Shadows of Empire: Colonial Discourse and Javanese Tales

Rating:
Summary: Weak knowledge of Wayang and Mahabharata = Flawed Book
Review: I don't like to write negative reviews, but in this case I feel I must because there is so little on Wayang available. I disagree with the Thesis: "..that the shadow theater as it is known today is a hybrid of Javanese and Dutch ideas and interests, inseperable from a particular colonial moment." (Dust Jacket). Just when and where was this moment? This may sound good to Duke University Press, the publishers, and Western Academics ignorant of Java and Wayang, but it's just not that simple.

I will touch only on two main points: First of all Wayang is a complex expression of not only Javanese shadow theater, but also Sundanese Wayang Golek (three dimensional rod puppet theater). It is also a combination of History, Philosophy, Religion, Literature, Music, Performance Arts and many other subjects. Many of these are foreign or incompatible with Dutch Culture. Wayang Kulit and Wayang Golek also have to be treated together, not only because of their relation, but also due to the fact that the Dutch influence was greater, longer and more complete in (Sunda) West-Java. Sears not only fails to see this important point, but her knowledge of the history of Wayang and its traditions, both in the present and past are weak.

Secondly one needs to know the both the Javanese Version (Both Kawi and the Wayang Stories) and interpreatation of the Mahabharata and its relation to the Sanskirt Epic, and carefully note the differences. Sears does not do this at all. In fact her knowledge of the epics are also weak, otherwise the thesis would be different.

Thus, to not thoroughly know both Wayang and the Mahabharata flaws this book, so I do not even have to touch on its Postmodern / Western posturing.

The writing does not flow, and the proofreading and research are also weak. No, the Netherlands were not in World War I, they were neutral (p. 164) and Sanskrit and Javanese Spelling should not be used interchageably (p. 196). There are many more examples of this, so I better stop. This book does not enhance Wayang studies. Seek out the sources Sears cites, but does not seem to use, in the Biliography instead.