Shakespeare's early plays, particularly Titus Andronicus and the three parts of Henry VI, are often undervalued by commentators. There's no question that compared to the late tragedies, or the great histories that form the Henriad (Richard II, the two parts of Henry IV and Henry V), these plays do not stand up well. Aside from the fact that few plays do, it should be understood that in these works Shakespeare was learning about his craft both technically and philosophically. And in them he found the material that he was going to unravel artistically for the remainder of his working days. The plays portray dark, treacherous worlds completely in keeping with the contents of history books - as William James once said, "History is a blood bath." My contention is that Shakespeare wrote to try to inform us of how to avoid repeating the errors of the past. And so a revenge tragedy like Titus Andronicus, which is clearly a direct descendant of Seneca, started the artistic growth that allowed a play like Hamlet to be written. And on the technical side, we can clearly see that King Lear's opening two scenes are clearly the progeny of the first two in Titus. But the play is very compelling in and of itself, not just as preparation for later plays. If you haven't seen Titus Andronicus, there are several that I'd recommend: Julie Taymor's 1999 version, starring Anthony Hopkins, is excellent, as is the BBC production from 1985 - which was the last play produced for the series. Hmm...