AustLit
The material on this page is available to AustLit subscribers. If you are a subscriber or are from a subscribing organisation, please log in to gain full access. To explore options for subscribing to this unique teaching, research, and publishing resource for Australian culture and storytelling, please contact us or find out more.
Latest Issues
Publication Details of Only Known VersionEarliest 2 Known Versions of
Works about this Work
-
Tricked Myth-Machines : Self-Mythologising in the Poetry of John Forbes and Ted Berrigan
2011
single work
criticism
— Appears in: Refashioning Myth : Poetic Transformations and Metamorphoses 2011; (p. 163-181) '...Duncan Hose examines the personal mythopoeic tendencies of John Forbes and Ted Berrigan "as a synthetic poetic praxis of mythography and mythopoesis; that is, a constant rereading and re-writing of one's own myths." The everyday and the mythological are thus seen to enter into a dialectical exchange even as Berrigan's collage method works against self-mythologising. Hose claims that Forbes's poetry reminds us "that our everyday thinking, our being interpellated as subjects by our culture, our families, our literature, places us immanently within the processes and logic of myth." He identifies, in these poets' work, a tension between identity/Self as a composite product of myth and the active production of the Self through myth.' (Source: Introduction pp. 4-5)
-
Tricked Myth-Machines : Self-Mythologising in the Poetry of John Forbes and Ted Berrigan
2011
single work
criticism
— Appears in: Refashioning Myth : Poetic Transformations and Metamorphoses 2011; (p. 163-181) '...Duncan Hose examines the personal mythopoeic tendencies of John Forbes and Ted Berrigan "as a synthetic poetic praxis of mythography and mythopoesis; that is, a constant rereading and re-writing of one's own myths." The everyday and the mythological are thus seen to enter into a dialectical exchange even as Berrigan's collage method works against self-mythologising. Hose claims that Forbes's poetry reminds us "that our everyday thinking, our being interpellated as subjects by our culture, our families, our literature, places us immanently within the processes and logic of myth." He identifies, in these poets' work, a tension between identity/Self as a composite product of myth and the active production of the Self through myth.' (Source: Introduction pp. 4-5)
