Comparing and Contrasting Ozymandias and Saddam

739 Words2 Pages

The poem “Ozymandias”, is a poem based around the fall of power and is written as a short and rhyming story which is written to show how nothing is permanent, nothing lasts forever. The article on "Saddam" is much of the same as his legacy is literally been torn down in the form of his statue.

“Ozymandias” is a sonnet, with fourteen lines. Although it doesn't have a simple rhyme scheme or punctuation. Rhyme is partially present in the poem, but no clear rhyme scheme is used and this makes the reader think that something is out of order. I think that the rhyme scheme represents the difference between the way the king thought future was going to be (having a great legacy with people remembering the "king of kings") and the reality (his only legacy is a crumbling statue, forgotten and deserted) his future was out of order as well as the rhyme.

The first line and a half up to the colon are the narrator's words, the rest are those of the traveler he meets. This creates the effect that an unimportant person, "the traveller", "who said" (which belittles him) there is a forgotten statue dying in a "antique" land. The pre-modifier "Antique" makes the statue seem old but precious at the same time. The traveller then goes on to describe the kings bleak and power deprived legacy, which is the opposite of what he expected. This is the recurring theme for the poem, that all great power will come to an end.

The first line in about Saddam's rise and fall is used to describe the scene by what 'Brian Whitaker' said. He describes him as the "Baghdad statue", which makes the reader think that his statue which embodied his power could be seen all across the capital. The rest is done as more of a diary layout, going through what happened on that...

... middle of paper ...

... sympathy whatsoever with the statue or the king though, due to how Shelley describes it; "sneer of cold command, hand that mocked them" and the arrogance of the words displayed at the bottom, "king of king's". It is almost like he makes the reader feel sorry for who he ruled over which is the same as the article about Saddam.

In the article about Saddam his statue needs to be ripped down to show people his fall in power, his statue was not in ruin he was not forgotten unlike Ozymandias. Saddam did not fall with grace, he was publicly executed, so everyone saw his fall however his power was still alive in the form of a statue. Was never seen as magnificent but cruel and horrific in his rein. Its shown that the Iraqis were making progress and would of probably succeeded in defeating Saddam, much like before he died. But the US intervened and speeded up the process.

Open Document