In “Historical Scholarship,” Gallagher comments about the ways that literature, the author and the text have been analyzed and tore apart by historical contexts and critics. I think that there has to be some happy medium where they are all intertwined and only useful when considering each aspect of the invention. When I envision a piece of text, I find that understanding where the author came from and how they lived to be useful in understanding the reasoning behind some of the things that they write about. I don’t believe that this is the only instrument necessary for understanding the text, but I think that it should be the initial approach when considering the hidden agendas and meanings. Another aspect that Gallagher commented on is how the text is called “literature.” Even in writing this, I find it difficult to differentiate literature and the text. Anything of written makeup is considered literature; yet, you also have film and art as literature in its own unique sense? I think that the focus should be how to use the text, history and the author as approaches that can be conjoined and used together, rather than separate entities with separate interpretational value.
