Books You have to Read before Starting Gradschool?

[natsteel]

If you don't mind my asking, could you please elaborate as to why?

Me too. Obviously, I am not recommending it for its fluid writing and mellifluous style... for someone who maybe hasn't been exposed to much historiography as an undergrad, it provides enough background and is relatively easy to read.

Regarding what risingstar said about the journals... I know you can read them online but, for long articles, I tend to dislike reading pdfs on a monitor. I keep copies of all the articles I need (and a few hundred more) on my desktop and laptop, but I also just like having the hardcopies around.

Edited June 17, 2010 by natsteel

[chlobot]

I thought this might be interesting. What books have you been told by Profs or personal inclination etc. that you have to read before history grad school?

For me:

These are have to's for examples of the great theory and historical writing not for my field:

Carlo Ginzburg The Cheese and the Worm (this is what I am reading when it's delivered)

Foucault Discipline and Punish (Read most of it for a paper as an undergrad)

Focus Specific

George Fredrickson The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny 1817-1914 (Just finished this. It was written at the End of the Civil Rights movement, and ends with an amazing call to action. Very Moving!)

Lacy K Ford Deliver Us from Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South (2009)

Tim Lockley Welfare and Charity in the Antebellum South (2007, This is for my specific research interests)

This may seem very basic, but I would highly recommend reading through a standard textbook for one's particular geographic area of interest just to become familiar with the big picture narrative. I think that one thing new grad students find shocking (I know I did) is that graduate professors do not teach a detailed narrative history of a particular subject (as you might find in and undergrad class). Generally, they will only introduce you to the most recent/relevant historiography and assume that you have a background that enables you to assess the literature in light of the larger narrative. Now, you can pick up much of what's going on from selected historiography, but it's much easier going in with a more complete understanding.

[chlobot]

One of my professor's suggested I go through an American history textbook to go over some the minor events to make sure I know them. He even gave me a teacher's edition textbook.

I can totally affirm reading discipline and punish. Fantastic book.

I just posted similar advice and so agree completely.

[theregalrenegade]

I'm taking two classes this fall. One is a colloquium on the French Revolution, the other a historiography course on US diplomacy.

The professor for the colloquium suggested William Doyle's Oxford History of the French Revolution. Considering I know very little about the French Revolution I picked it up and am incredibly impressed with how thorough and detailed it is.

For the historiography class, a former professor suggested Foucault for Beginners and Marx for Beginners. Both are short and concise and give great overviews of their theories.

[RockEater]

I just finished up with David Engerman's Know Your Enemy: The Rise and Fall of America's Soviet Experts. Good read for those interested in the subject, and a good example of what the current academic literature in the field should be.

I'm now reading two books at once, David Hackett Fischer's Washington's Crossing and Richard Reeves' President Kennedy: Profile of Power. I recommend both, especially Fischer's. Great readability, regardless of knowledge in the subject, and a definite example of what any historical writer should aspire to.

[thepoorstockinger]

re: Iggers

I found it to be poorly written in a number of ways. First, it manages to simultaneously fail to put things into their historical context (i.e. you could read the sections on historical materialism and never find a mention of Thatcher, Reagan or Trotsky... all of whom seem at least incidental to debates within Marxist historiography) and also fails to have any level of serious explanation of the theoretical concepts underpinning the historiographical debates. Indeed, debates seem to mostly left undiscussed and one would get no sense of just how fierce arguments between, for example, Marxist and Post-structuralist social historians was and continues to be or what exactly was at stake in those debates. There is no real prolonged discussion about exactly Derrida and Foucault are doing (or not doing) or how historians have altered the original theories of post-structuralists for their own uses. So it lacks both an attention to a historical narrative of how the profession has changed or a serious engagement with the theories being discussed and in the end I have no real idea what exactly it is that he's failed to do, all I know is that he's failed.

Amazingly you won't find subaltern studies (or Edward Said or any post-colonial historian) in the index or anywhere else in the book except for a passing one sentence mention of Subaltern Studies on page 151 in the afterward. I am sure that there are dozens of other obvious omissions as well.

To be fair, I haven't found any historiography survey books which are any good (and I have no idea how one would write a good one) so it's not just Iggers who is at fault.

[natsteel]

re: Iggers

I found it to be poorly written in a number of ways. First, it manages to simultaneously fail to put things into their historical context (i.e. you could read the sections on historical materialism and never find a mention of Thatcher, Reagan or Trotsky... all of whom seem at least incidental to debates within Marxist historiography) and also fails to have any level of serious explanation of the theoretical concepts underpinning the historiographical debates. Indeed, debates seem to mostly left undiscussed and one would get no sense of just how fierce arguments between, for example, Marxist and Post-structuralist social historians was and continues to be or what exactly was at stake in those debates. There is no real prolonged discussion about exactly Derrida and Foucault are doing (or not doing) or how historians have altered the original theories of post-structuralists for their own uses. So it lacks both an attention to a historical narrative of how the profession has changed or a serious engagement with the theories being discussed and in the end I have no real idea what exactly it is that he's failed to do, all I know is that he's failed.

Amazingly you won't find subaltern studies (or Edward Said or any post-colonial historian) in the index or anywhere else in the book except for a passing one sentence mention of Subaltern Studies on page 151 in the afterward. I am sure that there are dozens of other obvious omissions as well.

To be fair, I haven't found any historiography survey books which are any good (and I have no idea how one would write a good one) so it's not just Iggers who is at fault.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Iggers. His book was not meant more as a basic primer for one with relatively little knowledge of historiographical trends than one to delve into specific debates between subgroups. Nevertheless, your assessments are correct.

Some other books on writing (not a huge fan of Strunk and White):

On Writing Well by William Zinsser

Writing Tools by Roy Clark