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