How credible are bookstore type authors? | AskHistorians Archive Observer

It depends really. Some "bookstore" authors bring no new research to the table, but only write histories in a way that is more fun to read for the average person - i.e. some write a history book with a story-like narrative, others focus on a single event and weave the many sources into one entertaining/exciting story to read and some collect sources to write a history that has never been put in that way (for example, history of the Yugoslav successor states, 1995-2015, whereas most histories would focus on one state)

Are they reliable? It depends on the author. There may be unreliable authors and unreliable sources and sometimes both. These books do a good thing by bringing history to the masses, but some of them are closer to fiction than to history. Exaggerating facts, treating all sources as equal, using weak sources, twisting meaning, omitting things that don't fit the narrative - they could have any or all of these things.

I doubt Bill O'reilly actually wrote those books himself, but ghostwriter or not - I doubt how very credible they are. I'd say a big sign that the book is not very credible is that it's been written by a ghostwriter. I'd stay away from those. It's one thing for a history book to be written by a sociologist, who brings his expertise into the field, or a linguist, for example. It's another thing for it to be branded by a media personality.

I'm not saying "only scholars write good books" - a history of heavy metal could be written by someone who is not a scholar. Journalists and others often cover modern histories that don't get that much attention from historians.

Research the author. Check what the reviewers say about his/her book or previous books. Be wary of big names - this is not about Bill O'reilly, but would you read a history of the Premier League if it's "written" by David Beckham, or history of 90s rock written by Slash?