What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures
The experience of colonization and the challenges of a post-colonial world have produced an explosion of new writing in English. This diverse and powerful body of literature has established a specific practice of post-colonial writing in cultures as various as India, Australia, the West Indies and Canada, and has challenged both the traditional canon and dominant ideas of literature and culture.
The Empire Writes Back was the first major theoretical account of a wide range of post-colonial texts and their relation to the larger issues of post-colonial culture, and remains one of the most significant works published in this field. The authors, three leading figures in post-colonial studies, open up debates about the interrelationships of post-colonial literatures, investigate the powerful forces acting on language in the post-colonial text, and show how these texts constitute a radical critique of Eurocentric notions of literature and language.
This book is brilliant not only for its incisive analysis, but for its accessibility for readers new to the field. Now with an additional chapter and an updated bibliography, The Empire Writes Back is essential for contemporary post-colonial studies.
The Empire Writes Back was the first major theoretical account of a wide range of post-colonial texts and their relation to the larger issues of post-colonial culture, and remains one of the most significant works published in this field. The authors, three leading figures in post-colonial studies, open up debates about the interrelationships of post-colonial literatures, investigate the powerful forces acting on language in the post-colonial text, and show how these texts constitute a radical critique of Eurocentric notions of literature and language.
This book is brilliant not only for its incisive analysis, but for its accessibility for readers new to the field. Now with an additional chapter and an updated bibliography, The Empire Writes Back is essential for contemporary post-colonial studies.
283 pages, ebook
First published September 21, 1989
58 people are currently reading
1223 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
May 24, 2013
'Are you sure you want to mark this book as read?'
There should be another alternative between 'cancel' and 'OK', one more like well, more or less, yes. I think so.
I have a lot of issues with this book, most of which, most disarmingly, were addressed in chapter 6, 'Re-Thinking the Post-Colonial'. Others were not.
Objections that Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin are aware of because I'm obviously not the first person to raise them
The first question that arose in my mind arrived with the very first sentence of the Introduction (good start eh?): More than three-quarters of the people living in the world today have had their lives shaped by the experience of colonialism. If that is the case, then what are we doing with a model of analysis that calls itself post-colonial literatures? Shouldn't there just be something called World Literature? Global Literature? Global Studies? Studying Everything that Ever Was Written Anywhere At Any Time?
Let me refer you to page 216, a section that deals with the relationship between globalization and post-colonial studies: basically it says that although globalization is not the same thing as neo-colonialism, nevertheless, the principles and strategies are similar, and since post-colonial studies has been around longer, they know better than the globalization studies johnnies who've only just arrived on the block, so there. OK, that seems reasonable, because then post-colonial is a discipline that looks at the exchange, circulation and transformation of ideas between 'colonized' and hegemonic forces. Great.
In that case, if, as the authors claim, post-colonial studies can supply a workhorse of principles to be applied to a quasi-universal phenomenon, then my second question comes up in the very next sentence, practically. Back to the Introduction. The next part is called 'What are post-colonial literatures?' This is how it starts:
This book is concerned with writing by those people formerly colonized by Britain
What?
Excuse me, but I thought that one of the main objects of the whole post-colonial project was to dismantle and subvert that Euro-centrist view of the world, and yet here they are, going in the other direction, i.e., not opening this out to all imperial practices, but closing it right down to an English-centrist view? But then, paradoxically, NOT including in this category those countries that were occupied by English imperial forces before the early modern period, for example Ireland? Scotland? Wales?
On page 202, in that chapter called 'Re-thinking the post-colonial' which was written a decade after the first edition, the authors admit that it was an 'obvious omission' to leave out the study of countries colonized by France, Portugal and Spain: Indeed, Latin America may well fundamentally change our view of the post-colonial. Right. So ten years later, this 'obvious omission' is still not part of the picture. Why not?
The answer lies hidden in plain view, scattered across this text in various places. Post-colonial theory was an invention of literary study. In fact it grew out of English studies. So here we have the key to understanding the whole dilemma of post-colonial studies. What they really mean is Commonwealth Literature, but the trouble with Commonwealth Literature is that it doesn't exist, according to Salman Rushdie anyway. It is a fictional categorisation that places English Lit. 'proper' at the centre and all those brilliant writers like Rushdie, Naipaul or Walcott at the periphery. Thus post-colonialism is a recent academic discipline, new, improved, re-branded Commonwealth Lit. As such, it is very much concerned with justifying its own existence: it cannot shrug on the coat of national or linguistic borders in order to allow the world to see what kind of beast it is, it has to find those deep structures that will unite literature written by a Sri-Lankan born Canadian, a Methodist St Lucian of mixed European and African descent, and a Nigerian writing in English. And it has to be politically correct by constantly and very rigorously questioning its own raison d'être, the former British Empire.
Naturally, any legitimisation of an academic discipline is bound to be preoccupied with self definition and to be theory-heavy. And this is fairly theory-heavy. Where it shines is in the practice; that promise in the title is no empty formula, the theory is applied to a reading of various works byCommonwealth post-colonial writers. This is the most engaging part of the whole book, unusual in secondary literature in that it is interesting even when the primary text is not one you're familiar with, quite an art.
However - and you could feel that however bubbling quietly up to the surface - there are also:
Quibbles that Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin do not address, because they have to do with the very style of writing
I suppose this is very personal, what one person finds dense might simply be absolute precision for another. There is a certain language used in literary theory and you just have to get on with terms like abrogation and appropriation and binarism and the iconic and constitutive function of language. That's fine. I can cope with all that, it's just when the point is reached where I understand all the words, but still don't have a clue what they're saying, that's where I go pffffffffffffffffffffffft.
Reading V.S.Naipaul's The Mystic Masseur we are pointed to a sign put up by Ganesh's future wife:
NOTICE!
NOTICE, IS. HEREBY; PROVIDED: THAT, SEATS!
ARE, PROVIDED. FOR; FEMALE: SHOP, ASSISTANTS!
Apparently an obsession with punctuation directly signifies the gaps constructed between language and lived experience.
This turns into a bit of a theme later when the difference between post-colonialism and postcolonialism is discussed:
the hyphen is a statement about the particularity, the historically and culturally grounded nature of the experience it represents.....The hyphen in "post-colonial" is a particular form of "space-clearing" gesture, a political notation which has a very great deal to say about the materiality of political oppression.
Not to me it doesn't, but I'm sure that if you're in these academic circles and know all about the squabble going on between those who like the flat end of their boiled egg up and those who prefer the sharp end of their boiled egg up, then you'll get those references.
There's a great index, and a great bibliography, as indeed there should be. And if you only read the first four chapters, and skip the one on language which is really only saying that we no longer believe in Standard English, then you'd get all that a non-academic really needs. On the other hand you could read that essay by Rushdie instead.
There should be another alternative between 'cancel' and 'OK', one more like well, more or less, yes. I think so.
I have a lot of issues with this book, most of which, most disarmingly, were addressed in chapter 6, 'Re-Thinking the Post-Colonial'. Others were not.
Objections that Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin are aware of because I'm obviously not the first person to raise them
The first question that arose in my mind arrived with the very first sentence of the Introduction (good start eh?): More than three-quarters of the people living in the world today have had their lives shaped by the experience of colonialism. If that is the case, then what are we doing with a model of analysis that calls itself post-colonial literatures? Shouldn't there just be something called World Literature? Global Literature? Global Studies? Studying Everything that Ever Was Written Anywhere At Any Time?
Let me refer you to page 216, a section that deals with the relationship between globalization and post-colonial studies: basically it says that although globalization is not the same thing as neo-colonialism, nevertheless, the principles and strategies are similar, and since post-colonial studies has been around longer, they know better than the globalization studies johnnies who've only just arrived on the block, so there. OK, that seems reasonable, because then post-colonial is a discipline that looks at the exchange, circulation and transformation of ideas between 'colonized' and hegemonic forces. Great.
In that case, if, as the authors claim, post-colonial studies can supply a workhorse of principles to be applied to a quasi-universal phenomenon, then my second question comes up in the very next sentence, practically. Back to the Introduction. The next part is called 'What are post-colonial literatures?' This is how it starts:
This book is concerned with writing by those people formerly colonized by Britain
What?
Excuse me, but I thought that one of the main objects of the whole post-colonial project was to dismantle and subvert that Euro-centrist view of the world, and yet here they are, going in the other direction, i.e., not opening this out to all imperial practices, but closing it right down to an English-centrist view? But then, paradoxically, NOT including in this category those countries that were occupied by English imperial forces before the early modern period, for example Ireland? Scotland? Wales?
On page 202, in that chapter called 'Re-thinking the post-colonial' which was written a decade after the first edition, the authors admit that it was an 'obvious omission' to leave out the study of countries colonized by France, Portugal and Spain: Indeed, Latin America may well fundamentally change our view of the post-colonial. Right. So ten years later, this 'obvious omission' is still not part of the picture. Why not?
The answer lies hidden in plain view, scattered across this text in various places. Post-colonial theory was an invention of literary study. In fact it grew out of English studies. So here we have the key to understanding the whole dilemma of post-colonial studies. What they really mean is Commonwealth Literature, but the trouble with Commonwealth Literature is that it doesn't exist, according to Salman Rushdie anyway. It is a fictional categorisation that places English Lit. 'proper' at the centre and all those brilliant writers like Rushdie, Naipaul or Walcott at the periphery. Thus post-colonialism is a recent academic discipline, new, improved, re-branded Commonwealth Lit. As such, it is very much concerned with justifying its own existence: it cannot shrug on the coat of national or linguistic borders in order to allow the world to see what kind of beast it is, it has to find those deep structures that will unite literature written by a Sri-Lankan born Canadian, a Methodist St Lucian of mixed European and African descent, and a Nigerian writing in English. And it has to be politically correct by constantly and very rigorously questioning its own raison d'être, the former British Empire.
Naturally, any legitimisation of an academic discipline is bound to be preoccupied with self definition and to be theory-heavy. And this is fairly theory-heavy. Where it shines is in the practice; that promise in the title is no empty formula, the theory is applied to a reading of various works by
However - and you could feel that however bubbling quietly up to the surface - there are also:
Quibbles that Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin do not address, because they have to do with the very style of writing
I suppose this is very personal, what one person finds dense might simply be absolute precision for another. There is a certain language used in literary theory and you just have to get on with terms like abrogation and appropriation and binarism and the iconic and constitutive function of language. That's fine. I can cope with all that, it's just when the point is reached where I understand all the words, but still don't have a clue what they're saying, that's where I go pffffffffffffffffffffffft.
Reading V.S.Naipaul's The Mystic Masseur we are pointed to a sign put up by Ganesh's future wife:
NOTICE!
NOTICE, IS. HEREBY; PROVIDED: THAT, SEATS!
ARE, PROVIDED. FOR; FEMALE: SHOP, ASSISTANTS!
Apparently an obsession with punctuation directly signifies the gaps constructed between language and lived experience.
This turns into a bit of a theme later when the difference between post-colonialism and postcolonialism is discussed:
the hyphen is a statement about the particularity, the historically and culturally grounded nature of the experience it represents.....The hyphen in "post-colonial" is a particular form of "space-clearing" gesture, a political notation which has a very great deal to say about the materiality of political oppression.
Not to me it doesn't, but I'm sure that if you're in these academic circles and know all about the squabble going on between those who like the flat end of their boiled egg up and those who prefer the sharp end of their boiled egg up, then you'll get those references.
There's a great index, and a great bibliography, as indeed there should be. And if you only read the first four chapters, and skip the one on language which is really only saying that we no longer believe in Standard English, then you'd get all that a non-academic really needs. On the other hand you could read that essay by Rushdie instead.
October 9, 2018
You know what? So many people are going to say, ‘but Jasmine! You only read 15 pages of this!’ Well that’s all that my university said I had to read. So I opened the book. And I read what I had to read. And I closed the book. And I damn well enjoyed reading it.
April 16, 2020
An overall solid primer for post-colonial studies as related to literature. Covers the major historical developments, viewpoints, theories and issues in the field. Generally, the authors advocate for a hybridised, syncretic point of view, prioritising the abrogation then appropriation of colonial cultural systems. The book is broad but runs out of steam towards the end when it takes a scattershot approach to more contemporary issues of post-colonialism such as its intersections with the environment, globalisation, diaspora etc. There are also a few large weaknesses which make this textbook feel outdated: the focus on Anglophone/British colonisation; the lack of commentary on Indigenous literature; on reader-response criticism; the large focus on settler colonies (including the USA) as post-colonial whilst also being somewhat dismissive about any theory that prioritises race. Useful bibliography.
March 3, 2016
An excellent book about the oriental and occidental system. A must read for us Pakistani's because of our own colonial history and the psychological effect it has on our minds in post-colonial times.
October 11, 2010
Reading this book was extremely helpful in putting postcolonial literature into perspective. Considering the content, it was also fairly easy to digest. Until reading this book I had been frustrated by some of the slang and accents of “english” (the different, but not lesser evolution of the English language in various countries) of postcolonial literature, or discouraged when I was not given a dictionary to make sense of it. I still have a lot of questions, especially since my personal experience in Ghana, Africa this summer and the lack of literature in the school system, but overall this was the voice of clarity that I was waiting for.
I really appreciated the history lesson in English literature as a “privileged academic subject,” not that long ago (3). Until I came to Ghana I never realized just how elitist my major, English, seems to be. I used to read Victorian novels and covet the leisure of the upper classes, but that is probably me. It is the useless on an everyday scale. A book will not help me feed my family or till the farm. These things that I have dedicated my life to studying are just that. A privilege. Something that few others could ever enjoy. I feel ethnocentric in even being disappointed that the kids don’t read. Why should they be reading the English classics from the “center?” This book seems to argue that the “center” is an illusion, yet another concept imposed through colonialism.
The whole “Who reads postcolonial literature came up,” which made me excited, but it did not really address it in this book (213). But the fact that it was there says to me that there is something more to look into on that topic. Audience seems really problematic with some of these texts, since my personal experience has let me to believe that locals do not read these national texts. That would be the question to sum up my experience in the secondary school in Wiamoase, Ghana.
Also, I never thought about the United States being “postcolonial.” I remember learning about the difficulty of establishing our own literary tradition (15), but it helped me see the theoretical points in this movement. I liked the definition that “postcolonial” cover “all the cultures affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to present day,” and that they have to “assert themselves by foregrounding the tension with the imperial power, and by emphasizing their differences from the assumptions of the imperial center” (2). Until now, I have never thought of the United States as postcolonial, as I mentioned before, but more importantly, I do not think I ever realized that we kind of still are, and it affects me. I am an American twenty something English student. I read this book while planning a layover in London for in two weeks during the last week of my stay in Ghana. My whole life I had looked forward to the day when I could go on that pilgrimage of a sort. Walk the paths that Virginia Woolf walked, sit in the pub of C.S. Lewis lectured in, or stand on thee bank of the Themes with Matthew Arnold. It had always been my burning passion to see these places I have never been to, simply because it is what I have read and been exposed to. Never mind that like Piccadilly Circus, I did not know how to ride the tube (which, I kept calling the lue), it is “the center.” Talk about an educational crisis! Again! What does it mean to be an American English student studying English literature? What does it mean that the only way Cambridge would let me, an American, enter their university is if I had a million dollars or a dad who won a Nobel Peace Prize? What does it mean that to this day Americans rarely get that Nobel Peace Prize in literature? Why have I always gravitated to the English instead of the American writers? Why is England so much more appealing to me than Boston for school? Why am I to “the center” but a branch off the tree struggling to be grafted back in?
Yet, I did not on the London study abroad with my fellow classmates. No. No rather I went to Ghana, somewhere in the red dirt with no address, hot shower, or Shakespeare’s Globe. Does that make me crazy, or did I learn something different? I am going to India next summer on my next field study. I was pleased to read that India and Africa have loud voices in postcolonial theory. Postcolonial literature is looking more and more like my course of study.
I am glad I read this book. It sure changed my outlook on my first England adventure. I cannot help but think it is incredibly interesting that I went be going to Bath to see the Roman ruins. Where exactly do we draw the line for being postcolonial? Are we not all in some sense altered by it, or were long before this book was published?
I really appreciated the history lesson in English literature as a “privileged academic subject,” not that long ago (3). Until I came to Ghana I never realized just how elitist my major, English, seems to be. I used to read Victorian novels and covet the leisure of the upper classes, but that is probably me. It is the useless on an everyday scale. A book will not help me feed my family or till the farm. These things that I have dedicated my life to studying are just that. A privilege. Something that few others could ever enjoy. I feel ethnocentric in even being disappointed that the kids don’t read. Why should they be reading the English classics from the “center?” This book seems to argue that the “center” is an illusion, yet another concept imposed through colonialism.
The whole “Who reads postcolonial literature came up,” which made me excited, but it did not really address it in this book (213). But the fact that it was there says to me that there is something more to look into on that topic. Audience seems really problematic with some of these texts, since my personal experience has let me to believe that locals do not read these national texts. That would be the question to sum up my experience in the secondary school in Wiamoase, Ghana.
Also, I never thought about the United States being “postcolonial.” I remember learning about the difficulty of establishing our own literary tradition (15), but it helped me see the theoretical points in this movement. I liked the definition that “postcolonial” cover “all the cultures affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to present day,” and that they have to “assert themselves by foregrounding the tension with the imperial power, and by emphasizing their differences from the assumptions of the imperial center” (2). Until now, I have never thought of the United States as postcolonial, as I mentioned before, but more importantly, I do not think I ever realized that we kind of still are, and it affects me. I am an American twenty something English student. I read this book while planning a layover in London for in two weeks during the last week of my stay in Ghana. My whole life I had looked forward to the day when I could go on that pilgrimage of a sort. Walk the paths that Virginia Woolf walked, sit in the pub of C.S. Lewis lectured in, or stand on thee bank of the Themes with Matthew Arnold. It had always been my burning passion to see these places I have never been to, simply because it is what I have read and been exposed to. Never mind that like Piccadilly Circus, I did not know how to ride the tube (which, I kept calling the lue), it is “the center.” Talk about an educational crisis! Again! What does it mean to be an American English student studying English literature? What does it mean that the only way Cambridge would let me, an American, enter their university is if I had a million dollars or a dad who won a Nobel Peace Prize? What does it mean that to this day Americans rarely get that Nobel Peace Prize in literature? Why have I always gravitated to the English instead of the American writers? Why is England so much more appealing to me than Boston for school? Why am I to “the center” but a branch off the tree struggling to be grafted back in?
Yet, I did not on the London study abroad with my fellow classmates. No. No rather I went to Ghana, somewhere in the red dirt with no address, hot shower, or Shakespeare’s Globe. Does that make me crazy, or did I learn something different? I am going to India next summer on my next field study. I was pleased to read that India and Africa have loud voices in postcolonial theory. Postcolonial literature is looking more and more like my course of study.
I am glad I read this book. It sure changed my outlook on my first England adventure. I cannot help but think it is incredibly interesting that I went be going to Bath to see the Roman ruins. Where exactly do we draw the line for being postcolonial? Are we not all in some sense altered by it, or were long before this book was published?
May 6, 2012
Things that are wrong with this book (or its first 13 pages because afterwards I lost patience):
1. ignores the possibility of experience of colonialism in Europe (e.g. in Ireland)
2. purports to talk about post-colonialism as a phenomenon happening in all colonies, but never talks about non-Anglophone cultural phenomenons
3. says contemporary American literature is postcolonial (?!?!?!?) and Henry James' moving to England was the result of the colony wanting to be more English than the English (never mind the fact that HJ spent a lot of time in other European countries and only became a British citizen because he was angry that the US didn't intervene in WWI)
4. talks about 'Britain' as if it's the same thing as the British Empire or England
5. generally has no clue what 'post-colonial' means - it will talk about 'early post-colonial' texts written in colonies while they were colonies (where's the 'post'?)
6. ignores the existence and importance of oral literature
7. 'Eurocentric judgement' and 'European culture' - what you speak of does not exist
8. 'standard British English' - UGHSAOMOSTRET6ROSADGRIFDOUTYHDOFGM - you said it's Southern English five seconds ago, how did it become 'British' all of a sudden? completely and utterly ignores the issue of varieties of English and non-English languages within the British Isles
9. from my personal experience as a bilingual person and an immigrant, the discussion about linguistic alienation doesn't hold water - maybe it's just because Transylvania is almost as rainy as Scotland so I don't feel 'alienated' by Scotland? The discussion is also a very infantile english = colonialism = bad = alienates people and doesn't mention that English offers people the tools to discuss e.g. botany - which you can't do in some extra-European languages because people haven't been discussing botany in them for the last 500+ years. This is a serious problem for educational institutions and researchers who have to consciously shape their native language to make it work for them. (But how can I expect a book on literary studies to consider the existence of language and culture outside traditional notions of 'literature'?)
10. it seems to believe that theories is the same as Theory and keeps talking about 'European theory' (but what that could be it never explains).
1. ignores the possibility of experience of colonialism in Europe (e.g. in Ireland)
2. purports to talk about post-colonialism as a phenomenon happening in all colonies, but never talks about non-Anglophone cultural phenomenons
3. says contemporary American literature is postcolonial (?!?!?!?) and Henry James' moving to England was the result of the colony wanting to be more English than the English (never mind the fact that HJ spent a lot of time in other European countries and only became a British citizen because he was angry that the US didn't intervene in WWI)
4. talks about 'Britain' as if it's the same thing as the British Empire or England
5. generally has no clue what 'post-colonial' means - it will talk about 'early post-colonial' texts written in colonies while they were colonies (where's the 'post'?)
6. ignores the existence and importance of oral literature
7. 'Eurocentric judgement' and 'European culture' - what you speak of does not exist
8. 'standard British English' - UGHSAOMOSTRET6ROSADGRIFDOUTYHDOFGM - you said it's Southern English five seconds ago, how did it become 'British' all of a sudden? completely and utterly ignores the issue of varieties of English and non-English languages within the British Isles
9. from my personal experience as a bilingual person and an immigrant, the discussion about linguistic alienation doesn't hold water - maybe it's just because Transylvania is almost as rainy as Scotland so I don't feel 'alienated' by Scotland? The discussion is also a very infantile english = colonialism = bad = alienates people and doesn't mention that English offers people the tools to discuss e.g. botany - which you can't do in some extra-European languages because people haven't been discussing botany in them for the last 500+ years. This is a serious problem for educational institutions and researchers who have to consciously shape their native language to make it work for them. (But how can I expect a book on literary studies to consider the existence of language and culture outside traditional notions of 'literature'?)
10. it seems to believe that theories is the same as Theory and keeps talking about 'European theory' (but what that could be it never explains).
September 25, 2021
One of my biggest issues with postcolonial theory is how frequently it lapses into inaccuracy through its tendency to homogenise and build global narratives. This book touches on the implications of English in India without going into any analysis about its history. Frankly amplifies some very regressive talking points about cultural authenticity.
January 28, 2025
*3.5
solid theory i guess lmao
solid theory i guess lmao
January 2, 2021
I wanted to like this so badly, I really did. I thought it'd be full of interesting concepts, thoughts, and discussions about the post-colonial experience and language, and while there was some of that, sure, it was packed in the most dense, impossibly inscrutable academic writing that you could imagine. I had to read every sentence at least twice and still I didn't get some of what they were saying (and I took Knowledge and Inquiry). They also have the habit of doing this 'that is to say' or 'in other words' thing, which means that they just present two equally indecipherable lines.
It's such a pity because there were things that were really worth thinking about, even if there are some that are outdated (I didn't agree with the parts where they grouped white dominions and the USA with colonies that were forcefully taken or even the indigenous peoples of those dominions) - fundamentally their thesis seems to be that post-colonial writing needs to be read with the colonial experience in mind, most evidently in post-colonial writing that is in English. There's discussion on whether there can ever be a return to pre-colonial literature, or a complete rejection of the colonial, and so on - but the language was honestly just so tiring that halfway through I could no longer be bothered to take notes.
2.5 rounded down because the ideas are interesting, but you simply cannot get to half of them. The references to 'native' (an outdated word) cultures in settler colonies taken to mean white cultures also didn't sit right with me, as did the grouping of some countries under colonialism and making it seem that their (white) cultures are oppressed by Eurocentricism.
It's such a pity because there were things that were really worth thinking about, even if there are some that are outdated (I didn't agree with the parts where they grouped white dominions and the USA with colonies that were forcefully taken or even the indigenous peoples of those dominions) - fundamentally their thesis seems to be that post-colonial writing needs to be read with the colonial experience in mind, most evidently in post-colonial writing that is in English. There's discussion on whether there can ever be a return to pre-colonial literature, or a complete rejection of the colonial, and so on - but the language was honestly just so tiring that halfway through I could no longer be bothered to take notes.
2.5 rounded down because the ideas are interesting, but you simply cannot get to half of them. The references to 'native' (an outdated word) cultures in settler colonies taken to mean white cultures also didn't sit right with me, as did the grouping of some countries under colonialism and making it seem that their (white) cultures are oppressed by Eurocentricism.
April 2, 2022
This has been a great companion piece to the other post-colonial reading I've been doing this semester. It's a good introduction/overview and helps me to integrate the more obtuse texts (shout outs to Bhabha and Spivak) into the larger framework(s) that make up this theory. The authors break this down very well and I appreciated the addition of the final chapter in this edition that addresses more recent developments. This text has probably been the most immediately applicable to teaching literature.
October 14, 2024
A gorgeous collection of literary theory, all dealing with post-colonial literature, and the name-sake (or name-inspo) for my own project, "Greece Writes Back". A genuine goldmine. Particularly brilliant chapters were: "2 - Re-Placing Language: Textual Strategies in Post-Colonial Writing"; "3 - Re-Placing the Text: The Liberation of Post-Colonial Writing"; "4 - Theory at the Crossroads: Indigenous Theory and Post-Colonial Reading"; and "6 - Re-Thinking the Post-Colonial: Post-Colonialism in the Twenty-First Century".
I have come to appreciate the hyphen.
I have come to appreciate the hyphen.
June 8, 2017
No. Just no. Poco literature is cool. I love it. I've also read a lot of novels and articles discussing these issues. I think that might be the reason why I an so annoyed. But the book. Oh, the book. These guys are either stating the obvious or bullshitting, twisting the information in order to prove their (not so valid) points. I want the three days I spent reading this book back.
December 24, 2019
I am abandoning this half way through. The style in which it is written is very difficult to follow, even if they don't use big words. I am sure I have started reading other books on post-colonial studies that put their ideas across in a much clearer style.
November 27, 2017
I want to thank the authors for their hard work on this.
December 31, 2017
This is sort of useful, but it's outdated and it's a chore to read.
May 13, 2018
Does Heaney count as post colonial literature?
August 17, 2019
There's a lot of really good information here, but it is soooooo dense and boring. If I hadn't had to read it for a class, I would probably never have finished it.
Read
December 2, 2019snart jul, takk gud
February 11, 2021
Read it for a term paper. I think it is pretty good intorduction to Post-Colonial Theory/Studies.
Want to read
February 14, 2021It's too Short
August 18, 2022
agora que estou no final do curso decidi logar aqui todos livros que sou obrigada a ler
ps: estarei adicionando o livro mas tenham plena noção que eu li 1 ou 2 capítulos no máximo
ps: estarei adicionando o livro mas tenham plena noção que eu li 1 ou 2 capítulos no máximo
Want to read
February 28, 2023h/t Lithub's article on English majors
https://lithub.com/the-best-and-worst...
Probably too academic, but hopefully the sense of humor penetrates beyond the title.
https://lithub.com/the-best-and-worst...
Probably too academic, but hopefully the sense of humor penetrates beyond the title.
July 25, 2023
aku baca versi terjemahannya dan gak mudeng pwuol. kayanya mau baca versi aslinya besok-besok.
November 1, 2023
Kind of useful. The writing style of the book is as annoying as it gets though!
February 7, 2024
Really not fun to read, although a canon, I prefer reading about postcolonialism from an Orientalism perspective.
Read
October 12, 2024I'm not gonna rate this because I haven't read it in its entirety, just some chapters I thought more interesting, but it seems like a good approach to post-colonial literary theory.
Read
September 12, 2025Read the introduction bit for the seminar on post-colonial literature (engl405).
Read
April 4, 2011Judul : Menelanjangi Kuasa Bahasa :Teori dan Praktik Sastra Poskolonial
Penulis : Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffeths, dan Helen Tiffin
Penerbit : Qalam, Yogyakarta
Tahun terbit : 2004
Tebal : xvi+393 halaman
Akhir-akhir ini wacana tentang poskolonialisme mencuat menjadi salah satu wacana intelektual utama, khususnya di Negara-negara bekas jajahan. Bagi masyarakat Negara-negara tersebut, tidak dapat dipungkiri, poskolonialisme memang merupakan wacana yang sangat menarik dan teoritis menantang. Ini mungkin karena kandungannya yang memiliki kaitan erat dengan kondisi mereka sebagai masyarakat poskolonial.
Melalui wacana-wacana tekstual yang disebarluaskan, pihak kolonial berupaya membentuk kesadaran masyarakat jajahan dan sekaligus mengonstruksikan identitasnya. Namun sebaliknya, melalui teks pulalah masyarakat poskolonial disadarkan dan mampu mengekspresikan dan menemukan sarana resistensinya yang tajam. Poin inilah yang menjadi bidikan utama buku ini. Pada wilayah inilah sastra poskolonial berupaya menampilkan serta mengangkat karya-karya marjinal, karya-karya selama masa colonial dibungkam oleh otoritas colonial serta dipinggirkan. Ia mencoba menampilkan teks yang telah terkubur, menemukan lagi pandangan kritis yang ditawarkan sebuah teks, serta memperlihatkan jaring-jaring kekuasaan disekitar teks. Di sinilah pendekatan poskolonial selalu menaruh curiga terhadap kanon, karena setiap kanonisasi memang tak pernah imun dari pertarungan kekuasaan.
Kelebihan yang akan segera Nampak ketika membaca buku ini bahwa para penulisnya ketika menuangkan gagasannya tidak berhenti pada tataran deskripsi, melainkan secara sangat memikat mampu menunjukkan analisis yang mendalam tentang perdebatan-perdebatan dan perbedaan-perbedaan yang ada dalam wacana poskolonial itu sendiri. Mereka mampu menunjukkan, misalnya perdebatan yang menarik antara para kritikus poskolonial pribumi yang menolak sinkretisitas dan hibriditas kondisi poskolonial karena ingin menghiidupkan dan memulihkan kembali kebudayaan pribumi asli prokolonial dengan para penulis poskolonial tandingannya yang menerima hibriditas dan sinkretisitas tersebut dan bahkan menganggapnya sebagai hal yang tak terelakkan dari kondisi poskolonial.
Penulis : Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffeths, dan Helen Tiffin
Penerbit : Qalam, Yogyakarta
Tahun terbit : 2004
Tebal : xvi+393 halaman
Akhir-akhir ini wacana tentang poskolonialisme mencuat menjadi salah satu wacana intelektual utama, khususnya di Negara-negara bekas jajahan. Bagi masyarakat Negara-negara tersebut, tidak dapat dipungkiri, poskolonialisme memang merupakan wacana yang sangat menarik dan teoritis menantang. Ini mungkin karena kandungannya yang memiliki kaitan erat dengan kondisi mereka sebagai masyarakat poskolonial.
Melalui wacana-wacana tekstual yang disebarluaskan, pihak kolonial berupaya membentuk kesadaran masyarakat jajahan dan sekaligus mengonstruksikan identitasnya. Namun sebaliknya, melalui teks pulalah masyarakat poskolonial disadarkan dan mampu mengekspresikan dan menemukan sarana resistensinya yang tajam. Poin inilah yang menjadi bidikan utama buku ini. Pada wilayah inilah sastra poskolonial berupaya menampilkan serta mengangkat karya-karya marjinal, karya-karya selama masa colonial dibungkam oleh otoritas colonial serta dipinggirkan. Ia mencoba menampilkan teks yang telah terkubur, menemukan lagi pandangan kritis yang ditawarkan sebuah teks, serta memperlihatkan jaring-jaring kekuasaan disekitar teks. Di sinilah pendekatan poskolonial selalu menaruh curiga terhadap kanon, karena setiap kanonisasi memang tak pernah imun dari pertarungan kekuasaan.
Kelebihan yang akan segera Nampak ketika membaca buku ini bahwa para penulisnya ketika menuangkan gagasannya tidak berhenti pada tataran deskripsi, melainkan secara sangat memikat mampu menunjukkan analisis yang mendalam tentang perdebatan-perdebatan dan perbedaan-perbedaan yang ada dalam wacana poskolonial itu sendiri. Mereka mampu menunjukkan, misalnya perdebatan yang menarik antara para kritikus poskolonial pribumi yang menolak sinkretisitas dan hibriditas kondisi poskolonial karena ingin menghiidupkan dan memulihkan kembali kebudayaan pribumi asli prokolonial dengan para penulis poskolonial tandingannya yang menerima hibriditas dan sinkretisitas tersebut dan bahkan menganggapnya sebagai hal yang tak terelakkan dari kondisi poskolonial.
April 22, 2014
If I had to describe this book in one word it would be "unreadable". I was forced to read this for a graduate seminar but I think it needs to literally be burned (and I am usually against book-burning!). It can't get any more boring than this wallpaper paste of a book. In fact, what the hell does it mean?
Post colonial, to the authors, means that any nation that had colonizers, needs to revert back to whatever their language and writing was like before. They include the USA which is about as absurd a notion as I have ever read. First of all, the people who fought the American revolution against the British were themselves British. Their ancestry is English, their language is English. There is nothing to revert back to and they themselves are colonizers who stole the land from the Native Americans and robbed them of their land and culture. Does this mean the Americans, upon winning independence from England, should either themselves (as colonizers) return to England or that they need to learn one of the hundreds of Native American languages and start writing in it?
I have some problems with their idea of "authentic" as well. What the hell is authentic? Let's say, for example, that blacks were sold into slavery by other blacks (from enemy tribes) in Africa. Whites bought them from the black slave sellers and carried them to the USA. For generations, hundreds of years, they spoke English and when they were able to learn to read and write, it was in English. So, should we say that someone like Toni Morrison or Alice Walker who was born in the USA, has English as a first language, who speaks no African languages and maybe has never even been to Africa are not being "authentic" in their "post-Colonial" writing if they write stories and books in English or that despite the fact that English is their language that they need to find out where their ancestors came from in Africa, learn that language and write only in that language.
This book is just pompous about that. People can and should write in whatever languages they want to and in whatever style they choose. It has nothing to do with Colonialism or post-Colonialism and that is really just a non-issue. The writing style is so dull and dry- you will suffer trying to wade through it.
Post colonial, to the authors, means that any nation that had colonizers, needs to revert back to whatever their language and writing was like before. They include the USA which is about as absurd a notion as I have ever read. First of all, the people who fought the American revolution against the British were themselves British. Their ancestry is English, their language is English. There is nothing to revert back to and they themselves are colonizers who stole the land from the Native Americans and robbed them of their land and culture. Does this mean the Americans, upon winning independence from England, should either themselves (as colonizers) return to England or that they need to learn one of the hundreds of Native American languages and start writing in it?
I have some problems with their idea of "authentic" as well. What the hell is authentic? Let's say, for example, that blacks were sold into slavery by other blacks (from enemy tribes) in Africa. Whites bought them from the black slave sellers and carried them to the USA. For generations, hundreds of years, they spoke English and when they were able to learn to read and write, it was in English. So, should we say that someone like Toni Morrison or Alice Walker who was born in the USA, has English as a first language, who speaks no African languages and maybe has never even been to Africa are not being "authentic" in their "post-Colonial" writing if they write stories and books in English or that despite the fact that English is their language that they need to find out where their ancestors came from in Africa, learn that language and write only in that language.
This book is just pompous about that. People can and should write in whatever languages they want to and in whatever style they choose. It has nothing to do with Colonialism or post-Colonialism and that is really just a non-issue. The writing style is so dull and dry- you will suffer trying to wade through it.
June 21, 2012
I'll admit that my favorite aspect of this book is the Star Wars reference in the title. But beyond that, this is a fantastic introduction to post-colonial theory and studies that I probably should have read when I began to develop an interest in post colonial theory. It's certainly accessible to an undergraduate college student--the language isn't at all obtuse, and it provides a pretty thorough overview of African, Caribbean, and settler post-colonial theories, which is probably pretty helpful to someone just beginning an exploration of the exciting world of poco studies. (And I say this without sarcasm. I really do love post-colonial theory. I'm writing a dissertation all about it)
However, having read The Empire Writes Back after I've read a truckload of poco theory was interesting because I enjoyed seeing how the world of post-colonial theory has developed in the last twenty years. I do wish that the authors had included more than just a mention of post-coloniality and the United Kingdom, e.g. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales and their relationship with England. And I'm not just saying that because that's my primary area of interest. I think it's a major aspect of post-colonial studies. However, that being said, it's still got a lot of really interesting, thought-provoking ideas that are still relevant in the 21st century.
However, having read The Empire Writes Back after I've read a truckload of poco theory was interesting because I enjoyed seeing how the world of post-colonial theory has developed in the last twenty years. I do wish that the authors had included more than just a mention of post-coloniality and the United Kingdom, e.g. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales and their relationship with England. And I'm not just saying that because that's my primary area of interest. I think it's a major aspect of post-colonial studies. However, that being said, it's still got a lot of really interesting, thought-provoking ideas that are still relevant in the 21st century.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews