Examining post-colonial literature through the lens provided by a single theory inevitably produces an equal and opposite argument. The ideas of representation and resistance are neither diametrically opposed nor completely congruent. Perhaps the dilemma of these terms lies within the term "post-colonial literature" itself, which lacks a clear definition. On the other hand, perhaps the dilemma of post-colonial literature ultimately rests in the self-awareness of the authors and theorists who are writing in or about a post-colonial era. William Wordsworth was not aware that he was what we today term a Romantic. In contrast, every post-colonial theorist realizes that the next essay or the next novel may change the course of post-colonial studies. Unfortunately, these theorists prevent any work produced by a post-colonial nation from being judged first by the most important criteria: the quality of the writing and the entertainment value of the plot. Instead, authors are subjected to and subjugated into a predetermined set of political, intellectual, and social boundaries before their novel is even published.
Indeed a Zimbabwean novelist is first a post-colonial author before he is a neo-classicist or a neo-Romantic. While it is important to weigh the political implications a novel, one cannot forget that novel must also be well written and enjoying or enlightening to read. Unfortunately, it is too late for post-colonial authors and theorists to allow subsequent literary movements to define their styles, themes and implications.
![[Singapore]](../../singapore/icons/sg2.gif){kind=icon}
