STYLISTIC ANALYSIS OF P. B.

SHELLY’S POEM
OZYMANDIAS: FORMALISM VS READER
RESPONSE THEORY

Dr. Rashid Mahmood, Ms. Zahid Hussain, Dr. Zia Ahmad
Abstract
Stylistic analysis of a literary text finds its grounds on formalism and puts the
reader aside from the text. It does not allow the ‘informed reader’ to construct
the meanings of the text. On the other hand, reader response theory takes the
reader as the constructor of the meaning of any literary text. However, in the
present work, the researchers have tried to merge these contradictory schools of
thought in the analysis of Ozymandias. The foregrounded linguistics features are
highlighted objectively but interpreted with subjective approach. The reader is
involved in the interpretations of these foregroundings which leads to more than
one interpretation based on commonsense and are influenced by readers’
perspectives and viewpoints. Narrative, Syntactic and Grammatical complexities
in the poem have been focused for the interpretation. The study is an attempt to
pinpoint the limitations imposed in formalist stylistics and tries to prove that
there is a deep relationship between reader, text and interpretation.
Key Words: Formalism, stylistics, interpretation, Shelley, Ozymandious

Stylistics is mainly concerned with formalism, as it takes a text into

account in isolation and does not focus the social, historical or other
contextual factors. Formalism, however, does not attract a large
community of critics, as Weber (1996) finds the problems with
formalism and says:
The problem with these formalist stylistics analyses is
that they strike one as mechanical, lifeless, sterile
exercises, and largely irrelevant to the interpretation
of the literary work that they are describing. And if
the critics try to ascribe some function or the meaning
to the formal patterns that they have uncovered, then a
huge leap of faith is required to move from
description to interpretation (p. 2).
Fish (1973) also criticizes the formalist stylistics for its objectivity and
negligence of the role of reader in the interpretation of the text. He is of
the view that the reader should not be ignored in the interpretation of the


Associate Professor, University of Bisha, Saudi Arabia
Associate Professor, Government College University Faisalabad
Lecturer, Government College for Women, Faisalabad
Professor, Emerson College, Multan
84 Journal of Social Sciences
text and comes up with “Affective Stylistics” (1980) to involve the
reader. He takes into account the reader’s ‘emotional responses’ as well
as the ‘psychological processes’ that contribute in the interpretation of
the text.
Both reader and text contribute in the process of meaning
construction as every individual writer gets different meaning from the
same text according to the social context in which he lives and according
to his own viewpoints. Iser (1978) focuses on meaning construction by
involving both ‘reader’s ‘mental input’ and the text’s form that
contributes in the construction of meaning. Van Peer (1986) goes a step
ahead and identifies that the reader is actually attracted by the deviations
and parallelism found in the text and explores that reader finds the
passages containing such devices more important and considers it more
worthy of dimension. Leech & short (1981) also highlight the role of the
reader in interpreting foregrounded items by including “psychological
prominence” on their model of stylistic use. They first try to analyze the
extracts or foregrounding from chosen narratives and then examine the
psychological impacts of this foregrounding on the reader.
While describing linguistic devices Leech (1969) tries to explain
‘foregrounding’ and says that feature or the item that strikes the reader at
once is the foregrounding. He is of the view that “the significance of a
poem lies ultimately in the mind of the reader just as the beauty lies in
the eyes of beholder” (p. 60). Leech, however, considers it least
satisfactory for the critic. The present study is an attempt to show the
significance of strong relationship between reader and text after finding
out the linguistic evidences for the intuition.
The reader is involved from ‘affective stylistics’ to Iser (1978) though on
the marginal basis. However, reader-response criticism involves the
reader influentially. It operates on the following grounds:
• Text affects readers in unique and subjective ways
• Readers participate in determining the meaning of literary
works
• Anything that contributes to the development of a reader
influences his/her interpretation of reading selection
• An individual’s social class, racial background, ethnicity and
other such factors make a profound impact on how that person
sees and understands the world.
 Stylistic Analysis of P. B. Shelly’s Poem OZYMANDIAS: Formalism vs Reader 85

Wales (2001) summarizes that the “reader-response criticism, like post-

structuralism, tried to move away from the text as critical focus, and even
more so from (the intention of) the author (p. 331). The students (of
literature) may ultimately recognize that it is their beliefs and attitudes
that guide their “imaginative construction of these world” (Beach, 1998:
p. 184: cited in Norgaard et al., 2010).
The ideology of reader response criticism, i.e. the reader is no
longer the receiver of meaning rather the maker of the meaning lead to
define the “reader” who could construct the meaning. Many theorists
have thrown light on the role of the reader in meaning construction. Fish
(1970) writes about the efficient reader, i.e. the reader who is able to
construct meaning, and calls him an “informed reader” and Iser (1978)
uses the term “implied reader” for such a reader. The present study uses
Iser’s term for the efficient reader.
Rosenblatt (1978) consider the relationship of reader and text as
complementary for each other. According to him the literary text or the
“poem” is not text-centered or reader-centered but it remains in between
as the meanings “constructed” by the reader are “structured” by the
language of the text. The construction of the meaning of literary text is
“transaction” as Rosenblatt calls it, in which both the reader and the text
are involved and where none of them stands alone as a “sole repository
of meaning”.
The formalist approach has been supplemented by
demonstrations of the reader-response method within literary criticism
(Scott 1990, 1991, 1994) which “tries to show how a text works with the
probable knowledge, expectations, or motives of the reader” (Scott, 1994
p.34). The same approach has been applied in the interpretation of the
Ozymandias, which has already been analyzed a lot, but this approach
tries to find new meanings and new interpretation of the text involving
both language and reader.
Ozymandias has been an attraction for the critics and researchers
who have tried to find some new dimensions in it. Blair (2000) focuses
on the language of the Ozymandias and analyses the poem stylistically.
His major focus remains on the difficulties faced by EAP learner while
he tries to interpret the poem through its language. He finds the
grammatical usage of articles and deixis can lead the learner in wrong
86 Journal of Social Sciences
direction as he is not familiar with such grammatical usages. Barnes et al.
(2005) hints to the poem and say that the whole poem, except first line,
has been presented through the viewpoint of the “traveler from an
antique land, who said…” However, Martindale (1993) finds the clash of
viewpoints in the narration of the poem. He views the poem as historical
text and identifies one of the viewpoints being of Ozymandias’ and the
other one of the artist “who mocked the king’s pretensions and yet
produced a work of art” (p. 3). He infers this interpretation from eighth
line of the poem
“The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed” (L-8)
And calls the hand and heart the objects of “survive” (L-7). However he
shows the possibility of the existence of two more viewpoints; that of
‘traveler’ and ‘I’ the speaker of the lines who may or may not also be the
poet himself, Shelley. He analyses the poem following the ‘reception
theory’ and calls the poem in this light “a tiny part of dialogical
processes of its reception” and finds that the meaning is “always realized
at the point of reception” and that no ‘intention’ or interpretation is
communicated within any text.

Theoretical Framework
The researchers have tried to intermingle the two schools of thought i.e.
the formalistic stylistics and reader-response theory. For formalist
stylistic analysis of the poem, the model presented by Leech & Short
(1981) has been followed. The findings following this model remain
objective but the researchers have validated these objective findings of
the poem subjectively by involving the reader in this process. The
researchers have tried to relate the findings they found in linguistic
devices used in the poem with their subjective approaches and to uphold
the relationship they organized the group discussion, in the end of which
the findings were accepted as a whole as they were based on
commonsense. This proves that there is a relationship between the
formalist stylistics and reader-response theory. Reader tends to assume
the findings of linguistic devices in their own perspective.

Ozymandias
Apparently the poem seems to be a simple one as much as to be
understood even by an undergraduate student having basic knowledge of
 Stylistic Analysis of P. B. Shelly’s Poem OZYMANDIAS: Formalism vs Reader 87

English. But the beauty of the poem lies in its hidden complexity which
may be overlooked in the first reading even by an informed reader. The
researchers have found three levels of the complexity in the poem:
• Narrator complexity
• Syntactic complexity
• Grammatical complexity

Narrator Complexity
Seemingly there are two narrators in the poem but there is overlapping of
first and third person narrator and reader is indecisive about the narrator
even after so many readings. The narrator shifts from 1st person narrator
to 3rd person narrator and ends on 3rd person narration.
The poem opens up with the 1st person narration.
“I met a traveler…”
This ‘I’ is perhaps the poet himself or the persona created by the poet.
The relationship between the addresser and the addressee can be drawn
using the model given by Leech & Short (1981);

The addressee of these lines might be the reader of the poem or it is quite
possible that the persona might be relating his meeting with the traveler
to some audience or to some friends,. Still there is another possibility;
this narration is an extract from the diary of the persona where he is
writing his daily notes and important happenings. This way, both the
addresser and the addressee is the persona himself.
88 Journal of Social Sciences
The second narrator starts with “Who said:” this ‘who’ is anaphoric
reference to the ‘traveler’. The 3rd Person narration then starts after “Who
said:”
“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone (L-2)
…
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” (L-11)
is the second sentence. The complexity becomes more prominent when
the reader finds both 3rd Person and 1st Person narration within the single
sentence.
Here, in this extract, if the addresser is the traveler, the reader again
remains indecisive about the addressee, whether the traveler is speaking
to the persona only, or he is having a sitting among some audience and is
relating what he had seen in “antique land” and persona or the poet being
one among the audience.
Interestingly, the narration shifts from 3rd person to 1st Person narration
in the same sentence. 1st person narration occurs in inverted commas in
L-10 and L-11.
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and Despair!”
The statue-maker might have given these words in the mouth of statue
whose addressees are travelers and visitors of that “antique land” or it is
the extract from the diary of the king Ozymandias himself that shows his
arrogance and superiority.
The last narration is even more complex; it is 3rd Person narration.
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away (L 12-14)
The reader is indecisive about the narrator of last three lines, whether it is
author or persona or traveler. If it is the persona, he might be
commenting on traveler’s account of “antique land”. If it is traveler, he
might be concluding his account for the “antique land” with a moral
lesson, and his addressee could be the persona or his audience. But there
is another possibility that the author i.e. the poet himself has jumped in
for conclusion who is directly addressing to the reader.

Shifts in Narration
There is abrupt shift in narration of the poem.
 Stylistic Analysis of P. B. Shelly’s Poem OZYMANDIAS: Formalism vs Reader 89

1st P. Narration 3rd P. Narration 1st P. Narration 3rd P. Narration

Persona Traveler Ozymandias Persona?

Traveler?
Author?
This abrupt shift in narration makes the poem complex at deeper level.
Moreover, in the last shift of third person narration the speaker or the
addresser is indecisive that enhances the beauty of the poem.

Syntactic Complexity
The second sentence is highly complex at syntactic level. The structure
can be drawn to make a sense of complexity in it. Clause Structure:
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
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!

Here in one single sentence there are two main clauses connected with
each other with coordinating conjunction ‘And’, and there are almost
nine subordinate clauses to these two main clauses rather there are
subordinate clauses even to the sub-subordinate clauses of the main
clause.
But the complexity does not end here rather it moves to the grammatical
level. Unexpected use of deixis creates another complexity. In L-7
“Stamped on these lifeless things”
90 Journal of Social Sciences
The use of such ‘proximal terms’ in diexis (Yule, 1996) may mislead the
reader as to think about the things found nearby, but until now, the
atmosphere of the poem seems to be that of “antique land” i.e. old place
which does not exist now, but ‘these’ is the word that immediately
involves the reader in the description and reader feels as if he is a part of
land which is bring described before him.
However, the reader is not kept in this situation till the end and a distance
is maintained in L-13 using ‘distal terms’ (Yule, 1996)
“Round the decay, of that colossal wreck”
The poet first creates an “antique land” then involves the reader and
again, in the end, keeps his reader at a distance. This spatial and temporal
uncertainty also strikes the reader’s mind.
Another complexity which is found in the poem is that of anaphoric
references. In L-6
Tell
That its sculptor well
Those passions read
Which yet survive
The ‘which’ is used anaphorically but the reader is indecisive whether it
refers to the ‘sculptor’ or the ‘passions’, what survived till then?
Again in L-8
“The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed”
The second half of the line again refers to ‘them’. This is the most
complex anaphoric reference. This ‘them’ may refer to the ‘passions’
‘which yet survive’ or it is the direct object of ‘survive’ (Martindale
1993) or were it the masses of king Ozymandias who were mocked by
king’s hands or were they his courtiers whom king mocked. Again there
is another complexity in the choice of lexis. It is not the hand that mocks
and not the heart that feeds; rather it is vice versa, i.e. hands can feed and
heart can mock.
Other features that are stylistically significant are the use of graphology
symbolic devices and equity with children literature. The second
sentence which presents the description of a broken statue is itself broken
into many segments:
“…Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
 Stylistic Analysis of P. B. Shelly’s Poem OZYMANDIAS: Formalism vs Reader 91

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things
The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed;”
This frequent occurrence of commas in the sentence result in the pauses
and reader relates this segmented piece with that broken statue.
Moreover, what reader gathers from this description is that the head of
the statue is broken and lies before the legs of the statue. Symbolically it
has been presented in graphics as well. The description of legs is given
earlier than the description of the head.
Many critics have recognized some particular characteristics of children
literature; omission of time and place being one of them. In this poem,
the only word “antique” makes the scene of “Once upon a time there
lived a king…” Here the literature crosses the limits of time and place.
Another aspect of children literature is that most of the children literature
ends up with some moral lesson. This aspect is also found in the poem as
it ends with the same tone; ‘Nothing beside remains…level sands stretch
far away’. Some of the complexities have been highlighted in the paper
that involve both the language and the reader of the poem while in the
construction of the meaning.

Conclusion
The research on Ozymandias has been limited in some sense as the
analysts follow only one school of thought. The present study explores
more than one interpretations that ‘informed reader’ constructs while
taking into account the structure of the poem. Also, the researchers have
tried to prove that there is a deep relationship among ‘reader’, ‘text’ and
‘language’ of the text. The popped up features i.e. ‘foregroundings’
attract readers’ attention but all the readers do not necessarily take the
same meaning of the same text rather every reader develops his/her own
understanding which is influenced by his/her own perspective and
viewpoints. In Ozymandias some readers may take it as a simple poem,
some may take it as historical narration, some may take it as moral story
and others may take it as a representative of children literature. It is the
underlying complexity of the poem that paves way for these many
interpretations and which consequently enhances the beauty of seemingly
simple poem.
92 Journal of Social Sciences

References
Barnes, G., Singleton, G., (2005). Travel and travelers from Bede to Dampier. [online]
http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=p4PsLiIYn_4C&printsec=frontcover&dq
=travel+and+traveler+from+bede+to+dampier&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4mGAT6zv
AYWIrAfBx-
T8BQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=travel%20and%20traveler%20f
rom%20bede%20to%20dampier&f=false Accessed on March 30, 2014.
Beach, R. (1998). ‘Constructing real and text world in responding to literature’, Theory
into practice, 37(3). P. 176-185.
Blair, P. (2000). ‘Is Poetry Appropriate for EAP? A Practical Illustration’.III Congrés
Internacional sobre Llengües per a Finalitats Especifiques: Ease seminar Actes
Publication De La Univesitat de Barcelona.
Fish, S. (1970). ‘Literature in the reader.Affective Stylistics’.New literary history,
2.P.123-162.
Fish, S. (1973). ‘What is Stylistics and why are they saying terrible things about it?’ In S.
Chatman (ed.), Approaches to Poetics. Columbia University Press. New York.
Fish, S. (1980). How to recognize a poem when you see one. In S. Fish (ed.), Is there a
text in this Class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge,
Harvard UP. P. 222-237.
Iser, W. (1978).The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. Longman, London.
Leech, Geoffrey N. Michael H. Short. (1981). Style in Fiction. Longman, London.
Martindale, C. (1993). Redeeming the text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of
reception. [online]
http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=TrelkXfvBZ4C&pg=PR9&source=gbs_s
elected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false Accessed on March 27, 2012.
Norgaard, N. Busse, B. Montoro, R. (2010). Key terms in Stylistics, Continuum
International Publishing group.Newyork.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of the
Literary Work, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale.
Van Peer, W. (1986).Stylistics and psychology.Investigation of foregrounding. Croom
Helm, London.
Van Peer, W., Zyngier, S. & Hakemulder, J. (2007).Foregrounding: past present, future.
In D. Hoover (ed.), Stylistics: Prospect and retrospect. Rodopi, Amsterdam. P.
1-22.
Wales, K. (2001). A dictionary of stylistics.2nd ed. Longman, Harlow.P. 331.
Weber, J.J., 1996. The Stylistics Reader.From Roman Jackobson to the present. Edward
Arnold, London. P.2.
Yule, G. (1996), Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. Oxford.