If there's anything "wrong" with the play on a technical level, it`s the lack of the kind of in-depth characterization and sophisticated plotting seen in his later plays. The characters in TA are put into a very linear, fast paced plot.
Shakespeare's big specialty was giving us the stuff that happens between the obviously significant plot points. In many of the plays, we are with the characters in their day to day lives. Epic characters become ordinary people.
Hamlet has a vast web of subplots and side characters, Romeo and Juliet has bits like (to give one of many possible examples) Lord Capulet staying up all night frantically supervising the preparation of the wedding feast.
On a thematic level, I'd argue that Shakespeare doesn't develop the moral hypocrisy of Titus and the other supposedly "good" Romans as well as he should have. Titus` successful revenge and Lucius being swept into power as the guy who will finally clean up this town was presented as a clear victory of good over evil completely smoothing over the interesting grey areas and contradictions in the initial setup.
After all, who chopped up whose child first?
Criticisms of the violent content are silly. There are plenty of old plays, poems, folk tales, myths and artwork depicting similar grotesque material. If you're in the mood for a bloody melodrama, it's far more fun and better written than Marlowe`s The Jew of Malta, for example.
reply
share