Mr. Stakic raises an interesting point about literture and history. The point of my postings on Andric was not to view his literary works as history, but to read his literary works as indications of a certain attitude toward history which is taken by many commentators and Western writers as historically valid. Thus, Peter Maass cites Andric's literary work The Bridge on The Drina and seems to blame Muslims of Visegrad for not understanding their own history because they neglected to read Andric's literary works carefully.
So I think I agree with Mr. Stakic's position that it is both naive and dangerous to read a literary work as history, but we can certain read them as indications of attitudes toward history. Thus while "Gone with the Wind" might tell us little about the actual history of the Civil War period, it tells us much about what the readers of the novel wish to think about that period or are led to think about that period.
Michael Sells