This was read as part of a module for my undergraduate history degree. It was one of those super general, compulsory units that all subjects tend to do. This one was based on the practice of history (hence this being on the pre-reading list) and how we remember past events. It mainly looked at how history is studied (academic history) and how that study of the past is translated to the general public (public history). Maybe I would have preferred it if I read it outside of the "I've got to read this book before X date because university" reason for it ever coming into my life, but we'll never know. It was a good introduction to these ideas but not the complete guide or a 'be-all and end-all' text. From my memory, it didn't go into the unconscious bias in what we know about the past (the effect of an illiterate poor, we're only told the winner's story, sources being destroyed, etc.) which is incredibly important in the reliability of what we consider to be historical fact, especially since the history given to the public doesn't tend to come with notes on 'interpretations' and how conclusions are reached. My own bias also affects my reading since being a disabled, working-class woman, I am very aware of what I've typed above, how the study of history is dominated by people with the most power (white, straight, cisgender, middle-class + men) and how elitist it can be.