http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3169-0249
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Notes
1 Kelly, The Jerilderie Letter, 1. Early drafts of Carey’s novel saw the first parcel begin with this sentence, indicating its obvious significance; e.g. the second draft dated 9/4/98, found in Carey, Papers & Drafts, MS13420 1/12.
2 Flannery, Explorer’s Notebook, 111.
3 Clark, Short History, 176.
4 Ibid., 177.
5 Flannery, Explorer’s Notebook, 112.
6 Castricano, Cryptomimesis, 23.
7 Derrida, Negotiations, 108.
8 Derrida, Specters, 16.
9 Ibid., 17.
10 Ibid., 18.
11 Haddad, Derrida and the Inheritance of Democracy. This attention is evident in the conclusion to ‘Structure, Sign, and Play’ (Derrida Citation1978). Haddad highlights how the famous two interpretations of interpretation are apparently kept separate, with the two possible births not touching. However, he continues, there is the possibility that the passage refers to a monstrous child, with the two possibilities being inseparable (126). In the context of Carey’s novel, Haddad’s discussion allows us again to situate Derrida in the Australian context.
12 Derrida, Negotiations, 95.
13 Derrida, Specters, 37.
14 D’Cruz, Identity Politics in Deconstruction, 80.
15 Ibid., 81.
16 Nelson & McQuilton, Kelly Country, 153.
17 Carey underlines the following in Jones’s Ned Kelly: ‘Ned Kelly was growing beyond the role he had set out to play.’ (p.195) (Papers & Drafts MS13420 Box 7) Carey gives his Kelly a self-conscious sense that he is a dramatist, directing both sympathizers and police.
18 Gaunson, Ned Kelly, 77.
19 Basu, Ned Kelly as Memory Dispositif, 6–7.
20 Fletcher and Mead, ‘Inheriting the Past’.
21 Bliss, ‘Peter Carey’, 289.
22 Huggan, Australian Literature, 64.
23 Boym, The Future of Nostalgia, xvi.
24 Gaile, Rewriting History, 284.
25 Carey, True History, 379.
26 Woodcock, Peter Carey, 139.
27 Carey, True History, 7. Carey altered this first sentence considerably through the drafting process. As mentioned, at one stage it began with the first sentence of the Jerilderie Letter, before shifting towards the explicit address to the daughter.
28 Ibid., 386.
29 Ibid., 334.
30 Ibid., 236.
31 Ibid., 294.
32 Ibid., 297.
33 Ibid., 327.
34 Ian Jones expresses delight about the use of Henry V: ‘An exquisite irrelevance. The four Stingybark police left Mansfield on St Crispin’s Day. And George Rignold was playing HENRY V in Melbourne.’ See Carey, Papers & Drafts, MS13420 Box 5/1. But as Jones himself implies, the historical coincidences are less important than the literary juxtaposition.
35 ‘Henry V’, in Greenblatt, Ed., Norton Shakespeare, 4.3.59–69.
36 Curnow’s complaint is on p.419 of the published novel, and is central, as indicated by its positioning on the first page of earlier drafts, e.g. that of 15/9/1999; see Carey, Papers & Drafts, MS13420 Box 4/1.
37 Carey, True History, 251.
38 Carey, Papers & Drafts, MS13420 Box 5/1.
39 In this sense, no one could write a just true history of Australia, or of anywhere else; see Caputo, Against Ethics, 88.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
David Huddart
David Huddart is Professor of English Literary Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Director of the Research Centre for Human Values. He is the author of Involuntary Associations (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014), and co-editor of The Future of English in Asia (New York: Routledge, 2016) and A Companion to Mia Couto (Woodbridge: James Currey, 2016). Recent articles have appeared in Postcolonial Studies, Textual Practice, and Wasafiri. Email: [email protected]