Derek Walcott's observation (quoted on p. 85 of The Language of Postcolonial Literatures):"What is inherited by Salman Rushdie, V S Naipaul, Michael Ondaatje, Ben Okri, and so on, is a sharing that has nothing ultimately to do with England."
The above is an interesting quotation which somehow dismisses the importance of England. But isn't it true that without England's colonisation, this "sharing" would not have been possible to begin with? Yes, but Walcott wasn't looking from a chronological perspective. What he is saying is that, in the here-and-now, one need not refer to England. The inheritance has to do with what these writers have in common: the use of English in their literatures, and there is no need to perfunctorily refer backwards to England to know the nature of their sharing, or indeed, what they have inherited. They have a lot in common, and it is not necessary to refer to England to see this.
— Ismail S. Talib
Any comments on the above?or go to the homepage of Language of Postcolonial Literatures