A strong analysis, from the American point-of-view, of the enterprise of history-writing by David Greenberg. He takes a wide overview of the different choices and trends in history-writing, and the issue of their relevance to both academic and public audiences. What should we write about he asks.

He doesn't go on to analyze the situation from a publisher's perspective (though we note with gratitude the mention he gives to the key role university presses play here). The scholarly enterprise of writing history for scholarly audiences will always be of great importance. What is not clear is whether such writing can continue to be published in the usual manner, not if audiences for such books fall below a sales threshold of a few hundred copies. Is it economically rational to invest in book editing, production and marketing efforts for such small print runs, when cheaper alternatives for distributing this research exist?