Literature as History

The central thesis of Mario T. García’s fascinating and compelling Literature as History is precisely what the book’s title suggests: “Literary narratives are historical texts, and I, as a historian, am interpreting them as such” (p. 18). The extent to which readers will agree or disagree with this provocative thesis depends a great deal on the level of generality with which the claim is stated. It is hard to disagree with the much broader versions with which the book concludes: that “literary narratives are historical documents because they shed light on history” and that “historians can benefit from historical readings of literary narratives” (p. 170). But when the latter sentence goes on—“...such as autobiographies and novels”—to conflate literary nonfiction with works of fiction, many scholars—historians and literary scholars alike—will begin to raise objections, call for a clearer statement of the prerequisite caveats and qualifications, and otherwise deeply lament the occasional but conspicuous disregard for such distinctions. The salient distinction here is not between “literary” and “historical,” but between fiction and nonfiction. It is primarily a matter of authorial intention and reader expectations. Readers expect nonfiction to conform to objective reality and verifiable historical facts, while writers of fiction take—and are given—creative license.

Art · Garcia · History of literature · Humanities · Literariness · Literary criticism · Literature · Narrative · History · Latin American and Latino Studies · Latin American Literature Studies · Philosophy