Is reading history difficult?

[Joecoolyo]

In response to the OP about reading, and not the history in particular, it really comes down to you and the author. Some authors/books are just dry as hell, and although chocked full of information, are better used for reference on a chapter by chapter basis than taken as a whole book. For example, China Marches West, where I found the chapters (or basically the first half of the book) discussing the campaigns and machinations of the Qing dynasty in Zungharia infinitely more interesting and readable than the second half of the book, which dealt with the economics of the frontier. And although how the Qing settled the frontier is somewhat an interesting topic, the author dealt with it in a way which was just too detail heavy and dry to really get across the interesting ideas.

But really, its up to you and what you find interesting. For some people, who enjoy economics, that second half may have been a delight while the boring political contextualization of the frontier situation in the first half was a slog to get through. You just need to sample the water, and find the books/authors/topics that can keep your interest. Not everything will work for you.

 

[Mouthwash]

The Cambridge or Oxford History of X is usually a good starting point; from what I remember, Cambridge has an extremely large and complex history of the 'ancient world', while Oxford does several small books, of which 'Ancient Egypt' may well be one.

Yeah, there's this, but there are very negative reviews which have a consensus. So I'm not bothering.

 

[Mouthwash]

In response to the OP about reading, and not the history in particular, it really comes down to you and the author. Some authors/books are just dry as hell, and although chocked full of information, are better used for reference on a chapter by chapter basis than taken as a whole book. For example, China Marches West, where I found the chapters (or basically the first half of the book) discussing the campaigns and machinations of the Qing dynasty in Zungharia infinitely more interesting and readable than the second half of the book, which dealt with the economics of the frontier. And although how the Qing settled the frontier is somewhat an interesting topic, the author dealt with it in a way which was just too detail heavy and dry to really get across the interesting ideas.

But really, its up to you and what you find interesting. For some people, who enjoy economics, that second half may have been a delight while the boring political contextualization of the frontier situation in the first half was a slog to get through. You just need to sample the water, and find the books/authors/topics that can keep your interest. Not everything will work for you.

The problem is, with the one I tried, everything is intermingled. I can't get anything out of it. I just opened Ancient Egypt: A Social History and it is orders of magnitude better, despite being at least as detailed.

 

[Quackers]

Personally there are two things which make history reading difficult or boring:

1) Troop movements. In Stalingrad there was always reference to how the "16th panzer divison" moved here and here and travelled 80 km. Those parts were a boring read because it was difficult to put into context and unrealistic to expect the reader to imagine the entire threatre at once.
2) Abbreviations for political parties. Some texts refer to parties in the shortest form possible. Many books have a description of each party and their abbreviation at the beginning so you can flip back to get a quick background to try and contextualise the passage. Its a bit of a hassle.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Personally there are two things which make history reading difficult or boring:

1) Troop movements. In Stalingrad there was always reference to how the "16th panzer divison" moved here and here and travelled 80 km. Those parts were a boring read because it was difficult to put into context and unrealistic to expect the reader to imagine the entire threatre at once.

I always thought someone should try putting together an academic comic book for this sort of military history.

2) Abbreviations for political parties. Some texts refer to parties in the shortest form possible. Many books have a description of each party and their abbreviation at the beginning so you can flip back to get a quick background to try and contextualise the passage. Its a bit of a hassle.

Oooh, I know that problem. On the other hand, I can't imagine lugging around giant book because someone decided to include "Irish National Liberation Army." and "Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party" over and over again.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Acronyms can be rather interesting. Anyone reading a history of the "Unite the Right" movement in Canada would at some point run across the acronym "CRAP." The newly-united right-wing parties were trying to decide what to call themselves, since they couldn't legally use "Progressive Conservatives". Somebody proposed a name that would mention all the parties that had combined to make the new party. The result was the Conservative Reform-Alliance Party. They were all set to go with that until somebody else said, "Uh-oh... do you realize what the initials spell out?"

It's a shame somebody realized that - it would have been hilarious if they hadn't, and the party name had become official!

 

[Serutan]

Personally there are two things which make history reading difficult or boring:

1) Troop movements. In Stalingrad there was always reference to how the "16th panzer divison" moved here and here and travelled 80 km. Those parts were a boring read because it was difficult to put into context and unrealistic to expect the reader to imagine the entire threatre at once.

The real problem there IMO is with the maps in the book. While John Erickson's
Road books are a fantastic history of the Russian Front from the Soviet perspective, the maps in them are steaming, stinking mounds of fecal matter that
almost never show key towns/rivers/land features mentioned when he discusses
the progress of battles.

 

[Verbose]

Just generally, I would say reading history can be difficult, because writing history is. There certainly are easier genres to get an enjoybaly readble end product in.

 

[Joecoolyo]

The problem is, with the one I tried, everything is intermingled. I can't get anything out of it. I just opened Ancient Egypt: A Social History and it is orders of magnitude better, despite being at least as detailed.

Then either that book is poorly written, and isn't worth your time, or it just isn't for you, and isn't worth your time.

You don't have to read a history book (unless it's for a class). As you noted, you found an alternative that serves your purposes better. More detail doesn't always mean better, if too much detail is put in, it just gets messy and confusing, and is often just indicative of poor writing ability or poor history.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

History in general can be pretty dry, but like any other topic, there is good stuff and bad stuff. I like reading biographies (for instance, like learning US history, and collect presidential bios), because they tend to focus on the people, which not only gives a different perspective, but tends to be more readable.

 

[Ajidica]

2) Abbreviations for political parties. Some texts refer to parties in the shortest form possible. Many books have a description of each party and their abbreviation at the beginning so you can flip back to get a quick background to try and contextualise the passage. Its a bit of a hassle.

I can generally handle acronyms, except when reading about the Russian Revolution. Those darn commies sure loved their acronyms, long names, and multiple redundant agencies.

 

[Dachs]

The real problem there IMO is with the maps in the book. While John Erickson's
Road books are a fantastic history of the Russian Front from the Soviet perspective, the maps in them are steaming, stinking mounds of fecal matter that
almost never show key towns/rivers/land features mentioned when he discusses
the progress of battles.

In all fairness, it's sometimes ridiculously difficult to secure and/or make maps for academic publications.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Mainly political history.

All history is political.

 

[Mouthwash]

All history is political.

This is coming from a history major.

What university do you go to?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is coming from a history major.

What university do you go to?

University of Glasgow.

I wonder if you misunderstood my comment. I meant to say that all of history has a political element to it, not that "political history" is the only valid or useful history.

 

[Mouthwash]

University of Glasgow.

I wonder if you misunderstood my comment. I meant to say that all of history has a political element to it, not that "political history" is the only valid or useful history.

Yeah, I know. Seems like you misunderstood my comment. Political history is a branch of history that deals in political events and organizations. It is interrelated to social or intellectual history, but still the distinction is made for a reason. The fact that you could say such a thing suggests that you don't understand the term.

 

[sophie]

Yeah, I know. Seems like you misunderstood my comment. Political history is a branch of history that deals in political events and organizations.

Really depends on what you mean by this. Political history has been looking increasingly less at what the élite and royals were doing, and more at the media through which the élite were exerting control and how the ordinary person interacted with or understood those media.

 

[Masada]

Political history is a branch of history that deals in political events and organizations. It is interrelated to social or intellectual history, but still the distinction is made for a reason. The fact that you could say such a thing suggests that you don't understand the term.

Cheezy didn't say "all history is political history" but "all history is political" which are quite different claims. The first assumes the presence of a normative historical framework i.e. the presentation of political events and actors. The second notes that all history has a political component. A point that I'd wager is accepted by most academic historians. As to Cheezy's approach to the issue: I'd guess he doesn't accept that there's a hard and fast division between so-called "political history" and history generally. I'd tend to agree. "Political history" can't be removed from its context without losing meaning much as "non-political history" can't ignore the political context in which it exists.

 

[Mouthwash]

Cheezy didn't say "all history is political history" but "all history is political" which are quite different claims. The first assumes the presence of a normative historical framework i.e. the presentation of political events and actors. The second notes that all history has a political component. A point that I'd wager is accepted by most academic historians. As to Cheezy's approach to the issue: I'd guess he doesn't accept that there's a hard and fast division between so-called "political history" and history generally. I'd tend to agree. "Political history" can't be removed from its context without losing meaning much as "non-political history" can't ignore the political context in which it exists.

What I meant was basically that the history I read focused on the Egyptian kings, the state, and their actions.

 

[Masada]

What I meant was basically that the history I read focused on the Egyptian kings, the state, and their actions.

That sounds spectacularly boring.