 "Interesting, but Limited Appeal" | 2008-09-09 |
| - Reviewed By orangeduke |
| Interesting but not engrossing refutation of the alleged post modern attack on the discipline of history. It probably seems more important if you take the post modern attack seriously to begin with, and I don't. It is true that historians write only their interpretation of history, and not the actual fact of history, but this is something that all historians worth their salt are keenly aware of, and while it is a fault of the discipline in a very real sense, it is also one that cannot be overcome. Everything is filtered through people, that is simply the nature of our existence, this does not mean either that history is meaningless or even that all interpretations of history are equally valid, it simply means we must read widely and critically to arrive at the truth of what happened and what the events mean. If the post modernists are correct, then Holocaust denier's versions of WW2 are just as valid as those relying on the facts of what happened, the notion is, of course, absurd. The deniers' position, based on prejudice in the service of a political agenda is not just as valid as that of true historians, no matter how biased the latter may be. Further, some things did happen, no matter how much we might enjoy musing about the illusionary nature of realty and Evens is right to point this out. The book is on the whole worthy, engagingly written in Evens usual accessible style, but given its intellectual obsessions is of perhaps limited interest to those outside the discipline of history. Of course, there is quite a bit of talk of historiography, which might be of interest to some. |
| |
 "In Defense Of History-Good Book" | 2008-09-07 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1FR7RLR3P2QK0 |
The book was received in excellent time and great condition!
Richard Evans is a very engagng historian. |
| |
| "Good critic, nice message" | 2008-09-01 |
| - Reviewed By jgdb |
Evans is an historian that loves his job. He writes clearly and soberly, giving to the reader an outstanding set of arguments against "post modernism" that challenge the possibility of write history itself.
This is a book for historians and general public, with two messages for the researcher: (1)be humble with the past and (2)be rigorous in your task. In the end, there is no old or new history, but good or bad history. Excelsior! |
| |
| "Important book for me, it could be for you too!" | 2007-03-02 |
| - Reviewed By sunniereader |
| I have read more memorable and more exciting history books than "In Defense of History." However, I will always regard it with affection. This book in its small way is the reason I decided (over 2 years after reading it) to major in history and become a(n) historian. I had always enjoyed history, but not so much the dry history tomes students are often required to read. Evans book was accessible and witty and downright interesting. If you are interested in historiography or the philosophy of history, something few students are exposed to except at the Ph.D level, this is a great introduction. At the time I read this I did not even know it could be considered a rebuttal to Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man." I hadn't even heard of Fukuyama then. Once I realized this, I loved history even more. Some books shape us not by their contents, but by ours. Any book can be a life-changing one, if you let it. |
| |
 "How to Write History....." | 2006-06-18 |
| - Reviewed By bhill1 |
Richard Evans attacks a controversial topic on the world of history today -- how to write history. There are many schools of theory in the historical profession which can affect the way historians view historical sources. Evans particulary narrows his viewpoint to those historians known as "post-modernists." He does this beccause post-modernists are perhaps some of the most controversial historians, not to mention the very theory itself, in the profession today. He also ponders what place post-modernists do have in the historical profession.
Evans explores how some historians have gotten into trouble with how liberally they took their sources -- concentrating on one scholarly work about the Holocaust.
This book is sure to continue the debate that continues to this day. It is thought provoking and will lead to more debate, to be sure. |
| |
| "Historical study of history" | 2006-03-02 |
| - Reviewed By tlangholff |
| Richard Evans' book analyzes history as a discipline and tackles subjects as objectivity, causation, history vs science, sources and discourses. I was assigned this book for a graduate course on historiography. Evans presents his thesis and supports his arguments well. In Defense of History is a good companion to David Fischer's Historians' Fallacies, Davidson and Lytle's After the Fact and Mark Gilderhus' History and Historians. |
| |
| "Too Defensive" | 2004-10-29 |
| - Reviewed By neulingbx |
| This book is a sensible (if repetitive and meandering) defense of mainstream historiography against the claims of post-modernists. I gave the book four stars instead of five because Evans is defensive to a fault and too respectful of post-modernist hype. Post-modernism is surely one of the dopier intellectual fads of the late 20th century. Good historians have always been careful to read documents critically; they have always known that interpretations of source material can be shaped by extra-historiographical considerations. This element of "looseness" is an invitation to rational discussion of the historical record. It is not proof that rational discussion is impossible or that historians are condemned to irreducible subjective bias. Working historians should treat post-modernism the way working scientists treat it: by ignoring it and going about their business. |
| |
| "I Can't Match The Erudition Of Your Other Reviewers But...." | 2004-08-27 |
| - Reviewed By cmw1126 |
| I came across this book purely by chance as someone with a BA in history (from almost 40 years ago) who remembered much enjoying EH Carr's What Is History. Well, although he is prone to repetition, I think Evans writes wonderfully well and most persuasively, matches his views with those of a succession of historians, some well known to me and others not at all. As a jury trial lawyer, I relished the similarities and differences in our two professions--as, for example, Evans's reference to Flaubert who said that a historian drinks an ocean only for the purpose of producing a cupful of piss. |
| |
| "Engaging, scholarly refutation of the post-modern attack" | 2000-08-22 |
| - Reviewed By Anonymous |
| Dr. Evans produced an enlightening, thorough defense of history against its post-modernist opponents. We gain further insight into how professional historians work. We learn how they manage to assemble a useful, accurate version of the past from meager, convoluted, or disintegrating sources. Of special interest to students of history like myself is the section "The History of History." This chapter chronicles and examines the various historical methods such as Rankean document analysis. Evans mounts a thorough defense of history by exposing post-modernism's inherent contradictions. For instance, post-modernism crumbles when its reliance on relativism is applied to itself. For example, if absolute relativism is correct, Holocaust deniers and racists construct history just as accurate as anyone else. Furthermore, post-modernists criticize historians for using the past to advance their own agendas while at the same time doing likewise! One need only look at how "black studies" makes ludicrous, historically implausible claims presumably in an attempt to raise African American student's self-esteem. However, I think that Evans may be too respectful toward the post-modernists. These so-called scholars are intellectually dishonest. Their supposed contributions to the close examination of documents have been around for nearly two centuries (1830). Please consider "The Truth of History" by C. Behan McCullagh and "The Killing of History" by Keith Windschuttle for additional reading. Note: I use the term post-modernist, but similar terms like "post-structuralist", "cultural studies", and so forth mean the same thing. Academic fashion among post-modernists helps brush critiques of post-modernism aside (e.g. "post-modernism is out of date"). |
| |
| "A lively, erudite and thorough defense of history." | 1999-09-28 |
| - Reviewed By Anonymous |
| +AH4-A most enjoyable and stimulating review of the purpose, methods and practice of history. Professor Evans is most adept at exposing fallacies and contradictions in the post-modern critique of history; while at the same time pointing out how some concepts of postmodernism can bring a breath of fresh air to history. His discussion of sources is excellent. He colorfully reviews individual historians and their methods and thoughts; not holding back where criticsm is needed. His analysis of the Paul+AH4-+AH4- De Man controversy seemed right on the money. A wonderful overview of the current state of history with emphasis on postmodern attacks, with a staunch and stout defense of the classical, objective center.+AH4- |
| |
International Available
