Is this book bad history?

I think he tries to distinguish between academic history and narrative history by arguing that academic histories aren't narrative histories, but I'm left scratching my head as to what kind of history book doesn't fit the definition of narrative history to some degree. He says narrative history is an "explanation of what happened in terms of the motives and the perspectives of the human agents whose choices, decisions, and actions made those events happen." Certainly an academic historian would argue that motive is unknowable, perspective is subject to historical change, choices and decisions are overdetermined, and actions and their consequences are inaccessible outside of the sources they leave behind, but it's still hard to think of a history book that isn't somehow telling a narrative.

Either way, his argument for the full scope and impact of historical narrative in areas we don't typically associate with "history" is interesting.

/r/badhistory Thread Parent