I found Howsam's book to be monotonous at best. However, the fact that her writing was completely dull forced me as a reader to find some deeper meaning and read between the lines so as to keep from falling asleep. I believe that her objective was not to blatantly state that history, literature, and bibliography, are separate entities, but rather to point out their differences in hopes of having the reader connect them (if that makes any sense at all). Literature and history prove to be quite similar where as bibliography is the only one that could be considered a separate discipline. Howsam points out that history has a primary focus on agency, power, and experience, and literature focuses on texts, and criticism. However I believe that literature relies on history. A book, or rather a story focuses on events of the time, surroundings, and a basic history of whatever the story happens to be about. Without history there is no literature. History is a literature of past events. The two are interchangeable. Howsam states that literature focuses on texts and criticism, but through the text there is a criticism of history. My ideas may be slightly obscure, but Howsam's writing was quite elusive so i found it difficult to form any sort of viable opinion.
I was excited when I bought this book because I hoped it would actually outline the history of the book both as an object and an idea. Instead it gave a dull overview of the differences in three disciplines which were actually quite similar and I found myself skimming pages because it became hard to concentrate. It was frustrating that the book was a short overview. Every time Howsam came close to making a point she would change her focus to something else. My mind started to wander much like the way her writing wandered.