55

I found sonnet 55 to be full of contradiction. The first two quatrains focus heavily on destruction of stone and monuments while the last goes on to discuss the permanence of words on paper. This seemed very backwards to me. He states that "nor war's quick fire shall burn/ the living record of your memory" but in reality, fire is indeed incredibly capable of destroying this memory. I realize his idea of trying to immortalize his lover by writing about him but it seems to me that stone is much more indestructable than a poem. There are stones that are millions of years old and while the inscriptions on them may wear away and statues may fall, it still seems a much more solid idea than paper, especially since at that time it was not so easy to produce works in bulk. Obviously Shakespeare succeeded in preserving his love on paper but what about those who did not make such a lasting impression of literature?

The other point of interest that I saw in the poem was that of life and death and the fact that there can be life in death. In one line, the subject is perceived as dead and in the next, as living, all because of the poets wording. His poem starts off with destruction and loss of permanence and gradually works its way towards life and judgement day when the "sleeping" will wake. This transition enhances and illustrates what he tells us he is trying to do with his poem and that is to bring the dead to life. I think in a way, its arrogant of Shakespeare to essentially consider himself capable of giving life to something that God has put to rest.