Skip to main contentSkip to solution

For early postcolonial literature, the world of the novel was often the nation. Postcolonial novels were usually concerned with national questions. Sometimes the whole story of the novel was taken as an allegory of the nation, whether India or Tanzania. This was important for supporting anti-colonial nationalism, but could also be limiting - land-focused and inward- looking.

My new book "Writing Ocean Worlds" explores another kind of world of the novel: not the village or nation, but the Indian Ocean world. The book describes a set of novels in which the Indian Ocean is at the centre of the story. It focuses on the novelists Amitav Ghosh, Abdulrazak Gurnah, Lindsey Collen and Joseph Conrad who have centred the Indian Ocean world in the majority of their novels. Their work reveals a world that is outward-looking -full of movement, border-crossing and south-south interconnection. They are all very different – from colonially inclined (Conrad) to radically anti-capitalist (Collen), but together draw on and shape a wider sense of Indian Ocean space through themes, images, metaphors and language. This has the effect of remapping the world in the reader's mind, as centred in the interconnected global south.

The Indian Ocean world is a term used to describe the very long-lasting connections among the coasts of East Africa, the Arab coasts, and South and East Asia. These connections were made possible by the geography of the Indian Ocean. For much of history, travel by sea was much easier than by land, which meant that port cities very far apart were often more easily connected to each other than to much closer inland cities. Historical and archaeological evidence suggests that what we now call globalisation first appeared in the Indian Ocean.

This is the interconnected oceanic world referenced and produced by the novels in my book. For their part Ghosh, Gurnah, Collen and even Conrad reference a different set of histories and geographies than the ones most commonly found in fiction in English. Those commonly found ones are mostly centred in Europe or the US, assume a background of Christianity and whiteness, and mention places like Paris and New York. The novels in my book highlight instead a largely Islamic space, feature characters of colour and centralise the ports of Malindi, Mombasa, Aden, Java and Bombay.

It is a densely imagined, richly sensory image of a southern cosmopolitan culture which provides for an enlarged sense of place in the world. This remapping is particularly powerful for the representation of Africa. In the fiction, sailors and travellers are not all European. African, as well as Indian and Arab characters, are traders, nakhodas (dhow ship captains), runaways, villains, missionaries and activists. This does not mean that Indian Ocean Africa is romanticised. Migration is often a matter of force; travel is portrayed as abandonment rather than adventure, freedoms are kept from women and slavery is rife. What it does mean is that the African part of the Indian Ocean world plays an active role in its long, rich history and therefore in that of the wider world.

All of the following statements, if true, would weaken the passage's claim about the relationship between mainstream English-language fiction and Indian Ocean novels EXCEPT:

Solution

βœ… Correct Option: 3

Understanding the passage's main claim: The author contrasts mainstream English fiction with Indian Ocean novels. Mainstream fiction is described as Europe/US-centered, assuming "Christianity and whiteness," mentioning places like "Paris and New York." Indian Ocean novels offer a different perspective - featuring "largely Islamic space" and "characters of colour."

From passage: "Those commonly found ones are mostly centred in Europe or the US, assume a background of Christianity and whiteness, and mention places like Paris and New York. The novels in my book highlight instead a largely Islamic space, feature characters of colour..."

The key insight -> We need the statement that supports rather than weakens this contrast.


🟠 Option 1 -> weakens the claim -> Says Indian Ocean novels show "postcolonial nostalgia for an idyllic past" which contradicts the passage's point that "Indian Ocean Africa is not romanticised"

🟠 Option 2 -> weakens the claim -> Says Indian Ocean novels use "Orientalist imagination" which would make them similar to problematic mainstream fiction, not different

🟒 Option 3 -> supports the claim -> Says mainstream fiction "privileged the Christian, white, male experience" which perfectly matches the passage's description of mainstream fiction as assuming "Christianity and whiteness"

🟠 Option 4 -> weakens the claim -> Says "very few" mainstream novels are set in American/European centers, but the passage claims they mention "places like Paris and New York"

Option 3 actually reinforces the passage's characterization of mainstream English fiction instead of challenging it. It's the exception that supports rather than weakens.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question