In the following essay, Jannarone argues that the 1896 production of Ubu Roi represents a complicated mixture of folk culture and highbrow art, and suggests that Jarry envisioned his audience in a more complex way than did other Symbolist artists.

In the following essay, Perry traces the echoes of Shakespeare's Macbeth in Jarry's surreal Ubu Roi, and then examines the ways in which both Macbeth and Ubu inform Eugène Ionesco's absurdist Macbett.

In the following essay, Vickroy demonstrates that Julia Kristeva's theory of “semiotic motility”—which does not presuppose that meaning preceding language—provides a useful methodology for reading Jarry's Ubu Roi, which creates neologisms with the effect of undercutting preconceptions about meaning and symbol.

In the following essay, Fisher explores the significance of the eighteenth-century writer, Florian, whose harlequinades are “listed” in Dr. Faustroll's library, to the works of Jarry, especially Ubu Roi.

In the following essay, Hubert examines the significance of food and the act of eating in Ubu Roi, arguing that Ubu—and by extension, the petit-bougeoisie he represents—is the ultimate consumer in a world dominated by and reducible to food and human refuse.

In the following essay, Lobert argues that Jarry's Ubu Roi is a satirical reaction against the naturalism of nineteenth-century writers such as Emil Zola.

In the following essay, Greenfield uses Jarry's Ubu Roi to develop André Breton's theory of black humor and to argue that Jarry made a significant contribution to black humor.

In the following essay, Zelenak discusses a performance of an updated Ubu Roi to observe that clowning can create extremely pointed and compelling social commentary.