Brilliant question.

So it can often be very hard to know quite what to look out for with works of history, particularly when you are new to the field and can’t spot the problems.

Academic qualification is perhaps a good starting place, yet, as you note, many books are written by journalists without formal training in academic history. This is not in itself an indicator of bad history as many such writers do produce very high quality work (Max Hastings for example). Instead I would look more broadly for what I suppose you could call the competency and dependability of the writer.

There are a number of ways you can check this. Firstly, reviews are brilliant. I would recommend checking feedback a particular book has received since publication, academic journals, and some websites newspapers will run review sections which can often prove helpful. Often books will also feature appraisals on the front/rear cover of the text itself, however I would approach these with caution - remember this is advertising, and I would be sceptical of such appraisals unless you are familiar with the quality of work of the individual writing it.

Next, it is worth considering various matters, publisher, format, style, quality of print, etc. These are all often overlooked but can indicate the quality of a work of history. It has become increasingly easy to self publish bad history in recent years, either online or in print, so it helps to be wary. If something looks off, be wary.

In a similar vein, read the synopsis of a book, this will usually give you a condensed view into the book, its themes and central arguments. Do these seem plausible? Well presented?

Try reading the introduction. This is of course not always possible, especially if not buying a book within a physical bookshop, but is very handy. The introduction, like the synopsis, will offer a glimpse into the soul of the book. Here you should be able to see the quality of the writing which will be displayed throughout, and this can be a brilliant test of character.

At the end of the day, these tips can help, but are not full proof. There is always going to be bad history out there which is not that credible. Often it can sneak through undetected, and can appear entirely legitimate to the untrained eye. In fact, even ‘good history’ is not without its flaws sometimes, and often a brilliant work may be betrayed by its style. It is often hard to tell, and if you are to spend much time reading history, you will certainly come across some questionable, however, there are some general rules which you should consider when reading which may help when you do come across such things.

Always engage critically when you read history. Remember that the author is constructing an argument when they write, and has a point of view they want to convince you of. When writing history, the historians can choose which facts to select, and how to present them, all history is biased and subjective in some way. However, this does not mean all history is created equal, some is better than others. Some writers will make their subjectivity clear, and acknowledge their role in constructing the narrative you will be reading, while others will not, they may present as objective undeniable fact that which they have subjectively interpreted. Keep this in mind while reading. Ask questions of the author, does a claim make sense? Is it backed up convincingly? Does the evidence they cite actually support their claims? Why have they portrayed something in a certain light? Personally I make notes in the margins of history books I am reading through to aid in this process. These issues can at first be tough, but as your wealth of knowledge grows, it does become easier. If something sticks out, pick at it much like a loose thread, and see where it leads.

With this in mind I would like to note that having a particular stance when history is not necessarily a bad thing, it depends upon how this manifests itself. Objectivity relates more to being “fair to the evidence” than being neutral to the topic, if you catch my meaning. To be fair to a figure like Lenin does not mean to be without judgement, but rather to have an opinion predicated upon the evidence. However, evidence is often complicated and vast, and can support many conclusions. One could be positive, or negative, about Lenin, and while neither can be considered undeniably true, both can ‘objective’.

As I hope to have pointed out, it can all be rather complicated, and it’s something we all struggle with. Good luck!