Technology in American Drama, 1920-1950
By:Dennis G. Jerz
Published on 2003 by Greenwood Publishing Group
This study explores the relationship between humans and machines during an age when technology became increasingly domesticated and accepted as an index to the American dream. The marriage between dramatic art and dramatic technology stems from the physical realities of staging and from the intimate connection of technology with human labor inside and outside the household. This book examines how American dramatists of the 1920s drew upon European Expressionism and innovative staging techniques to develop their characters and themes, and how later playwrights, such as Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller, established the American dramatic canon when technology had become a conventional and integral component of domestic life. Technology in American Drama, 1920-1950, explores the relationship between humans and machines during an age when technology became increasingly domesticated and accepted as an index to the American dream. The marriage between dramatic art and dramatic technology stems from both the physical realities of staging and the intimate connection of technology with human labor inside and outside the household. Technology shapes and defines the values of the soul, individually and collectively, in addition to producing the external environment in which people live. This book studies how playwrights of the era reflected the changing role of technology in American society. Drawing on the experiments of European Expressionism, American dramatists of the 1920s found new techniques for developing character and theme, along with innovative staging devices, such as the threatening machines in Elmer Rice's The Adding Machine, Sophie Treadwell's Machinal, and Eugene O'Neill's Dynamo. By the time Thornton Wilder, Tennessee Williams, and Arthur Miller established the canon of American drama, technology was no longer an impersonal force to be resisted, but a conventional and integral component of domestic life. In examining these dramatists and their works, this book provides an insightful analysis of a largely neglected topic.
This Book was ranked at 20 by Google Books for keyword technology.
Book ID of Technology in American Drama, 1920-1950's Books is -z_k2_YFLGsC, Book which was written byDennis G. Jerzhave ETAG "nFz4lO4Z3Ts"
Book which was published by Greenwood Publishing Group since 2003 have ISBNs, ISBN 13 Code is 9780313321726 and ISBN 10 Code is 0313321728
Reading Mode in Text Status is true and Reading Mode in Image Status is true
Book which have "167 Pages" is Printed at BOOK under CategoryDrama
This Book was rated by Raters and have average rate at ""
This eBook Maturity (Adult Book) status is NOT_MATURE
Book was written in en
eBook Version Availability Status at PDF is true and in ePub is true
Book Preview
Don't you kind of hate how we've entered the decadent period of Goodreads wherein possibly fifty percent (or more) of the reviews written by non-teenagers and non-romancers are now actually bare and unabashed in their variously successful attempts at being posture, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky? Do not you kind of wood (secretly, in the marrow of your gut's merry druthers) for the great ol'times of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all opinions were uniformly plainspoke Do not you type of loathe how we've entered the decadent stage of Goodreads where probably fifty percent (or more) of the evaluations published by non-teenagers and non-romancers are now actually nude and unabashed in their variously successful attempts at being arch, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky? Do not you type of wood (secretly, in the marrow of your gut's merry druthers) for the great ol'days of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all reviews were uniformly plainspoken, merely functional, unpretentious, and -- most importantly else -- dull, boring, dull? Do not you sort of loathe when people claim'do not you believe in this way or feel this way'in an endeavor to goad you both psychologically and grammatically in to accepting with them? In the words of ABBA: I really do, I do, I do(, I really do, I do). Properly, because the interwebs is just a world in which the past stands shoulder-to-shoulder with today's (and with fetish porn), we could revisit days gone by in their inviolable presentness any moment we wish. Or at the very least until this site ultimately tanks. Contemplate (won't you?) Matt Nieberle's report on Macbeth in their entirety. I have destined it with a heavy rope and pulled it here for your perusal. (Please realize that several a sic are implied in the following reviews.) its really complicated and stupid! why cant we be studying like Romeo and Juliet?!?! at the very least that book is excellent! There you've it. Refreshingly, not just a evaluation written in among the witch's comments or alluding to Hillary and Bill Clinton or discussing the reviewer's first period. Merely a primal shout unleashed to the black wilderness of the cosmos.Yes, Mr. Nieberle is (probably) an adolescent, but I admire his ability to strongarm the temptation to be clever or ironic. (Don't you?) He speaks the native language of the idk generation with an economy and an understanding that renders his convictions all the more emphatic. Here's MICHAEL's overview of exactly the same play. You might'know'MICHAEL; he's the'Problems Architect'only at Goodreads. (A problematic title itself in so it implies that he designs problems... that will be the case, for all I know.) This book shouldn't be required reading... reading plays that you do not want to read is awful. Reading a play kinda sucks to begin with, if it was supposed to be read, then it would be a novel, not really a play. On top of that the teach had us students read the play aloud (on person for each character for a couple pages). None people had browse the play before. None of us wanted to see it (I made the mistake of taking the'easy'english class for 6 years). The teacher picked students that appeared to be they weren't paying attention. All this compounded to produce me virtually hate reading classics for something such as 10 years (granted macbeth alone wasn't the problem). I also hate iambic pentameter. Pure activism there. STOP the mandatory reading of plays. It's wrong, morally and academically. And it also can definitely fuck up your GPA. There's no wasteful extravagance in this editorial... no fanfare, no fireworks, no linked photos of half-naked, oiled-up, big-bosomed starlets, no invented dialogues between the author and the review-writer. It's simple and memorable. Being required to read plays is wrong, and in the event that you require anyone, under duress, to see a play then you definitely have sinned and are going to hell, if you rely on hell. Or even, you're planning to the DMV. I'm also fed up with all you could smug spelling snobs. You damnable fascists along with your new-fangled dictionaries and your fancy-schmancy spell check. Sometimes the passionate immediacy of an email overcomes its spelling limitations. Also, in this age once we are taught to respect each other's differences, it appears offensively egocentric and mean-spirited you may anticipate others tokowtow in your small linguistic rules. Creative term may totally free themselves it doesn't matter how you attempt to shackle it. That may be your stick, Aubrey. Around my own thoughts and opinions, this engage in Macbeth seemed to be the particular worste peice ever before compiled by Shakespeare, and also this says a lot thinking about i also read their Romeo along with Juliet. Ontop connected with it's currently fabulous plot of land, impracticable personas along with absolutly discusting range of morals, Shakespeare overtly molds Female Macbeth for the reason that true vilian inside the play. Taking into consideration jane is mearly the particular voice around a corner circular along with Macbeth herself will be truely carrying out the actual hideous violations, like homicide along with scams, I don't realize why it's so uncomplicated to believe which Macbeth would likely be inclined to perform good instead of nasty if only their girl ended up far more possitive. I do believe that this play is actually uterally unrealistic. But this is a ne plus super with classic guide reviewing. Even though succinct and also with virtually no distracting interest to help coyness or maybe cuteness, Jo's evaluate alludes to some aggression hence outstanding that it must be inexpressible. One particular imagines several Signet Timeless Editions compromised for you to parts by using pruning shears around Jo's vicinity. I detest this play. So much so which Could not even present you with any analogies or maybe similes in respect of what amount I personally detest it. A strong incrementally snarkier type might have claimed one thing like...'I don't really like this specific engage in being a simile Could not appear with.' Not really Jo. The woman talks the raw, undecorated truth of the matter not fit intended for figurative language. Plus there is no problem together with that. After in an awesome although, when you are getting neck-deep around dandified pomo hijinks, it is a fantastic wallow inside the hog pen you might be itchin'for. Thank you, Jo. I like mom and her useless gripping in similes that will can't tactic the bilious hatred inside your heart. That you are mine, and We are yours. Figuratively communicating, regarding course. Now the following is this review: Macbeth by William Shakespeare is the greatest fictional perform within the British expressions, plus anyone that disagrees can be an asshole plus a dumbhead.
Comments
Post a Comment