Siguieron, y eso que faltaba el texto teatral.

Here siguieron is the 3rd person plural preterite of seguir.

Depending on context, seguir can mean several things:

• to continue / carry on
• to go on
• to follow

In this sentence, it most naturally means they carried on / they went ahead / they continued.

So siguieron is not present tense like they follow, but a completed past action: they continued or they went on.

Spanish often leaves out subject pronouns when the verb already shows who the subject is.

• siguieron = they continued
• the ending -ieron tells you it is 3rd person plural

So Spanish does not need ellos / ellas unless the speaker wants emphasis or contrast.

Who they are depends on the wider context. The sentence itself only tells you that it is some plural subject.

The preterite is used because the sentence presents the action as a completed event: they did continue / went ahead.

Compare:

• Siguieron = they continued / they went on
• Seguían = they were continuing / used to continue

Here, the speaker is referring to a specific past action that happened, so siguieron fits better.

Y eso que is a very common expression, especially in everyday Spanish, used to introduce a contrast or concession.

It often means:

• even though
• despite the fact that
• and that’s despite the fact that

So:

• Siguieron, y eso que faltaba el texto teatral.

means something like:

• They carried on, even though the play script was missing.

It is not usually translated word-for-word. Literally, it looks like and that despite the fact that..., but in natural English even though is often the best equivalent.

They are similar because both can introduce a concessive idea.

• aunque faltaba el texto teatral
• y eso que faltaba el texto teatral

Both can mean even though the theatrical text/script was missing.

But y eso que often sounds a bit more colloquial and can add a stronger sense of:

• surprise
• contrast
• that’s impressive/unexpected considering...

So y eso que can feel a little like:

• and that’s despite the fact that...
• which is surprising because...

Faltaba is the imperfect of faltar.

The imperfect is used here because the sentence describes a background situation or an ongoing circumstance at that moment:

• faltaba el texto teatral = the theatrical text/script was missing
• not necessarily a single sudden event, but a state or situation

So the structure is:

• main event: siguieron → completed action
• background circumstance: faltaba el texto teatral → ongoing situation

This combination is very common in Spanish:

• completed action + background situation

This is a very important Spanish pattern.

Faltar often means:

• to be missing
• to be lacking
• to still be needed

In Spanish, the thing that is missing is usually the subject of faltar.

So:

• faltaba el texto teatral literally behaves like
• the theatrical text was missing

It does not mean that the theatrical text lacked something.

Compare:

• Falta Juan = Juan is missing / Juan isn’t here
• Faltan dos páginas = Two pages are missing
• Faltaba el texto teatral = The play script was missing

El texto teatral literally means the theatrical text or the dramatic text.

Depending on context, a natural English translation could be:

• the play text
• the script
• the dramatic script
• the theatre text

In many contexts, the script or the play script sounds most natural in English.

A learner should note that Spanish sometimes uses slightly more formal or technical wording where English might choose a simpler phrase.

Spanish often uses the definite article el / la / los / las in places where English may or may not use the.

Here, el texto teatral suggests a specific text/script that both speaker and listener can identify from context.

So it is not just a theatrical text, but the theatrical text—the one that was expected, relevant, or already known in the situation.

The comma separates the main statement from the concessive comment introduced by y eso que.

• Siguieron = main action
• y eso que faltaba el texto teatral = added contrast/explanation

This pause is natural because the second part works a bit like:

• and that was despite the fact that...

So the comma helps show that the speaker is adding an afterthought or explanatory contrast.

Grammatically, yes: seguir can mean both to follow and to continue.

But in this sentence, they continued / they went on is much more likely because of the structure:

• Siguieron, y eso que faltaba el texto teatral.

The second part gives a reason why continuing would be surprising:

• they carried on
• even though the script/text was missing

If you meant they followed, you would usually expect more information, such as:

• Siguieron al profesor = They followed the teacher
• Siguieron el plan = They followed the plan

So context strongly favors continued here.

It is understandable, but it sounds unnatural in English.

More natural translations would be:

• even though the script was missing
• despite the fact that the script was missing
• and that was despite the fact that the script was missing

So while y eso que is literally built with and (y), in English you usually translate the whole expression more freely.

Yes. The expression y eso que is very natural in everyday Spanish, including in Spain.

It is common when speakers want to highlight that something happened despite an obstacle or despite expectations.

For example:

• Aprobaron, y eso que no estudiaron mucho.
  They passed, even though they didn’t study much.

So the sentence sounds quite idiomatic and natural.