Boom times in world literature coincide with imperial expansion and historical trauma.

Evidence

Djelal Kadir cautions us that literature is produced “by acts of management and negotiated processes of cultivation,” none of which is distinterested: “The re-emergent conjunction between the globalisation of the world from decidedly local and uncontestable sites of power … in ways that fit the pattern of imperial hegemony, on the one hand, and the upsurge of a discourse of/on world literature and globalisation[,] … on the other hand, is a coincidence that bears examination.” He advocates treating the term world in world literature as a verb: “To world, and to globalize … would then be imputable actions rather than anonymous phenomena. The virtue of imputability resides in the prospect of being able to trace responsibility and consequence.” Because literature is a form of situated cultural practice, “the compelling question becomes, [W]ho carries out its worlding and why?” — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 399

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces Kadir’s provocation that ‘world’ in world literature should be read as a verb (‘to world’) so responsibility for whose worldview gets privileged can be traced.
• XREF: Kadir’s ‘worlding’ as an imputable act parallels Morey’s broader claim that 9/11 fiction either contests or reinforces Islamophobic frames — the two novels must be read as acts of worlding, not neutral reflection.
• QUESTION: If ‘world’ is a verb, whose worlding does Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist perform and whose does it contest? That is the hinge question for the reader’s project.