What Is History?

Rating:
Summary: The fundamental historiographical work.
Review: Although this book is difficult to understand in places (purely by virtue of it being an academic text that has obtained deserved popularity) it is a must for anybody interested in history as a discipline. Debates in historiography have moved on a great deal since Carr wrote this text, and the advent of post-modernism has complicated many of the issues that Carr raises. However, before trying to run, one should walk, and Carr provides the basic skills needed to become a good historian. I would recommend Richard Evans 'In Defence of History' for a modern perspective.

Rating:
Summary: Just To Spite Them
Review: Any book which can cause so much anguish among rightist economics students, and overdressed clowns like Simon Schama should at least be looked into.

Rating:
Summary: Postmodernism getting you down?
Review: Carr's work has endurance. For the more simply oriented historians, who just want to tell their story and are not interested in political agendas, you will come away from this book gratified and inspired. Carr gives meaning to the study of history, and he does it in an entertaining way. There is little leftist trapping -- although I was initally put off by the fact that Karl Marx has more entries in the index than "truth." I gave him a chance, and I was not disappointed.

Perhaps the greatest test is that of the three books I had to buy to study historiography, I kept this one and sold the other two.

Rating:
Summary: Postmodernism getting you down?
Review: Carr's work has endurance. For the more simply oriented historians, who just want to tell their story and are not interested in political agendas, you will come away from this book gratified and inspired. Carr gives meaning to the study of history, and he does it in an entertaining way. There is little leftist trapping -- although I was initally put off by the fact that Karl Marx has more entries in the index than "truth." I gave him a chance, and I was not disappointed.

Perhaps the greatest test is that of the three books I had to buy to study historiography, I kept this one and sold the other two.

Rating:
Summary: Fundamental considerations!
Review: Edward Hallet Carr makes a meticulous analysis and untired exploration around the meaning of the historian and his real role as interpreter . He must consider the story as a musician playing the score becoming in a kind of vanished bridge linking the history and the reader . The subjectivity is very hazardous , but the historian can not just be isolated from the emotion . This delicate balance between the reason and the passion is highlighted with interesting points of view of brilliant authors in this theme .
Absorbing and fundamental reading.

Rating:
Summary: As good as it will get
Review: For a book on historiography, it's not gonna get any better. It really makes a big difference on how you see other historical writings and such. I don't know if this will help, but it's part of a report I did on the book:
The study of history offers new interpretations to the historian and the scholar, because it helps the historian understand his job and how to overcome problems, and it teaches the scholar to read history with a greater understanding. Just by reading Edward Carr's book, the student learns that when reading a history book, he shouldn't be concerned with just the facts in the book, but also the author and the time period in which the book was written. To fully grasp the work of the historian, he must first understand the circumstances under which the work was written. It is also beneficial to the historian himself, as Carr says, "the historian who is most conscious of his own situation is also more capable of transcending it, and more capable of appreciating the essential nature of the differences between his own society and outlook and those of other periods and other countries, than the historian who loudly protests that he is an individual and not a social phenomenon."

Carr does not delve into ways to approach history, except for simply and sporadically. He seems to feel that history should always be studied in the same way. The only "new method" he mentioned was time itself, changing peoples perspectives and expectations of history. New historians can base their studies off of the evidence and materials of the old, and in this way, history can progress. Carr says that over time, "Nothing...occurred to alter the inductive view of historical method...first collect your facts, then interpret them."

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the book. While I wouldn't read it again, I would recommend it to any history student, because it changes the perspective on history. The book started out very strong- everything pointed to the one looming question, what is history?, but as the book progressed, Carr seemed to lose track of the point, and focus more on whether history is a science or not, rather than defining the word. The book was easy to read, and was full of examples- sometimes humorous- that made Carr's ideas understandable. Carr constantly quoted other historians, or used simple sayings, like "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" At first Carr was convincing, but as he lost track, I lost interest, and his later points did not convince me at all. Even so, the book was readable, informative, and recommendable.

Rating:
Summary: As good as it will get
Review: For a book on historiography, it's not gonna get any better. It really makes a big difference on how you see other historical writings and such. I don't know if this will help, but it's part of a report I did on the book:
The study of history offers new interpretations to the historian and the scholar, because it helps the historian understand his job and how to overcome problems, and it teaches the scholar to read history with a greater understanding. Just by reading Edward Carr's book, the student learns that when reading a history book, he shouldn't be concerned with just the facts in the book, but also the author and the time period in which the book was written. To fully grasp the work of the historian, he must first understand the circumstances under which the work was written. It is also beneficial to the historian himself, as Carr says, "the historian who is most conscious of his own situation is also more capable of transcending it, and more capable of appreciating the essential nature of the differences between his own society and outlook and those of other periods and other countries, than the historian who loudly protests that he is an individual and not a social phenomenon."

Carr does not delve into ways to approach history, except for simply and sporadically. He seems to feel that history should always be studied in the same way. The only "new method" he mentioned was time itself, changing peoples perspectives and expectations of history. New historians can base their studies off of the evidence and materials of the old, and in this way, history can progress. Carr says that over time, "Nothing...occurred to alter the inductive view of historical method...first collect your facts, then interpret them."

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the book. While I wouldn't read it again, I would recommend it to any history student, because it changes the perspective on history. The book started out very strong- everything pointed to the one looming question, what is history?, but as the book progressed, Carr seemed to lose track of the point, and focus more on whether history is a science or not, rather than defining the word. The book was easy to read, and was full of examples- sometimes humorous- that made Carr's ideas understandable. Carr constantly quoted other historians, or used simple sayings, like "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" At first Carr was convincing, but as he lost track, I lost interest, and his later points did not convince me at all. Even so, the book was readable, informative, and recommendable.

Rating:
Summary: Redundant Marxist clap-trap
Review: If you think that by reading this book you will learn about histiography then think again. E.H.Carr was a Marxist; he was a member of a school of historians called the 'revisionist.' This lot where apologists for the worst abuses of the Soviet Empire. Indeed many of them denied Stalin was a mass murderer and argued that if anyone was killed, it was for 'just' reasons! They regularly denounced the work of the great Robert Conquest (he who got is right) as biased propoganda. But time does tell, doesn't it! The Berlin Wall is down, Communism has collapsed under it's own internal contradictions. So, where does this leave Mr Carr's book? Only read this continuation of the Marxist historical method if you are a student of Archaeology, because that is what the study of Marxism is now properly called. All Carr's talk of class war, polarisation of society and the ineviatble revolution is simply wrong. History is not an analytic subject (as What is History? supposes it to be), but proceeds according to no specific rules. To view history as an analytic discipline would be historicist. This term was popularized by the great Sir Carl Popper in the "Poverty of Historicism" and put to devastating effect in "The Open Society and It's Enemies Volume II" (read both books, they're masterpieces). Simply stated historicism is the notion that history consists of discernable mechanical forces that once determined can form the basis for a prophetic analysis. This is wrong. History does not act in this fashion. Rather, given some event, one can not ever predict its consequences due to the huge number of variables. The Doctrine of Unforseen Outcomes is much more like it. We can have theories about what may occur, but to be sure (remember the Marxists going on about the inevitability of their revolution?) it to suppose determinism. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong; a bit like the late Mr Carr.

Rating:
Summary: abnormal and difficult introduction
Review: In Korea, many freshman who want to read books usually try this book first, because this book is very famous. But in my opinion, for oriental student, this book is too hard to read. It is based on the western philosophy and western historic accident, so foreigners hardly understand this book completly. (Even, I read this book about five times, and still I can't say I understand this book completely!)

Rating:
Summary: daring but not systematic
Review: In order to appreciate and understand Carr's work, his two interdependent and conflicting aims should be taken into account. On the one hand Carr is trying to promote articulations of philosophy of history, which are remarkably absent among the works of most historians. On the other,Carr is trying to validate his own view of history. For his first aim Carr is delibarately provocative and speaks rather loosely. For his second aim he needs to be systematic and consistent, which he obviously is not. It is not so much what Carr says but his style in saying it that disturbs the serious readers of philosophy and of history. Few would doubt that history is neither merely a diachronic compilation of objective facts, nor fiction (ch I). Yet his way of coming to this conclusion, through asserting that historical facts are products of repitition in historiography cannot be accepted without rejecting historicism. For Carr history is a dialogue "between the soicety of today and the society of yesterday(ch II)." I think this is one of the best relativist expressions of history. Nevertheless, why should individual motivations and intentions not count as the subject of history, since they will, from the relativist perspective,also be manifestations of the effect of social forces on the individual? For the student of philosophy of history, his first two chapters merit attention. The other chapters, are definitely of interest, but only to those who are at once fascinated by and fear the boldness and vivacity of Carr's ideology. Carr simplifies perspectives in opposition to his own to the extent that they appear to be ridiculous. The sympathetic reader will try to fill in the gaps in his logic and the critical reader will destroy him. Yet in the "final analysis" his work, despite its prominent shortcomings, is of immense heuristic value.