Significant connection question between Ozymandias and Macbeth.

Between Ozymandias and Macbeth, there is a similarity in the way they both tell the tale of a king who believes they are great, only to fall into nothing. They both can be described as “hubris.” They can explain why even the greatest of us are in fact worth nothing at all in the long run.
Ozymandias was a great king, he even described himself as “king of kings”, as if he believed himself to be greater than every other king alive, or dead. But then after a short few hundred years, his entire empire was a desert. “Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.” Ozymandias believed himself to be so great, but in the end everything he had built just disappeared. Clear proof as to why even the “king of kings” will become nothing in the end.
The connection between them both is how stupid hubris is; that everything you do will dissolve into nothing in the end.
Macbeth from the play “Macbeth” was a thane who decided he would be king. And after becoming king, he decided he would be immortal. And after he believed he was immortal, he went out into the middle of a siege on his own impenetrable castle and died. For all his talk about immortality, and all his arrogance about how he can’t die, it all came to nothing. After he was killed, a full 8 more kings came in before even a play was written about him, and that play was a work of fiction. That is all that is left of him. The only thing he can be proud of is that he did a better job of staying recognised than Ozymandias. Here is a quote to show the reason why he has this hubris:”For none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth.” He believes, based on this quote that he can’t die. Or at least, no one can kill him. This came to nothing however, as he ends up being killed by Macduff, who under a technicality can bypass the rule. This is yet more proof that having hubris is a bad idea, and that his entire life came to an end after achieving nothing in the long run. Well, except being the main character in a play written by one of the most famous playwrights to have ever existed. But even that will disappear soon enough.
In conclusion, the idea of hubris is illogical, and these 2 people show how that is so.

Ozymandias close reading

Name one language effect in this poem: Iambic pentameter
“I met a traveller from an antique land, “

 

How does Percy use this effect to communicate the idea of hubris in his sonnet.

Percy writes the poem in a way that allows other people to understand the information it hides, but still hide yet more information that requires more than just a glance to discover. Some evidence of this is

“Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
At first glance, you can tell the poem is talking about how all that this guy built was gone, and all that was left was a desert. But when you look closer, you can find the meaning behind the words. It talks of hubris, how this guy was so confident that anyone who looks at what he managed to do would be amazed, and believe they could never match up. Except that all that remains is a “colossal wreck,” and a desert, which is nothing to be amazed about. All this and more is hidden in the words, and that there is a meaning behind them, that can be argued. By doing this, people can learn
Another effect is the way Percy puts so much information into what is there, while leaving it simple for what is bare. Some evidence for this is

“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . 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, “
Percy described all the objects quite well, making sure that everyone understood what the objects looked like. While he does this, he includes the desert and sand, and how it interacts with the objects, but he doesn’t get into any more detail. By doing this, Percy can make sure the audience is mostly aware of the objects that are there, so as to find the meaning behind them, while also making sure everyone is aware of the desert.
And I just realised I was talking about the wrong thing. Oops. Well, I like what I have written, so I shall keep it, but I might just write a new one.
One effect is the way Symbolism allows Percy to give objects a meaning beyond what they are. For instance,

“Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;”
By doing this, Percy can create far more meaning in the poem, with more information stored in it. Because of this, the poem can contain meaning. The evidence I used in this one talks about how the objects are lifeless, but are still surviving, giving the idea even the dead can live in the way there memories and effect on this earth continues to exist.  See? More meaning.
Another effect is Personification. Percy uses it to describe the broken objects that were left there.