> Science and literature alike are readers of the world. And, sooner or later, both lead us to the unreadable, the boundary at which the unintelligible begins.

> Science and literature alike are readers of the world. And, sooner or later, both lead us to the unreadable, the boundary at which the unintelligible begins. I wonder, would it be redundant to include history with these two and make it a trio? If the case being made is that science and literature are both reflective of society in a way that continues to fascinate the mind and inform future generations for time immemorial, is history as a subject or practice somehow precluded from individual consideration because it is a subset of literature? As the article notes, it is not only non-fiction, but fiction like prose, poetry and epics that have proven themselves to be an indelible mark of culture and the force of ideas and imagination. History, at least in my opinion, is different enough from these kinds of works in both its value and its standards of research and veracity that it merits consideration. After all, history has proven that it often repeats itself and, in a way, history represents the results of these indefatigable undulations caused by, or recorded in science and literature. It is a series of guideposts in a sense, serving as records of massive success and massive failure and charting out exactly why and how it came to be this way.