Fables agreed upon: A comparative study of new historicism and alternate history
New Historicism and alternate history raise similar questions regarding history and ideology. New Historicism reads every text as an alternate history narrative, while the narrative mode in alternate history can inspire a nuanced understanding of the critical positions promoted by New Historicism. The paper offers a comparative study of the two in terms of their conceptualizations of historical narrative, intertextuality, narrativity. non-linear structure and spatiality. It seeks to create dialogues between different voices in both the critical theory and the literary genre with respect to their attention to mundane matters, their allusions to the present and projections of the future, as well as their significance and problems. Through their shared emphasis on the interaction between history and present, and their conceptualization of "historical time" in relation to contemporary webs of signification. New Historicism and alternate history come together to highlight the poetic structures of historical narrative and politicize our appreciation for the aesthetic dimension of historical discourse. The goal of this comparison is to problematic the division between literature and criticism. Reconceptualizing alternate history, the paper attempts to point the way towards a "post-poststructural" position on issues of literature and history.
