Third-world writers have achieved real canonical standing in US academia.

Evidence

My argument is not that these reputations are not well deserved (Naipaul, of course, is a different matter), nor that there should not be more such canonizations. But the representation of this body of work in Jameson’s discourse as simply ‘non-canonical’- that is, as something that has been altogether excluded from the contemporary practices of high textualiry in the US academy - does appear to overstate the case Jameson speaks of ‘non-canonical forms of literature such as that of the third world’, compares this singularized form to ‘another non-canonical form’ in which Dashiell Hammett is placed, and goes on to say: Nothing is to be gained by passing over in silence the radical difference of non-canonical texts. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 440

Categorization

• QUESTION: Useful as counter-evidence if the reader later surveys how postcolonial studies itself got institutionalized — i.e., the material conditions that made ‘third-world literature’ a department-wide topic.
• XREF: connects to: Third World Literature as a field was professionalized by metropolitan universities — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 185; English-writing non-Western intellectuals get elevated into representatives of whole continents — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 153

Broader Connections

• Third World Literature as a field was professionalized by metropolitan universities #expands (0.82) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 185
• English-writing non-Western intellectuals get elevated into representatives of whole continents #qualifies (0.75) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 153