Should a Piece of Literature Be Judged on Its Literary Merits Alone, Regardless of Its Historical Context?

Steven Brust once wrote In my opinion, the prim way to judge a novel is this Does it give one an blameless reflection of the moods and characteristics of a particular group of people in a particular place at a particular time? If so, it has value. Otherwise, it has none. (Brust, Steven. 2005. Sethra Lavode). Brust, rather clearly has joined this debate regarding literary theories. He claims that if aspects of literary piece, digression from its own merits, are not signifi give the gatet then it has no worth.It is continu wholey and widely argued by critics of lit whether a book should be base on its literary merits alone, or if only certain aspects, such as business relationship, regarding its writing should be relevant. The relationship betwixt invoice and literary make up is often questioned. There are four main pretences that obligate been devised to apologize this. The first regards a piece literary work as usual and belonging to no time period. The pretense states that historic setting has no significance in literary texts, and that both should remain autonomous from all(prenominal) other(a).Critics are concerned with literary texts being artefacts in themselves that surpass the possibilities of a particular time, thus the psyche of special(prenominal) diachronic context of use is dismissed. R. S. unfold supports this view and in an essay said record is part of the everyday history of culture whereas books should be imaginative works considered with comply to those qualities which can truly be said to be timeless preferably apart from any knowledge of their origin or historical tie-in (Crane, Ronald. 1967. History versus Criticism in the study of literature, in The idea of the Humanities and Other Essays Critical and Historical, Vol. 2. Chicago University of Chicago Press). In short, this position centres around the basis that a literary work should be judged on its, as Crane said, timeless qualities for example the quality of its linguistic features and other aspects that give a work literary merits. The second warning regarding history and literature is based on the idea that the historical context of a literary piece helps lead to proper understanding of it.A text is produced inwardly a certain historical context but this should remain part from the literary context. This model is often favoured by critics that analyse literary texts by considering their historical background and context. This can be regarded to any aspect whether it is political, ethnical or linguistic. A 1934 study by Basil Willey The Seventeenth ascorbic acid Background Studies in the Thought of the Age in Relation to verse and Religion shows even by its title a support for this model.It is implied that Willey and akin(predicate) critics agree that historical context forms a foundation of understanding when canvas a literary text. They would argue that literary work in enunciate to be analysed must be understood and to be un derstood inescapably to be looked at in respects to its historical context. The third model when looking at the relationship between pieces of literature and history is essentially the opposite of the second. It centres on the idea that a literary piece can help us understand the time in which it is set.This is explanation talks ab by realist texts in particular and how they can provide creative depictions of historical events or periods. It assumes that literary texts are al around subordinate to their historical context and they are reflections of their time. For example Keith Thomas appeals to Shakespeare to in effect(p)ify this point of view In Shakespeares plays, the curses pronounced by the characters invariably work not just for dramatic effect but that it as a moral requirement that the poor and the injured should be believed to have this power of retaliation when all else failed (Thomas, Keith. 971. Religion and the Decline of Magic Studies in Popular Beliefs in sixte enth and Century England. London Wensfield and Nicolson). This model is cognise as the reflective approach, it regards literary work as an aid to develop our knowledge of history using the historical context of a literary piece. The last model regarding literature and history is probably the most complex, though it is also seen as the most interesting to theorists. It claims that literary texts are connected with other discourses and this makes literature itself a part of history that is continually being written.Critics that agree with this theory, widely known as refreshing historicists, argue that the question of the relationship between history and literature is wrong despite their differences the last three models assume that history and literature are fundamentally separate. They distinguish between the interpretations of literary texts and the foil of history. Stephen Greenblatt writes in an essay methodological and self-conscious is one of the distinguishing marks of th e new historicism in cultural studies as opposed to historicism based upon faith in the transparency of signs and nterpretive procedures (Greenblatt, Stephen. 1990. Towards a poetic of Culture, in Learning to depone Essays in Early Modern Culture. London Routledge). Hence, new historicists argue that the making of the literary texts is a cultural practice, and only differ in their specific mode. No absolute distinction can be made between literary and other cultural practices. Theorists such as Hayden White, claim that this model implies that just like literary texts the facts of history need to be hire (tracing the past is similar to telling a story).In an extract from Whites book, tropical zone of Discourse Essays in Cultural Criticism, He writes Histories ought never to be read as unambiguous signs but rather as symbolic structures, extended metaphors, that liken the events reported in them to some form with which we have already become familiar in our literary culture By the very constitution of a set of events in such a way as to make a comprehensible story out of them, the historian changes those events with the symbolic significance of a comprehensible plot structure. (White, Hayden. 1991. Tropics of Discourse Essays in Cultural Criticism.Baltimore The John Hopkins University Press) Considering this we would come to the conclusion that methods of (critical) abbreviation should be suitable for both history and literary texts. In short, a new historicist perspective think that in the reading of a literary text the idea of historical context cannot be settled, and that this context is heady by a negotiation between the text and the reader Ultimately, the bulk of literary theorists fall on the side that accepts the use and aid historical context when critically analysing a literary text.Only the first model seems to on the whole disregard historical context in literary work for the judgment that a piece of literature should be timeless. The second a nd third model accept historical context as part of the method of analysing a literary piece. However, still confidently differentiate between literature and history, they are seen as merely aids for each other.The last model is set apart from the rest as it does not polarise the categories and treats them as to intertwine subjects that cannot be considered without each other. In my opinion historical context should be relevant to the reading of literary text, it is inevitable that the two should intersection point especially during an in depth analysis of a literary text.