Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #098

by Robert J.C. Young

Postcolonialism explores the political, social, and cultural effects of decolonization, continuing the anti-colonial deconstruction of western dominance. This Very Short Introduction discusses both the history and key debates of postcolonialism, and considers its importance as a means of changing the way we think about the world.

Robert J. C. Young examines the key strategies that postcolonial thought has developed to engage with the impact of sometimes centuries of western political and cultural domination. Situating the discussion in a wide cultural and geographical context, he draws on examples such as the status of indigenous peoples, of those dispossessed from their land, Algerian rai music, and global social and ecological movements. In this new edition he also includes updated material on race, slavery, and postcolonial gender politics. Above all, Young argues that postcolonialism offers a political philosophy of activism that contests the current situation of global inequality, which in a new way continues the anti-colonial struggles of the past and enables us to decolonize our own lives in the present.

ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Politics, Philosophy, Theory, Post Colonial, Sociology

178 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

Robert J. C. Young FBA (D.Phil, Exeter College, Oxford; born 1950) is a postcolonial theorist, cultural critic, and historian. He is Julius Silver Professor of English and Comparative Literature at New York University, and was Dean of Arts & Humanities at NYU Abu Dhabi, 2015–2018. Previously he was Professor of English and Critical Theory and a fellow of Wadham College, Oxford University, where he was one of the founding editors of the Oxford Literary Review as a grad student. He is currently President of the AILC/ICLA Research Committee on Literary Theory.

Reviews

[Luke · Rating 2 out of 5]

I cannot in good faith give this work a higher rating than I have. Interpretation of reading will always be a subjective beast, and so I subjectively imbue my reception with moral constraints and continue on as usual. It's impossible to present a credible method if the methodology is hopelessly corrupt; I do not know what the most holistic presentation of this subject matter would be, but it is not the standard sole white/white-passing boy picking and choosing his sources, shredding and simplifying his narratives, speaking over millions of far more experienced others in order to get that next paper and paycheck. The only difference between this work and a Wikipedia article (appropriation level's the same when considering the origin of 'Wiki') is the latter's constant background chant of "Do not trust. Do not trust. Do not trust," a logo both education and society at large would do well to plaster all over their entities. A privileged voice speaking without the barest hint of self-reflexivity is worse than useless.

Why, then, the second star? For the sake of the same Wiki-page descriptor: the derivations may be far too falsely cohesive and casually formed, but the sources are a wealth of possibilities. Guevara derived privilege from whiteness over indigenous revolutionaries, Gandhi's misogyny and anti-blackness are passed over far too often here and elsewhere, Fanon gets trotted out as the author's own personal Magical Black Intellectual/Writer/Doctor/Saint/etc etc etc (qualified black people are like Highlander, y'know: there can only be one), but chase them down. Young includes the glorious Spivak and Said as afterthoughts and forgoes the complex grants and atrocities of Mao for the more sniffing attitudes at India (not white and previously under the author's homeland's control) and France (rivalry with England ring a bell?): do not repeat his mistakes (in some places conscientious excision cause what the actual fuck is this glancing over Churchill's responsibility for the Bengali famine) or his trivializing. Veils, music, Iraq, Dalits, environmentalism, sure, sure, sure. The fact remains: if an intro to postcolonialism doesn't send one who benefits from colonialist white supremacy like me running for the hills, you're doing it wrong.

I suppose my major complaint is that I paid the author money to read something I could've written better hung-over on very little sleep. True, it was assigned for class, but the title's a casually utilized indication of quality that will distract all from the far more valuable texts, both fiction and nonfiction, that reground foundations like The Wretched of the Earth and blow down walls like Almanac of the Dead. Reading this wasn't painful because of how much I knew already, but because someone with so little awareness of their place in postcolonialism is assigned in school. If they knew better, they would have provided the funding and sat down and shut up forever after that. If they really wanted to shake the colonized mind of the reader with postcolonial thought, they would have referred to the Taino, whose response to centuries of oppression is to demand ultimate respect for their cultural connectivity, creations, and holistic integrity, the likes of which the world has only afforded to the Vatican and its colonizing holiness for a very long time.

See, in postcolonialism, you do not get to watch. You do not get to touch. You do not have a language that accesses all or a guarantee that every bit will be the same and thus all experience is open to any who pass by with a four year to eight to however many year academic degree. The text has a lot of tidbits of theory and nonfictional tracts, but it does not speak of the need for boundaries, and it does not insist on the paramount act of respect, or invitation, or negotiations that forgo any naïve speeches about "sharing." There is nothing abstract or theorizing about this postcolonial civility, so the author's insistence on excluding such is no excuse. All in all, there's a lot of talk that talks, but the walk that walks will need to be in one of the many directions away.

[Gerhard · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the updated version, where Young states:

'The strategy of this book has been to introduce postcolonialism through examples supported by readable theoretical expositions of the many issues with which postcolonial thought and practice are concerned.'

A good intro of a difficult topic, especially decoloniality vs. postcolonialism. Lots of relevant examples, plus a great reading list. Some nuance is sacrificed for brevity, but this remains an informed and informative grounding.

[Arianna Mandorino · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think the reading of this book should be mandatory in order to understand the world we live in.
Reading this book helped me reaffirm and understand ideas that were already present in my head, expanding them with new concepts and facts or defining them in better terms.

[Skrivena stranica · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't really feel like this was a good introduction to postcolonialism. There was not enough theory in my opinion and the problems represented here are very Anglo-American problems. Coming from an European country that is seen as periphery from this approach, a lot of things just seem ridiculous to me. Like... We fight for a more just world, so we will include countries from Africa and Asia. And it, surprise, surprise, always turns out to be the most rich countries from these continent who look at us the same way we look at them. Problem of refugees is completely one-dimensional and it always seem like these theories want to "accept" the refugees that might get into power in their countries as a way to make them more peaceful, all smaller groups of refugees are completely unimportant as are smaller minorities.
So... I see postcolonial theory in this most basic and generic sense as completely hypocritical, still serving big nations and a need to put down Western European Powers is just another way to show them as these "best" countries in a way. By accepting everyone else, we are showing how great we are. If you come from European periphery... You are just an useless troublemaker with no power in economy or in people number.
So... In the end... I turned out disappointed.

[ReemAdel · Rating 2 out of 5]

i found his glorification of Mao and Che quite problematic. I say glorification because although he cites their ideas as important, such as the power of the peasantry, he fails to criticise them. Also, at some point he referred to Natives of North America specifically those of Mexico as “Indians”. big yikes.
Moreover, he claimed that today, companies are expected to abide by the “highest ethical and environmental standards” which is so laughable it hurts. I dont know if he was serious.
He also claimed that in countries where sexual harassment by men is widespread, wearing Hijab can function as a “form of self-protection” which is problematic because )it implies that attire is the deciding factor in whether a woman will be sexually assaulted or not. 2) shifts blame from women to men.
Had he said it were *perceived* as a form of self-protection it would have been more accurate (but still problematic)
i find his sources questionable. This book isnt that old as he mentions corona, did he then not have the time to research contemporary feminists in the arab world? Especially considering that in the past 5 years with the rise of popular feminism accelerated by the Internet, women in several Arab countries such as Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and many more have been vocal about problems women face, are critical of sexual assault and condemned all sorts of victim-blaming rhetorics. He barely ever mentions Nawal Saadawi, a socialist feminist author born in postcolonial Egypt.

It also felt like he quickly glossed over thinkers such as Said, Spivak, Khatibi, and Du Bois. Referencing them in passing here and there.
All in all there was very little theory and it read more like a high schooler’s essay riddled with emotion and pity for the ‘third world’. He makes postcolonialism seem as though it lacks theory and methodology.

Lastly, isn’t there something painfully ironic about a white man being paid to write about how we need to listen to more subaltern voices?

[Pavel Nedelcu · Rating 3 out of 5]

I understood the intentions of this book: to describe postcolonialism from the bottom up. However, this initial intent is poorly fulfilled: the result is confusing and scattered. A few quotes here and there, a few illustrative stories, but nothing substantial.
Furthermore, there is a confusion between theory and practice, especially with regard to socialism. If you put together Mao, Castro and Guevarra and praise them for their "violent" (justifying it with Fanon) battle against imperialism, without considering for a moment the traumas of the people under the resulting political regimes and the (also violent and terrorist) imposition of Socialist governments on population, then you are describing things in half. Nor do you consider the possibility that the badly applied socialist-communist theory (as in China and Cuba) creates as much harm to society as the colonial system.
However, the book tends to divide the world into Manichean blocks, into the First, Second, and Third World, without paying any attention to nuance; and it gives far too much space (for a bottom-up structure) to famous and controversial characters (dictators!) without contextualizing them properly.
As for the postcolonial theory: the chapters seem to be divided by concepts, but we move from one concept to another within the same chapter, in a confused and disordered way. Conclusions are missing: the reader often fails to understand what is he/she reading about and why.
The book rejects the abstractness of postcolonial theory, but it's even more abstract in its structure and reasoning.

[armin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great book. It was rich and authentic; simultaneously historical and actual, theoretical and factual... There is a wide range of leads that one can get from this book to pursue further studies in post-colonial studies whether in terms of literature or in history and social sciences... It's actually the first time I've read an Oxford very short introductions to such a delight and satisfaction. Recommended!
The only problem is that the edition that I was reading war a bit old so some of its contemporary facts are kind of historical today!

[Aaron]

Not enough praise could be expressed for Oxford University Press’ ‘Very Short Introductions’. They provide excellent surveys of a field of study with just enough depth to sensitise the reader to the potential of a set of disciplinary tools. Unfortunately, praise for the series as a whole cannot be applied to every book. Robert J. C. Young’s addition to the series is one those texts that does what it promised but in a fashion which seems alien to its topic.

Young admits that Postcolonial theory has been attacked for using obscurantist prose and jargon-laden approaches to topics that are potentially of great political relevance. Consequently he proposes to provide a Postcolonialism-lite which engages the political, economic and social issues that contextualise postcolonial theory and which could serve as an illustration of the theory. In this case, the theory never really had a place in the text and, as such, there was a sense of the unspoken throughout the book. This was a frustrating read even though I am someone who is only mildly familiar with the topic in general and some of the primary texts.

A series of tantalising quotations floated across the page but without being substantively engaged in the Young’s narrative. Bhabha, Spivak and Said are all mentioned but without sustained discussed of their ideas in light of the historical examples Young claimed to be using to situate postcolonialism. This book rather seemed to suggest that a theory of postcolonialsim is needed but that what has been done so far has proved effective in only a limited sense. This may well be true but Young never made this claim explicit and I doubt that is his thinking.

However, despite these failures, there are some redeeming qualities. The insights into Fanon’s life, especially, the last section of the conclusion were useful and well-paced. Young’s use of Rai music as an example of Hybridity was productive, but only because I had already read ‘The Location of Culture’. Moreover, the discussion of translation and land did productively elaborate important ideas in this area.

The series is excellent but this book left much to be desired. Instead, purchase Loomba’s Colonialism/Postcolonialism in the ‘New Critical Idiom’ series.

[Dash · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nothing groundbreaking, but great for someone who's looking into researching postcolonialism but doesn't know where to begin.

[Amine · Rating 1 out of 5]

Truly the worst read I've had for a while, I finished this book just the for the sake of doing so.
Here some of what this book and so called introduction fails to do :
- Have any semblance of structure.
- Define and explain fundamentals necessary to addressing the topic
- Have a clear statement of purpose.
- Giving a half-decent representation of the ideas most central to postcolonialism (those of Fanon, Spivak, Said, Bhabha).
- Explore postclonialism on the ground with any depth.
- Presenting the difficult areas and controversies within postcolonialism.
- Construct any attempt at being unbiased or neutral.
- Avoid the pitfalls of essentializing and romanticizing which much of postcolonialism is critical of
...

If I were to attempt to sum up what this book is instead:
- Fragments of history, culture, and art from around the world
- Stories about colonialism being bad
- Stories about capitalism being bad
- Stories about nations being bad
- Stories about oppressed populations being oppressed
- Stories about oppressed populations being good
- Stories about the Indian caste system being bad
- Tangents about gender, feminism, socialism, and other stuff

Someone with more effort in them would, additionally and maybe more importantly, point out the hypocrisy of this book by using it to criticize itself and what it does.

[Justin Evans · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not really well-named, but then, this isn't a short introduction to anything in particular. It's more like a selection of only the most outrageous stories from thirty years worth of the Guardian Weekly. So if you're young and want to get all hep up about bombing and racism, and are more or less unaware that, e.g., the 'problems' of Iraq are more or less the result of imperial/colonial/Western stupidity, this book will blow your mind. If you thought that 'postcolonial theory' was anything in particular, and wanted to learn about it, you'll be disappointed. Young says he won't be writing about a theory, and there is no one theory, and everything else that you're meant to say. He also has sections that read like manifestos: Postcolonialism is x. It is y. It is not z, for z is insufficiently good. And once you get to the end of all the things that postcolonialism is, and the two or three that it is not, you will be enlightened, believe me. What is postcolonialism, at the end of the day? It "seeks to turn difference from the basis of oppression into one of positive, intercultural social diversity." It is, in other words, slightly pumped up, color-blind liberalism. Postcolonialism is the good side of The Force.
Quoting Mao will not win it any new fans, I assume and hope; nor will borderline moronic statements like "fatty beef is not necessarily the healthiest thing to be eating in an era of BSE and animals pumped with growth hormones. Why do people always grow taller in the United States? Think about it." Uh... better nutrition? Oh, no, I get it, it's because they've all been eating beef pumped with growth hormones. Never mind that the chapter on feminism is mainly about Gandhi, or that the problems with nationalism are traced, perversely, to "the German Romantic account of the nation, developed at state level in Europe by Nazi Germany" - yes, the Hitler-bomb!- and not to, say, the inevitably exclusionary and elitist results of the idea of a nation.

So his good intentions don't really help you. Nice as it is that he is writing this 'from below,' (below what? below the *third* floor of Wadham College?), and nice as it is that he doesn't use theory as a battering ram to cave in your skull, some rigor and selectivity would have been nice.

PS: A few weeks later, I think I've decided that this is a Very Short Introduction to the Historical Reasons that People Like the Theories of Postcolonialism. Nothing wrong with that I guess.

[Brodolomi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Uh, zaista ne mogu da odobrim teorijsku knjigu, gde uopšte i nema nikakve teorije, već je autor nabacao niz istorijskih i egzotičnih slučajeva iz zemalja trećeg sveta. Što je vrlo bizarno ako se uzme u obzir da se postkolonijalna kritika bori protiv egzotične glamurizacije. Još bizarnije, u jednom trenutku se spominje i rat u Bosni iako mi nije jasno kakve to veze ima sa kolonijalizmom. Knjiga je puna snishodljivih rečenica tipa: razmislite o iskustvima u učenju palestinske devojčice na slici 3, koja ide u školu kroz ruševine izbeglićkog kampa Rafa gde živi (žao mi je Roberte, ali vizuelizacija izbeglica neće da mi pomogne u razumevanju teorijskih problema); Ili, još gore: ovu knjigu bi trebalo čitati za vreme promuklog, čežnjivog pulsiranja rai pesama. Izgleda da postkolonijalizam ovako zvuči kada o njemu piše engleski profesor sa Oksforda. Garantujem da profa ima zavidnu kolekciju world music diskova.

Članak o postkolonijalizmu na engleskoj vikipediji ima 100 puta više informacija nego ova knjiga.

[Dan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hilariously, fascinatingly bad.

Probably it was a mistake to read an introduction to Post-colonialism by a white, male English academic, whose career has taken him from Oxford to New York.

Large chunks of it are (literal) fiction,where Young imagines the situations of a refugee in Afghanistan or an intellectual in Iraq. These end up having viewpoints entirely like what you'd expect to hear in an academic Oxford dinner party -- which is no surprise given their origin.

It's utterly bizarre. Here's a book about the value of non-white, non-European knowledge, which sees no problem with a white European putting words into the mouths of imagined post-colonial subjects.

[Jan D · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed it. It is, short and easy to read, as a “very short introduction” should be. I would have wished that Spivak and Bhabha would have gotten a bit more space as it could be a stepping stone to such classics of the field.

[Garazi Muguruza · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good introductory book to the subject! It gives a wide overview of postcolonial struggles all around the world using many personal stories (which makes it easier to process). Definitely triggered me to learn more which I assume is the goal! Long way ahead.

[Namera · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5

[Bertrand · Rating 4 out of 5]

You see those "very short introductions" pretty much everywhere, but I think that's the first one I actually read: in France, we have the older and parallel institutions of the "Que sais-je?" which endeavours, I think similarly, to publish short surveys of particular (or less particular) fields by leading academics.
I suppose Young's approach, even compared to the rest of the collection, is rather unorthodox:
He does not provide a survey of the issues engaged by postcolonialism, which would likely have been impossible given the vagueness and/or controversial nature of its boundaries. Neither does he attempt to position and list the theories and their authors which constitute it, which once again, as anyone who has tried Spivak or Bhabha knows, wouldn't be easily fitted in an "introduction";
Instead he opts for "montage", hopping from continent to continent (Africa, Asia and South America), from the colonial experience to the liberation struggles, to our present days, from one facet (say, land-reform) to another (feminism), and so on.
The result read somewhat like a travelogue or like journalism; Do we get the general picture we most likely came for? To an extent: I think the book was written as a kind of sentimental appeal directed to the westerns, and as such it works quite well. Save for a necessarily short comparative excursus on Fanon and Che, however, we do not get much in the way of theory beyond the occasional quote used as chapter heading. What we do get, however, is the desire to learn more; If not as an introduction to the field, then as an introduction to an introduction, the book works rather well.

[missy jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was sometimes confused by Young’s organization, but I appreciated his fundamental premise of emphasizing that postcolonialism can only be understood with a “bottom-up” perspective; as he writes in the introduction, "Postcolonialism is about turning the world upside down and looking at it from a different perspective, that is, from the perspective of the disenfranchised people, a majority of whom come from the developing world." To this end, I appreciated the fact that his narrative emphasized that postcolonialism is not the sole property of sparring theorists, but that it also belongs to practitioners: organizers, collective social movements, protesters, revolutionaries. I think this perspective is critical because maintaining a grassroots perspective can help academics avoid engaging in “discursive colonization” (in Chandra Mohanty’s words), because the knowledge-making and reality-constructed capacities of colonized people are always healthily respected.

[Eleanor Morris · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not particularly informative, it gave imagined accounts of post colonial experiences and the odd profile of a person. As someone who knows very little about history I had to come to Goodreads to hear that some of the revolutionaries mentioned positively caused mass suffering. It made and judged quite a lot of presumptions about the west and a few of them I didn’t agree with, I would’ve liked a lot more evidence and fact. It felt quite condescending and heavy handed and didn’t really help me to understand anything, but it had one or two good quotes so it gets two stars.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Introduction: montage
Chapter 1: Subaltern knowledges
Chapter 2: Colonialisms, decolonization, decoloniality
Chapter 3: Slavery, race, caste
Chapter 4: History and power, from below and above
Chapter 5: Nomads, nation-states, borders
Chapter 6: Hybridity
Chapter 7: The ambivalence of the veil
Chapter 8: Gender, queering, and feminism in a postcolonial context
Chapter 9: Globalization from a postcolonial perspective
Chapter 10: Ecology and indigeneity
Chapter 11: Translation

[Carli Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

A useful brief insight into Post-colonialism but as someone coming at the topic with very little prior knowledge of a lot of the scenarios mentioned during the book, it was tough to get my teeth into - which is disappointing given the impression it gave me in the introduction.

[nam · Rating 4 out of 5]

good introduction and huge reading list at the back

[Zainab · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert Young’s short introduction to Postcolonialism takes a bottom-up approach to the world. It uses a montage of witness statements, reflections, profiles of key figures and relevant statistics to build our understanding of the field of Postcolonialism.
It shows how “postcolonial” and “tri-continental” can be exchangeable terms, as the three continents of Africa, Asia and Latin America form the bulk of the “Third World”. Understandably then, it covers Iraq, Algeria, Brazil, India and Palestinian refugee camps, among other locations.
It explores history and power, including cultural concerns like orientalism and economic systems like capitalism. Postcolonial theorists including Frantz Fanon and Homi Bhabha are well-referenced, often in grey boxes, to compartmentalise the heavier theoretical concepts.
The author’s own narration doesn’t shy away from being emotive (or sarcastic at times) to outline the complexities of the powers that operate within postcolonial contexts. Originally published in 2003, it only feels outdated in the discussion of corporations and social responsibility which have now evolved for the worse.
Young’s introduction is essential reading for anyone using the term ‘postcolonialism’ in academia, but is very accessible for non-academic readers looking for an overview of recent history to understand how the world works.

[Sammi Dé · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short refresher with a lot of helpful pointers and a strong reference list. Liked the emphasis on Fanon, Guevara, and Foucault. Somewhat basic and purely fundamental but wasn't expecting more, I do notice the author slipping into overly simplistic/essentialising discourses at times especially re. subjugated epistemologies and indigeneity. The arguments from Against Decolonisation definitely gave me a more critical response to certain claims and I wondered why his definition of a postcolonial politics is presented without contestation (is it not harmful to group its varied goals like this?)

Though most of it was foundational and thus largely stuff I had already read some new takeaway discussions include:
- the lettered city (Rama) and processes of translation/legibilisation,
- maldevelopment / Shiva/ Hind Swaraj,
- Fanon on violence, his physicality of language (and as reconcilable with Foucault),
-Rai music / postcolonial ethnomusicology,
- D&G: deterritorialisation and the 'nomad as a strategic concept',
- Mignolo's decoloniality + 'decolonial border thinking'

Want to read Mbembe next.

[Forrest Kentwell · Rating 2 out of 5]

While Young points to some interesting moments in colonial struggles in an attempt to move away from theory and more towards 'the ground,' this text fails to place postcolonial 'theories' within these experiential, revolutionary moments. Many of the chapters sections do not seem to have any clear connection to each other. Having read Fanon and Decolonial/Decoloniality authors exstensively this text was a disappointment. Young does not seem to hold a critique of capitalism and does not provide any useful definition on what the postcolony/postcolonial world is and when it appears -- when did imperialism and colonialism end are basic questions that should be answered if the 'postcolonial' is truly 'here'. Young's attempt to be non-theoretical falls short here as he leaves readers without much substance as to why he chooses the examples he does and what is valuable about such examples.

[Jonathan Vincent · Rating 3 out of 5]

After two chapters, I thought I would give this one star. After four, I thought two. Now that I've finished it, I'll give it three.

Is this a good introduction to postcolonialism? Probably not. Does the author finally decide to define postcolonialism in chapter five (of six)? Yes. Is it full of weird opinions that have very little to do with postcolonialism? Definitely. Is it entertaining? Absolutely. Does the author randomly suggest that Unilever has a master plan that involves funding anti-WTO protests? It's unclear.

Three stars, unsure if anyone needs to read this.

[Philemon Schott · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lies sich sehr gut lesen. Young geht thematisch statt personell vor, bringt viel Eigenes mit hinein und nutzt immer wieder Geschichten. Ein besonders hervorzuhebender Aspekt ist, dass er immer wieder Musik, Literatur und andere Künste ausführlich mithineinbringt.
Das alles ist zwar gut, aber nicht unbedingt ideal für eine Einführung. Wenn man nicht schon mit den HaupttheoretikerInnen vertraut ist, wird man hier glaube ich etwas überfrachtet. Der thematische Aufbau funktioniert da nicht so gut, weil dann immer wieder irgendwelche Namen gedroppt werden.

[Vanessa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really useful, no-nonsense guide that tackles postcolonial theory 'from below', meaning that it cuts the jargon from dense theoretical writers and explains concepts through the lived experiences of those on the ground.

[❤️‍🩹]

not qualified to rate this book maar was zeer informatief en las vlot

[Mustakim · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/5