HOW TO READ A HISTORY BOOK (OR ARTICLE)

History is not just a collection of facts; it is an interpretation of them. The historian does not only want to find out what "really happened" in the past; he or she also wants to make sense of the past for the modern reader. Books or articles written about the past are called secondary sources, and they vary in purpose and quality. Some secondary sources are better researched and more perceptive than others. Some go into a great deal of detail about a relatively narrow point; others are more wide-ranging and provocative. It is the reader's responsibility to sift through the evidence and "facts" in the article to find out the author’s thesis, approach, and underlying assumptions. The following are some questions you should ask of each book or article you read:

• What kind of secondary source is it? Is it a book, an article, or an encyclopedia entry? Does it rely on original research or is it a summary of research done primarily by others? Was it published by a reputable scholarly press?

• What is the subject of the book/article? Is it less (or more) than the
  author claims? For example, is it a history of poverty policy in the USA or does it focus only on New York ? What does the author say? Does the author use a single person or event to illuminate a larger theme in US social history? What claims does she or her make about the significance of the subject matter (eg, what happened to Irish immigrants in Boston was representative of the immigrant experience in general; or Jefferson’s views on slavery are emblematic of all Americans’)? Are those claims convincing?

• What is the main thesis of the article or book? You should find the paragraphs or sentences that state its main argument. You should be able to explain the thesis in a sentence or two. Please note the difference between the ‘subject’ of a book (eg, the US Constitution) and its ‘thesis’ (eg, the Constitution was written to protect the economic interests of the elite).

• What is the structure of the book (or article)? What does the title mean? Is the book organized chronologically or thematically (or both)? What do the chapters or sections mark? You should be able to set forth the major parts of the book (or article) and show how each part fits into the whole.

• Who is the intended audience for the article or book? Is it written for an academic or popular audience? Is it written for historians or for readers from other disciplines?

• What are the author's assumptions? First, think about her/his language and choice of words. Do they convey any preconceptions or biases? For example, does the author talk about "the family" or "families"? What difference does it make? Also, find the copyright date; when was the book or article written? Finally, see if the author refers to other scholars’ arguments, either in the text or in the footnotes. Are you familiar with their work? What can the footnotes or acknowledgments (where the author thanks other scholars) tell you about the author's intellectual community?

• What evidence does the author use to support his/her argument? Does the article/book rely on prescriptive literature, court records, government publications, private correspondence, oral history, folklore, quantitative analysis, etc.? Do the footnotes cite a variety of sources or just one type? Do they cite both primary sources and secondary sources? Does the book offer a new interpretation of sources that other historians have already examined, or does it introduce readers to new material? Are you convinced by the author's interpretation of the evidence? Is there enough detail (or evidence) to make the work convincing?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

When you have understood the book or article, then you can - and must - critically evaluate it. In fairness, you should (1) suspend judgment until you have understood what the author is saying, and (2) analyze the book or article the author wrote. It's not fair to criticize a scholarly work because it didn't consider a topic or issue you thought it should have. For example, you shouldn't criticize a book on white American ideas about ‘Indians’ for not exploring their impact on different Native American peoples. That would be an interesting and important topic for another book - you can say that in your review! - but it's not the subject of the book you've just read.

If you disagree with the author, you should make sure you give specific reasons for your disagreement in your paper. Do you disagree with the author's assumptions, evidence, and/or logic? Do you disagree with his use of sources? Has she overlooked important source material or interpreted the evidence incorrectly? Does he appear unfamiliar with an important work on the subject? Give concrete examples to back up your point.

Remember that doing a critical analysis does not mean that you have to find fault with the article or disagree with its conclusions. Agreement is just as much an exercise of critical judgment as disagreement, and you should recognize an article's strengths as well as its weaknesses. As always, use specific examples to support your position.

These suggestions on how to analyze a book are very loosely adapted from Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book (orig. publ. 1940). Good luck!