Does Coleridge agree with the interpretation of the moral as given by the simple mariner, as seen in the ending stanzas? After this terrific bout with nature, and the deep messages which may be derived, the mariner ends the poem by simplistically saying that the moral is to just love all things. Yet the wedding guest seemed to get more from this, as he was “stunned” and brings thoughts of this tale to the next day, a “wiser” man. Perhaps all the narration shift has to do with the fact that this simple mariner is unable to perceive the deeper implications of his tale, which the wedding guest is able to do.
The wedding guest may act as a certain catalyst to inspire deeper contemplation into this conundrum by the reader, who may not perceive a deeper meaning from the tale of the mariner. We see the albatross as a sign of good luck, yet the mariner shoots it anyway. The ship is floating in the middle of unfriendly seas, already at the hands of nature. In the middle of nowhere, a great albatross appears. Supposing that the albatross does not just obtusely represent the whole of “nature” or Christianity/religion, what could it represent? Its appearance is baffling: they are in the middle of the ocean with no land around.
At odds with nature, the albatross is one with nature, surviving where nothing can survive. Perhaps the ocean and the ship represent man’s disunity with nature, building these awkward devices to try to thwart and ride against nature. On a different plane is the bird, where man’s imagination will allow him to flow with nature instead of against it. The maturation process of the mariner begins after he denies himself the imaginative luxury of enjoying nature, slaying the albatross. It ends after a period of punishment with the mariner’s ship sinking, perhaps representative of his denial of physical means to be one with nature.
