| Revision as of 19:08, 27 August 2005 editRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits {{featured}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:14, 10 August 2006 edit undoSmthManly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,857 edits Added mainpage date to come template; please replace this template with {{mainpage date|August 12|2006}} when this date passes.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{featured}} | {{featured}} | ||
| {{Mainpage date to come|August 12|2006}} | |||
Revision as of 03:14, 10 August 2006
Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date to come
It is ready. Any passing horseman may nominate it for Featured Article status, if she or he wishes, but I vowed not to do so, myself, after the monster of Augustan literature. For whatever it's worth, this article pursues an independent thesis from that. Instead of trying to provide a strict narrative of "then this happened, then this, then this," it tries to show the contours of a dramatic evolution from courtliness in the Restoration to largely vaccuous domestic drama in the 19th century. How is it that "there is no Augustan drama?" How did this amazingly potent dramatic tradition of the Restoration give way to 'amusing' plays and the adventures and further adventures of Pollyanna? What knocked the wind out of the sails, and why did the audiences turn away from a drama that we now consider great to embrace a type of drama we now consider insipid? If there is no right or wrong about it, what history and fashion conspired to make this happen? That's what this article attempts. I think it's a good survey of "this then this then this" as well, but it's not serving the same master as Augustan literature. Geogre 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)