Evans addresses the question of the meaning of history and its place in society. It is a response to the challenge posed by postmodernism to the traditional understanding of history. Evans argues that history is a discipline that can and should be based on empirical evidence, although he acknowledges the role of interpretation and subjectivity.
In making this point, Evans builds on two major works by authors he quotes extensively here. The first is Edward Hallett Carr and his What is history?
Another prominent historian on whom Evans draws is Sir Geoffrey R. Elton.

Evans places himself more or less midway between these two predecessors, praising both of their strengths but attacking their weaknesses as well. In doing so, he offers a new view of history based on a synthesis of Carr and Elton.

His call for a moderate application of classical historical methods brings him into conflict with postmodernism, which he believes has undermined the foundations of the discipline of history since the 1970s. Evans initially presents postmodernism as a reaction to social history, but soon moves on to discuss it as an attack on the professional practice of historical scholarship itself.

In characterizing postmodernism, he draws on a variety of postmodern sources. In particular, he attacks the most radical protagonists, Hayden White and Frank Ankersmit, in their claim that reality is only linguistic, only text and discourse, and that we can never get at the "real" reality. In short, that there is no truth, and therefore all statements are accurate, which amounts to sheer relativism.

Evans argues that the practice of historical research proves that this is not true: proving the facts of the past to be true is indeed achievable, given the right methodology and as long as they are always understood as a tentative result. By rejecting the idea of objective truth, postmodernism opens up enormous possibilities for extremists such as Holocaust deniers. If history can become what you wish it to be according to your own political leanings and subjective feelings, there is no longer any compelling reason to oppose the work of people like David Irving.

Interestingly, in the final analysis, he is not even particularly hostile to postmodernism. Indeed, Evans explicitly sees the wave of postmodern criticism as a parallel challenge to the rise of other historical critiques and methodologies, whether philological, psychological, economic, or linguistic. As such, he seems to advocate the absorption of the best aspects of postmodernism into mainstream historical methodology.

The author does not confuse a reverence for history with a reverence for individual historians. Rather, he brings all of his colleagues into the ring and wrestles cheerfully with many of them. He does so always with respect, never with the moralistic or ideological fervor that characterizes many works of this ilk. In fact, his book contradicts its title. It is an explanation of what historians are trying to do rather than a defense of what is being written. His chapters on the history of historiography, historical facts, causality and objectivity, and questions of historical science, morality, evidence and power are exemplary in their own way.

In the book's conclusion, Evans argues that the future of history lies in a synthesis of empiricism and postmodernism. He believes that historians should be open to postmodern insights, but at the same time remain committed to the pursuit of objective historical knowledge. Although Evans's statements are sometimes phrased somewhat vaguely, this book is a very enjoyable dose of common sense.
Overall, this is a well-argued and thought-provoking book that makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about the nature of history.