I think I enjoy this criticism the most.  It is more comfortable as it is what I know from my upbringing in English, and thus I believe that it is what I know best.  It is intriguing to think about the roles we all play in history and in interaction with texts throughout our exposure as we as a reading audience still play a part in the criticism as a whole, how we respond, how we read into it, how we allow works of literature to affect us.

New Historicism is very much so exciting as well as interesting.  It offers the idea that there are an almost infinite amount of possibilities in the approach one has to the circumstances around a piece.  That there is no one set way or condition, that there are always multiple perspectives, and ultimately that our view of history does not really hold to anything more than our reconstructed vision of it.  Thus, those who have dug too deep into history for a foundation in anything, be it nationalism, religion, cultural identity, etc, there will be problems.

My favorite aspect in New Historicism is that it reinforces our need to accept that our foundations could be false and our assumptions could be proven wrong.  It is inherent that we accept this, as such we will not succumb to the fate of those who are ignorant by choice, yet lay their claims’ bases to falsehoods that are blindly accepted for blind reasons.  It is in challenging our assumptions that our positions arrive on more solid ground, and not blind acceptance.  I think that the truth behind most everything lies not as one solid thing, but a concept that becomes more solid as it is investigated.  It gives us a reason to continually pursue our curiosities and to continually challenge our beliefs.