Bram offers insight into both fictional and non-fictional historic texts, using a sampler of published works that exemplify "the right details" that bring the past alive. He also spends some time on “replacing distant spectacle with personal drama” and on micro and macro periods of time that help with figuring out these details, what to keep—what to keep out, and pacing, including how to find an end to the narrative, as events tend to keep rolling along to the next consequence.
I appreciate the difficulty of Bram's task, though I would argue with him on his interpretations of some examples as apparently others have. In his favor, I do believe these difference will arise whenever dealing with the subject of history, a most slippery devil. For example in my case, I think he is too critical of Cormac McCarthy in Blood Meridian, characterizing him as “a really mean adolescent who’s seen too many Sergio Leone movies.”
Bram goes on to say "[t]he American West is a frequent setting for comedy, both fiction and nonfiction." Though I do not dispute that, I do think, on further consideration, McCarthy is not incorrect to write so graphically about the kind of cruelty that was practiced, a brutal carnage of Mexican and indigenous populations that went unchecked and unpunished during the settling of the West and that we have not wanted to confront. That Bram earlier raised the question about how do we write about the unthinkable, mostly in regard to issues of slavery, it is curious that he does not see McCarthy doing just this in another unthinkable situation. That it is so graphic is just what makes it so stark, a flip side of what comedy has done to heighten horror in other works such as True Grit by Charles Portis that Bram eloquently cites.