Of course, New Criticism, which was the dominant theoretical underpinning of literary studies when I started, did not suit me exactly. New Criticism is notorious for excluding historical considerations. Well, it goes in waves. The Parrington school preceded New Criticism and actually gave New Criticism an impetus because it was a very crude way or relating literature to history. Now it's a little more sophisticated.
New Historicism is in, and it is much more subtle.
So if you keep doing what you like to do long enough, you'll be at the forefront of the next wave. I began to write historically founded books early. For example, my book on Hofmannsthal was reviewed by a Belgian scholar, saying that it was the first book on Hofmannsthal that places him on the historical map of Europe. But that was not generally recognized as a good thing at that time. When the 60s came, many scholars became obsolete, but I was thrown into the role of a mediator between the American and the European scene.