The difference between the history and literature brain is very simple.
The historian deals with real facts, or at least has a better head to deal with one.
The historian has his feet on the ground and his head on his neck. Neither the ground nor his head is plucked out from an imaginary fantasy.
The historian would not over-read, over-interpret and over-react to the above three lines but will calmly, composedly and rationally treat it as food for thought.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 20, 2011 at 7:52 am
Christopher A. Mwakabanje
History is static, but literature is dynamic. While history do not change, on the other hand, literature moves as people move.
History talks about what happened in the past, but literature predict what will happen, it reflects what will happen tomorrow.
History is a chronological record of significant events often including an explaination of their causes (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition, 1995, 550). Literature is defined (out of several definitions) by Webster’s Dictionary as the body of written works produced in a particular language, country, or age (pg. 680).
October 20, 2011 at 9:00 am
King of Siam
Yeah yeah, Literature has less straight people.
January 21, 2012 at 11:55 am
janet
how about oral literature?
January 21, 2012 at 11:58 am
King of Siam
….even less straight people =o
March 31, 2012 at 5:19 am
fareeda naz
history is the permanent knowledge of the period while literature is the thought , imagination and the feelings of the particular people relevent that priod where they would living and give the prediction of the future.