本文卑之無甚高論，僅旨在思考或重複英美學界晚近所謂理論之過氣或過世之說法，並指出此說法反映了學界對理論（之艱深）或沒有理論的焦慮，或對理論招魂。哲學學者如柯比主張後現代主義已成為過去，理論亦然，如今是消費主義當道，文本的生產模式也甚受消費者／讀者／觀眾所左右，故吾人久不聞諸理論大家之名久矣。然而在台灣，似乎第一世界（歐美）與第三世界（台灣）學界之間仍然頗有理論思潮時差，一如第一世界理論與第三世界文學文本之相遇或不遇之間的時差。這也反映在我們引進新批評以來對西方理論的誤解、抗拒、擁抱、或欲迎還拒，故對（後現代主義／現代主義等）「理論過（世之）後」說的附和，其實也是一種焦慮，或對理論趨勢失焦的焦慮。

Whereas Alan Kirby in “The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond” observes that “consumer fanaticism” prevails over plurality as a dominating social force, and proclaims the death of postmodernism, such a death, instead, suggests a linear narrative of Theory and literary criticism. Hence, my concern in this paper is that, while Theory is claimed to be over in the first world academia, is there a process of after Theory, which, on the one hand, connotes going after theory or a sense of continuity of theory and, on the other hand, belatedness, thriving (whether for hunting for/haunted by the ghosts of Theory or for celebrating the obituary) in the third world literary field? Such reflections on the death of Theory will be followed by some recollections of how the third world academy responds to the application of western literary theories on third world literature.