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.

This is a useful and comprehensive book, and it gives one a good insight into what was being discussed in postcolonial theory at the turn of the millenium. But why is there no mention of Russia in this volume (except for Thomas Macaulay's silly comments)? Russia colonies, while not separated from ethnic Russia by a body of salt water, were and are among the most exploited and least heard from. Russian colonialism is alive and kicking, and the so-called 'second world' (a.k.a. the communist-transformed Russian empire) is still only beginning the process of decolonization. A great many issues discussed in this book (hybridity, re-colonization, nationalism, language, education, history) beg to be applied to the Russian context. If it were not for this omission, I would have given this book five stars. It persuasively argues for the 'right to speak' of nations and territories that have been prevented from doing so by economic greed and desire for dominance originating in first world countries.

This is one of the best cultural-theoretical "readers" on the marketplace today, and should be indispensable addition to course syllabi for those wanting to teach postcolonial culture. All of the big names are here (Said, Anderson, Spivak, Bhabha, Fanon), and they've been helpfully redacted down to facilitate their accessibility--Spivak's and Bhabha's notoriously pompous and prolix styles have been edited to the point where students can actually discover the important points hidden away in the mire of verbiage.

My only disappointment with this reader is that so much has been included into it that it's price is somewhat steep--I think Ashcroft et. al. could've kept the price down by being a little less inclusive. But this is a terrific resource for anyone who wants to bring postcolonial theory into a class.

I had a very good friend who was shot to death during a domestic disbute. I know what my own range of emotions were then and so I have great empathy for the friends and family of Deborah McCormick as they have tried to deal with her violent and tragic death.
However, I also have known Michael Griffith. Michael was a deputy at the Bay County Sheriff's office when I worked for another law enforcement agency in Panama City . We continued to be friends after I moved to Tallahassee. I knew the woman he was married to when he lived in Panama City. I was present the day her next husband was arrested for having a 3 year long sexual relationship with Michael's 13 year old daughter.Mom was called in for an interview and admitted that she knew about the relationship and had given her consent.
So forgive me if I don't see her cast as the much abused and mistreated ex-wife. We are not talking June Cleaver here.
I was working the night Michael was named Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. His watch commander called and said one of the local business groups was going to give out the award at their banquet that night and for Michael to go pick it up because no one else wanted to go. That certainly doesn't sell books, does it?
I can assure you that, when a hurricane came through Bay County, we had our hands full just taking care of our county; and that was using every city, county and state law enforcement officer available in our area. There is no way anyone would take a 2 man patrol car and send it 100 miles away to Pensacola to check on a citizen when there are four counties full of law enforcement officers between our county and the misplaced citizen. The inaccuracies go on and on.
I doubt very seriously that any part of this manuscript came from interviews the author held with anyone in Bay County whoever knew Michael. Alot of those people have read the book, and alot of them refuse to believe that he has always been the malicious person this book portrays him to be.
To me, the book reads like a cut and paste job from newspaper stories and trial transcripts.
To portray Michael Griffith as a bad seed from birth may sell a few books. But it NOT an accurate representation of who he was.
Although I don't know who he became after he left Panama City, I know that during the 8 years I knew him he was a good deputy, a good friend and a nice guy. I've known a lot of people who have developed much more agressive personalities after years in law enforcement. I know that in every agency I have been affiliated with we have had our share of loose cannons, addicts, wife beaters and child molesters: we knew who most of them were, but nobody wanted to deal with it at the departmental level.
Those officers usually stay employed until they decided to leave; or they get fired because they go so far off the deep end they can't be concealed from the public any more. At which time their department takes away their gun and their badge and turns them loose on an unsuspecting public...with no safety net for the officer or the public.
If we can't qualify "Little Shop of Horrors" as complete fiction.....please lets not try to qualify it as investigative journalism, either.

I have read hundreds of true crime books. I have until now, never actually considered demanding the author give me my money back! I would send him his book back if it wouldn't cost more than the book did. More than focusing on the story line I found myself "catching" all the mistakes in his grammer. The idea and the story seemed interesting but I just couldn't keep track. When I did finally finish the book I was more mad that I paid money for it. This is one to borrow but not pay for. If you'd like to practice your english skills, this ones for you. Maybe Bill's editor was too busy to edit this one. The pics didn't match the story either. Hope he has better luck with his next book.

I disagree with the other reviewer, who I don't think was fair to this book or its author. While it's not the best I've ever read, it was good and certainly worth the price. I felt I got to know the main characters fairly well, and the trial was covered in some detail without bogging the reader down in dry legal prose. As for the other reviewer's comments about the pictures not matching the text, I have no idea what he's referring to... the pictures were of the crime scene, the victims, and the prosecutors.