In his one page preface to Postcolonial Theory: The Emergence of a Critical Discourse, Homi Bhabha has this to say of a good bibliography: It is an ‘intellectual project that combines the mastery of the map with the history of the archive. Bibliographies like maps, alert us to the junctions and networks through which the traffic of ideas circulate across fields and enable us to find our own paths. The archival aspect of the bibliographic venture provides us with a temporal text that tracks the growth of a body of knowledge as it is structured by the evolution of ideas, themes and topics that constitute a disciplinary terrain. We need maps to speed us on our way; just as we need archives to enable us to stoop and reflect on the passage of time – past, present and future – that shapes the itineraries of scholarly thought’.   This selected and annotated bibliography on postcolonial discourse writing comprises over 360 entries and has been put together by a team of German scholars with the intention of charting the emergence of postcolonial discourse both as an intellectual, and an institutional presence. Two types of articles are included—those of a general theoretical nature, and those relating to one or more specific geographical regions or country. The entries are annotated concisely, and cover the entire history of the text in terms of author, title and original place and date of publication. There are also two checklists of essay collections and learned journals containing information on the sources from where the texts were drawn.   In his introduction, Riemenschneider admits that this work is neither the first attempt to collate a comprehensive bibliography, nor does it totally cover all work produced under the rubric of postcolonial studies, given the ‘frightening rate’ at which research articles are being produced year after year. He states that this collection attempts to improve upon earlier bibliographies (Ashcroft, Griffith and Tiffins/Lawson/Goetzfridt William et al) that often left something to be desired in terms of length of annotation, or documentation of early texts. The most basic difference, according to the editor, is that the entries here are arranged chronologically and this arrangement brings into play the historical dimension of post-colonial theoretical discourse, and guides the scholar along the historical trajectory of the discourse ‘with its internal dialectic, contradictions and fissures.’   The annotated entries are preceded by a survey by Frank Schulze-Engler wherein ...