History Books for review

[bailey_187]

So i got to do a book review of one these history books. They all seem pretty shit to me so i dont know which one to review, but if anyone has read any of them and it was good/readable please say.

Also if anyone has any tips on writing a history book review, please say so. Considering its for my modern historiography class, im assuming u have to contrast the arguments of the author with the rest of the work on the subject. But i dont know the historiography for any of the topics of the books. So what should i do? We havnt really been given the time to go and read up extensivly on the subject and the book

Here is the list of books i can choose from:
Stefan Berger - Germany
Marc Bloch - The Royal touch: Monarchy and Miracles in france and england
Simon Dixon - Catherine the Great
Robert J.W. Evans - Austria, Hungary and the Habsburg empire
Geoffrey A. Hosking - Russia: Peoples and Empire
Lindsey Hughes - Peter The Great: a biography
Peter Novick - That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical profession
David Kirby - The Baltic World 1772-1993: Europes Northern Periphery in an era of change
Londa Schiebinger - The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the origins of modern science

Theres some more but they are so obscure i dont think theres any chance of me choosing one of them e.g. "War experience in rural germany"

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Go for the Marc Bloch. Why? Because (apart from being a great human being who joined the Resistance and was shot by the Nazis) he also wrote some of the best stuff ever about what it means to be a historian. I would suspect your professor would want you to find the stuff Bloch wrote about being a historian (should be available) and compare it to how Bloch actually handled the material. That's two books. Easy.

[gestalt]

The Bloch would certainly be my first choice as well. If for no other reason than you can pick up his book on methodology, the Historian's Craft, and gauge how well he followed his own prescripts.

Novick would also be interesting to tackle given the criticism his work on Holocaust memory in American society has received from both the left and right. You could also compare his thoughts on historiography with Bloch or What is History? by E.H. Carr, the two most regarded mainstream books, or something from the left like E.P. Thompson's the Poverty of Theory.

As far as tips for writing, think critically. Question everything the author says, consult any of the footnote material you can find and look at what others in the same field have said about the topic. If all else fails look at other scholarly reviews, especially if you have access to JSTOR or other database, it can help you develop a framework.

[Invader Zim]

Calling Marc Bloch, arguably among the most infuencial historians, and anti-Nazi freedom fighter and marytr to boot, to have put pen to paper... 'pretty shit'?

But anyway, what kind of review are you supposed to be providing? A critical review of the content? A comment on accessability? A historigraphical review?


You could also compare his thoughts on historiography with Bloch or What is History? by E.H. Carr, the two most regarded mainstream books,

Bailey would be better reading someone like Richard J Evans' (not to be confused with Robert J. W. Evans) In Defence of History, John Tosh In Pursuit of History and Arthur Marwick's The Nature of History bewfore trying to get to grips with Carr.



Theres some more but they are so obscure i dont think theres any chance of me choosing one of them e.g. "War experience in rural germany"

Well, you may think they are obscure but I seriously doubt you would actually have been set anything that bad. For example I can tell you that Ziemann's book is not obscure at all. So if you include the other items maybe we can give you a better option?