1. The biography of Crawford Munro (1904-76) describes his early life in Toowoomba and Sydney, and his maturation as an engineer, working for Sydney Water, Sydney Technical College and in the production of Cruiser tanks in World War II. He was a large confident man with a big voice and an optimistic, humorous personality. As the Foundation Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of New South Wales Munro was liberal, fostered humanist studies and developed the School of Engineering with a unique emphasis on water engineering. He recruited excellent staff for research and postgraduate education who led the nation across all phases of hydrology and hydraulics. Munro developed a remarkable, rational solution for flood mitigation at Launceston, and actively promoted research, partly through the Australian Water Research Foundation and the Institution of Engineers, Australia. He was much involved with predicting flood runoff, developing benefit/cost relations for irrigation schemes, which led him into public controversy, and other hydrological projects. Munro’s attempts to raise social consciousness about water problems, his multi-disciplinary approach to the evaluation of water resources and his campaigns for the collection of stream and rainfall data helped provide a better basis for proper planning. In his later years he undertook the first Australian environmental impact study. The concluding chapter outlines a vision for the current management of Australia’s water. Munro posed necessary questions about measuring the supply of water and bringing the demand of water into synchrony with its supply, while providing water security in terms of its availability and quality. He raised the debate about the balance between sustaining environmental flows, utilizing water for agriculture and secondary industry, and maintaining the health of communities. Munro hoped equitable decision making would emerge from public engagement on these issues. 2. Twentieth century science biography in Australia is the province of a group of elite male scientists, whose interests cover wide disciplinary fields; it is focused on popular imagination: health, food and adventure (Antarctica) accounting for fifteen of the seventeen scientists. Empathy for the subject is a significant feature of the nineteen biographers, of whom five are scientists. This small genre is often supported by institutions in small print runs. A key role of biography is to place through science history a more epistemologically plausible version of events. Public discourses of science treated in the essay include conflict about the attribution of scientific discovery, the vocation of the scientist as a contributor to a wider social polity, the light biography sheds on sources of creativity and the evolution of the research and culture of institutions. The biographer attempts to generate a personal portrait of the scientist which conveys authority about the significance and origins of his or her scientific discoveries and their impact in the wider social context. Daniel Söderqvist’s affirmation of the existential approach which ‘emphasizes the freedom and responsibility of the human individual’ resonates with the candidate as expressing characteristics of the lives of many Australian scientists in their passion for intellectual discovery, their motivation to self-empowerment, and their readiness top step outside their social conditioning. This essay extends Söderqvist’s paradigm to the context of Australian science biography and indicates some constraints on its depiction which arise in the practice of writing science biography. Some epistemological issues are raised in the texts, especially when dealing with oral history and family mythology, and thematic, thematic within a chronological framework or chronological structures of the text are compared. The level of detail and context influence the sustainability of the reader’s interest. Case studies of the biographies written by the candidate (Ian Clunies Ross, Samuel Wadham, Allan Callaghan, Victor Trikojus, Raymond Hoffenberg and Crawford Munro) illustrate issues which arise in the writing of science biography. The dominant question is the relationship of the biographer to the subject, and this determines the voice the reader hears. The motivation of the biographer may arise in varying degrees of empathy felt for the subject. The high affinity the candidate had for Clunies Ross and Hoffenberg causes him to offer a defence against the charge of hagiography, and the selectivity and subjectivity of the biographer is evident in the arrangement and presentation of factual material. The motivation of the biographer is additionally directed to the communication of the subject’s research outputs to the wider Australian community, and in the case of Callaghan, Wadham and Clunies Ross there was a specific programmatic function of advancing the status of agricultural science. It is argued that the description of the public life of the subject needs to be complemented from the private life if the biographer is ‘to view the world through the eyes of the subject’.

No description available.

No description available.

Three Portraits of S. Kovalevsky: Interpretation of S. Kovalevsky’s life and creativity in the works by P. Ja. Kochina, A. C. Leffler and A. Munro This research puts forward the hypothesis that S. Kovalevsky was an example of a multifaceted talent: an outstanding mathematician, writer and public figure simultaneously. As such, the basis of the phenomenon that is S. Kovalevsky is the ingenious synthesis of the various facets of creativity.  An attempt was made to achieve a better understanding of the multifaceted life and creativity of S. Kovalevsky though a comparative study of the perceptions of Kovalevsky put forward by the Swedish writer, A.C. Leffler (1892), and that of the Russian biographer, P. Ja. Kochina (1981), and that of the Canadian writer, A. Munro (2009), Nobel laureates in literature 2013. Similarities and differences in the interpretations and understanding of the life and creativity of S. Kovalevsky between the Swedish, Russian and Canadian authors were identified and an important part was to define which image of S. Kovalevsky appears in the analysis of the authors. Another essential component was to identify which image dominates, that of Kovalevsky as a mathematician, as a writer or as a public figure. A table, containing the results of a comparative analysis using the maximum number of identified, scientifically sound parameters, is also presented in the study for a clearer picture of the perception of S. Kovalevsky’s image presented by the three writers. Twenty-four such comparative parameters were identified. The article concludes with possible prospects for further research on the subject.

No description available.

Scholarship has firmly established that the short story cycle is well-suited to representations of community. This study considers eight North American examples of the genre: four by Canadian authors Stephen Leacock, Duncan Campbell Scott, George Elliott, and Alice Munro; and four by American authors Sarah Orne Jewett, Sherwood Anderson, John Cheever, and Joyce Carol Oates. My original idea was to discover whether there were significant differences between the Canadian and American cycles, but ultimately I became far more interested in the way that all of the cycles address community formation and disintegration. The focus of each cycle is a small community, whether a small town, a village, or a suburb. In all of the examples, the authors address the small community as the focus of anxiety, concern, criticism, and praise, with special attention to the way in which, despite its manifold failings, the small community continues to inspire longings for the ideal home and source of identity. The narrative feature that ultimately provided the critical framework for the study is the recurring presence of the metropolis in all of the eight cycles. The city, set on the horizons of these small communities, consistently provides a backdrop against which author and characters seem to measure and understand their lives. Always an influence (whether for good or bad), the city’s presence is constructed as the other against which the small community’s identity is formulated and understood. The relationship between small community and city led me to an investigation into the mythology of the small community, a mythology that sets the small community in opposition to the city, portraying the former as the keeper of virtue and the latter as the disseminator of vice. The cycles themselves, as I increasingly discovered, challenge the mythology by identifying how the small community depends, in large part, on the city for self-understanding. The small community, however, as an idea, and a mythic ideal, is never dismissed as obsolete or irrelevant.

Scholarship has firmly established that the short story cycle is well-suited to representations of community. This study considers eight North American examples of the genre: four by Canadian authors Stephen Leacock, Duncan Campbell Scott, George Elliott, and Alice Munro; and four by American authors Sarah Orne Jewett, Sherwood Anderson, John Cheever, and Joyce Carol Oates. My original idea was to discover whether there were significant differences between the Canadian and American cycles, but ultimately I became far more interested in the way that all of the cycles address community formation and disintegration. The focus of each cycle is a small community, whether a small town, a village, or a suburb. In all of the examples, the authors address the small community as the focus of anxiety, concern, criticism, and praise, with special attention to the way in which, despite its manifold failings, the small community continues to inspire longings for the ideal home and source of identity. The narrative feature that ultimately provided the critical framework for the study is the recurring presence of the metropolis in all of the eight cycles. The city, set on the horizons of these small communities, consistently provides a backdrop against which author and characters seem to measure and understand their lives. Always an influence (whether for good or bad), the city’s presence is constructed as the other against which the small community’s identity is formulated and understood. The relationship between small community and city led me to an investigation into the mythology of the small community, a mythology that sets the small community in opposition to the city, portraying the former as the keeper of virtue and the latter as the disseminator of vice. The cycles themselves, as I increasingly discovered, challenge the mythology by identifying how the small community depends, in large part, on the city for self-understanding. The small community, however, as an idea, and a mythic ideal, is never dismissed as obsolete or irrelevant.

Scholarship has firmly established that the short story cycle is well-suited to representations of community. This study considers eight North American examples of the genre: four by Canadian authors Stephen Leacock, Duncan Campbell Scott, George Elliott, and Alice Munro; and four by American authors Sarah Orne Jewett, Sherwood Anderson, John Cheever, and Joyce Carol Oates. My original idea was to discover whether there were significant differences between the Canadian and American cycles, but ultimately I became far more interested in the way that all of the cycles address community formation and disintegration. The focus of each cycle is a small community, whether a small town, a village, or a suburb. In all of the examples, the authors address the small community as the focus of anxiety, concern, criticism, and praise, with special attention to the way in which, despite its manifold failings, the small community continues to inspire longings for the ideal home and source of identity. The narrative feature that ultimately provided the critical framework for the study is the recurring presence of the metropolis in all of the eight cycles. The city, set on the horizons of these small communities, consistently provides a backdrop against which author and characters seem to measure and understand their lives. Always an influence (whether for good or bad), the city’s presence is constructed as the other against which the small community’s identity is formulated and understood. The relationship between small community and city led me to an investigation into the mythology of the small community, a mythology that sets the small community in opposition to the city, portraying the former as the keeper of virtue and the latter as the disseminator of vice. The cycles themselves, as I increasingly discovered, challenge the mythology by identifying how the small community depends, in large part, on the city for self-understanding. The small community, however, as an idea, and a mythic ideal, is never dismissed as obsolete or irrelevant.

I identify and analyse an emergent sub-genre of contemporary literature by women that I am calling ‘New Femininities’ fiction. This fiction is about the distinctly feminine experience of contemporary domestic life written by women about the lives of heterosexual female characters that are married or in committed partnerships, often with children. These texts are concerned with the nature of the self, with a self that is plural and ‘in process’, and make use of particular narrative devices – ironic voice, unreliable narration, free indirect discourse, and interrogative endings that exceed their roles as simply telling stories. ‘New Femininities’ fictions allow their language the necessary freedom to multiply meanings and enact the narrative conflicts they raise and by so doing, undermine the binary oppositions which structure a gendered world. In this dissertation, I argue the models of existing criticism would do a disservice to these texts because much of the criticism either overvalues the theoretical and ignores the literariness of the text or seeks to identify a ‘feminine’ language the definition of which serves to reinforce and revalue patriarchal notions of femininity. The readings that this fiction requires necessitate a negotiation with established models of feminist literary criticism. I attempt to identify the characteristics of their style that allows them to straddle binary oppositions and to look at the language these authors use without having to label it ‘feminine’ and by so doing establish, build, or reinforce a boundary with some undefined ‘masculine’ language which stands in for all occurrences that are not ‘feminine’. Additionally, I attempt to forge a transformed, adapted concept vocabulary for dealing with this group of writers. To this end, I make use of various discourses to show how the different authors either negotiate with that discourse or prove its inadequacy to describe or explain these new femininities.

Scholarship has firmly established that the short story cycle is well-suited to representations of community. This study considers eight North American examples of the genre: four by Canadian authors Stephen Leacock, Duncan Campbell Scott, George Elliott, and Alice Munro; and four by American authors Sarah Orne Jewett, Sherwood Anderson, John Cheever, and Joyce Carol Oates. My original idea was to discover whether there were significant differences between the Canadian and American cycles, but ultimately I became far more interested in the way that all of the cycles address community formation and disintegration. The focus of each cycle is a small community, whether a small town, a village, or a suburb. In all of the examples, the authors address the small community as the focus of anxiety, concern, criticism, and praise, with special attention to the way in which, despite its manifold failings, the small community continues to inspire longings for the ideal home and source of identity. The narrative feature that ultimately provided the critical framework for the study is the recurring presence of the metropolis in all of the eight cycles. The city, set on the horizons of these small communities, consistently provides a backdrop against which author and characters seem to measure and understand their lives. Always an influence (whether for good or bad), the city’s presence is constructed as the other against which the small community’s identity is formulated and understood. The relationship between small community and city led me to an investigation into the mythology of the small community, a mythology that sets the small community in opposition to the city, portraying the former as the keeper of virtue and the latter as the disseminator of vice. The cycles themselves, as I increasingly discovered, challenge the mythology by identifying how the small community depends, in large part, on the city for self-understanding. The small community, however, as an idea, and a mythic ideal, is never dismissed as obsolete or irrelevant.