And understatement of the century goes to...

[dramaturgy]

"Three of the Roman Emperors were... kind of nuts. They just didn't care about people." - David

Oh man. David is. He did say that he did not claim to be a historian, but really. He mentioned Nero by name, I wonder who the other two he had in mind were.

Also, the book that they are using for Theatre History here is the SAME ONE as last year and it STILL sucks. I cannot even appropriately express my disdain for that book. I spit on that book and then trample it with my chucks.

... That rhymed.

Comments

[thinkatory.livejournal.com]

BAH you were online and not on AIM. I'm bored, ignore me.

Caligula? I was looking for one that I remembered but I couldn't remember his name so I googled the details (impregnated his niece! I really hope no one's watching my google searches) and I found him (Domitian) on here, which makes me kind of want to stop talking about how Awful some presidents were. XD

[dramaturgy.livejournal.com]

I thought about Caligula because be was fucking nuts before Nero was fucking nuts.

Yeah. The difference between Nero and Bush is that Nero burned Christians and Bush metaphorically burns anyone who isn't a Christian.

[ladylisse.livejournal.com]

There's so many wtfcrazy Roman emperors to choose from, and a lot more who were just plain bad. But if you're going for omgwtfbbq batshit, my guess would be Caligula and Domitian.

.../geek

[ladylisse.livejournal.com]

Although Tiberius could be in there too. He was kind of insane too.

I'll shut up now.

[redflora.livejournal.com]

Ooh, ooh, which book? I'm teaching Theatre History (for high school), and I need to know which books to AVOID. (These poor kids are getting a lot of copied chapters and handouts in the meantime.)

[dramaturgy.livejournal.com]

It's called Theatre Histories, An Introduction and is edited together by Phillip B. Zarrilli, Bruce McConachie, Gary Jay Williams, and Carol Fisher Sorgenfrei. It has a lot of good, pertinent information in it, it's just badly organized and written more for history students looking at theatre than theatre students looking at the history of the theatre. Instead of taking a period of say thirty years or so and talking about EVERYTHING that happened, they'll take a hundred years and talk about it from difference perspectives.

Personally, I thought it was a lot more suited for someone who already has a background in theatre history and needs something a little more indepth. A lot of my theatre major classmates had even more trouble than I did.

[dramaturgy.livejournal.com]

Although as a P.S. the first theatre history book that I really liked is History of the Theatre by Brockett and Hildy.

[bubosquared.livejournal.com]

I--Yeah. In other news, on occasion rain can be a bit danm. *facepalm*