Talk:Ozymandias/Archive 1

Watchman?
Why no References to it's influence on Alan Moore's Watchmen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Old talk
On the Double Irony issue

I think double irony is a good description of what's going on in the poem.

First there is the material irony of the "my works" that are reduced to rubble and won't make anyone despair.

Second the spiritual irony that the Mighty One only "survives" for the observer thanks to the artist's, not his own powers.

Xjy 2 June 2005

Judging from the history, the justification for double irony is:

(1) Suppose the inscription had been "Ner-ner-ner. Look how good I am." There would be irony, since the statue NOW shows how far he's fallen - no-one even remembers him.

(2) In addition to that, the phrasing of the inscription now suggests the meaning "You should despair because one day you, too, shall be dust."

I'm not sure if I agree or not. However, I think everyone agrees on the interpretations, just whether or not to use the term "double irony". I suggest re-writing it to make the point without enumerating the number of ironies?

(Jack)

Hello, yet another question -- I agree that there is irony in "Ozymandias", but the "double irony" seems clearly a personal interpretation. The text at present reads
 * So "the mighty" should despair not as Ozymandias intended, but because they will share his fate of inevitable oblivion in the sands of time.

Whether the mighty should despair, or for what reason, seems simply irrelevant. -- I guess what we need to do here is consult some standard English literature refs and see what they say about the poem; I could write down something, but it would be open to the same "personal opinion" criticism. Here, as elsewhere in WP, we need to stick to reportage instead of essay. Thoughts? Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello again -- this time a quick question about formatting. I like the way the article has a text box on one side and a photo on the other. But the heading "Sources" is caught between them (at least, as the page is rendered at the resolution my browser has). Is there a way to cause "Sources" to go under the text box? I was tinkering with throwing in  's but that probably would stop working if something got rearranged a little. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 21:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That sounds like one of those things that depends very much on your browser, font size, screen res, etc. -- very difficult to lay out a page to please everyone. I've just moved the poem box over to the right side: at least that'll keep a constant flow of text down the left-hand side of the page, perhaps avoid the staggering effect you describe. Please revert or tweak at will (nb: the poem box could still be pulled up a paragraph to give more room for the break). –Hajor 21:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to paste in the text of the poem, since it is quite short, and the discussion of the finer points of the text is a little obscure without the text at hand. Any comments? Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:51, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm torn. We normally avoid posting the entire source text (sooner or later someone says we can't understand France without the text of the French constitution in the article, that sort of thing), but in this case it might be justified.  We do have an external link to the poem.....do you feel that's not enough.  I don't think the discussion gets too far into the finer points, but I can understand this benefitting......I'm afraid I'm not much help, am I?  Well, I wouldn't revert if you posted it.  But I think if you do post it, add more discussion of the text that makes it obvious that the poem is needed so that the discussion makes sense.  That's my suggestion, anyhow. Jwrosenzweig 17:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think I'll go ahead and post the text. A precedent is that the text of Yeat's poem The Second Coming survived VfD. I do understand the point about the French Constitution, but I believe there is a stronger case for quoting a famous sonnet. Well, I'll run it up the flag pole and see if anyone reverts. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:51, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh, looking at the article history I see that the poem text has been added and deleted before -- well, it should stay this time. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the initial entry for this page way back when. In the original I wrote:


 * The impact of the sonnet's message comes from its double irony. The tyrant declares, "Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Yet nothing remains of Ozymandias' works but the shattered fragments of his statue. So "the mighty" should not despair as Ozymandias intended. And yet they should indeed despair because they will share his fate of inevitable oblivion in the sands of time.

Someone changed the last sentence to:


 * So "the mighty" should despair not as Ozymandias intended, but because they will share his fate of inevitable oblivion in the sands of time.

Unfortunately, this somewhat obscures the point about the double irony.

Then someone appended the following:


 * To provide a dissenting opinion, it can also be interpreted that the words were crafted specifically for the traveler, rather than the visiting rivals of Ozymandias. It's not as if he's saying "Neener neener neener, I'm more mighty than you," but rather, "You who think you are mighty: see the fate of one who was at least as great, and despair." By this interpretation, Ozymandias had the same wisdom (although not the same acceptance of his fate) as Solomon when he received his engraved ring ("this too shall pass").


 * Shelley never specifically states that Ozymandias was a tyrant (which would imply he was ignorant of certain principles). He simply said that Ozymandias had a frown, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command. All these because he's majorly pissed off that his empire can't last forever, and he wants to give all future generations a reality check, because if he can't be content in his success, why should they?

"Someone Else" removed the dissenting opinion, with the following comment:


 * "dissenter" needs to read the poem, paying attention to where the inscription ends and the narration begins, as Ozymandias clearly was saying Neener.

The "dissenter" restored the dissenting opinion, with the following comment:


 * Someone Else needs to re-read poem, also needs to realize that either all opinion stays within the entry or none does. Shouldn't let Reiman and Powers think for you.

"Someone Else" again removed the dissenting opinion, with the following comment:


 * reverting untenable interpretation

By the time you read this, the dissenting opinion may be back in the main page. But I'm hoping that all parties might be satisfied by a discussion here on the talk page.

Speaking for myself, I also believe that the interpretation suggested in the "dissenting opinion" is untenable. First, the inscription on the pedestal was an original part of the monument, inscribed at the time the statue was erected, long before it had fallen into decay. So it could not have been intended to refer to the impermanence of power. That is the sonnet's point, but it is made possible only through the double irony created by the juxtaposition of the original proud words and the eventual pitiful ruins. Second, the "sneer of cold command" clearly is a representation of a tyrant's attitude, and can hardly be read as indicating disappointment in the impermanence of empire. It serves to reinforce the arrogant tone of the inscription.

Also, I should note the Reiman and Powers was the source of the text of the sonnet, not the point about the double irony. That was my own observation (which I thought fairly obvious).

- HWR

Smith's Poem
I'm making the following changes:

1 - Changed the lines quoted from Smith's poem to:


 * We wonder,&#8212;and some Hunter may express
 * Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
 * Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
 * He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
 * What powerful but unrecorded race
 * Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

Because these are the actual lines that conclude the poem - not the ones which are currently there (follow the link to check).

2 - Changed the comparison with Smith's poem.

The above sestet draws a fairly specific moral.

3 - Reordered text

To take the scattered pieces of information and try to format them more like an news style

4 - ooops

I've just noticed my reordering seems to have messed up the placing of the picture - sorry. I'm not sure how to sort that out, so I'll leave it to some other helpful soul. Number 0 01:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The criticism of Smith's poem seems unfair and inaccurate. While the specific subject is the same, Smith's goal is clearly not that of Shelley's. This point seems to have been lost on the author of this article; to wit, "The image of a destroyed London will have no more or less effect on someone not from London than Ozymandias's statue." How could anyone from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century not be more affected by the image of a destroyed London than the ruins of an ancient Egyptian statue? This line, at least, should be deleted. Omega Wolf 14:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I found the section comparing the two poems to be unfairly POV against Smith's. (If using "POV" as an adjective like that is acceptable.) Unfortunately I don't have nearly the critical skill to write a better comparison section. 84.70.254.80 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thirded. The critique of the Smith poem reads like a 10th grade English Lit essay, and also evokes for me nothing so much as the phrase "to the victor goes the spoils."  Shelley's poem is a triumph of diction, while Smith's is not as well-remembered and so must be inferior?  That latter conclusion sounds more than a bit circular to me.  Maybe Shelley's version is better remembered because Shelley himself is better remembered, independent of whether personal taste leads one to conclude that Shelley is "better than" Smith.67.132.198.254 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Matt


 * I agree that the criticism of Smith's poem is out of place, but it *was* interesting for me (as a visitor for the site for the specific purpose of finding out more about the Ozymandias poem) to find out that there was a related poetic work. I never knew that before coming to Wikipedia.  If possible, I'd say to leave out the criticism but perhaps retain the reference to this "sister" poem. -Jack Colorado, 75.39.171.37 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Perhaps someone could include the pronunciation of Ozymandias? I've never heard the poem spoken, and as such do not have an exact idea of how the name "Ozymandias" should be pronounced. If this is not deemed worthy to put in the article, I would still appreciate it if someone could respond with the correct pronunciation in AHD on this talk page. P.S. If you hadn't guessed, I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I've botched up the posting of this comment. Any constructive criticism is welcome. -Cesare de Borgia


 * Done, I've added it at the very beginning of the article, so that the reader can mentally "read" everything else "correctly". The subnote about the original ancient Greek pronunciation (upsilon instead of Y) may be irrelevant to this article and deletable, though. 213.228.58.42 07:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to nitpick, but shouldn't it say "ah-zee-MAN-dee-us" or "ah-zee-MAN-dee-uhs" or something rather than "o-zee-MAN-dee-as"? (I know, it's tricky dealing with pseudophonetic spellings like that.)  As for the IPA pronunciations, isn't it arbitrary to specify these two, and *just* these two?  E.g. couldn't it be pronounced  or ?  For that matter, is the second syllable really, as opposed to  or  or ?  (Perhaps a less narrow transcription would be better.) 24.159.255.29 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think pronunciation is very important. Ozymandias does not have five full syllables, but rather four.  I may be wrong, but I think it is properly pronounced:  Oh'-Soo-Mahn'-Jus. Vinson L Watkins (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Vinson L Watkins


 * This being poetry, the meter of the line dictates the number of syllables in the name. "my name is... king of kings" is six syllables with no candidates for elision.  Thus however you wish to pronounce Ozymandias, it needs to be with four syllables.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.167.222 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a note to that effect next to the cited pronunciation (I hope that's ok) 79.66.184.134 (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Original sources, and `Mighty'
The version of the text given here is not that used by Shelley himself: see, for example, this edition which, showing slight variants against modern editions, is taken from an autograph fair copy from one of Shelley&#8217;s notebooks in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK. Our article states that
 * This poem is often incorrectly quoted or reproduced. The most common example is "Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!": it replaces the actual "on" with "upon", thus turning the regular decasyllabic (iambic pentameter) verse into an 11-syllable verse; and it adds an apocryphal cap to the actual "mighty", thus turning the targeted mighty kings into an hubristic defiance of a monotheistic Mighty One, an anachronism for a polytheist pharaoh who died ca. 1224 BC.

However, Shelley himself capitalizes Mighty, (and several other words: King, Works, Wreck). Because of such widespread capitalization (including the mid-line word Wreck for which capitalization indicates no obvious change in semantics) I see no reason that Mighty should be regarded as indicating a Mighty One rather than a more general group of mighty beings. --Wikcerize 12:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In any case, "ye Mighty" -- Shelley wouldn't use the plural ye to address a singular deity, would he? Capped or uncapped, I've only ever read that as referring to lesser kings who are to come after. –Hajor 14:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, 'ye' is plural, and Wikcerize should have consulted a grammar book rather than spinning theories based on holograph variations. 68.118.61.219 20:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your pleasant comments, "68.118.61.219". Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote in order to grasp that the use of the plural "ye" supports my argument rather than contradicts it. As for "spinning theories", do you have a problem with the existence of Bodleian Library MS Shelley e.4, fol. 85r? Wikcerize 11:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Haven't ye and you both been used for both singular and plural since early Modern English? 24.159.255.29 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

difficulty?
I removed the following because, as far as I know, no one has ever alleged that these lines are difficult, unless a kid who had the poem assigned in class found them difficult (which is not exactly relevant). This just looks like a crib for someone who has trouble reading verse.


 * The difficulty of verse 6 to 8 is largely resolved by reading "survive" as a transitive verb. The lines are usually understood as meaning that those passions (arrogance and sneer) have survived (outlived) both the sculptor (whose hand mocked those passions by stamping them so well on the statue) and the pharaoh (whose heart fed those passions in the first place).


 * And I'm putting it back. I remember being grateful for the explanation of those lines given by my EngLit master, and I'm sufficiently sure of not having been among the thickest in the class that I'm not embarrassed to admit as much. I've also shared this poem with various non-native speakers of English over the years, and whispering transitive verb! definitely helps. The line about the supernumerary beat in "look upon my works..." is worth putting back, too, I think. Your other edits were spot on. Anyone else got an opinion? –Hajor 03:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I remember finding the poem difficult first time I read it, and rereading it now I remember that I had no idea how "the hand that mocked them and the heart that fed" followed from what had just been said. Because I read: "survive" as merely saying that the passions were still visible, rather than saying the passions outlive something.  I think a lot of people could make a similar mistake on early reads, so while perhaps *I was* the stupidest person in my English class, I think there are enough people at least as stupid as I to warrant keeping the advice there :-).  Number 0 16:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I also vote strongly in favour of keeping this information. 84.70.254.80 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for references
If it had references, it could became a FA. Please add them and let me know on my talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Despite the earlier assertion, the pronunciation STILL isn't given anywhere here that I can find. And I, too, would like to know how to say the name. wls, los angeles


 * It's at the top of the page. I've amended it to include both American and British English pronunciations, btw. 84.70.254.80 13:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
Nice article guys. Thanks. -- 68.147.241.200 17:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The hand to which Shelley refers is not the sculptor's . ..
. . . nor is the mocking the sculptor's work in stone. The mocking hand is that of Ozymandias himself, in dismissive, mocking gesture of his own humanity and the inner passions that caused him to believe that he was immortal. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.246.254.14 (talk &bull; contribs) 16:51, 28 February 2006.
 * Interesting theory, but I can't say I'm convinced. Ozymandias would have had to have made such a gesture while alive, and nothing else suggests that he's capable of conscious self-irony. You'd have to argue that Shelley was making the stone sculpture mock its model, which is a little convoluted. --Trovatore 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, moreover, in that case the passions would not have survived the hand that mocked them, since the stone hand was still there. --Trovatore 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I always believed that "the hand that mocked" was the sculptor's, and "mocked" simply meant copied, as in "produced a replica of," which was what the sculptor was doing. But that was just my take. -Jack Colorado, 75.39.171.37 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the flow of the poem's grammar, the word "them" in the phrase "The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed" refers to Ozymandias's passions, and the hand and heart likewise belong to Ozymandias. Logically, Shelley must have been using the word 'mocked' in its old-fashioned sense of 'imitated', as the phrase can be paraphrased as "the hand which acted upon the urges of the passions, and the heart which generated those passions."Butcherscross (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Source
Diodorus Siculus (Book 1, Chapter 47) sshould we refernce it. In haste. Rich Farmbrough 15:56 14  March 2006 (UTC).

Good Article Nominee
I find this article to be very informative and helpful. I believe it to be good enough for Good Article. Thunderforge 01:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * I feel bad doing this as the article is informative, cool, and the little quote boxes for the original work are very nice. Unfortunately, this article has almost no references overall, even fewer of which use inline citation. Under the article is more thoroughly referenced it is not Good Article quality. Staxringold 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the article contains WAY too much of what seems to be original criticism. that may be only the fact that it is uncited, but, in any event, this is an encyclopaedia, not a journal of literary criticism. just the facts, ma'am.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture
To be honest I really don't like the "pop culture" section much. I think it sort of trivializes the subject matter. If we have to have it, can we at least cut it down to two or three examples, and hold the line there? --Trovatore 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll give my opinions on the cited examples:

Ozymandias is referenced in the song "Here lies Ozymandias" by The Guggenheim Grotto on their debut album "...Waltzing Alone". http://www.guggenheimgrotto.com/
 * If it's not notable enough to have an article on them, it may not warrant inclusion.

Shelley's poem was referenced in the Sisters of Mercy song Dominion/Mother Russia, on the album Floodland.
 * OK

Ozymandias is also mentioned in The Stranglers powerful but misogynistic song "Ugly", from their 1977 Rattus Norvegicus (album).
 * The reference is not cited there, but may be OK nonetheless.

The poem also provided the source for the title of Issue #11 of Alan Moore's comic book limited series Watchmen, "Look on My Works, Ye Mighty." The issue ends with a quote from the poem, and one of the primary characters in the series takes Ozymandias as his superhero identity.
 * Only the name is referenced. A more fitting reference can perhaps be found in Negima, where Evangeline says: "For lo! I am the vampire Evangeline... the "Dark Angel"!! Look upon my magicks, ye mighty, and despair...!!" (vol.6) She has only temporarily been freed from a restricting spell which forces her to be a small girl again the next volume, so the irony is clear. But I don't know if it's mostly due to translation, and it might be a cliché.

The poem was referenced and printed in full in the first book of the Children of the Lamp series.
 * OK

In Marvel Comics, Ozymandias is a servant of the supervillain Apocalypse in the X-Men franchise. He first appeared in Uncanny X-Men .
 * The Egypt reference is clear, but otherwise?

>>> Marvel's Ozymandias is a living statue. His main power is his ability to foretell the future thru stone sculptures. Oh yeah, and his name is Ozymandias. Pretty clear reference. 68.166.66.223 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In The Tripods series, the man who sets the main character on his journey is named Ozymandias.
 * Only the name.

An excerpt from the poem is included in the computer game Civilization IV.
 * OK

"Ozymandias J. Llewellyn" is the name of one of the title characters from the webcomic Ozy and Millie.
 * Only the name.

In the first strip of the webcomic Errant Story, the poem is quoted in full. Phrases from the poem are used as the titles of subsequent chapters.
 * OK

Ozymandias is the name of a vagrant in the books and the T.V. show based off of the books The Tripods. In the first book "The White Mountians," Ozymandias says, "I am the king of this land. My wife was the queen of a rainy country, but I left her weeping. My name is Ozymandias. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair." Will, who Ozymandias is talking to, remembers reading the name Ozymandias in a poem. In the T.V. show he says "My name is Ozymandias. I am king of all this land. Look on me!"
 * OK, I guess.

Ozymandias appears in an easter egg in Perfect Dark, a console game. Cassandra DeVries' necklace has the code '18M0ZYM8ND185'. This, upon inspection, spells out 'IAMOZYMANDIAS', and likely refers to DeVries' power complex.
 * OK

In Fight Club (book) the narrator writes: "I am Ozymandias, king of kings." near the end of Chapter 28.
 * OK
 * Shinobu 18:54, 18 June 2006

In Fevre Dream, one of the main characters, Joshua, references the peom several times, especially when he is depressed, considering his potential "kingdom" to be in ruins.

My objection is not to the specific references, but to the fact that there are too many of them. Way too many. Can we pick the best three and junk the rest? --Trovatore 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What if instead of limiting down the number if we created a new page just for references to this poem. This way, we aren't too hard pressed to choose a few (and to be honest, I don't think I could narrow it down to three or so) and it prevents the problem of constantly having to narrow it down whenever somebody adds a reference. What do you all think? Thunderforge 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think such pages can be a good idea if the main article is getting overly long. But I wouldn't do it just to get the pop culture references out of our hair; such subsidiary pages tend to become rat's nests because they're not often visited except by people who are looking to add references.


 * I don't know that the references need to be cut down to three--that seems a little extreme. But cutting down some seems like a good idea. Preference should be given to references in works that are themselves notable, I would think. Nareek 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we could at least axe the ones saying "Ozymandias is (referenced|the name of something/someone) in ..." These references are generally uninformative. Shinobu 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the comics Ozymandias and the Golden Compass or whatever Ozymandias from the see also section. The comics reference is obvious enough to go in a pop culture/cultural reference section, but neither seems like they'd be of interest to someone looking into prose poetry. 68.166.66.223 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree: FAR too many pop culture references. It cheapens the subject matter. References to trivialities such as computer games and comic books have no place in a serious article about English Literature. Butcherscross (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldnt agree more. Big pet peeve of mine.  I understand the reason given the history of the Wiki, but it really is mind boggling how many entries are pretty much littered with the most obscure, and irrelevant, pop culture references that, in my opinion, completely cheapen the content.  Pop culture grinds out junk content at 200M pieces per day.  At any given moment, 1000 new rap/rock/pop songs, lousy TV shows, video games, books/novels/manga, and on and on are referencing any number of classic topics in any number of ways.  Where does the line get drawn?  Right now the only gating factor is the scope of knowledge of the contributors; otherwise the typical "pop culture reference" section would be longer than the main article.   How many novels over the years must have referenced Ozymandias?  So why is some obscure author of some obscure work of fiction whose fictional character obliquely mentions Ozymandias LESS relevant than some "Sister of Mercy" song or a random Marvel comic character?  The answer is, it isnt... The only limiter is that the hypothetical obscure author isnt known to the typical "pop culture reference" contributor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.43.26 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugly sentence

 * It is also claimed that a common interpretation of the discourse of the sonnet is that time will always win, that nature prevails in the end.

This a very ugly sentence, and probably means something different than was intended. Shinobu 16:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Ozymandias: Ozy as in 'Ozzy Osbourne', Mandy as in 'Your a beautiful girl Mandy'and As as in 'That donkey is an ass'.

Mock'd
At the end of the paragraph about "mock'd", we say that the word can be read here as both "imitated" and "ridiculed". I'm not sure, however, that there's anything in the poem that suggests that the sculptor was ridiculing the pharoah. Not that you can't read it that way if you want--mocked does have two meanings--but we sort of suggest that that double meaning is self-evidently in the poem. Does anyone else find this problematic? Nareek 02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The term Mock in this poem is used as a verb. And "mock" is used as a term to re-create or make an immitation. However, this meaning didn't exist in 1819 as the article says. According to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), the first usage of that definition in written work was used in 1914. This can be disputed, but I don't know how to initiate that. There is not earlier usage than that. Spilker 22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 14:36 09 Jan. 2007 (PST)

What you wonder points to the matter of agency. Time mocks all the efforts of humankind, turning our great accomplishments (which the author naturally represents through artistic feats as a stand-in for "civilization" as a whole) to crumbling remnants. To say that either the sculpture or the sculptor or the sculpted is doing the mocking may be correct, but only in part. Time turns all of those things to self-mockeries in a way they could never have been intended at their origin -- which is exactly why their eventual ruin represents such a mockery.

If the word "mock" has shifted through time to alter how we see this poem, enriching it or obscuring it or both at once, it is so much more the poignant to my mind. Again, time rolls over our meager efforts and reworks them into something beyond our intent. Ventifact (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order
I've been going over the idea of having a box at the bottom of the page telling the reader which of Shelley's poems came before and after "Ozymandias." The only problem that could arise is whether to use the date he began writing them, or the date they were published. What do you all think? Do we even need a box? It seemed like a cool idea to me, at least. :) But then that could also open up a can of worms in that he wrote so many, and we'd have to give a box to all his poems.
 * Neat idea. I would use the date he finished them, if I had that information available. But if he wrote too many poems to fit in a navbox, perhaps it's a better idea to feature a list of his poems as an article. Shinobu 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BM Statue
Bit surprised that this article doesn't appear to mention the bust of Ramesses II which appeared in the British Museum and caused Shelley to write the poem in the first place. Davidbod 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do something about it? *encouraging* Be bold! Shinobu 01:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This needs more explanation. The bust is not trunkless, but legless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fustbariclation (talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Great", "Crucial"
The question is not whether we back up these claims, but whether we can make such claims in the first place. They seem to me expressions of opinion that are contrary to the WP:NPOV policy. Nareek 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the themes cited. They are typically "great" themes. Large-scale, existential, deep, etc. No problem there. And this sort of information is necessary in an article on a literary topic. The scope and range of the themes is an important aspect of a work.
 * As for the relationship between the artist and the subject of the statue being crucial I should think that's obvious. The irony of the poem rests on it. It forms the axis of the whole poem. A whole book could be spun out of the metapoetical connotations of this. And the "contradictory" is the same. For instance, the commissioner of the statue is convinced the artist will achieve glory from the honour and splendour of the subject, whereas reality demonstrates that the survival of what little there is to see of the commissioner is entirely due to the artist, instead.
 * NPOV shouldn't be abused as an editing tool. In literature it's possible to make a case that anything over and above a facsimile of the manuscript violates NPOV. And even that isn't neutral cos someone had to make a judgement to include the piece in the first place.


 * It is surely true that some subjectivity is necessary in making an encyclopedia article on any topic. That doesn't mean we shouldn't avoid subjectivity when it's not necessary. In this case, I'm not really sure any reader will need us to characterize the importance of the theme of the permanence of art. And if it's "obvious" that the relationship between artist and subject is "crucial", then it can certainly go without saying. Nareek 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The characterizations are needed to indicate the level of ambition animating the poem. "Great" is a sort of shorthand for "universally human, regardless of time or place", rather than limited geographically or socially etc. As for the relationship between artist and subject, it is "crucial" to this particular poem. This isn't an opinion, it's a necessary part of any discussion of the poem. What is obvious to people in the know sometimes needs spelling out for others. And the "contradictory" qualification is not so obvious, but central to the structure of the poem. The real power of the artist and art in relation to posterity versus the illusory power of the tyrant and force of arms, etc. This sort of thing is easier to appreciate in relation to a painting or sculpture - as physical presences they are "seen" by any observer, but lots of aspects in them can benefit from explanations of the obvious, so to say. --xjy 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as so much territory marking. Nareek 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just commenting on your points about a reader's needs and "obvious". No mindreading should be required (ie knowing what is "great", "obvious" etc, about a work before reading it). No headbutting contest intended, the aim is clarity and perspective.

Bloom
First of all, "article by Henry Giroux" is not a good source, but that could be fixed. But unless Giroux says that "Ozymandias" is slighted by Bloom because of the politics that Giroux identifies, to link Giroux's analysis of Bloom to his treatment of "Ozymandias" is original research as defined by Wikipedia. If Giroux does say that Bloom downplays the poem for political reasons, then we can cite him to that effect. Nareek 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely amazing stuff. Never seen "original research" used as a put-down in this way before. We live and learn :-) The debate as to Shelley's revolutionary will and ideas versus the romanticizing aestheticizing reactionary revaluation and castration of his work by academics like Bloom is common knowledge in the field of literary criticism. Giroux's article is a fair representation of the pro-Shelley text and history based wing of this discussion, and Bloom is a representative of the revisionist anti-Shelley wing. If reactionary muck like Bloom is used in a this article to denigrate the poem in question as trivia and in principle worthless ("not make much of"), and Shelley's reputation god help us all is claimed to have been revived by Bloom, then at the very least a counter-statement and reference to eg Giroux should be included to neutralize the ridiculous impact Bloom unqualified makes. Bloom unqualified is ridiculous as it states flatly that the poem the article is devoted to, and demonstrates the quality of, is a worthless piece of trivia. It's also ridiculous as it shows how little Bloom understood Shelley as a writer, thinker and opinion-moulder.

--xjy 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you've never seen "original research" used as a criticism of Wikipedia edits, then you should read No Original Research--it's one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it's hard to have a discussion about these edits if you're not familiar with it. Nareek 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I read it. It's useful if used sensibly. This is the first time I've seen it used as a club on behalf of one value judgement (the Bloom line) to batter another (the Giroux line) in this way. The "Bloom line" reads:


 * "Despite its enduring popularity, many Shelley scholars have seen it as a piece of trivia, and few studies of Shelley's career make much of it. Harold Bloom's Shelley's Mythmaking (1959), the major Shelley study of the 20th century and the book that restored the importance of Shelley's reputation, does not mention it at all."


 * No backing for "popularity", for "many scholars" or "few studies", for "major Shelley study" or "restored the importance of Shelley's reputation". The WP citation says zilch about Shelley, except to echo my  qualification of Bloom as aestheticizing. Bloom's "contentious" rant was against Christian critics, not the left so much.


 * I think we might be able to agree that a) Shelley is popular, has had a constant high reputation and part of this popularity and reputation is due to "Ozymandias".


 * Also that the "piece of trivia" description is highly contentious and unsubstantiated here, but might be acceptable if substantiated with a citation and balanced by a substantiated counter-view.


 * Bloom's book might be better described as "a major Shelley study" (as opposed to THE). "restored the importance of S's reputation" would be better expressed as "defended significant aspects of S's reputation". The fact that Bloom doesn't mention our poem says more about him than the poem, and to avoid a clash over what it says, I think it would be better left out. After all, if a big study doesn't mention our poem, what is it doing being referenced in relation to it at all? And if on the other hand other aspects of Shelley are relevant, these other aspects will also include ones that certain scholars (like Bloom) might not approve of.


 * Above all, this Bloom boosting gives an unwarranted impression that the Bloom line represents a great consensus on the issue. It doesn't.


 * So, I suggest that a suitably rephrased reference to Bloom is re-inserted and my most recent addition referencing Giroux is added to the same paragraph. Then people can read the Bloom book and the Giroux article, along with the further references in both, and draw their own conclusions.

--xjy 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got no particular love for Bloom or for the idea that "Ozymandias" isn't an important poem. I agree that the run-up to Bloom is too sweeping--the paragraph should probably say that some critics don't consider it prominent in Shelley's career, with one major study leaving it altogether unmentioned.


 * If Giroux has something to say about Shelley, we should put that in, for sure. But if he's just there to warn people against Bloom, I think it's unnecessary and out of place.  As long as he's presented as one critic's view, people can take him or leave him, and if they're curious about how much credibility to give the guy they can follow the link to his article, where hopefully the positive and negative views about him are discussed.  That's what all WP articles should do. Nareek 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A "Review" of 'Ozymandias'
"More Random Walks In Science", collected by Robert L Weber, pub. IoP 1982, 0-85498-040-7, pp. 14-16, reprints "Preparing Scientific Papers", Nature 268 100 (1977) by N S Haile.

It is mostly a spoof review of "Ozymandias" considered as a submission to a scientific jounal, with a suggested complete rewrite into corresponding form - I think it worth mentioning.

The book should be available, and Nature really should be available, in the better University libraries and similar places; I doubt whether the material is on the open Web. But a search at http://www.nature.com/index.html for Ozymandias revealed four entries, the last applying and showing the issue of Nature to be that of 14 Jul 1977.

82.163.24.100 14:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, a dubious version of that review is currently at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/cafe/1131/07ozymes.html; it gives an idea of the original review. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Prose paraphase
Should a prose paraphase be added for this poem? I can dig up the prose paraphase from my school program in a few. If nobody says 'no' by the time I get to it, I will add it. --Eiyuu Kou 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, is it published in a reliable source that other editors can check? If it's (for example) just the analysis of your teacher, astute as he may be, we can't really use it. --Trovatore 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is from a school program called OdysseyWare. I don't think there is an article for it but it has an official website. FYI: The prose is not on the website but rather one of the lesson within the program. Look up OdysseyWare on Google and the site should be at or near the top of the search results. --Eiyuu Kou 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. A little non-traditional, but not out of the question from a sourcing point of view, I think. The central problem is going to be copyright. This appears to be a company that sells its product for money; you certainly can't copy their paraphrase into the article, unless it's released under a free license such as GFDL, which I think is unlikely. --Trovatore 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Department of Obviousness
From the article:

"That there is nothing beside the ruins implies that it touches, or connects to, nothing."

Oh, really? Y'think? Matthew Miller 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with you Matt, whoever put in the above was trying hard to say something, but not saying much! Have made an attempt on improving the commentary to: "That there is nothing beside the ruins emphasises their loneliness and desolation, disconnected not only in space- from other physical things, but also in time- from the busy and important context in which they must have once existed, as an interconnected part of an ancient city." Bezapt 00:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Procrastinomics
I'm new here; hope this is the right forum for this. Noticed in the "Other" section of "In pop culture" (4.6) that there is a reference to the "Department of Procrastinomics at the University of Cambridge, UK." Seriously? Can't find that anywhere online, either looking up "procrastinomics" or at the University's website. If it does exist, someone write up a wikipedia page on it and link to it; sounds like my kind of thing! Turi b 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed true. The Institute of Procrastinomics doesn't have a website unfortunately, and the quote is just written in red on a chalk board, but it's there! This is the closest thing to a website for the institute...http://www.cudos.ac.uk/later.html 131.111.139.100 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)TJM

Pronunciation, bis
I see that Noetica has facted the pronunciation, and I suppose we'll have to deal with it. The edit summary asked about a stress on the "i", which I think is the least concern -- obviously that wouldn't work with the meter, so it surely was not what Shelley had in mind.

But I'm somewhat concerned about the pronunciation as well, for almost the opposite reason. Both given pronunciations suggest that the "i" gets its own syllable, for five syllables total. I doubt that. I think it should probably be only four syllables, something like ozz--ee--MAN--dyas. That would definitely fit the meter better, anyway. --Trovatore 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Trovatore, I favour the pronunciations as the article currently gives them (possibly with the amendment you canvas above). But I have encountered at least one literate person who insists on /oz-i-man-DYE-as/, as it were. I have searched without success for an "authoritative" statement concerning the pronunciation. Until we have such a source, it is improper just to assume that we have been right all along. As for the alternative that I mention not fitting with the metre, that is not so simple. Look for example at line 1: I met a traveller from an antique land. Does that line "fit the metre"? Of course the poet is inconsistent in applying an apostrophe to excise syllables that would upset the metre (if shatter'd, why not wrinkl'd?), but we might expect that traveller would be shortened to trav'ller if a rigid ten-syllable interpretation of the pentameter were intended, n'est-ce pas? Compare, by the way, the rather relevant case of Darius, which is glibly pronounced /DAR-i-us/ by most people, though it ought to be /dar-EYE-us/ (see Darius I). (Finally, this is Pronunciation, ter, because it is the third such section, not the second. Sorry!)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 03:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, to me "traveller" is a two-syllable word, whether or not you use an apostrophe. --Trovatore 05:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OED, which is probably the best resource for the period in question, gives three syllables for traveller. And anyway, Trovatore, how many syllables do shattered and wrinkled have, for you? As I say, the poet is inconsistent in marking these things. The English iambic pentameter is flexible enough to allow Ozymandias with either stress pattern, and either number of syllables (both in Shelley's poem and in Smith's). We are really back with preferences founded merely on what we had heard up until now; and we need an authority to back us up, if we would deliver an authoritative ruling on the pronunciation ourselves.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how wrinkl'd could have one syllable. Vowel letters and vowel sounds do not exclusively and always appear together. Removing the second syllable's vowel typographically doesn't change the fact that in pronouncing the word a person's mouth must pass through that l and so produce a vowel (and syllable). Ventifact (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that traveller is a 2 syllable word for most people. The Romantics were supposed to be capturing popular diction. As for "wrinkled" and "shatter'd", the point is that the latter does not have 3 syllables (shatt-er-ed), hence the apostrophe.  The former could not be pronounced with any other than 2 syllables in any "correct" pronunciation in the past or present.  The important thing is the dominant rhythm, not the stray unstressed syllables.  Regardless of what the correct Greek pronunciation of their mispelling' is, the rhythm works best as "My NAME is OZyMANDias, KING of KINGS".  Objectively, the major deviation of metre is in the lines "Nothing beside remains. Round the decay/Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare" which reads DA DI DI DA DI DA DA DI DI DA/DI DA DI DA DI DA DA DI DI DA instead of DI DA DI DA DI DA etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Poems designation as a "Sonnet"
Hi, i was under the understanding that a sonnet had to comprise of 14 lines of iambic pentameter verse. and that Ozymandias does not hold the iambic pentameter pattern. Please correct me if i'm wrong. Thank you everyone Wombatnz 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I count fourteen lines of iambic pentameter. The potentially questionable points are the pronunciation of "Ozymandias" in line ten (see discussion above), and possibly "traveller" in line one, which needs to be spoken as two syllables, rather than three (see also above). It even holds fairly cleanly to an iambic meter. Was there a particular part of the poem that caught your attention? — Bigwyrm watch me wake me 07:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's plainly in iambic pentameter throughout. Such meters have flexibility – even a syllable is sometimes lopped off or added. See the article Iambic pentameter. Even if the meter different from this, it could still count as a sonnet anyway, construing that term more loosely (as is often done!). And of course most non-English sonnets are in not iambic pentameter.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The metric deviation in this poem is not in extra syllables but in misplaced stressed syllables (see above). But it is within the acceptable limits set by Shakespeare etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation
It is futile to edit back and forth about these things. Which version or edition are we citing, after all? They differ in their deployment of colons, dashes, shortenings with apostrophes, capitalisation – and even spelling, if you look at the autograph manuscript that we cite in External Links (desart for desert). We should say which version, and faithfully preserve its detail.

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link
"Shelley" is misspelled on the disambiguation line. I tried to edit it, but that line doesn't appear when I go to "edit this page". I don't know wiki well enough to know how to get at it. Iglew (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That part is generated by the template in the first line. If you want to learn more about the template itself, see this. For more about templates in general, see Template messages and Template namespace. — Bigwyrm watch me wake me  06:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My English literature book says that "Ozymandias" was written in a friendly competition with Keats, not Horrace Smith. 72.128.40.246 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations supplied
I reckon this ought to be a good article, any ideas about the possible need for further citations? I've removed the needs citation tag until someone points out the need for more. Should we renominate for GA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.137.192 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Smith's poem better?
I actually think that Smith's poem is better than Shelley's. It certainly does foreshadow later films, like the end of Planet of the Apes, in a rather ominous way. Sponsianus (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're certainly entitled to your own aesthetic judgment, but it's not clear how it's relevant to the article. If you can find notable commentators who have agreed with you in print, we might mention them. --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but while you certainly have a point that my own humble views are admittedly not necessarily always the best foundation for a global encyclopaedia, the problem is that there seems to be no references for the judgement of Smiths' poem - its inferior status is simply stated as if universally agreed on. Smith was not as famous a poet as Shelley (he soon abandoned poetry to become a stockbroker), which may account for why his poem was not as widely spread.


 * Is it really the task of an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia to declare one poem worse than another? Is that NPOV? I still think that the criticism of Smith's poem should be referred to more specifically, if it is to be kept.Sponsianus (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If an artist's work secures no lasting commentary, i.e. if it's impossible to find significant discussion of the work a few generations later, then that's pretty much the only and ultimate rejection of art work as important. Still, probably the article should only say so in a literal way: Shelley's poem has become highly anthologized and remains familiar to many literature/poetry nonspecialists, while Smith's is obscure.  I don't think the article needs to explicitly bash Smith's work in comparison to Shelley's by saying it is "worse" or something like that.  Ventifact (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much how I thought.Sponsianus (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I actually agree (but I shouldn't say so in Wikipedia - oops!). Shelley's poem is basically a rip-off which ignores the most interesting aspect of Smith's poem:  ít's future tensing.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation currently given is /ˌɒziˈmændi.əs/. Does anyone have a truly reliable source on the pronunciation?. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The source currently cited is a Wikipedia-like site to which anyone can upload pronunciations. This makes it worthless as a WP:RS for anything, including pronunciations.
 * The pronunciation currently given makes the word five syllables long, yet the rhyming scheme as applied to line 10 of the poem clearly requires a four-syllable realization: "my NAME is O zy MAN dias KING of KINGS".  Note that "dias" must fit into one syllable.  Given this, it would appear that /ˌɒziˈmændjəs/ would make more sense, at least for this line of the poem.
 * For what it's worth, the Smith poem also requires a four-syllable pronunciation: "i AM great O zy MAN dias" SAITH the STONE,.  link here
 * I would also suggest that /ˌɒzɪˈmændjəs/ (with a short "i" as in "bit" for the second syllable) is a possibility that fits better with the meter of the poem.
 * I've updated it a little with something closer to a reliable source. Grover cleveland (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Text of Poem from 1819 publication
I looked on Google books to find the earliest publication there of this poem. It seems to be this 1819 anthology (thus one year after the original publication in the periodical).

OZYMANDIAS.

I MET a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: " My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.

There are a number of discrepancies from the text as currently given in the article, from Palgrave's 1875 "Golden Treasury" (which claims in HTML comments to be the "ACTUAL SPELLING"). These include:
 * 3: "desart" vs. "desert" [this orthography also appears in Smith's poem]
 * 3: comma after "Near them" (which seems to make more logical sense)
 * 4: "shattered" vs. "shatter'd"
 * 4: comma after "frown"
 * 5: comma after "lip"
 * 5: comma after "command"
 * 7: stamped" vs. "stamp'd"
 * 8: "mocked" vs. "mock'd"
 * 8: colon rather than period after "fed"
 * 12: period vs. colon after "remains". This means that "Round" starts a new sentence, and is thus capitalized.
 * 13: cNo omma after "bare"

It's possible, of course, that Shelley's original was altered for the 1819 publication: but in the absence of any evidence of this, perhaps we should rely on the earlier publication if we are to insist on the "ACTUAL SPELLING"? Grover cleveland (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the first edition of Palgrave's Golden Treasury on Google books here.   It agrees with the 1819 edition in the period after "remains" and subsequent new sentence.  I'm going to conclude that this is a transcription error on Bartleby's website and correct the text in the article. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the text in line with these early printings. There doesn't seem to be any need to go along with Palgrave's fetish for apostrophes, especially as he doctored the title of the poem. Grover cleveland (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Old talk
On the Double Irony issue

I think double irony is a good description of what's going on in the poem.

First there is the material irony of the "my works" that are reduced to rubble and won't make anyone despair.

Second the spiritual irony that the Mighty One only "survives" for the observer thanks to the artist's, not his own powers.

Xjy 2 June 2005

Judging from the history, the justification for double irony is:

(1) Suppose the inscription had been "Ner-ner-ner. Look how good I am." There would be irony, since the statue NOW shows how far he's fallen - no-one even remembers him.

(2) In addition to that, the phrasing of the inscription now suggests the meaning "You should despair because one day you, too, shall be dust."

I'm not sure if I agree or not. However, I think everyone agrees on the interpretations, just whether or not to use the term "double irony". I suggest re-writing it to make the point without enumerating the number of ironies?

(Jack)

Hello, yet another question -- I agree that there is irony in "Ozymandias", but the "double irony" seems clearly a personal interpretation. The text at present reads
 * So "the mighty" should despair not as Ozymandias intended, but because they will share his fate of inevitable oblivion in the sands of time.

Whether the mighty should despair, or for what reason, seems simply irrelevant. -- I guess what we need to do here is consult some standard English literature refs and see what they say about the poem; I could write down something, but it would be open to the same "personal opinion" criticism. Here, as elsewhere in WP, we need to stick to reportage instead of essay. Thoughts? Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello again -- this time a quick question about formatting. I like the way the article has a text box on one side and a photo on the other. But the heading "Sources" is caught between them (at least, as the page is rendered at the resolution my browser has). Is there a way to cause "Sources" to go under the text box? I was tinkering with throwing in  's but that probably would stop working if something got rearranged a little. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 21:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That sounds like one of those things that depends very much on your browser, font size, screen res, etc. -- very difficult to lay out a page to please everyone. I've just moved the poem box over to the right side: at least that'll keep a constant flow of text down the left-hand side of the page, perhaps avoid the staggering effect you describe. Please revert or tweak at will (nb: the poem box could still be pulled up a paragraph to give more room for the break). –Hajor 21:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to paste in the text of the poem, since it is quite short, and the discussion of the finer points of the text is a little obscure without the text at hand. Any comments? Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:51, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm torn. We normally avoid posting the entire source text (sooner or later someone says we can't understand France without the text of the French constitution in the article, that sort of thing), but in this case it might be justified.  We do have an external link to the poem.....do you feel that's not enough.  I don't think the discussion gets too far into the finer points, but I can understand this benefitting......I'm afraid I'm not much help, am I?  Well, I wouldn't revert if you posted it.  But I think if you do post it, add more discussion of the text that makes it obvious that the poem is needed so that the discussion makes sense.  That's my suggestion, anyhow. Jwrosenzweig 17:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think I'll go ahead and post the text. A precedent is that the text of Yeat's poem The Second Coming survived VfD. I do understand the point about the French Constitution, but I believe there is a stronger case for quoting a famous sonnet. Well, I'll run it up the flag pole and see if anyone reverts. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:51, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh, looking at the article history I see that the poem text has been added and deleted before -- well, it should stay this time. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the initial entry for this page way back when. In the original I wrote:


 * The impact of the sonnet's message comes from its double irony. The tyrant declares, "Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Yet nothing remains of Ozymandias' works but the shattered fragments of his statue. So "the mighty" should not despair as Ozymandias intended. And yet they should indeed despair because they will share his fate of inevitable oblivion in the sands of time.

Someone changed the last sentence to:


 * So "the mighty" should despair not as Ozymandias intended, but because they will share his fate of inevitable oblivion in the sands of time.

Unfortunately, this somewhat obscures the point about the double irony.

Then someone appended the following:


 * To provide a dissenting opinion, it can also be interpreted that the words were crafted specifically for the traveler, rather than the visiting rivals of Ozymandias. It's not as if he's saying "Neener neener neener, I'm more mighty than you," but rather, "You who think you are mighty: see the fate of one who was at least as great, and despair." By this interpretation, Ozymandias had the same wisdom (although not the same acceptance of his fate) as Solomon when he received his engraved ring ("this too shall pass").


 * Shelley never specifically states that Ozymandias was a tyrant (which would imply he was ignorant of certain principles). He simply said that Ozymandias had a frown, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command. All these because he's majorly pissed off that his empire can't last forever, and he wants to give all future generations a reality check, because if he can't be content in his success, why should they?

"Someone Else" removed the dissenting opinion, with the following comment:


 * "dissenter" needs to read the poem, paying attention to where the inscription ends and the narration begins, as Ozymandias clearly was saying Neener.

The "dissenter" restored the dissenting opinion, with the following comment:


 * Someone Else needs to re-read poem, also needs to realize that either all opinion stays within the entry or none does. Shouldn't let Reiman and Powers think for you.

"Someone Else" again removed the dissenting opinion, with the following comment:


 * reverting untenable interpretation

By the time you read this, the dissenting opinion may be back in the main page. But I'm hoping that all parties might be satisfied by a discussion here on the talk page.

Speaking for myself, I also believe that the interpretation suggested in the "dissenting opinion" is untenable. First, the inscription on the pedestal was an original part of the monument, inscribed at the time the statue was erected, long before it had fallen into decay. So it could not have been intended to refer to the impermanence of power. That is the sonnet's point, but it is made possible only through the double irony created by the juxtaposition of the original proud words and the eventual pitiful ruins. Second, the "sneer of cold command" clearly is a representation of a tyrant's attitude, and can hardly be read as indicating disappointment in the impermanence of empire. It serves to reinforce the arrogant tone of the inscription.

Also, I should note the Reiman and Powers was the source of the text of the sonnet, not the point about the double irony. That was my own observation (which I thought fairly obvious).

- HWR

Smith's Poem
I'm making the following changes:

1 - Changed the lines quoted from Smith's poem to:


 * We wonder,&#8212;and some Hunter may express
 * Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
 * Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
 * He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
 * What powerful but unrecorded race
 * Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

Because these are the actual lines that conclude the poem - not the ones which are currently there (follow the link to check).

2 - Changed the comparison with Smith's poem.

The above sestet draws a fairly specific moral.

3 - Reordered text

To take the scattered pieces of information and try to format them more like an news style

4 - ooops

I've just noticed my reordering seems to have messed up the placing of the picture - sorry. I'm not sure how to sort that out, so I'll leave it to some other helpful soul. Number 0 01:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The criticism of Smith's poem seems unfair and inaccurate. While the specific subject is the same, Smith's goal is clearly not that of Shelley's. This point seems to have been lost on the author of this article; to wit, "The image of a destroyed London will have no more or less effect on someone not from London than Ozymandias's statue." How could anyone from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century not be more affected by the image of a destroyed London than the ruins of an ancient Egyptian statue? This line, at least, should be deleted. Omega Wolf 14:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I found the section comparing the two poems to be unfairly POV against Smith's. (If using "POV" as an adjective like that is acceptable.) Unfortunately I don't have nearly the critical skill to write a better comparison section. 84.70.254.80 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thirded. The critique of the Smith poem reads like a 10th grade English Lit essay, and also evokes for me nothing so much as the phrase "to the victor goes the spoils."  Shelley's poem is a triumph of diction, while Smith's is not as well-remembered and so must be inferior?  That latter conclusion sounds more than a bit circular to me.  Maybe Shelley's version is better remembered because Shelley himself is better remembered, independent of whether personal taste leads one to conclude that Shelley is "better than" Smith.67.132.198.254 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Matt


 * I agree that the criticism of Smith's poem is out of place, but it *was* interesting for me (as a visitor for the site for the specific purpose of finding out more about the Ozymandias poem) to find out that there was a related poetic work. I never knew that before coming to Wikipedia.  If possible, I'd say to leave out the criticism but perhaps retain the reference to this "sister" poem. -Jack Colorado, 75.39.171.37 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Perhaps someone could include the pronunciation of Ozymandias? I've never heard the poem spoken, and as such do not have an exact idea of how the name "Ozymandias" should be pronounced. If this is not deemed worthy to put in the article, I would still appreciate it if someone could respond with the correct pronunciation in AHD on this talk page. P.S. If you hadn't guessed, I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I've botched up the posting of this comment. Any constructive criticism is welcome. -Cesare de Borgia


 * Done, I've added it at the very beginning of the article, so that the reader can mentally "read" everything else "correctly". The subnote about the original ancient Greek pronunciation (upsilon instead of Y) may be irrelevant to this article and deletable, though. 213.228.58.42 07:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to nitpick, but shouldn't it say "ah-zee-MAN-dee-us" or "ah-zee-MAN-dee-uhs" or something rather than "o-zee-MAN-dee-as"? (I know, it's tricky dealing with pseudophonetic spellings like that.)  As for the IPA pronunciations, isn't it arbitrary to specify these two, and *just* these two?  E.g. couldn't it be pronounced  or ?  For that matter, is the second syllable really, as opposed to  or  or ?  (Perhaps a less narrow transcription would be better.) 24.159.255.29 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think pronunciation is very important. Ozymandias does not have five full syllables, but rather four.  I may be wrong, but I think it is properly pronounced:  Oh'-Soo-Mahn'-Jus. Vinson L Watkins (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Vinson L Watkins


 * This being poetry, the meter of the line dictates the number of syllables in the name. "my name is... king of kings" is six syllables with no candidates for elision.  Thus however you wish to pronounce Ozymandias, it needs to be with four syllables.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.167.222 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a note to that effect next to the cited pronunciation (I hope that's ok) 79.66.184.134 (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Original sources, and `Mighty'
The version of the text given here is not that used by Shelley himself: see, for example, this edition which, showing slight variants against modern editions, is taken from an autograph fair copy from one of Shelley&#8217;s notebooks in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK. Our article states that
 * This poem is often incorrectly quoted or reproduced. The most common example is "Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!": it replaces the actual "on" with "upon", thus turning the regular decasyllabic (iambic pentameter) verse into an 11-syllable verse; and it adds an apocryphal cap to the actual "mighty", thus turning the targeted mighty kings into an hubristic defiance of a monotheistic Mighty One, an anachronism for a polytheist pharaoh who died ca. 1224 BC.

However, Shelley himself capitalizes Mighty, (and several other words: King, Works, Wreck). Because of such widespread capitalization (including the mid-line word Wreck for which capitalization indicates no obvious change in semantics) I see no reason that Mighty should be regarded as indicating a Mighty One rather than a more general group of mighty beings. --Wikcerize 12:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In any case, "ye Mighty" -- Shelley wouldn't use the plural ye to address a singular deity, would he? Capped or uncapped, I've only ever read that as referring to lesser kings who are to come after. –Hajor 14:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, 'ye' is plural, and Wikcerize should have consulted a grammar book rather than spinning theories based on holograph variations. 68.118.61.219 20:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your pleasant comments, "68.118.61.219". Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote in order to grasp that the use of the plural "ye" supports my argument rather than contradicts it. As for "spinning theories", do you have a problem with the existence of Bodleian Library MS Shelley e.4, fol. 85r? Wikcerize 11:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Haven't ye and you both been used for both singular and plural since early Modern English? 24.159.255.29 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

difficulty?
I removed the following because, as far as I know, no one has ever alleged that these lines are difficult, unless a kid who had the poem assigned in class found them difficult (which is not exactly relevant). This just looks like a crib for someone who has trouble reading verse.


 * The difficulty of verse 6 to 8 is largely resolved by reading "survive" as a transitive verb. The lines are usually understood as meaning that those passions (arrogance and sneer) have survived (outlived) both the sculptor (whose hand mocked those passions by stamping them so well on the statue) and the pharaoh (whose heart fed those passions in the first place).


 * And I'm putting it back. I remember being grateful for the explanation of those lines given by my EngLit master, and I'm sufficiently sure of not having been among the thickest in the class that I'm not embarrassed to admit as much. I've also shared this poem with various non-native speakers of English over the years, and whispering transitive verb! definitely helps. The line about the supernumerary beat in "look upon my works..." is worth putting back, too, I think. Your other edits were spot on. Anyone else got an opinion? –Hajor 03:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I remember finding the poem difficult first time I read it, and rereading it now I remember that I had no idea how "the hand that mocked them and the heart that fed" followed from what had just been said. Because I read: "survive" as merely saying that the passions were still visible, rather than saying the passions outlive something.  I think a lot of people could make a similar mistake on early reads, so while perhaps *I was* the stupidest person in my English class, I think there are enough people at least as stupid as I to warrant keeping the advice there :-).  Number 0 16:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I also vote strongly in favour of keeping this information. 84.70.254.80 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for references
If it had references, it could became a FA. Please add them and let me know on my talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Despite the earlier assertion, the pronunciation STILL isn't given anywhere here that I can find. And I, too, would like to know how to say the name. wls, los angeles


 * It's at the top of the page. I've amended it to include both American and British English pronunciations, btw. 84.70.254.80 13:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
Nice article guys. Thanks. -- 68.147.241.200 17:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The hand to which Shelley refers is not the sculptor's . ..
. . . nor is the mocking the sculptor's work in stone. The mocking hand is that of Ozymandias himself, in dismissive, mocking gesture of his own humanity and the inner passions that caused him to believe that he was immortal. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.246.254.14 (talk &bull; contribs) 16:51, 28 February 2006.
 * Interesting theory, but I can't say I'm convinced. Ozymandias would have had to have made such a gesture while alive, and nothing else suggests that he's capable of conscious self-irony. You'd have to argue that Shelley was making the stone sculpture mock its model, which is a little convoluted. --Trovatore 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, moreover, in that case the passions would not have survived the hand that mocked them, since the stone hand was still there. --Trovatore 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I always believed that "the hand that mocked" was the sculptor's, and "mocked" simply meant copied, as in "produced a replica of," which was what the sculptor was doing. But that was just my take. -Jack Colorado, 75.39.171.37 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the flow of the poem's grammar, the word "them" in the phrase "The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed" refers to Ozymandias's passions, and the hand and heart likewise belong to Ozymandias. Logically, Shelley must have been using the word 'mocked' in its old-fashioned sense of 'imitated', as the phrase can be paraphrased as "the hand which acted upon the urges of the passions, and the heart which generated those passions."Butcherscross (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Source
Diodorus Siculus (Book 1, Chapter 47) sshould we refernce it. In haste. Rich Farmbrough 15:56 14  March 2006 (UTC).

Good Article Nominee
I find this article to be very informative and helpful. I believe it to be good enough for Good Article. Thunderforge 01:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * I feel bad doing this as the article is informative, cool, and the little quote boxes for the original work are very nice. Unfortunately, this article has almost no references overall, even fewer of which use inline citation. Under the article is more thoroughly referenced it is not Good Article quality. Staxringold 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the article contains WAY too much of what seems to be original criticism. that may be only the fact that it is uncited, but, in any event, this is an encyclopaedia, not a journal of literary criticism. just the facts, ma'am.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture
To be honest I really don't like the "pop culture" section much. I think it sort of trivializes the subject matter. If we have to have it, can we at least cut it down to two or three examples, and hold the line there? --Trovatore 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll give my opinions on the cited examples:

Ozymandias is referenced in the song "Here lies Ozymandias" by The Guggenheim Grotto on their debut album "...Waltzing Alone". http://www.guggenheimgrotto.com/
 * If it's not notable enough to have an article on them, it may not warrant inclusion.

Shelley's poem was referenced in the Sisters of Mercy song Dominion/Mother Russia, on the album Floodland.
 * OK

Ozymandias is also mentioned in The Stranglers powerful but misogynistic song "Ugly", from their 1977 Rattus Norvegicus (album).
 * The reference is not cited there, but may be OK nonetheless.

The poem also provided the source for the title of Issue #11 of Alan Moore's comic book limited series Watchmen, "Look on My Works, Ye Mighty." The issue ends with a quote from the poem, and one of the primary characters in the series takes Ozymandias as his superhero identity.
 * Only the name is referenced. A more fitting reference can perhaps be found in Negima, where Evangeline says: "For lo! I am the vampire Evangeline... the "Dark Angel"!! Look upon my magicks, ye mighty, and despair...!!" (vol.6) She has only temporarily been freed from a restricting spell which forces her to be a small girl again the next volume, so the irony is clear. But I don't know if it's mostly due to translation, and it might be a cliché.

The poem was referenced and printed in full in the first book of the Children of the Lamp series.
 * OK

In Marvel Comics, Ozymandias is a servant of the supervillain Apocalypse in the X-Men franchise. He first appeared in Uncanny X-Men .
 * The Egypt reference is clear, but otherwise?

>>> Marvel's Ozymandias is a living statue. His main power is his ability to foretell the future thru stone sculptures. Oh yeah, and his name is Ozymandias. Pretty clear reference. 68.166.66.223 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In The Tripods series, the man who sets the main character on his journey is named Ozymandias.
 * Only the name.

An excerpt from the poem is included in the computer game Civilization IV.
 * OK

"Ozymandias J. Llewellyn" is the name of one of the title characters from the webcomic Ozy and Millie.
 * Only the name.

In the first strip of the webcomic Errant Story, the poem is quoted in full. Phrases from the poem are used as the titles of subsequent chapters.
 * OK

Ozymandias is the name of a vagrant in the books and the T.V. show based off of the books The Tripods. In the first book "The White Mountians," Ozymandias says, "I am the king of this land. My wife was the queen of a rainy country, but I left her weeping. My name is Ozymandias. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair." Will, who Ozymandias is talking to, remembers reading the name Ozymandias in a poem. In the T.V. show he says "My name is Ozymandias. I am king of all this land. Look on me!"
 * OK, I guess.

Ozymandias appears in an easter egg in Perfect Dark, a console game. Cassandra DeVries' necklace has the code '18M0ZYM8ND185'. This, upon inspection, spells out 'IAMOZYMANDIAS', and likely refers to DeVries' power complex.
 * OK

In Fight Club (book) the narrator writes: "I am Ozymandias, king of kings." near the end of Chapter 28.
 * OK
 * Shinobu 18:54, 18 June 2006

In Fevre Dream, one of the main characters, Joshua, references the peom several times, especially when he is depressed, considering his potential "kingdom" to be in ruins.

My objection is not to the specific references, but to the fact that there are too many of them. Way too many. Can we pick the best three and junk the rest? --Trovatore 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What if instead of limiting down the number if we created a new page just for references to this poem. This way, we aren't too hard pressed to choose a few (and to be honest, I don't think I could narrow it down to three or so) and it prevents the problem of constantly having to narrow it down whenever somebody adds a reference. What do you all think? Thunderforge 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think such pages can be a good idea if the main article is getting overly long. But I wouldn't do it just to get the pop culture references out of our hair; such subsidiary pages tend to become rat's nests because they're not often visited except by people who are looking to add references.


 * I don't know that the references need to be cut down to three--that seems a little extreme. But cutting down some seems like a good idea. Preference should be given to references in works that are themselves notable, I would think. Nareek 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we could at least axe the ones saying "Ozymandias is (referenced|the name of something/someone) in ..." These references are generally uninformative. Shinobu 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the comics Ozymandias and the Golden Compass or whatever Ozymandias from the see also section. The comics reference is obvious enough to go in a pop culture/cultural reference section, but neither seems like they'd be of interest to someone looking into prose poetry. 68.166.66.223 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree: FAR too many pop culture references. It cheapens the subject matter. References to trivialities such as computer games and comic books have no place in a serious article about English Literature. Butcherscross (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldnt agree more. Big pet peeve of mine.  I understand the reason given the history of the Wiki, but it really is mind boggling how many entries are pretty much littered with the most obscure, and irrelevant, pop culture references that, in my opinion, completely cheapen the content.  Pop culture grinds out junk content at 200M pieces per day.  At any given moment, 1000 new rap/rock/pop songs, lousy TV shows, video games, books/novels/manga, and on and on are referencing any number of classic topics in any number of ways.  Where does the line get drawn?  Right now the only gating factor is the scope of knowledge of the contributors; otherwise the typical "pop culture reference" section would be longer than the main article.   How many novels over the years must have referenced Ozymandias?  So why is some obscure author of some obscure work of fiction whose fictional character obliquely mentions Ozymandias LESS relevant than some "Sister of Mercy" song or a random Marvel comic character?  The answer is, it isnt... The only limiter is that the hypothetical obscure author isnt known to the typical "pop culture reference" contributor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.43.26 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugly sentence

 * It is also claimed that a common interpretation of the discourse of the sonnet is that time will always win, that nature prevails in the end.

This a very ugly sentence, and probably means something different than was intended. Shinobu 16:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Ozymandias: Ozy as in 'Ozzy Osbourne', Mandy as in 'Your a beautiful girl Mandy'and As as in 'That donkey is an ass'.

Mock'd
At the end of the paragraph about "mock'd", we say that the word can be read here as both "imitated" and "ridiculed". I'm not sure, however, that there's anything in the poem that suggests that the sculptor was ridiculing the pharoah. Not that you can't read it that way if you want--mocked does have two meanings--but we sort of suggest that that double meaning is self-evidently in the poem. Does anyone else find this problematic? Nareek 02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The term Mock in this poem is used as a verb. And "mock" is used as a term to re-create or make an immitation. However, this meaning didn't exist in 1819 as the article says. According to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), the first usage of that definition in written work was used in 1914. This can be disputed, but I don't know how to initiate that. There is not earlier usage than that. Spilker 22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 14:36 09 Jan. 2007 (PST)

What you wonder points to the matter of agency. Time mocks all the efforts of humankind, turning our great accomplishments (which the author naturally represents through artistic feats as a stand-in for "civilization" as a whole) to crumbling remnants. To say that either the sculpture or the sculptor or the sculpted is doing the mocking may be correct, but only in part. Time turns all of those things to self-mockeries in a way they could never have been intended at their origin -- which is exactly why their eventual ruin represents such a mockery.

If the word "mock" has shifted through time to alter how we see this poem, enriching it or obscuring it or both at once, it is so much more the poignant to my mind. Again, time rolls over our meager efforts and reworks them into something beyond our intent. Ventifact (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order
I've been going over the idea of having a box at the bottom of the page telling the reader which of Shelley's poems came before and after "Ozymandias." The only problem that could arise is whether to use the date he began writing them, or the date they were published. What do you all think? Do we even need a box? It seemed like a cool idea to me, at least. :) But then that could also open up a can of worms in that he wrote so many, and we'd have to give a box to all his poems.
 * Neat idea. I would use the date he finished them, if I had that information available. But if he wrote too many poems to fit in a navbox, perhaps it's a better idea to feature a list of his poems as an article. Shinobu 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BM Statue
Bit surprised that this article doesn't appear to mention the bust of Ramesses II which appeared in the British Museum and caused Shelley to write the poem in the first place. Davidbod 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do something about it? *encouraging* Be bold! Shinobu 01:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This needs more explanation. The bust is not trunkless, but legless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fustbariclation (talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Great", "Crucial"
The question is not whether we back up these claims, but whether we can make such claims in the first place. They seem to me expressions of opinion that are contrary to the WP:NPOV policy. Nareek 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the themes cited. They are typically "great" themes. Large-scale, existential, deep, etc. No problem there. And this sort of information is necessary in an article on a literary topic. The scope and range of the themes is an important aspect of a work.
 * As for the relationship between the artist and the subject of the statue being crucial I should think that's obvious. The irony of the poem rests on it. It forms the axis of the whole poem. A whole book could be spun out of the metapoetical connotations of this. And the "contradictory" is the same. For instance, the commissioner of the statue is convinced the artist will achieve glory from the honour and splendour of the subject, whereas reality demonstrates that the survival of what little there is to see of the commissioner is entirely due to the artist, instead.
 * NPOV shouldn't be abused as an editing tool. In literature it's possible to make a case that anything over and above a facsimile of the manuscript violates NPOV. And even that isn't neutral cos someone had to make a judgement to include the piece in the first place.


 * It is surely true that some subjectivity is necessary in making an encyclopedia article on any topic. That doesn't mean we shouldn't avoid subjectivity when it's not necessary. In this case, I'm not really sure any reader will need us to characterize the importance of the theme of the permanence of art. And if it's "obvious" that the relationship between artist and subject is "crucial", then it can certainly go without saying. Nareek 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The characterizations are needed to indicate the level of ambition animating the poem. "Great" is a sort of shorthand for "universally human, regardless of time or place", rather than limited geographically or socially etc. As for the relationship between artist and subject, it is "crucial" to this particular poem. This isn't an opinion, it's a necessary part of any discussion of the poem. What is obvious to people in the know sometimes needs spelling out for others. And the "contradictory" qualification is not so obvious, but central to the structure of the poem. The real power of the artist and art in relation to posterity versus the illusory power of the tyrant and force of arms, etc. This sort of thing is easier to appreciate in relation to a painting or sculpture - as physical presences they are "seen" by any observer, but lots of aspects in them can benefit from explanations of the obvious, so to say. --xjy 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as so much territory marking. Nareek 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just commenting on your points about a reader's needs and "obvious". No mindreading should be required (ie knowing what is "great", "obvious" etc, about a work before reading it). No headbutting contest intended, the aim is clarity and perspective.

Bloom
First of all, "article by Henry Giroux" is not a good source, but that could be fixed. But unless Giroux says that "Ozymandias" is slighted by Bloom because of the politics that Giroux identifies, to link Giroux's analysis of Bloom to his treatment of "Ozymandias" is original research as defined by Wikipedia. If Giroux does say that Bloom downplays the poem for political reasons, then we can cite him to that effect. Nareek 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely amazing stuff. Never seen "original research" used as a put-down in this way before. We live and learn :-) The debate as to Shelley's revolutionary will and ideas versus the romanticizing aestheticizing reactionary revaluation and castration of his work by academics like Bloom is common knowledge in the field of literary criticism. Giroux's article is a fair representation of the pro-Shelley text and history based wing of this discussion, and Bloom is a representative of the revisionist anti-Shelley wing. If reactionary muck like Bloom is used in a this article to denigrate the poem in question as trivia and in principle worthless ("not make much of"), and Shelley's reputation god help us all is claimed to have been revived by Bloom, then at the very least a counter-statement and reference to eg Giroux should be included to neutralize the ridiculous impact Bloom unqualified makes. Bloom unqualified is ridiculous as it states flatly that the poem the article is devoted to, and demonstrates the quality of, is a worthless piece of trivia. It's also ridiculous as it shows how little Bloom understood Shelley as a writer, thinker and opinion-moulder.

--xjy 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you've never seen "original research" used as a criticism of Wikipedia edits, then you should read No Original Research--it's one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it's hard to have a discussion about these edits if you're not familiar with it. Nareek 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I read it. It's useful if used sensibly. This is the first time I've seen it used as a club on behalf of one value judgement (the Bloom line) to batter another (the Giroux line) in this way. The "Bloom line" reads:


 * "Despite its enduring popularity, many Shelley scholars have seen it as a piece of trivia, and few studies of Shelley's career make much of it. Harold Bloom's Shelley's Mythmaking (1959), the major Shelley study of the 20th century and the book that restored the importance of Shelley's reputation, does not mention it at all."


 * No backing for "popularity", for "many scholars" or "few studies", for "major Shelley study" or "restored the importance of Shelley's reputation". The WP citation says zilch about Shelley, except to echo my  qualification of Bloom as aestheticizing. Bloom's "contentious" rant was against Christian critics, not the left so much.


 * I think we might be able to agree that a) Shelley is popular, has had a constant high reputation and part of this popularity and reputation is due to "Ozymandias".


 * Also that the "piece of trivia" description is highly contentious and unsubstantiated here, but might be acceptable if substantiated with a citation and balanced by a substantiated counter-view.


 * Bloom's book might be better described as "a major Shelley study" (as opposed to THE). "restored the importance of S's reputation" would be better expressed as "defended significant aspects of S's reputation". The fact that Bloom doesn't mention our poem says more about him than the poem, and to avoid a clash over what it says, I think it would be better left out. After all, if a big study doesn't mention our poem, what is it doing being referenced in relation to it at all? And if on the other hand other aspects of Shelley are relevant, these other aspects will also include ones that certain scholars (like Bloom) might not approve of.


 * Above all, this Bloom boosting gives an unwarranted impression that the Bloom line represents a great consensus on the issue. It doesn't.


 * So, I suggest that a suitably rephrased reference to Bloom is re-inserted and my most recent addition referencing Giroux is added to the same paragraph. Then people can read the Bloom book and the Giroux article, along with the further references in both, and draw their own conclusions.

--xjy 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got no particular love for Bloom or for the idea that "Ozymandias" isn't an important poem. I agree that the run-up to Bloom is too sweeping--the paragraph should probably say that some critics don't consider it prominent in Shelley's career, with one major study leaving it altogether unmentioned.


 * If Giroux has something to say about Shelley, we should put that in, for sure. But if he's just there to warn people against Bloom, I think it's unnecessary and out of place.  As long as he's presented as one critic's view, people can take him or leave him, and if they're curious about how much credibility to give the guy they can follow the link to his article, where hopefully the positive and negative views about him are discussed.  That's what all WP articles should do. Nareek 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A "Review" of 'Ozymandias'
"More Random Walks In Science", collected by Robert L Weber, pub. IoP 1982, 0-85498-040-7, pp. 14-16, reprints "Preparing Scientific Papers", Nature 268 100 (1977) by N S Haile.

It is mostly a spoof review of "Ozymandias" considered as a submission to a scientific jounal, with a suggested complete rewrite into corresponding form - I think it worth mentioning.

The book should be available, and Nature really should be available, in the better University libraries and similar places; I doubt whether the material is on the open Web. But a search at http://www.nature.com/index.html for Ozymandias revealed four entries, the last applying and showing the issue of Nature to be that of 14 Jul 1977.

82.163.24.100 14:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, a dubious version of that review is currently at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/cafe/1131/07ozymes.html; it gives an idea of the original review. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Prose paraphase
Should a prose paraphase be added for this poem? I can dig up the prose paraphase from my school program in a few. If nobody says 'no' by the time I get to it, I will add it. --Eiyuu Kou 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, is it published in a reliable source that other editors can check? If it's (for example) just the analysis of your teacher, astute as he may be, we can't really use it. --Trovatore 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is from a school program called OdysseyWare. I don't think there is an article for it but it has an official website. FYI: The prose is not on the website but rather one of the lesson within the program. Look up OdysseyWare on Google and the site should be at or near the top of the search results. --Eiyuu Kou 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. A little non-traditional, but not out of the question from a sourcing point of view, I think. The central problem is going to be copyright. This appears to be a company that sells its product for money; you certainly can't copy their paraphrase into the article, unless it's released under a free license such as GFDL, which I think is unlikely. --Trovatore 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Department of Obviousness
From the article:

"That there is nothing beside the ruins implies that it touches, or connects to, nothing."

Oh, really? Y'think? Matthew Miller 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with you Matt, whoever put in the above was trying hard to say something, but not saying much! Have made an attempt on improving the commentary to: "That there is nothing beside the ruins emphasises their loneliness and desolation, disconnected not only in space- from other physical things, but also in time- from the busy and important context in which they must have once existed, as an interconnected part of an ancient city." Bezapt 00:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Procrastinomics
I'm new here; hope this is the right forum for this. Noticed in the "Other" section of "In pop culture" (4.6) that there is a reference to the "Department of Procrastinomics at the University of Cambridge, UK." Seriously? Can't find that anywhere online, either looking up "procrastinomics" or at the University's website. If it does exist, someone write up a wikipedia page on it and link to it; sounds like my kind of thing! Turi b 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed true. The Institute of Procrastinomics doesn't have a website unfortunately, and the quote is just written in red on a chalk board, but it's there! This is the closest thing to a website for the institute...http://www.cudos.ac.uk/later.html 131.111.139.100 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)TJM

Pronunciation, bis
I see that Noetica has facted the pronunciation, and I suppose we'll have to deal with it. The edit summary asked about a stress on the "i", which I think is the least concern -- obviously that wouldn't work with the meter, so it surely was not what Shelley had in mind.

But I'm somewhat concerned about the pronunciation as well, for almost the opposite reason. Both given pronunciations suggest that the "i" gets its own syllable, for five syllables total. I doubt that. I think it should probably be only four syllables, something like ozz--ee--MAN--dyas. That would definitely fit the meter better, anyway. --Trovatore 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Trovatore, I favour the pronunciations as the article currently gives them (possibly with the amendment you canvas above). But I have encountered at least one literate person who insists on /oz-i-man-DYE-as/, as it were. I have searched without success for an "authoritative" statement concerning the pronunciation. Until we have such a source, it is improper just to assume that we have been right all along. As for the alternative that I mention not fitting with the metre, that is not so simple. Look for example at line 1: I met a traveller from an antique land. Does that line "fit the metre"? Of course the poet is inconsistent in applying an apostrophe to excise syllables that would upset the metre (if shatter'd, why not wrinkl'd?), but we might expect that traveller would be shortened to trav'ller if a rigid ten-syllable interpretation of the pentameter were intended, n'est-ce pas? Compare, by the way, the rather relevant case of Darius, which is glibly pronounced /DAR-i-us/ by most people, though it ought to be /dar-EYE-us/ (see Darius I). (Finally, this is Pronunciation, ter, because it is the third such section, not the second. Sorry!)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 03:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, to me "traveller" is a two-syllable word, whether or not you use an apostrophe. --Trovatore 05:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OED, which is probably the best resource for the period in question, gives three syllables for traveller. And anyway, Trovatore, how many syllables do shattered and wrinkled have, for you? As I say, the poet is inconsistent in marking these things. The English iambic pentameter is flexible enough to allow Ozymandias with either stress pattern, and either number of syllables (both in Shelley's poem and in Smith's). We are really back with preferences founded merely on what we had heard up until now; and we need an authority to back us up, if we would deliver an authoritative ruling on the pronunciation ourselves.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how wrinkl'd could have one syllable. Vowel letters and vowel sounds do not exclusively and always appear together. Removing the second syllable's vowel typographically doesn't change the fact that in pronouncing the word a person's mouth must pass through that l and so produce a vowel (and syllable). Ventifact (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that traveller is a 2 syllable word for most people. The Romantics were supposed to be capturing popular diction. As for "wrinkled" and "shatter'd", the point is that the latter does not have 3 syllables (shatt-er-ed), hence the apostrophe.  The former could not be pronounced with any other than 2 syllables in any "correct" pronunciation in the past or present.  The important thing is the dominant rhythm, not the stray unstressed syllables.  Regardless of what the correct Greek pronunciation of their mispelling' is, the rhythm works best as "My NAME is OZyMANDias, KING of KINGS".  Objectively, the major deviation of metre is in the lines "Nothing beside remains. Round the decay/Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare" which reads DA DI DI DA DI DA DA DI DI DA/DI DA DI DA DI DA DA DI DI DA instead of DI DA DI DA DI DA etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Poems designation as a "Sonnet"
Hi, i was under the understanding that a sonnet had to comprise of 14 lines of iambic pentameter verse. and that Ozymandias does not hold the iambic pentameter pattern. Please correct me if i'm wrong. Thank you everyone Wombatnz 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I count fourteen lines of iambic pentameter. The potentially questionable points are the pronunciation of "Ozymandias" in line ten (see discussion above), and possibly "traveller" in line one, which needs to be spoken as two syllables, rather than three (see also above). It even holds fairly cleanly to an iambic meter. Was there a particular part of the poem that caught your attention? — Bigwyrm watch me wake me 07:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's plainly in iambic pentameter throughout. Such meters have flexibility – even a syllable is sometimes lopped off or added. See the article Iambic pentameter. Even if the meter different from this, it could still count as a sonnet anyway, construing that term more loosely (as is often done!). And of course most non-English sonnets are in not iambic pentameter.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The metric deviation in this poem is not in extra syllables but in misplaced stressed syllables (see above). But it is within the acceptable limits set by Shakespeare etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation
It is futile to edit back and forth about these things. Which version or edition are we citing, after all? They differ in their deployment of colons, dashes, shortenings with apostrophes, capitalisation – and even spelling, if you look at the autograph manuscript that we cite in External Links (desart for desert). We should say which version, and faithfully preserve its detail.

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link
"Shelley" is misspelled on the disambiguation line. I tried to edit it, but that line doesn't appear when I go to "edit this page". I don't know wiki well enough to know how to get at it. Iglew (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That part is generated by the template in the first line. If you want to learn more about the template itself, see this. For more about templates in general, see Template messages and Template namespace. — Bigwyrm watch me wake me  06:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My English literature book says that "Ozymandias" was written in a friendly competition with Keats, not Horrace Smith. 72.128.40.246 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations supplied
I reckon this ought to be a good article, any ideas about the possible need for further citations? I've removed the needs citation tag until someone points out the need for more. Should we renominate for GA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.137.192 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Smith's poem better?
I actually think that Smith's poem is better than Shelley's. It certainly does foreshadow later films, like the end of Planet of the Apes, in a rather ominous way. Sponsianus (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're certainly entitled to your own aesthetic judgment, but it's not clear how it's relevant to the article. If you can find notable commentators who have agreed with you in print, we might mention them. --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but while you certainly have a point that my own humble views are admittedly not necessarily always the best foundation for a global encyclopaedia, the problem is that there seems to be no references for the judgement of Smiths' poem - its inferior status is simply stated as if universally agreed on. Smith was not as famous a poet as Shelley (he soon abandoned poetry to become a stockbroker), which may account for why his poem was not as widely spread.


 * Is it really the task of an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia to declare one poem worse than another? Is that NPOV? I still think that the criticism of Smith's poem should be referred to more specifically, if it is to be kept.Sponsianus (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If an artist's work secures no lasting commentary, i.e. if it's impossible to find significant discussion of the work a few generations later, then that's pretty much the only and ultimate rejection of art work as important. Still, probably the article should only say so in a literal way: Shelley's poem has become highly anthologized and remains familiar to many literature/poetry nonspecialists, while Smith's is obscure.  I don't think the article needs to explicitly bash Smith's work in comparison to Shelley's by saying it is "worse" or something like that.  Ventifact (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much how I thought.Sponsianus (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I actually agree (but I shouldn't say so in Wikipedia - oops!). Shelley's poem is basically a rip-off which ignores the most interesting aspect of Smith's poem:  ít's future tensing.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation currently given is /ˌɒziˈmændi.əs/. Does anyone have a truly reliable source on the pronunciation?. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The source currently cited is a Wikipedia-like site to which anyone can upload pronunciations. This makes it worthless as a WP:RS for anything, including pronunciations.
 * The pronunciation currently given makes the word five syllables long, yet the rhyming scheme as applied to line 10 of the poem clearly requires a four-syllable realization: "my NAME is O zy MAN dias KING of KINGS".  Note that "dias" must fit into one syllable.  Given this, it would appear that /ˌɒziˈmændjəs/ would make more sense, at least for this line of the poem.
 * For what it's worth, the Smith poem also requires a four-syllable pronunciation: "i AM great O zy MAN dias" SAITH the STONE,.  link here
 * I would also suggest that /ˌɒzɪˈmændjəs/ (with a short "i" as in "bit" for the second syllable) is a possibility that fits better with the meter of the poem.
 * I've updated it a little with something closer to a reliable source. Grover cleveland (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Text of Poem from 1819 publication
I looked on Google books to find the earliest publication there of this poem. It seems to be this 1819 anthology (thus one year after the original publication in the periodical).

OZYMANDIAS.

I MET a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: " My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.

There are a number of discrepancies from the text as currently given in the article, from Palgrave's 1875 "Golden Treasury" (which claims in HTML comments to be the "ACTUAL SPELLING"). These include:
 * 3: "desart" vs. "desert" [this orthography also appears in Smith's poem]
 * 3: comma after "Near them" (which seems to make more logical sense)
 * 4: "shattered" vs. "shatter'd"
 * 4: comma after "frown"
 * 5: comma after "lip"
 * 5: comma after "command"
 * 7: stamped" vs. "stamp'd"
 * 8: "mocked" vs. "mock'd"
 * 8: colon rather than period after "fed"
 * 12: period vs. colon after "remains". This means that "Round" starts a new sentence, and is thus capitalized.
 * 13: cNo omma after "bare"

It's possible, of course, that Shelley's original was altered for the 1819 publication: but in the absence of any evidence of this, perhaps we should rely on the earlier publication if we are to insist on the "ACTUAL SPELLING"? Grover cleveland (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the first edition of Palgrave's Golden Treasury on Google books here.   It agrees with the 1819 edition in the period after "remains" and subsequent new sentence.  I'm going to conclude that this is a transcription error on Bartleby's website and correct the text in the article. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the text in line with these early printings. There doesn't seem to be any need to go along with Palgrave's fetish for apostrophes, especially as he doctored the title of the poem. Grover cleveland (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)