Why “Microhistories” Rock
On the value of digging really deep into a narrow subject
I am a sucker for “microhistories”.
In the world of publishing, the “microhistory” is a term of art for a particular type of book. They tend to be …
- short
- focused on one single subject, and
- usually historical
You’ve probably seen these sorts of books. They’re often popular in airport bookstores, since their single-minded focus makes them easy to market, and their brevity means they can be inhaled during a single flight. Better yet, they endow readers with oddball trivia one can bust out over drinks. (“Did you know Ancient Rome paid for its wars with taxes on salt?”) For years, microhistories have scratched the monomaniacist’s itch that is, today, probably more often scratched by losing oneself in Wikipedia rabbitholes.
Nonetheless, I still read loads of microhistories, and very often on paper, like an animal.
Why? Why do I dig them so?
It’s because of their narrowness.
The problem with “big” books: They’re often too shallow
We live in a period where there’s a certain vogue for the opposite type of book: The huge…
