Every theory has its pet names. What does Postcolonial Theory think of literature, authors, and readers?
What is literature?
For pocos, literature can be anything as long as it has a link to some colonial or neo-colonial empire. In fact, poco theorists live for things like a shopping list from a remote 1840s village, or a receipt from some London tobacconist. Or a movie about an embezzling tea merchant. Or a rusty Shell gas sign in the middle of an Arabian desert. You get the point—pretty much anything can be a study-able text.
Literature can also include your typical range of classics: Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy…stuff from your typical novelists and authors of the English-speaking empire (or other empires, for that matter—Spain used to have one too, as did Portugal, France, the Netherlands…the list goes on).
Lit that's up for grabs can also be the fiction that writes against those empires or former empires, like your most recent "'high literature"' from hotshots like Salman Rushdie or Zadie Smith.
In other words, chances are, if you've got something with words on it produced in some country with a history of some sort of imperial presence, a postcolonialist can probably do something with it.
What is an author?
So if literature can pretty much be anything, then an author…? You've guessed it. An author can pretty much be anyone who's able to produce the written word. That is, if you're writing is something that's being used for research about formerly colonial cultures, you're pretty much fair game.
Is there such a thing as an author with a capital "'A"'? In general, you probably won't find a self-respecting theorist saying that Authors are such a big deal because holding writers up on some gold-plated pedestal isn't really the focus hierarchy-skeptical folks like the poco theorists. These guys are just more into pointing out how colonialism or neo-colonialism works.
But there definitely are some writers currently putting pen to paper (or finger to computer key), who are serious Authors—widely-respected and prize-winning. They're your "'superstars"' of the field because they don't just capture the way colonialism works, they push the whole field of poco studies forward.
So sure, who writes stuff is worth knowing, but digging up individual biographies—less important than seeing how their work fits into larger cultural issues.
What is a reader?
You are the reader. Cop-out? Nope. Being the reader means that you're involved in the way knowledge is being passed around. That means you're already part of the problem because knowledge is the problem.
"'Wait what?!"' you're thinking. "'How did I get to be part of the problem?"' If you've ever watched a kung fu movie (even if it was just Kung Fu Panda and it didn't involve reading a thing), you're a "'reader"' and, therefore, part of the problem. If you've ever watched Dora the Explorer, you're part of the problem.
It's not really your fault, exactly. It's just that since you're part of a larger way of thinking called "'Orientalism,"' you can't help but be part of the system.
Here's the bright side: "'problem"' isn't necessarily a bad thing. Kung Fu Panda and Dora the Explorer could very well in fact be part of a good "'problem"'—the kind where the "'reader"' is much savvier and smarter and, therefore, can understand how Kung Fu Panda and Dora the Explorer actually try to work against colonialist stereotypes.
So that means if you're part of the problem, you may very well already be part of the solution too. And that can be pretty cool.