I agree with the reviewed author's contention that historians are not concerning themselves sufficiently with engaging with the public.

I have written a novel set in 1946 that will be released early next year. I did extensive research of primary sources prior to writing the novel, and read a great deal of things and talked to a lot of people about their memories and family histories while I was writing. However, now that I am editing I decided I would really like to have a good historian look it over. Do you think I could find one who felt this was worthwhile work for them to do? No. The book has feminist concerns, as well as being about PTSD and other relevant issues. But no. The two august historians I approached condescendingly rattled off scores of their books that I should read, and then offered the services of a PhD student, if they could find one.

Absolutely missing the point. That the research was done. That the novel was written. That I was looking for a critcial, informed, sympathetic eye.

It stunned me that these people, who write book after book that only a small audience of like minded academics will ever read, didn't see any role for themselves in vetting a popular novel, in which the writer was open minded and willing to take on their point of view.

It also stunned me that they obviously thought history was so much more imporatnt and relevant than fiction. Ha ha ha ha. ANd that they thought their role as a historian was so much more important than mine as a novelist. And yet I wonder which will inform most people's view of history more?

If historians genuinely care about mass ideas of history they should be engaging with the story producing culture that informs most people's ideas of it.

I also had this experience with the Australian War Memorial when I went there at the start of the writing process. They were unhelpful, patronising and couldn't have been more dismissive. Amazing.

All of these people need to have a good think about how exactly they are going to disseminate their knokwledge. More academic texts and specialised publishing house produced books are NOT going to do it.

As a novelist I believe we have our own lives and our own experiences to help us see through the stories we are told to find the truth, there. Someone or other said history is in fact the perennial story of the present.

Those who want to be believe in Great Men will put it all down to Churchill or Alexander the Great, etc.

Personally I really like Anthony Beevor as a historian. He is sceptical, and always remembers to look at what women and children and ordinary men were doing at the time, as though that matters, as well as the Great Men. As though that had some bearing on events. He is also sceptical of hero worship, seeing, in my opinion rightly, the desire of some people to find a hero is as strong as any innate traits of the 'hero' himself to command a loyal following.

... was in Taladega Nights, The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Will Smith's hilarious movie, and even then, seen with the wrong crowd, it would be homophobic.

I don't think he's funny. All I get from him is that he tries incredibly hard. I find him exhausting.

What a great list, and these additions are all 'must includes'. Should have been the top fifteen of all time.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a beautiful film.