The usual censure of Shakespeare's King John for being badly constructed and lacking a proper plot is due to a misunderstanding of its plot. It has hitherto been taken for granted that the king is poisoned by a monk, and that the rebels who swear revenge on John for murdering Arthur, his innocent nephew, return to their king to save their lives when endangered. The following analysis shows that the reason why no motive is given for the said monk's crime is that it does not take place, but is presented as a mere rumor. Furthermore, it is argued that the rebelling lords' "return" to John does no imply submission but rather a change of strategy and, in conclusion, that the main concern of the play is the causal relation between King John's misgovernment, above all his crime against Arthur, the people's revolt against the tyrannical king, and his eventual murder. Read and directed that way the play will have a coherent and effective plot.
