Hi there!
Apologies if this is late! Without knowing the specific of the plot you've got so far, my tips for applying theories might be a bit vague, but I can certainly help you with getting a grasp on those two theories so you can take them and run!
Historicism: (often called 'new historicism' in terms of literary theory) gets super dense and complicated, but I like to think of all theories by visualising how a text was written, and what we focus on. For example, other theories like formalism are
solely concerned with the text itself - the author doesn't matter, their gender doesn't matter, their living conditions/family situation/country of origin/time of writing, etc. The only thing that formalism cares about is the literal words on the page. Most other theories, including new historicism, are the opposite. They think that the
context greatly informs what/how/why an author wrote things, and that
we need to understand the context in order to understand the text. Some theories focus more on the politics (so, visually, while the author was writing, what were the headlines in the newspaper on their desk? Who was the PM/president/king/queen? What wars, political or literal, were happening outside their window?) whereas others focus on the author's psychology (visually, are they writing while drunk or high because of unresolved traumas? Are they writing about love while their own marriage is on the rocks?) Historicism is less about the present moment and more about the past (i.e. history) - how did the author get there? What historical and sociological events led to the formation of their country, religion, or ideology? And from our perspective looking back, what were the most important parts of history that happened before and during the author's life that could have influenced their work?
When it comes to interpretation, historicism can be a bit more present-minded in terms of how our own culture and history influences how we view a text. Basically, the text is a snapshot of history, but our reading of it is also a snapshot of contemporary history. With this in mind, I think this is a fantastic lens through which to view 1984.
Possible ideas for 1984 from a new historical perspective:- Examine the timelessness and universality of Orwell's fears and concerns. This is a novel written in 1949, set 35 years in Orwell's future, which we are now reading over 35 years later. And yet, 1984 has an enduring place in the literary canon because our society is and should always be cautious about creeping authoritarianism and how malicious forces can wield power to suppress freedom, individuality, and self-worth.
- Consider Orwell's own life and times: his distaste for British imperialism and fascism more broadly, his empathising with working class concerns
(though be careful not to stray too far into a marxist reading if that's not your focus), and his time fighting in the Spanish Civil War where he was shot in the throat.
- As a limitation, consider how much history has changed since 1949 (or indeed since 1984) and how the text's presentation of technology and language is arguably now quite dated. The thought of TV screens listening to our conversations is somewhat analogous to our fears about smartphones or those google home devices, but nowadays there are far greater concerns about technology addiction, the power of algorithms, and who has access to our data/metadata. You could argue that even though Orwell set out to articulate a dystopian future, he wasn't actually trying to
predict the future, and so solely reading 1984 as a cautionary tale means we may be blind to the more complex and evolved versions of Orwell's historical fears.
Feminism: probs doesn't need as much explaining - it's a theory concerned with the depiction of and implications for women in texts and society. Applying this theory is different when you've got a female author, but for Orwell, the only major relevant thing to consider is his characterisation of Julia (and maybe some of the minor characters in 1984 like Katharine, Winston's wife). This opens up a lot of opportunities to critique the text, but also to critically engage with the limitations of feminist interpretations (e.g. messages about power and totalitarianism don't have to be thought of as anti-feminist just because Winston and Orwell are male - these are universal concerns).
Possible ideas for 1984 from a feminist perspective:- To what extent does Winston's reduction of sex to a 'political act' also undermine Julia and women as mere political pawns? Or, on the flip side, is Winston extoling sex as a form of rebellion? But does that mean women only have worth as the sexual partners of men?
- Julia is highly sexualised throughout the novel. Some interpretations even consider her a symbol for sex (in addition to or instead of love, youth, womanhood, etc.). Does this give her power? Is she a positive portrayal of womanhood? How did Orwell's readers, and how might we in our modern context, view her opportunism, lust, and free spirited nature?
- As a limitation, you could absolutely acknowledge the pretty reductive focus on female characters and the experiences of women in Oceania. How do they feel about being treated as baby-making machines for the Party? We don't know because Orwell doesn't really dwell on this. (Not sure if you're allowed to bring in other texts or contemporary counterpoints, but consider how The Handmaid's Tale explicitly focuses on the pain and subjugation of women in a dystopia.)
I hope that helps! Let me know if you have questions about any of this or need more direction