[Translated from Italian, by Google.]
More interesting, above all for the informative content, are instead articles of historical character like “The scientist on the stage: to survey “of M. To Orthofer, a review of teatrali witnesses from the classic antiquity today with a more rather wide deepening on the dramas of the atomic “era “, or “The experimental seduction of mechanistic modernism in Eugene O’ Neill’ s ‘ Dynamo’ and the Federal Theatre Project’ s ‘ Altars of steel'” of Dennis G. Jerz that faces the glares of the cultural debate in years Twenty and Thirty on the transformation in industrial sense of the United States, passing from the end of the strong critic of O’ Neill in the comparisons of the blind faith in the progress to the end of the propaganda dramas on the effects benefits of the industrialization process. (Google’s translation of Silvana Barbacci) —Review: Science and Theatre: between pedagogical debate and historical reconstruction (Journal of Science Communication)
A review of a special issue of Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, (Volume 27, Number 2, Autumn 2002) where I published an article that remixed parts of two separate chapters of my dissertation. As far as I can tell from the translation, the reviewer, Barbacci, seems to complain about dramatists (and critics?) who make mistakes with their science or technology in order to make a didactic point. He places my article in the more favorable “historical reconstruction” category.
If anyone out there can help me make sense of the original Italian, I’d be grateful.