Why are historians pressured not to publish new history books locally?

Publishers want you to buy books about famous kings and queens from far away because those stories are easy to sell everywhere, while local history is often too specific for big customers.

Think of a huge bookstore like a giant buffet. The main dishes are steaks and roasts that almost everyone eats, no matter where they live. These are the "general" histories about big events or famous people. If a historian writes a new book about a tiny village nearby, it is like serving quinoa on the buffet. It might be delicious, but many people will walk past it because they do not recognize it as their favorite meal yet.

When we look at things too closely, we see all the messy details. A local history book might talk about the old baker who lived on Main Street in 1850. If you live there, it is great! But if you move across the country, why should you care about that specific baker? Publishers worry that regular readers find these stories too narrow. They prefer stories with big lessons that feel universal, like a tale of courage or love that could happen anywhere.

Publishers are businesses. They need to make money back on the books they print. It is cheaper and easier for them to sell one copy of a book about the American Revolution in New York, California, and Texas than to sell ten small copies of a book about your town's history. This creates selection bias. Historians feel pressured to choose big, popular topics instead of the rich, detailed stories right under their noses because those choices are safer bets for sales.

So, historians are not ignoring local history because it is boring. They ignore it because the big publishers want broad appeal. It is like choosing to watch a superhero movie instead of an indie documentary about your neighbor’s cat, even if the cat has a fascinating life.