Another change is the contextualization of literary facts. The illusion of autonomous literature that was reproduced in the illusion of autonomous literary scholarship (both were only possible by reducing the interests of literary studies to one component, the text, and one function of the text, its aesthetic function) has receded, given the need for a more complex understanding of literature. While social concerns in literature are nothing new for Slovene literary studies, the conviction that the concept of Slovene literature ought not be limited to so-called original literature or even to Slovene-language literature (i.e., to include translations) is fresh. From reader's point of view, literature in other languages is important as well, being part of literary consumption in Slovenia and even originating there. The logical result of acknowledging this would be an invitation to representatives of other branches of philology in Slovenia-views of research on German-, Latin-, English-, and otherlanguage literatures-to cooperate on this thematic issue. However, this ambitious plan was limited to symbolic representation in the form of a survey of comparative and German literary studies in Slovenia, an essential specificity of which is consideration of the Slovene literary context, yet in the end it was necessary to omit these articles, too. The plan to expand the subject matter field in the thematic issue would have been difficult to carry out, and even though on a popular level the appropriation of non-Slovene writers like Louis Adamic, Alma Karlin, Ana Wambrechtsamer, and Maja Haderlap is accepted, the plan nonetheless seemed too radical.