03644nam 2200697 450 991045636810332120200520144314.01-281-99212-797866119921251-4426-7684-110.3138/9781442676848(CKB)2430000000002059(OCoLC)244768390(CaPaEBR)ebrary10219047(SSID)ssj0000302037(PQKBManifestationID)11217774(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000302037(PQKBWorkID)10266044(PQKB)11057888(CaBNvSL)thg00601134 (MiAaPQ)EBC3255141(MiAaPQ)EBC4671687(DE-B1597)464623(OCoLC)944178021(OCoLC)999355104(DE-B1597)9781442676848(Au-PeEL)EBL4671687(CaPaEBR)ebr11257389(CaONFJC)MIL199212(OCoLC)958572065(EXLCZ)99243000000000205920160913h20062006 uy 0engurcn|||||||||txtccrLoving in verse poetic influence as erotic /Stephen Guy-BrayToronto, [Ontario] ;Buffalo, [New York] ;London, [England] :University of Toronto Press,2006.©20061 online resource (151 p.)Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph0-8020-8045-6 0-8020-9203-9 Includes bibliographical references and index.Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Preface -- 1 Virgil into Statius into Dante -- 2 Chaucer and Spenser and Other Male Couples -- 3 Crane on Whitman -- 4 Eliot with Bloom, Barthes with O'Hara -- Notes -- Bibliography -- IndexThe current critical tendency in the study of Renaissance literature is to regard the relationship between a poet and his predecessor as either familial or antagonistic. Stephen Guy-Bray argues that neither of these models can be applied to all poetic relationships and that, in fact, the romantic and even sexual nature of some relationships must be considered. Loving in Verse examines how three poets present their relationship to their most important predecessors, beginning with Dante?s use of Virgil and Statius in the Divine Comedy, moving on to Spenser?s use of medieval English poets in theFaerie Queene, and finally addressing Hart Crane?s use of Whitman in The Bridge. In each case, Guy-Bray shows how the younger poet presents himself and the older poet as part of a male couple. He goes on to demonstrate how male couples are, in fact, found throughout these poems, and while some are indeed familial or hostile, many are romantic or sexual. Using concepts from queer theory and close readings of images and allusions in these texts, Loving in Verse demonstrates the importance of homoeroticism to an examination of poetic influence. A discussion of the theories of poetic influence from four twentieth-century writers (T.S. Eliot, Harold Bloom, Roland Barthes, and Frank O?Hara) concludes Guy-Bray?s analysis.Homosexuality in literaturePoetryHistory and criticismElectronic books.Homosexuality in literature.PoetryHistory and criticism.809.19353Guy-Bray Stephen972815MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910456368103321Loving in verse2479022UNINA03392oam 2200541M 450 991015034840332120240501155621.01-315-52515-11-315-52517-810.4324/9781315525174 (CKB)3710000000932729(MiAaPQ)EBC4741330962752608(OCoLC)964357542(OCoLC-P)964357542(FlBoTFG)9781315525174(EXLCZ)99371000000093272920161013d2016 uy 0engur|||||||||||rdacontentrdamediardacarrierNuclear asymmetry and deterrence theory, policy and history /Jan Ludvik1st ed.London :Routledge,2016.1 online resource (197 pages) illustrations, tablesRoutledge Global Security StudiesIncludes index.1-138-69619-6 1-315-52516-X 1. Toward a broader theory of deterrence -- 2. The United States and China, 1959-1966 -- 3. The Soviet Union and China, 1969 -- 4. Israel and Iraq, 1977-1981 -- 5. The United States and North Korea, 1992-1994 -- 6. The United States and Soviet Union, 1962 -- 7. Putting the pieces together.This book offers a broader theory of nuclear deterrence and examines the way nuclear and conventional deterrence interact with non-military factors in a series of historical case studies. The existing body of literature largely leans toward the analytical primacy of nuclear deterrence and it is often implicitly assumed that nuclear weapons are so important that, when they are present, other factors need not be studied. This book addresses this omission. It develops a research framework that incorporates the military aspects of deterrence, both nuclear and conventional, together with various perceptual factors, international circumstances, domestic politics, and norms. This framework is then used to re-examine five historical crises that brought two nuclear countries to the brink of war: the hostile asymmetric nuclear relations between the United States and China in the early 1960s; between the Soviet Union and China in the late 1960s; between Israel and Iraq in 1977-1981; between the United States and North Korea in 1992-1994; and, finally, between the United States and the Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The main empirical findings challenge the common expectation that the threat of nuclear retaliation represents the ultimate deterrent. In fact, it can be said, with a high degree of confidence, that it was rather the threat of conventional retaliation that acted as a major stabilizer. This book will be of much interest to students of nuclear proliferation, cold war studies, deterrence theory, security studies and IR in general.Routledge global security studies.Deterrence (Strategy)Nuclear weaponsWorld politics20th centuryDeterrence (Strategy)Nuclear weapons.World politics355.02/17Ludvik Jan929967OCoLC-POCoLC-PBOOK9910150348403321Nuclear asymmetry and deterrence2091159UNINA