Friends of Victor Torvich discussion

Sorry about the "nonfiction" disclaimer. That feels unnecessary. I just wanted to cut off any historical fiction books right from the get go.

That said, here's my question: What is it about history books that draws you to them? Is there more than one "type" of history book you enjoy and, if so, can you even compare them?

@Jared - >"What about history books that draws you to them?" - The answer to that question depends on the reader's preferences.
I, personally, am interested (A) mainly in the history of humankind as a single entity rather than in the history of specific regions or timeframes and (B) in "Big ideas" about Historical laws/patterns/ etc.
For (A), I posted the List for "Humankind History." For (B), I will post another list later.

An "antipattern" is when a history book is obviously just written about whatever the current political topic of the day is, rather than something that is always relevant. Of course all good history may find applicability in current events, but when the author has an axe to grind, they are more likely to only include events and ideas that further their agenda. So, the absence of that "antipattern" is a good thing, that I look for.

@Rossdavidh - >"An "antipattern" is when a history book is obviously just written about whatever the current political topic of the day is, rather than something that is always relevant. . . So, the absence of that "antipattern" is a good thing, that I look for." - I would suggest you to look at my book "Directionality of Humankind's Development. History". Here is an excerpt from the book: "Deep-level history of humankind does not depend on the social structures, politics, economics, wars, revolutions, dynasties, and any uncertain terms like progress, happiness, morality, social justice, etc."

I'm unsure that history can be ever written objectively, for everyone has their biases and as saying goes the best map is 1:1 to territory and is absolutely worthless. Therefore, I think "antipattern" is in all history books, but in some, it is just less explicit.

Objectivity requires taking subjectivity into account.
Lorraine Code

Such things as absolute (100%) objectivity and absolute (100%) subjectivity do not exist.
What is important is (1) how much subjectivity is present in a book and (2) how much of this subjectivity is taken into account in the book. Every book is different in this regard.

The other thing is the type of subjectivity in a book. Some subjectivity could not even be measured. For example, if you use the term "happiness" then you cannot say if, in some particular situation, there is 12% or 46% of "happiness". Never mind that everybody defines "happiness" differently.
Other subjectivity could be measured. For example, the precision of dates in history can be measured using standard mathematical error measurement techniques.

I prefer books with measurable subjectivity.

I prefer books that include first person narratives that describe in detail the location and environment in which the history takes place, and that include the history and folklore of the culture of "ordinary" people. I prefer history about pioneer migrants to different areas in the world. I also expect some creativity in the presentation. There needs to be a thread to follow in the historical tapestry besides just the passage of time. For example, I'm interested in the relationship of the apple and humans in human history. It would be very creative to go back to the origins of the apple (the rose family), connect this food to first time humans came in contact with this fruit and tell the history of the relationship to humans throughout time and then ending up with the development of the popular Cosmic Crisp apple. Something like that would be what I would prefer to read.
I will read anything though, and I always finish a book I start. I tend to avoid history books that are not scholarly. If I think I can look up the information myself, I'll look for another book.

I'm impressed when a book identifies exogenous influences to historical events, as with Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. Another approach to ground historical outcomes by quantitative milestones, as Ian Morris did by indexing events with a society's energy budget.

Victor wrote: "@Jared - >"What about history books that draws you to them?" - The answer to that question depends on the reader's preferences.
I, personally, am interested (A) mainly in the history of humankind a..."

I'm definitely on that same page. The "big picture" history books were the first ones to really catch my attention and convince me to become a History major in college. I didn't even discover the "history of humanity" books until more recently, but really like them if done well. Like Frank said, Guns, Germs, and Steel.

I can't say I DON'T like the smaller scale history books: e.g., historical biographies, regional books, or books about specific events. Grant (Chernow), The Middle East: Fourteen Islamic Centuries (Perry), or The Killer Angels (Shaara) all come to mind... but they don't reach the level of importance that the more macro books reach, and I don't get *quite* the same level of satisfaction reading them.

Christine wrote: "I prefer books that include first person narratives that describe in detail the location and environment in which the history takes place, and that include the history and folklore of the culture o..."

Christine, have you read A History of the World in 100 Objects ?

Yes, we are all biased and yes, that's going to impact all authors and readers. I read a bit of everything and if it's really great I don't much pay attention to whether it's big or not. But one thing I don't like is when authors 'strut their stuff' to prove how much they researched the subject.