Literature and History

English Corner Series


Suddenly a man offered a topic and asked a question when we were talking about our paper writing.
"Since you guys are talking about literature, I guess you must all be interested in literature. But, what is the function of reading literature works? Do you think literature is a faithful record of history?"
The first words popped into my mind was "It can purify our mind." which later I found was so simplistic and ridiculous to say it that way.
It was not a simple question, quite tough, instead. I had barely thought of it before.
As an English major, like many other students who pursued praticalism, I wasn't that much fond of literature, but it is compulsory for us to learn English literature and American literature.
In the first class of English literature, Professor Li asked us why we needed to learn literature. I was the most active one to answer the question. I still freshly remember my answer.
"Because literature is a very important part of culture. Only by learning English literature, can we better understand the culture of English speaking countries."
However, the answer should have been more futhure. I ignored the relationship between literature and history.
Is literature a faithful record of history?

Partly, literature can reflect upon the times the writer lived in. Faithful or not, it depends on what kind of writer is. Generally speaking, most literature works are an exageration of the times. As a cliché has been going, art comes from life, while it goes far beyond real life. We indeed could peep into a time in the perspective of the writer in his literary works. But usually, what he wrote is mostly too personal and could not objectively represent the time genuinely.
We cannot entirely trust literature works. All we need is to be wise enough to pick out the truth from them. It's not easy, though.