Reading Response #3

This author of this article was Peter Melville of Cornell University. The author tells us the beginning of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" shows Coleridge's interest in the "limits of hospitality." This was shown as the Mariner interrupts the wedding guest's walk, just as there was a man out of nowhere in one of Coleridge's other poems, "Kubla Khan." Of course when he talks of the limits of hospitality, there is a certain situation he is trying to make clear. It is the job of the host to welcome everyone, strange or familiar. The concept resonates throughout the story from beginning to end. The albatross was also subject to this. The Mariner faced the situation also between letting the albatross stay or killing it. Although if one were to read the poem, he essentially does both, so does the Mariner's obligations go to the strange or familiar? So now the wedding guest is faced with the conflict of hospitality. The author shows that the wedding guest had a special obligation to attend the wedding, so he tries very well to leave, but just as the interrupting character in "Kubla Khan", the Mariner steps in and the wedding guest misses the ceremony altogether. This is because the Mariner must tell his story, but it must be at the expense of another person kind enough to do so. Although, the wedding guest soon goes from a detained host, to a entranced listener. The author then states that hospitality and hostility are 2 sides of the same coin. The comparison is then made between the wedding guest and the Mariner. The wedding guest could either listen to the Mariner (Letting the albatross live), or he could leave and join the wedding procession (Killing the albatross which would only confirm the tragedy of the Mariner. Melville continues this concept of hospitality when he moves onto the choice of the wedding guest. The wedding guest had to also choose between the familiar wedding procession or the strange Mariner's tale. The author then changes the concept of hospitality to the idea of obligations. The main idea of the wedding guest had 2 choices and while he may have had a bigger obligation at the wedding, he also had an obligation to hear a stranger's plea for help. So was the better choice to go to the wedding, or to leave the Mariner in agony? In so he further states, "There are no pure welcomes, the poem seems to suggest, only contending obligations." (Melville; Pg.4) One may choose what they think to be the right decision, but may be unaware to the suffering that is around the corner. There is no decision that is without negative consequences.
The article by Melville had introduced some interesting concepts, like obligations. The author stated that with every decision, there are negative repercussions to those actions. I agree with this to a certain extent. In a lot of ways, this statement is true, but there are special circumstances in which it would prove false. For instance, in the "Rime", the Mariner had the choice to kill or to not kill the bird. Presumably, if he had let the bird live, the ship would have been well and the men been safe. But, he chose the negative option instead. So the alternative would have been technically better and with a more positive outcome. The other concept was the limits of hospitality. Coleridge had a recurring character in the "Rime" and in another one of his works, "Kubla Khan." The character, known as the Porlockian caller, basically interrupts and is very important to the concept. The term Porlockian came from "Kubla Khan", since the man that interrupted was from Porlock and was welcomed warmly into the home. Now in the "Rime", the Porlockian character, is the Mariner. Although he is not welcomed as warmly in this poem. Now as for hospitality, Melville makes the point clear as the host or main character must choose between the strange or familiar. In "Kubla Khan", the host obviously chooses the strange with open arms. While the Mariner gets a rather harsh reception from the wedding guest. But the thing I don't understand about Melville's statement is about the limit. Like when Melville's quoting of the 1800's version of the "Argument", "how the Ancient Mariner inhospitably killeth the pious bird of good omen" (PW 188). That's a breach of the limit, but what does Melville try to uncover with the quote? My guess is being since the Mariner was in a harsh and unfamiliar environment, so the sight of the albatross, was good and welcomed. Then as soon as the situation gets better, the Mariner shoots the familiar sight.

Vincent Nguyen