When Tuchman came out with "A Distant Mirror" (1978), I, like practically everyone involved in medieval studies, felt obliged to purchase it - a best seller in our field! My impression was that Tuchman, who was something of a "pop" historian, wanted to have a weighty, undeniably academic history book to her name so the critics could not attack her. Her name carried it to the best sellers list, but I found it to be one of the most boring books I ever owned.

I asked medievalists two questions: "do you own it?" and "Have you read it?" "Yes" was the first answer. "I tried" was the second answer.

I have found Tuchman to be generally entertaining but at times superficial. She wrote synthesis history, and these works can and always will be attacked for flying at 10,000 feet. They are great for overview history - which is needed. And they will be attacked by the particularists who travel at 5 feet off the ground, who find faults with the synthesis. That said, I found Tuchman to be as good and as flawed as any synthesis history. I believe "A Distant Mirror" was her reaction, giving an enormous amount of particular evidence to silence the critics, but it failed to provide a readable synthesis (in my opinion) because of the weight of all that evidence. Any history can and will be criticized for "being wrong" on some count - if you're writing, you're getting some things wrong. But I don't believe that is the general flaw with what you are reading.