10/7/07
History and literature
I'm not sure how many people came to the keynote speaker at the Muse conference this weekend, but I think I saw a few people from our class there. To briefly summarize the talk, the speaker read a paper on domesticity as it was related to the Merry Wives of Windsor. She studied this topic by researching recipe books of the era. Toward the end of her speech she began to talk about her work as New Historicism writing. She talked about the differences of opinion throughout history and said that there were just as many debates and differences of opinion as there are today. After events or eras pass by, people try to consolidate and make sense of what happened. They try to find answers and come to coherent ideas because they have the benefit of hindsight. In this way, can we understand history better than present day? Or since we are living today, in the now, do we understand better what is going on because we are living it? History, in these ways, seems related to literature. All literature is creating some sort of history of its own, a fictional history. To add to the complexity, many texts are influenced by actual history as related to the events of that time and the personal history of the author. Does that make literature more complex than just 'history'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In response to your last question about whether literature is more complex than history, I'm not sure we can really separate history and literature to ask that. Like you said, and like the speaker said, literature is so embedded in history, not just because the author is writing at a particular time period, but because the values and beliefs of that time period are reflected in the writing. so it's not, in my opinion, that literature is more "complex" than history, but that literature can be a way of representing history and a link to the past, whether the text is fiction or not. For example, the book 1984 represents a fictional, futuristic society. But even though it's fiction, we still get a connection to the past and the period it was written in because it reflects the thoughts and fears of at least one person from the past.
Literature is certainly complex, but instead of wondering if it's more complex than "just history," i see is as being a part of history, and a way of understanding the past.
I agree with what Amy said about literature being embedded into history. We also have to consider the history of literature itself, and how that affects the way we’re looking at this argument. This reminds me of Kolodny’s argument in which she states that “literary history (and with that, the historicity of literature) is a fiction.” She says that our sense of a literary history and our confidence in a historical cannon depends upon our understanding of the past which affects our understanding of the present. “It becomes necessary to point out that the understanding of art and literature is such an essential aspect of the present’s self-understanding.” She also says that he reinterpretation of the past is the same as the continual reinterpretation of the present.
That being said, even though literature may be fiction, it does give us insight into the past as well as providing a way to understand not only the past, but the present. Whether or not literature is more complex than history I’m not sure, but it does provide a way to examine history.
-Kim
To quote Michelle, she said, "People try and consolidate and make sense of what happened." To me, this sounds too simple. I believe we can analyze the past all we want; however, the past is such a complicated, intricate thing that I don't think it can ever be completely consolidated and understood by us. Even WE can't fully understand our present society, its implications on the future, its flaws, or its fine details, and we live in it! Therefore, we can only make our best guess, especially when history is tied into literature which complicates the situation.
This reminds me of the readings and discussion on New Historicism. To quote the article in Joyce by Schwarz, "somewhere along the way,something important was lost from literary studies: historical consciousness." I believe that this is quite true. I believe that we cannot deem literature more complex than historical documents, or vice versa. I believe that historical documnets are just as relevant and useful as the texts themselves. As Amy says, the text is not only rooted in a certain time period, but the values and beliefs of the time period are reflected in the text. I do not believe, though, that we can fully grasp history because, as I am sure we all realize, we were not there, therefore our interpretation of a certain period of time will inevitably be flawed, even if it is a miniscule flaw. All we can take are primary sources and use them to reconstruct a suitable (whatever that may mean) view of history in order to see where a literary text is rooted in time.
Post a Comment