[contingencies]

shallow, incomplete views of nuanced topics

Having studied (and written) histories myself, this sounds like an accurate description of histories in general. We don't need to make everything an encyclopedia. Sometimes it's fun to follow a conversational review of a breadth of material without getting in to the weeds. Kurlansky often includes personal anecdotes and has a good sense of where to dwell. This is what I appreciate in a writer: character and tact.