Literature is a mere representation of humans world.

What you can read on the many

literary manifestations stand for a portrayal of human desire to linger on. These
representations of the world, however, grant themselves a unique permission to adapt, to
mold the reality of the writer as he sees it fit. In addition, these writings are produced at a
certain moment in humans existence: they are bonded to the endless human cycle of birth
and death whose logics are depicted in what we call history. Surprisingly, and despite the
fact that these literary manifestations are circumscribed in such cycle, there are some
writings which history does not forgive to survive because they have not been
transcendental to their contexts; they were not able to respond to the social or, worse,
political demands of their time for which they were banished from our memories. As such,
literature is between two boundaries: reality and ideality.

The concept of history has evolved a lot during the latest decades. In the one hand, there is
a tendency to think about it as a linear series of events that happen at a certain time
chaining them to others coming in a later period of time. This conception had been the
main theory on the epistemology of history that responded, eventually, to the cause-andeffect idea, regarding all the items presented in whatever sector of time. On the other hand,
however, there are philosophers, such as Michel Foucault, who strongly disagreed with
such conception. In Foucaults paradigm of history, its development should not be
understood as a linear concept, but as:

several pasts, several forms of connexion, several hierarchies of importance,

several networks of determination, several teleologies, for one and the same
science, as its present undergoes change: thus historical descriptions are
necessarily ordered by the present state of knowledge, they increase with every
transformation and never cease, in turn, to break with themselves (Foucault,
2002, p.5)

Foucault proposed to go beyond the quantification of historical facts by classifying them

into periods and years, and start thinking about the very inner links that let those events
happen; the powers that were behind them: the hierarchies that permitted their existence
and evolution. Thus, from these points of view, the historical analyses on literature find
themselves limited in either epistemological idea of history.

To end up with the primary ideas, it is necessary to adopt the one regarding context. The
definition of context is simple: the influences and events related to a particular event or
situation (Cambridge University Press, 2016), and it will let us understand why some texts
have responded to their contexts and why others simply tend to diverge their time and space
in which they were written. Despite the fact that literature is a reflect of the human world
(depicted in its history), there are some writings that simply evade reality whose authors let
us appreciate a bond-break attitude towards their written thoughts and perceptions.
Therefore, the aim of this essay is to demonstrate that history and literature diverge,
sometimes, the one from the other, leading us to think that some authors deluded their time,
their context, their history.

References
Cambridge University Press. (2016). Meaning of "context". Obtenido de
Cambridge Dictionaries Online:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/context
Foucault, M. (2002). Archaeology of knowledge . New York: Routledge Classics.