Upon reading the Ruin, I felt there was some negative connotation towards the builders of the city in ruin, but I feel as though the ending leaves a proud temperance to the reader and reveals the builders were of no relevance.
The author describes the city falling apart, the makers in their graves, and how men who were once great and how the city in general was once great, but it is in ruin. Based on the last sentence, "it is still a fitting thing for this city," we can see that the author believed that even though it lies in ruin it was still deserving of its past glory. Even though its makers were long gone in their graves; even though the town people lay in bones on the ground, the city's majesty remains to be worthy of riches.
After, "[outlasting] one kingdom after another, [standing] upright after storms, lofty and broad, [the wall] has fallen." The deterioration of the structures is the deterioration of any human influence and presence. As the human creation leaves, the rubble that is left is what the true city is. It becomes its own body and essence; without any human influence. The city, being evermore present in it's ruin, deserves riches.
Anonymous. "The Ruin." 2012. The Norton Anthology World Literature. 3rd ed. Vol. B. New York: W. W. Norton, 2012. 321-22. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment