There are texts that start off as being considered history, which are later re-labled as a work of literature. This leads me to believe that History and Literature are not that different from each other. The main difference seems to be that Literature is art and has a flexible nature, while History has an air of professionalism and holds a firm grasp on reality.

Literature can be a window into the social aspects of different periods of history. Works of fiction that are based on real cultural environments, can be real helpful when trying to understand the ideologies of the society in which the author was a part of. Literature can be as complex as the author wishes to make it, which is what primarily differentiates it from History. Historians only have the ability to be as creative as they can with true events in the course of human history. While the writer of Literature can be as creative as the inner workings of their mind will allow. So how can they be related to each other, if one is completely constituted on real facts, while the other is closer to the expression of the human mind? To me, it is because literature, even though it may be fiction, is still is attached to the authors “real thoughts”, which are a creation of the social conditions in which the author was molded.

The way in which History and Literature are interconnected is by interpretation. The ability to decipher literature in a way that connects it to reality, is how we intertwine History and Literature.

It is easy to disqualify literature as an important field of knowledge, which is why a true literary scholar aims to analyze the obtuse nature that “good” literature can have. Even literature about predictions of the future can open a peephole into the times in which the author lived. It is up to the reader to interpret the text in a way that helps comprehend the reality of the author and why he thinks or feels the way he does. (e.g., social, economic, or political circumstances in which the author lived.)