If satire is epic's ‘evil twin’, then tragedy is satire's ugly sister. Both epic and tragedy soar aloft in the stratosphere of the generic hierarchy, viewed humbly and from a distance by satire's pedestrian muse, who at the same time scoffs at their overblown irrelevance. Many of the same criticisms, often framed as back-handed compliments, are cast at both genres by their poor relation, but there are also distinctions. Epic, even if cloistered in an ivory tower, is constructed as sharing the impossible purity of that ivory, the better for its lofty and noble themes to be befouled, debased and perverted in the distorting mirror held up by its evil twin. Tragedy, however, is itself a perversion, ethically and aesthetically, a mishmash of vice and excess which is a natural target for satire, the self-appointed social policeman, but which also bears an uncomfortable resemblance to satire's own nature. Much work has been done in recent years on satire's engagement with and tendentious construction of tragedy, but very little on tragedy's reciprocal engagement with satire. The latter will be the focus of this article, approached from two, closely-related angles.

This article takes a critical look at the British planning system and the way it operates today. It has the reputation of being the best in the world, but it is widely misunderstood and misused. The present British government is trying to make planning less effective and far-reaching in the name of the need for national economic revival. Some of the planners on the defensive argue that the need and potential for planning is as great as ever. But there is no cause for complacency as the system has not been working smoothly. A long-running debate about the desirable degree of control over minor development will be quietened when the government passes new legislation on the subject. But the basic issues remain unresolved. Public participation in planning has been fashionable, but many planners are now disappointed by it. In pursuing quantity rather than quality of response from the public, the efforts of planners to involve people in preparing plans have been misdirected. Public inquiries have become an important part of the planning system, but the public is being tricked into thinking that it has a real opportunity to influence decisions when in fact it does not. Gradual changes in the nature of public inquiries are making them widely misunderstood.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract