Contemporary postcolonial studies have become stereotypical and repetitive, equating British Victorian literature with British imperialism, as if there could be one-to-one correspondence between literature and life. Literature indulges in transmutation of life, fictionalizing the chronicle of life. Hence postcolonial studies as we read analyses give the feeling of déjà vu. There is a need to revisit to reappraise postcolonial theoretics, in order to indulge in not only pertinent analyses but also sanitize to comprehend boundaries between life and fiction. Then there is the case of Spivak in her paper ―Three Women‘s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism‖ (1985) that has engendered postcolonial studies, especially of the type that Spivak indulged in while critiquing British Victorian literature. In Spivak‘s paperwe find polemics and politics with little of cogency and coherence. Sensitive reading is the need of the hour, which has been christened as Post-Postcolonial theory, in order to go beyond Spivakian politico-polemic and not indulge in ‗coercive criticism‘. This is all the more important since other scholars like Said followed Spivak to indulge in similar postcolonial analyses, and voluminous scholarship of this type has gradually accumulated. Spivak, in her paper presented the formulaic: British novel as ―imperialist narrativization of history.‖Good in ―Presentism: Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, Postcolonialism‖ (2005) has broken new ground by giving the concept of ―Presentism‖ that he explained as ―the primacy of the present, and the refusal to be guided by a vision either of the past or of the future.‖ Hence, the need for Post-Postcolonial theory.