As this really is a very violent play, I was not sure exactly how detailed to be about the particulars of the plot. Instead I decided to see what kind of comments I got and then perhaps present additional plot points as was necessary. So, with that said...

Tamora was the Queen of the Goths in the story. The Goths are conquered by Titus Andronicus, who brings home the queen, her three sons, and Aaron, who is a moor and servant to the queen.

Titus started the war with twenty-five sons, and only four remain at the beginning of the play. The four living sons request that they be given Tamora's oldest son, Alberus, so that they can sacrifice him to the Roman Gods and appease the ghosts of their slain siblings.

This begins the entire back-and-forth of revenge that comprises the story. Aaron almost immediately distinguishes himself as the worst of the cast by suggesting that Tamora's two sons rape Lavinia -- Titus' daughter. Then he carries out a plot to blame two of Titus' remaining sons for murdering the emperor's brother. Aaron also impregnates Tamora and tricks Titus into cutting off his own hand, as well as a number of other, more minor offenses through out the play.

Aaron has a few very emotionally charged monologues, a good reading of which can -- and has -- made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. He is the villain that Shakespeare wants you to hate; whom was created to be absolutely without any real redeeming qualities.

At the end of it all, Aaron says on that he is only sorry he did not do more evil to the other members of the cast. 


________________________________________


In response to the remarks about the critics of the work, I think that the critics are almost universally -- regardless of their time period -- against anything that the public likes, and vice versa. There could probably be a whole paper devoted to this very strange phenomena.

With that said, I do personally feel that the reason Titus Andronicus is not more lauded today is because it was one of Shakespeare's early works. Many critics in our time have come around to saying that the play is actually just as good as any of the bard's other works, but it still seems to retain some of the stigma of its time and Ravencroft's scathing criticism.

Of course, as Cliffnotes pointed out, there is plenty there to dislike if you are inclined to do so. But there is also much to redeem the play as well. It is very quintessential Shakespeare despite being relatively unknown in comparison to his comedies or his better known tragedies. 

Once you get past the gore there is absolutely music in the verses, and in my opinion that, more than content, makes a work Shakespearian.