Jill Lepore’s New Yorker article came to mind again this morning:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/04/24/plymouth-rocked

For me, it’s a wonderfully incisive, insightful, and pointed commentary on writing good history, especially for a general audience. I’ve also been kind of following the mixed reviews for  this new book:

The review in the New York Times suggests that a major weakness of the book is how the author fails to deal effectively with history, in particular women’s history–issues most academic historians would be very familiar with.

This is similar to the issue Lepore raised several years ago.

So that’s what I’m thinking about this Sunday.

Late last week, historians of all kinds converged on New York City for the annual meeting of the American Historical Association. It’s been a few years since I’ve been to AHA. There are a variety of reasons for that, none of which have to do with a lack of interest in what my colleagues are doing. Social media now provides pretty complete, near simultaneous coverage of many of the sessions, so I followed along with some that interested me.

There was a lot going on at AHA in terms of public history and digital history and how to be a public intellectual in the 21st century. At least two sessions focused on publishing, the area of public engagement I have been struggling with my entire career. History always appealed to me for its great stories. I have always liked to write. So I figured I could find a way to make the two work together.

Despite a 4-4 teaching load and limited leave opportunities, I have published two books, each with a different university press. You can see them on this website. I love both of those books. Few people have read them.

This AHA session on writing trade history is very illuminating:

https://storify.com/ColdWarScience/writing-trade-history

Tomorrow I will write more about that leap from university press publishing to trade publishing.