This large collection of excerpts spans the field and contains writings from authors and theorists dealing with "The Occasion for Speaking" (Lamming), "Can the Subaltern Speak?" (Spivak), Colonialist Criticism (Achebe), "Figures of Colonial Resistance" (Sharpe), and other topics in this burgeoning field--or rather, in these fields and their multiple perspectives.
However, some of the essays are so packed with the usual postmodern and post-colonial jargon that they sound alike in both style and turgidity. After a Preface and an Intro full of apologies for the selection itself, we come to sentences like this: "Faced with an incomprehensible and multifaceted alerity, the European theoretically has the option of responding to the Other in terms of identity or difference." Or this: "The process of describing the colonized [in Ireland] and inscribing them in the discourse as second-order citizens in comparison with the colonizers commenced with the invocation of the judicial and military power of the State...." Can you tell the difference between these sentences, written by authors of different cultural backgrounds? Me neither.
It would be nice to see a collection in which the authors speak in their own voices without inscribing, discoursing, deconstructing, alerity-ing, or counter-hegemonying themselves--and us--into numbness. The field is really too promising, too important, to leave to yet another jargonized and specialized vocabulary that does the authors' obviously thoughtful experience no justice and some harm.