There are many important ideas in this book about the nature of historiography, but I felt that it often was too much of a polemic to develop them carefully and clearly for the reader. The book therefore reads as if every single sentences is written in capital letters, followed by multiple exclamation marks.

There are hardly any glimpses of the overall argument during the book, so that one is sucked into dense discussions with sources that one may or may not know, as Veyne presupposes a vast amount of knowledge about 20th century sociology and history. It is up to the reader to occasionally rise to the surface to gasp for air and to see where she is in the larger picture that Writing History attempts to sketch.

If one is willing to enter this philosophical roller coaster, one is likely to feel dazzled and surprised, like I do now, but once the dizziness yields, I think that there is a powerful core to be found in Veyne, that ties nominalism to narrative theory, that explains well why history is concerned with the specific and why it will never become a science.

EDIT: a week later, I have started to appreciate the book more. Rereading helps.

Veyne is an historian, and his style is largely rhetorical. The book illustrates its points, and argues them through, with examples which only much erudition could provide.
Veyne's book is persuasive by virtue of its warmth, charm, and the infectious self-confidence with which the assertions are made. His examples are illuminating rather than merely informative. Moreover, while the book is not written in the exacting style of an analytical philosopher, it displays much understanding of the issues of analytical epistemology, and expresses what seems initially to be an analytically clear position.
Veyne's book is a very fine and fruitful document. It is a major contribution to the literature.

This is for the most part a great book on the methodology and philosophy of history. The author presents several original ideas which I have not encountered in other books. He really illuminates the epistemology of history in a whole new light so I strongly recommend it. However, the translation seems to be a bit shoddy sometimes as there were several longer passages in the book which really didn't make any sense to me.