Stories about the civility through which diverse peoples have come to live peaceably in cities such as Vancouver are being used to launch Canada into the global urban future. The freedom promised by respect for privacy, mobilizing action for change, constructing our environments ethically, and improving our lots tends to be presumed as good. No need for politics, just planning. Mainstream, progressive, activist, and entrepreneurial focus on planning civil cities tends, however, to make the places where we live, places like Bridgeview BC – a neighbourhood on the fringes of Vancouver – invisible. In a sense, this dissertation is an extended set of reading notes to a case study based on archival research and fieldwork that is presented in an Appendix entitled Invisible Bridgeview. It shows what of the case study is highlighted when we take what I call the “civil city myth” seriously. Each chapter: (1) explicates an influential iteration of that myth (as articulated by Jane Jacobs, James C. Scott, and Le Corbusier) and shows how it positions Bridgeview (as backwards, on the margins of society, as a local site of global struggles, and as economically dependent); (2) illustrates a civil city myth at work (dumping on, mobilizing, ‘educating,’ and exploiting Bridgeview); and (3) taking our urban romanticism seriously, undoes a key distinction shoring up the civil/barbaric one, thereby rendering a civil city myth as an urban myth (that highlights Bridgeviewers’ capacity to negotiate conflict and self-govern, practical knowledge and commitments, kinship-based cultural movements, and ruralesque urban way of living). Thus the thrust of this analysis is from planning civil cities to engaging in urban politics – including struggles over basic infrastructure, community development, activism, and entrepreneurialism. Generous as it might seem to recognize Bridgeview (among all other places) as urban, it dismisses residents’ own sense of the place as “a small town in the big city.” So while taking the urban mythology as a point of reference, this dissertation concludes by crafting a mythology of intimate sub-urban politics – of gangs, affects, unintentional interventions, and squatting together. Seeking justice here, we are responsible in and to our relations, after all. / Graduate / 0615 / 0999

Stories about the civility through which diverse peoples have come to live peaceably in cities such as Vancouver are being used to launch Canada into the global urban future. The freedom promised by respect for privacy, mobilizing action for change, constructing our environments ethically, and improving our lots tends to be presumed as good. No need for politics, just planning. Mainstream, progressive, activist, and entrepreneurial focus on planning civil cities tends, however, to make the places where we live, places like Bridgeview BC – a neighbourhood on the fringes of Vancouver – invisible. In a sense, this dissertation is an extended set of reading notes to a case study based on archival research and fieldwork that is presented in an Appendix entitled Invisible Bridgeview. It shows what of the case study is highlighted when we take what I call the “civil city myth” seriously. Each chapter: (1) explicates an influential iteration of that myth (as articulated by Jane Jacobs, James C. Scott, and Le Corbusier) and shows how it positions Bridgeview (as backwards, on the margins of society, as a local site of global struggles, and as economically dependent); (2) illustrates a civil city myth at work (dumping on, mobilizing, ‘educating,’ and exploiting Bridgeview); and (3) taking our urban romanticism seriously, undoes a key distinction shoring up the civil/barbaric one, thereby rendering a civil city myth as an urban myth (that highlights Bridgeviewers’ capacity to negotiate conflict and self-govern, practical knowledge and commitments, kinship-based cultural movements, and ruralesque urban way of living). Thus the thrust of this analysis is from planning civil cities to engaging in urban politics – including struggles over basic infrastructure, community development, activism, and entrepreneurialism. Generous as it might seem to recognize Bridgeview (among all other places) as urban, it dismisses residents’ own sense of the place as “a small town in the big city.” So while taking the urban mythology as a point of reference, this dissertation concludes by crafting a mythology of intimate sub-urban politics – of gangs, affects, unintentional interventions, and squatting together. Seeking justice here, we are responsible in and to our relations, after all. / Graduate / 2015-04-23 / 0615 / 0999

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2006. / Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center; full text release delayed at author's request until 2009 Jun 15

No description available.

This thesis is concerned with one key aspect of the reception of the vernacular poetry of Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch), namely translations and imitations of the Rerum vulgarium fragmenta (Rvf) and Triumphi in English. It aims to provide a more comprehensive survey of the vernacular Petrarch’s legacy to English literature than is currently available, with a particular focus on some hitherto critically neglected texts and authors. It also seeks to ascertain to what degree the socio-historical phenomena of religion, politics, and culture have influenced the translations and imitations in question. The approach has been both chronological and comparative. This strategy will demonstrate with greater clarity the monumental effect of the Elizabethan Reformation on the English reception of Petrarch. It proposes a solution to the problem of the long gap between Geoffrey Chaucer’s re-writing of Rvf 132 and the imitations of Wyatt and Surrey framed in the context of Chaucer’s sophisticated imitative strategy (Chapter I). A fresh reading of Sir Philip Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella is offered which highlights the author’s misgivings about the dangers of textual misinterpretation, a concern he shared with Petrarch (Chapter II). The analysis of Edmund Spenser’s Amoretti and Epithalamion in the same chapter reveals a hitherto undetected Ovidian subtext to Petrarch’s Rvf 190. Chapter III deals with two English versions of the Triumphi: I propose a date for Lord Morley’s translation which suggests it may be the first post- Chaucerian English engagement with Petrarch; new evidence is brought to light which identifies the edition of Petrarch used by William Fowler as the source text for his Triumphs of Petrarcke. The fourth chapter constitutes the most extensive investigation to date of J. M. Synge’s engagement with the Rvf, and deals with the question of translation as subversion. On the theoretical front, it demonstrates how Synge’s use of “folk-speech” challenges Venuti’s binary foreignising/domesticating system of translation categorisation.