Ozymandias-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Ozymandias is one of the better poems written by Shelley, because it is a vivid connection between the power and the weakness of people, and the might of nature.

By being introduced to the wreck and the ruined land first, Shelley gives the reader an opportunity to feel “despair” and hopelessness. The reader is not only able to read, but to see the “two vast trunkless legs of stone” (399, line2) and the “half sunk, shattered visage” lying in the sand. Those passages are a great use of imagery. Though one may have never travelled there, they understand the devastation. But why would the devastation and the “wreck” be an important aspect of the poem? I believe Shelley wants us to understand that our physical work is only a fleeting representation of power and success. We must find other means of showing and defining our greatness, if greatness is even important.

At the point we are formally introduced to Ozymandias, the “…King of Kings:” (399, line 10) we find that it is his likeness that is shattered upon the desert floor and his command for us to “look on” his works and “despair” seems like a plea for the reader to remember him. Ozymandias’ inscription even categorizes the reader as “ye, Mighty” (399, line 11). Ironically, the inscription would not have been meant to up lift the reader’s status to that of a royal, or even the king, but because the king’s statue lays in ruin the reference of “ye, Mighty” places the reader in the highest position.

But it seems that no position is as high as that of the sand, nature itself. It is the sand that was before the king and the statue. It is the sand that is present with the reader.

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away. (399, lines 12-14)

And as the passage suggests, it is the sand that will be after the reader. But why does Shelley give such importance to the sand, or to nature? It is my assumption that Shelley is suggesting that nature is the only true might in the world. Because of nature’s ability to change and remain, we are subject to its niceties and displeasures.

The reader is left to ponder the possibility of the world as they know it becoming an “antique land” (399, line 1) ruined and wrecked as that of Ozymandias.

So, we'll go no more a-roving- George Gordon, Lord Byron

From the start of this poem, I was captivated by every word, because I did not feel like an observer but a participant. The poem felt like a letter written to me. Gordon accomplishes this by beginning the poem as, “So, we’ll go no more a-roving/So late into the night…” (358). The initial “we” in line 1 compelled me to believe that Gordon was breaking a romantic routine that I lived to experience nightly. I think Gordon wanted to invoke this feeling purposely, because he wanted the reader of the poem to feel a personal connection to insure they read with a wide range of emotions, and pose questions that compel them to read further for the answers. If Gordon would have begun the poem with “you and I will” the personal attachment the reader could feel would be limited, because “you and I will,” though more specific than “we’ll,” seems very cold and detached.

Gordon wouldn’t have wanted the narrator to seem cold in any way, because he too is a lover in the relationship. As the first stanza continues with, “though the heart be still as loving/And the moon be still as bright” (359), a sense of regret and displeasure with the decision to cease the nightly tryst is felt. I think this is the genius of the poem, because it makes the heartbroken sympathize with the heartbreaker; a tough job to accomplish in the world of love. Once I got to this part, all that came to mind was: Why stop our tryst now?

That question was the bait that hooked me into reading the next stanza. Why does “…love itself have to rest…” (359) if “…the heart be still as loving…” (359)? Though I felt Gordon was romantically disappointing me, I couldn’t find the courage to be angry. In some weird way I started to feel hopeful as I read,

“Though the night was made for loving,
And the day returns too soon,
Yet we’ll go no more a roving
By the light of the moon.” (359)

At this moment I felt he (the narrator) too was hurting. I wanted to naturally reach out to him, as a lover would, and embrace his pain away as if that would take away my hurt as well. And when Gordon’s uses “yet” in line 11, it suggested that the end of our night time pleasures could possibly be temporary, or they could become day time moments. My broken heart was mended with this sense of hopefulness.

I believe my emotional experience was the goal for the poem. In what other way would the reader/lover be engaged enough to continue to read such heartbreaking information? I believe Gordon wanted the readers to experience the pain of the separation while still being able to objectively see the narrator’s point of view in ending the nightly romance.

To me, that suggests that Gordon wanted the reader to remember that relationships have two perspectives that should be accounted for wholly.