It’s quite disappointing to see how much
flack this excellent little book has received. I was under no illusion that the
book I was about to read was going to be a light read. The book’s title does
imply that it is to be considered to be in the same category as Ben Goldacre’s
“Bad Science” and Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy”. Despite both of these books
being written for a lay audience they were not shot in details or text. Emma
Marriot’s slim collection of short essays might be with Goldacre and Plait in
sentiment, but the work isn’t intended to educate the reader in good historical
research. However, it does provide examples of what good research achieves and
how good historians view the past. Unfortunately I think many history buffs
were looking forward to a heavily cited and in depth analysis of historical
myths and a debunking of pseudohistory; not a book strictly for academics, but
nevertheless one with a scholarly appeal. Recent years have seen some good
academics, like Richard J Evans take on the postmodern anti-historical wave and
others like David Aronovitch, Kathryn S. Olmsted and even
sceptical scientist Michael Shermer produce sterling investigations that both
debunk and seek to understand the nature of conspiracy theory.
