The setting is very similar to a part of the Illiad. Ulysses had the choice between two monsters to sail by, Scylla and Charybda: one would swallow the whole ship and anyone aboard while the other picked off only six crew members and left the rest to live. Ulysses chose the monster who only ate six crew members. He desperately wanted to get back to home and the way to do so was to sacrifice six sailors. Back to the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, even though the Mariner's choice was left to chance, it follows the same idea: it can all be over or you can continue but continue with the burden (e.g. Albatross around neck) of losing human lives. The sailors died because of the Mariner's random (urges not so much) killing of the Bird, but they wont have to suffer what the Mariner will have to-nightmare in life.
I can see why Alex would make the connection between these two stories. However I do not think these two situations are quite as similar as he says. In The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the mariner makes a stupid choice and gets the rest of the crew killed. In this case, the mariner is responsible for their deaths and he has to live with this weighing on his conscience. Had he died too he would not have had to live with this guilt. Thus, life is worse than death in this case. But in the Iliad, Ulysses chose the monster he chose to save as many of his crew as possible. Yes, there was some collateral damage, but he managed through this decision to get most of his crew home to their loved ones. The good far outweighs the bad here, and so the guilt will be minimal if not nonexistent. If he had chosen death for his entire crew, that would have been a crime. In death there would have been nothing, and in life, there is pride.
The setting is very similar to a part of the Illiad. Ulysses had the choice between two monsters to sail by, Scylla and Charybda: one would swallow the whole ship and anyone aboard while the other picked off only six crew members and left the rest to live.
ReplyDeleteUlysses chose the monster who only ate six crew members. He desperately wanted to get back to home and the way to do so was to sacrifice six sailors.
Back to the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, even though the Mariner's choice was left to chance, it follows the same idea: it can all be over or you can continue but continue with the burden (e.g. Albatross around neck) of losing human lives.
The sailors died because of the Mariner's random (urges not so much) killing of the Bird, but they wont have to suffer what the Mariner will have to-nightmare in life.
I can see why Alex would make the connection between these two stories. However I do not think these two situations are quite as similar as he says.
ReplyDeleteIn The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the mariner makes a stupid choice and gets the rest of the crew killed. In this case, the mariner is responsible for their deaths and he has to live with this weighing on his conscience. Had he died too he would not have had to live with this guilt. Thus, life is worse than death in this case.
But in the Iliad, Ulysses chose the monster he chose to save as many of his crew as possible. Yes, there was some collateral damage, but he managed through this decision to get most of his crew home to their loved ones. The good far outweighs the bad here, and so the guilt will be minimal if not nonexistent. If he had chosen death for his entire crew, that would have been a crime. In death there would have been nothing, and in life, there is pride.