History or Literature?

Question

w/c is more interesting to you?

and can you tell their difference?

Answer 1

Kind of broad terms...

Assuming you mean them in a sense like fields of study, literature is more interesting to me.  The difference is that history is expository and literature is narrative-- so that while history is always looking foremost at the past, literature is always in the present.  There is a ton of overlap and secondary differences between the two, but that is the fundamental difference.

Answer 2

I like sophist's answer to a degree but History is more about non-fiction and Literature is more about fiction.  Though you can certainly learn about History by reading some kinds of fiction and you can certainly learn about the 'human condition' by reading History.  I like both equally.

Answer 3

Literature 'cause it makes me imagine things. History are sometimes dull to hear/know.

Answer 4

literature because history can sometimes be misleading. and i think you can find a lot more truth in literature mainly because it has some history in it that never changes over time. in other words you have a person who was actually there possibly giving a firsthand account of what happened and how they felt about it also.  

Answer 5

I like both. They are intertwined. You can't understand one without the other.

Answer 6

Actually, I really enjoy historical fiction.

James Michener's books, Mexico, Poland, Chesapeake, Alaska are examples of this genre.     One learns interesting historical facts, yet the characters are fiction.   The political and social matrixes of the stories are authentic.

Other examples are Sarum (I can't remember the author's name) which is the story of the contruction of Stonehenge and subsequent history of the Salisbury area.