I too would appreciate hearing of sensible criticism.    Though it's no
Huckleberry Finn,  I've always thought "1601" was a good deal funnier and
better crafted than it's given credit for.   Way too many critics have
merely dismissed it  with labels like "juvenile" or "sophomoric."   But
name calling is not criticism; squeamishness is no substitute for analysis.

Just for starters, "1601" includes fine parody:  When Shakespeare insists
that he was not the one who farted, his speech echoes  all the bombast of
the most 'kingly' speeches in the history plays; and also includes  a
clever (if extremely vulgar) echo of King Lear.

Similarly, the passage about "that poor ass Lyly" is twisted and
over-elaborated enough to make fun of the tangled style of that school of
writers.

For the Twainian, there are interesting ties to Huckleberry Finn (for two
examples, a minor character is named "Bilgewater," and the simple fact of
Shakespearean parody).  And of course "1601" reveals the broad reading
Clemens had done in the Tudors, perhaps largely in preparation for  The
Prince and the Pauper.

Ted, I hope your collection also includes the fine reading of "1601" by
Richard Dyer-Bennet.   (Probably a very hard thing to find now.)   Twain
was such an oral artist.  For me, hearing a skilled performer read "1601"
aloud was both a joy, and a huge help in appreciating how well crafted that
bawdy morsel really is.

Mark Coburn