Rushdie self-presents his novels as Third World texts.

Evidence

That the author himself wants his thr~e major novels thus far (Grimus is minor and, in some fundamental ways, both obscure and different) to be read as ‘Third World’ texts is made obvious enough in the main lines of thematics and plotting, and in the emphases that Rushdie has underscored whenever he has spoken in his own voice, whether within the novels or in the interviews and conference papers which have inevitably followed: the colonial determination of our modernity, the conditions and corruptions of post-coloniality, the depiction of the Zia and Bhutto periods in Pakistan as emblematic of Third World caudillos and dictators in general, myths of nationhood and independence, the myths and gods of India, Third World migrants in metropolitan cities, the world of Islam, and so on. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 491

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Rushdie’s narrative form cannot sustain a claim to quintessential Indianness. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 491; The First World contains its own internal Third Worlds in its texts — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 207

Broader Connections

• The First World contains its own internal Third Worlds in its texts #expands (0.72) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 207