I know nothing about English drama between the late 17th and early 20th century. Was anything of value written during that time?

>>24523530 (OP)
You mean all English-language drama or just British stuff?

>>24523556
Anything English

>>24523530 (OP)
Sarah Kane and Harold Pinter are pretty good.

>>24523744
BETWEEN the 17th and 20th centuries

Bernard Shaw
Sam Shepard
Arthur Miller

Sheridan is probably the best
Shaw and Wilde probably count, Ireland was part of the UK back then.
The problem most drama pre-Ibsen has is that it’s too mannered and artificial now we are used to post Ibsen/Chekhov/Strindberg theatre, but it’s not as good as Shakespeare so we can overlook that. Only the farces really stand up as we expect a certain amount of nonsense

>>24523863
Caesar and Cleopatra by Shaw is better than Antony and Cleopatra by Shakespeare.

>>24523530 (OP)
>English
Let's assume you mean “in England”.

There isn't much worth a damn.

Cromwell basically banned the theatre in the middle of the 17th century which slowed things down haha. But prolly there weren't any decent dramatists anyway.

A few plays from the 18th century still just about hold up.
— The Rivals (Sheridan)
— The School For Scandal (Sheridan)
— She Stoops To Conquer (Goldsmith)
are the obvious ones. Nothing worldshaking though.

Most Victorian drama is terrible.

Towards the end of the 19th century you get a bit of life.

— If you count light opera, Gilbert & Sullivan (1870s onwards) are still popular. (More with amateurs than professionals I would say.)
— Charley's Aunt (Brandon Thomas, 1892) is still performed. Absurd man-dresses-up-as-someone's-aunt farce.
— The Importance Of Being Earnest (1895) of course.

But basically nothing serious.

>>24523530 (OP)
>>24523904
Oh yeah I forgot Shaw. (End of 19th century.) He's OK I suppose, if you like him. I don't, but without him there's just no-one.

>>24523912
You don't like Saint Joan?

Douglas By home