Research principles of historical writing and the question of reading response

Bibliogr. s. 127-129

In the paper I attempt to partially answer the question of the relationship between the articulation of historical knowledge and its consumption. I question the statements often made in the discussions of historical theorists, namely that immersion distorts or reduces knowledge‑oriented reading and violates the integrity of the historical knowledge produced. I discuss the relationship between immersive and knowledge‑oriented reading by setting them within the broader spectrum of reading practices. In doing so, I draw on Rita Felski's work on reading fictional literature. In considering the comparison of different modes of reading historical writing, I look at the reading practices of historical writing in general and the relationships between these practices. I describe the different reading practices of historiography: enchantment and shock, identification, empathy, recognition and knowledge. With the help of these categories, I describe the reading practices of historical writing that I have observed in historians' more or less formal, frequently autobiographical contributions about reading history books, the literature on reading and fan practices, the instructions that, typically in the introductions to their books, historians give to their audiences, reviews of historical literature, articles covering historical debates, and readers' contributions posted on goodreads.com. I argue that, first, reading practices like enchantment and shock, identification, empathy, and recognition are not opposed to knowledge‑oriented reading or critical thinking, and second, mutual cooperation of different reading modes can serve to produce historical knowledge.