Literature and History

[cacian]

could literature take history apart?
extensive writing of fiction could lead to history being pulled apart.

for example:

The Bible
and
the Iliad
or
Dante- The Divine Comedy.

please discuss.

[PeterL]

"Pull it apart? It has created history. Written history is a form of literature, and from early times epic poems are the closest thing to history that we have. A very large part of what we know od Sumeria is from the Gilgamesh saga. How accurate its vague descriptions are is unknowable, until we get a working time machine. Schliemann searched for and found the ruins of Troy based on the Iliad. Most places mentioned in the Odyssey have been identified from descriptions in the poem. Virgil's Aeneid is another one that contains ancient descriptions, etc. but it was written to glorify the Romans, and it is doubtful that any of the adventures actually happened; that is, it is a work of fiction, while the Iliad and the Odyssey were recountings of historical events.

[JHG]

I think I understand what you are implying, that Fiction such as the Iliad can be taken as pure history by the common belief - which is wrong. Obviously this is highly subjective, but not without merits of consideration. In a perfectly reasonable world, fiction would never be confused with history, and both would exist as ideals in spereate spheres. But we have seen in the past 100 years what the power of a strong narrative can do to historical facts.

As such, I don't think that we can say Fiction "pulls history apart." Rather, it has the capability to blur the facts, to assert itself as the more powerful and preferential thought sequence of past events. For example, most Americans prefer to think that America was founded by strong, pure-hearted champions of freedom. It's not so nice to think it was founded by imperialists, bent on turning the new land into plantations, textile factories, and the means of a new Aristocracy. The latter is closer to the truth.

[cacian]

to both Peter and JHG:
would you say fiction rely on history to write itself up?

[PeterL]

to both Peter and JHG:
would you say fiction rely on history to write itself up?

Fiction isn't written in a vacuum. History influences everything that comes after it, but how much it influences a work of literature depends on what is being written and by whom. Some excellent fiction is detailed history clothed in a little fiction, while other fiction barely touches history.

[JHG]

to both Peter and JHG:
would you say fiction rely on history to write itself up?

Laregely concur with PeterL. Without straying too far into theory, suffice it to say that we need a reference point or else fiction would be impossible for anyone but the author to understand.

[JBI]

Read Linda Hitcheon