Rumination 2: Shakespeare Redux

Thank god this week is a review-ish. I didnt post a report, ruminations or comments or even do the wildcard last week because of work and schoolwork/exams/tests/homework/GRAH~! Anyway, Rumination time!
--------------

Within Shakespeare's works it seems there is a sense of temporal immortality. Whether it be in the title, such as Midsummer Night's Dream or more importantly in Sonnet 55 where it is lime-lighted into such a topic. The entirety of Sonnet 55 deals with immortality of a person in the work whom is unspecified by Shakespeare. He also demonstrates the insane power and the ability to dominate everything in existence including that of the gods, mentioning "Mars sword nor war's quick fire shall burn"(7) implying that event he mightiest of the mighty have no chance in quelling time. Upon first reading this is apparent, and quite obviously I am simply breaking down the obvious bits for a more dubious interpretation. Not only is time quite the unforgiving mistress, but she is also, as Shakespeare mentions, quite uncouth, citing "unswept stone besmear'd with sluttish time" (4); a strange description, yet fitting due to the unforgiving and self-centered nature of time.

The work itself could be interpreted in two ways for that matter, whether it be that Shakespeare is speaking of his own work or of an unnamed person that will be immortalized, yet anonymous. Due to the ambiguity of the gender of many of Shakespeare's works as to whom he is speaking toward, yet the inclusion of the idea of time being slutty, there is no clear definition as to which, as females are most commonly regarded to as sluts as opposed to men. (no sexism intended)

Please excuse my switches in topics; I wish to address all the aspects I can with this work so bear with me if I suddenly address something other than the temporal idea. I am simply excited to discuss everything and become out of my usual element of calm and collected.

Trends I happen to notice, and with a bit of thinking my thoughts were given much needed illumination. The multiple references to stonework, whether it be in lines 4, 5 or 6 regarding "unswept stone" (4) "statues" (5) or "masonry" (6) all being destroyed mean that even that which masterful artisans create will eventually tumble to time. Such a strong object such as stone should be mightier than time. Even more so, this poem should be able to withstand time as well.

Ironically, that is not the case.

What I mentioned before with the immortality of this poem, the poem contradicts itself. This poem cannot last forever if time is almighty and unforgiving. Shakespeare created the idea of indestructible time, yet makes this poem an immovable object. One must have heard the saying "what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object." A paradox in itself, this poem will eventually crumble unless the human race lasts forever, which goes against time.

So what's the outcome, this poem lasting forever or will time overcome?