In my personal opinion, the Historical Approach is the most interesting and effective way of analyzing any literature piece. There is a sound evidence that most of the stories, disregarding both the time or era the author lived in and the actual purpose of writing, contain certain facts and sometimes data, often referred as allusions, that are hidden inside the text and the awareness of these references are vital for understanding and appreciating the piece in general. Moreover, I certainly agree with the fact that the society, the country, the political and financial situation, and other biographical facts immensely influence any writer and prompt them to take a certain position on this or that issue. Undoubtedly, some people may state that such intensions turn writings into something bibliographical and personal, rather than universal. However, there are many examples of world-known literature masterpieces that prove this statement to be untrue.

Another strategy, which I found to be interesting, is the Reader Response Criticism. What is really enticing about this critical approach is the fact that the reader is the one who forms the idea of the text. In other words, it takes into consideration that each human being has a different personality and view of life. Therefore, when one reads a story he finds exactly what one is looking for, not wasting time for actually analyzing the ‘true’ or the only meaning that might be hidden. This way, every single reader is satisfied and can use the text purposely, always finding an answer, or salvation to a problem or query.

The strategy that I was not interested in was the formalistic approach. While it is true that this type of analysis may be a foundation for other approaches, it cannot be regarded as effective when used on its own. This is mainly due to the fact that Formalism diminishes the very beauty of a literature piece, as far as it merely looks at a story (novel, book, etc.) from a basic, physical point of view, leaving the context and allusions aside.