History books are some of the most popular nonfiction books, and they are my favorite type of nonfiction books. The scope of these books can vary wildly, and they can focus on the most minute details of a historical event or they can give the entire story of a region, country, or period. The wide variety of topics covered in different history books means that there is a wide variety of writing styles, but I have separated these styles into two broad categories: Novels and Textbooks.
History books that I would call a novel are called that because of how the book is written as a story. Writing a historical book as a story mainly means that like a novel there is a setting, plot, and many times a few central people who are essential to the story and quoted frequently. These types of books are usually about a specific project or group of people, and are about more recent events (~1900-present) because the record keeping is better and more quotes are available from people who were either involved or know someone who was.
The second type of history books is the textbook. While a textbooks does fit into this category there are also quite a few non-textbooks that fit into this category. The books that fit into this category are generally about a much broader topic such as a war or the history of a region or country. These books do not focus much on a specific person and offer a top down view of history that removes much of the human aspect from an event.
I personally prefer books written like novels, but the top-down, big perspective version of history, while not as entertaining, does have its values, and I would encourage people to read either type of book if it is about an interesting topic.
Something that I've found in my 27 years of reading is that a lot of history books tend to alternate between novel and textbook format; they'll be largely textbook with some more personal stories sprinkled in, or they'll be a cohesive story with 3rd-person insights dropped in occasionally. I think this approach is good because it balances the benefits that you laid out in this excellent post.
ReplyDeleteYeah I have never thought about, but when you point it out I do see it. I also prefer the novel type ones but I agree with what you say about the good points in the more text book ones.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting article on different types of historical writing, but I'm not sure if history can be divided into novel and textbook forms very clearly. As Marco said, there is often a combination. In my experience, academic works of history present a general overview and then give more of a narrative, but they are not that human-centered. Pop history is probably the genre closest to writing history like a novel.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article. I'm definitely a fan of novel-style history books, but textbooks definitely have their place and should be respected for that. When you need to know something specific and not have to sift through an entire novel, textbooks are your best friend.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really nice way to think of it! As high school students, our view of history books is mostly as textbooks. However, it is very true that many history books can be more like a regular novel with plot and characters. It may just be that we are students, so we see more textbooks. It could also be because many times history books are trying to convey educational information, and it is easier to do that with the format of a textbook.
ReplyDeleteI really like history books with personal stories (or more of a story in general). I really like how books like these mix historical facts with a actual plot or story you can relate and follow along. One book I really enjoyed that did this was the book Liberator. it follows a general or a lieutenant or something during the retaking of Europe in ww2. The story makes it really fun, but also the historical facts and battles make it a very interesting balance.
ReplyDelete