Why do I see so many pop history books getting shilled?
>>18099589The real question is why you’re not posting better options.
>>18099589>why are pop history books popular?!?!Sorry that noone is suggesting "Aspects of Byzantine seed drill technology in Epirus 1236 to 1273 Part 7" for your autism competition
>>18099589What's wrong with pop history?I've read academic history books like A Concise History of Austria, they are dry and dull af
>>18099589>ughh i was into history before it was written down
>>18099667"The Ten Untenable Fallacies: Fasco-Whig Teleologics in the Field of Byzantine Seed Drill Technology in 1967-78"
>>18099667Subaltern Hybridities in Byzantine Studies: A Critical History
>>18099589>Brilliant>Thrilling>Dazzling>Magnificent>Sparkling>MASTERFULwow
>>18099589Dalrympyle is based, he makes romaboos and greekaphilos weep
I liked his "The Anarchy" but it was much more of a mil-his swashbuckle than I had hoped. Probably my own fault for expecting different. I would actually have liked there to be a lot more biz-his in it.I've dipped a toe into Hopkirk's "Great Game" and it seems pretty good. Would read Dalrymple again but rahk2probably something less military oriented
>>18100039>Hopkirk’s "Great Game"I enjoyed that one and thought it was good. It does have elements of that “swashbuckling,” however.
>>18100039It was barely mil-his, it was more pol-his and soc-his. The battles were a background affair covered in like 5 pages each. Majority of the book covers the social interactions between the different factions and commoners + the organization of the British Raj army amongst the chaos of the Anarchy as mercenaries + the interaction of the Raj and the British government over the 18th century (culminating in the trial of Hastings)I do recommend The Last Mughal if you want to see more military battles and fighting and such, but even that is more a dissection of the fall of Delhi
>>18099589This has been on my to read list for a while. Are you saying it’s not good? What didn’t you like about it?As for pop history, you just need to be careful that the writer is an actual historian and not some midwit journalist or travel writer swerving out of their lane and expertise and that’s very easy to find out.
>>18100982Every Dalrymple book is great. His son just wrote one too, also pretty good
>>18099589If they are legit professors I'm ok with pop history. Goldsworthy writes in a few different styles but all of his books are good.
>>18099667I feel sorry for the person who isn't.
>>18100982It depends. I like Days of Rage but it's as much extended investigative journalism as it is history and given the subject matter is probably better for it.
>>18099741>What's wrong with pop history?The typical pop history book repeats stale long outdated narratives and often actual propaganda, and almost invariably overemphasizes the importance of whatever the author thinks will grab the reader's attention.To be perfectly honest with you senpai, more than pop history being bad, a history book is called pop when it's bad.
>>18099589Because most people who aren't actual historians only come across non-pop history book when they're specifically looking for them.There's pretty much no chance of getting your attention grabbed by a uni level history book while you're looking around the shelves in a bookshop, because they're not going to be carried.
>>18103312The trick is to find history books at thrift stores.
>>18103483>The trick is to find history books at thrift stores.Only the most slopy pop history slop ends up in those.
>>18099661>>18099667FP and 2P both BP
>>18103562You'd be surprised. There are half a dozen thrift stores in spitting distance of my uni's humanities departments always filled with books coming out of faculty offices.It was almost traditional for professors to make sure whatever books they didn't want to keep ended up there, so that they'd end up with students and hobbyists always prowling around.I personally always borrow books rather than buy, but most people enjoy material possessions much more than I do.
>>18103603We have our very own Diogenese here
>>18103603There's only one used bookstore in my entire state that actually ever gets any academic works at a price that is cheaper than amazon. I don't live in a country where people read all that much, so what's in a thrift store is what your grandpa read or irredeemable slop.
>>18103643I doubt he'd like the comparison, I'm hardly all that frugal.I literally just don't value material possessions beyond their actual use.I don't even like it when stuff I buy comes with functions I don't need.
How can I tell a history book worth reading from pop slop?
>>18103905Quick check: look if it has a bibliography section and whether the text is all sourced up.Accurate check: read the book.
>>1810390590% of pop history does not actually cite anything, so if you go to the back and there are no citations or notes its safe to throw away. Usually the best you get is a 'select bibliography' and nothing else, which is again bad. If they are mainly sighting websites that aren't source databases (which have their own unique way of sourcing, so you won't actually see the website cited in a real academic work), then it's pretty bad.
