Shakespearean critics rarely agree on much other than plot, but there is near unanimity on the subpar quality of Titus Andronicus. TS Eliot called it “one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays ever written” (Tricomi) in a 1932 essay and, except for a few contrarian academics, this accurately surmises the literary community’s opinion on this play. The characters are more caricature than personality and the language suffers from a lack of commitment. Shakespeare attempts to counteract this with gratuitous, shocking violence but it does not quite make up for the play’s shortcomings. While Titus Andronicus sets the stage for the wit of Shakespeare’s later plays, it flounders from an underdeveloped artistic sensibility and a lack of effort.
Harold Bloom credited Shakespeare with inventing the idea of complex characters who resemble actual people rather than certain personality traits (Bloom, 1). However, at the time of Titus Andronicus, this was not yet in Shakespeare’s wheelhouse. Aaron, Tamora, Saturninus and Titus have no redeeming traits other than the vicious cycle of revenge they are victim to -- although even this is, in a way, their own fault. Characters such as Lavinia and Marcus only garner sympathy because they are uninvolved in the events leading up to the play and are therefore …show more content…
Rather than using metaphors that extend the characters beyond the limits of the plot, he sticks to simple synecdoche and foreshadowing such as the never ending stream of references to hands.. This causes the play to become topical and shallow. Even when Shakespeare does venture to use linguistic flourishes it is done in a way mocking his contemporaries. An example is the elaborate speeches of Aaron, which are an attempt to one-up Marlowe’s Barabas for villainy (Marlowe). However, since Titus serves as a foil to Aaron he feels the need to match these speeches and the result is clunky, unbelievable
Harold Bloom credited Shakespeare with inventing the idea of complex characters who resemble actual people rather than certain personality traits (Bloom, 1). However, at the time of Titus Andronicus, this was not yet in Shakespeare’s wheelhouse. Aaron, Tamora, Saturninus and Titus have no redeeming traits other than the vicious cycle of revenge they are victim to -- although even this is, in a way, their own fault. Characters such as Lavinia and Marcus only garner sympathy because they are uninvolved in the events leading up to the play and are therefore …show more content…
Rather than using metaphors that extend the characters beyond the limits of the plot, he sticks to simple synecdoche and foreshadowing such as the never ending stream of references to hands.. This causes the play to become topical and shallow. Even when Shakespeare does venture to use linguistic flourishes it is done in a way mocking his contemporaries. An example is the elaborate speeches of Aaron, which are an attempt to one-up Marlowe’s Barabas for villainy (Marlowe). However, since Titus serves as a foil to Aaron he feels the need to match these speeches and the result is clunky, unbelievable