeven te zijn, maar het is erg Amerikaans. Veel voorbeelden zijn met talloze namen van mensen die waarschijnlijk in Amerika een grote rol spelen, maar een vage mist zijn voor mijn Hollandse basiskennis. Het tweede kritiek is dat er heel veel herhaling in zit. Daardoor zijn de geringe mate van theorie die in de overige 10% zit ook nog eens herhaald. Als laatste merk ik dat er weinig een rode draad in zit. Over het algemeen dus een nuttig boek, maar jammer dat het in deze vorm is geschreven.