What's the difference between historicism and new historicism literary critiques?

From what I learned in class, historicism has more to do with philosophy and new historicism has more to do with anthropology and idealism. For example historicism deals with sucession and influences that force sucession whereas new historicism is trying to understand culture and history through literature. Its so hard trying to explain...

More than ever I've been thinking about this same thing, especially since I've just started university taking English Literature. Mind you I'm not into Twilight, but I see what you mean. But I think books have a purpose and a specific audience in mind, and there are those (like Virginia Woolf's writings) that are not exactly for entertainment, but more for scholars (my professor mentioned once about how modernist writers like Joyce wanted to "torture" the reader...it is elitist in some respect because you need a PhD to fully understand and appreciate their complex works). It is irksome (and unfair) if you have a favourite book and it's not considered "literature," but I am starting to see the big gap between a fun, "empty" book, and one with literary merit. For me I have great respect for books with literary value, and for books that lack such and such I don't take them seriously, but that does not mean I do not enjoy them. However I have read some books that are both enjoyable and layered, so it's not just one or the other. I think you can compare this issue with music or acting. I'm no expert with either, but I assume Mozart's music is considered superior to Britney Spears's -- even though this generation may prefer the latter.