The responses of the original audience are of interest to the historical critic, as are the meanings and implications of specific words, symbols, images, and characters through time.
We can hardly understand the characters' lives without some sense of the time and place in which they lived, and we can hardly understand the author's purpose without understanding the cultural norms and events during the writing of the work.
Everything in literature is a meaning, and lots of diverse people came up with strategies to evaluate and interpret it.
The usage of Archetypes in Literary Criticism helped critics to translate a text, also find its hidden significance.
New historicists promote the idea that history is not closed or final, as traditional historians would claim, but is found in acts of interpretation that can negotiate new readings of the textual traces of the past.
The approach of new historicism argues that a work of literature does not exist devoid of its conditions or circumstances.At Literary Criticism, there is an thought that believes that Archetypes constitute literature's meaning.The notion of Archetypes in literature has become the subject of comprehensive examination in Literary Criticism.Academic literary critics teach in literature departments and publish in academic journals, and more popular critics publish their criticism in broadly circulating periodicals such as the New York Times Book Review, the New York Review of Books, the London Review of Books, The Nation, and The New Yorker.Literary criticism has probably existed for as long as literature.Whether or not literary criticism should be considered a separate field of inquiry from literary theory, or conversely from book reviewing, is a matter of some controversy.For example, the Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism draws no distinction between literary theory and literary criticism, and almost always uses them together to describe the same concept.New historicists suggest that as history is always interpreted and written in other words, but a practice bound up with the historian’s interpretative subjectivity.The historian’s own social and cultural context results in potential biases that new historicists argue will be reflected in writings that record history.New historicists reacted against earlier theorists who isolated works of literature from their historical context for a pure concentration on the words on the page.New historicists argue that works of literature do not independently transcend their time, as the New Criticism claimed, but are instead always socially and politically implicated within their historical context.