Nature gives out its resources without expecting anything in return. With its selfless act, the ecosystem flourishes with beauty. However, there are those who seem to usurp a bit of nature for their gains. Some might argue that its the way of developing a successful civilization while others may use the system of education to preserve the beauty of nature. From the story, ‘Sea Story,’ it brings up a discussion to what extent humans can use nature for their selfish motives.

We have a protagonist, Harold, who shows love and passion for the sea that he grew up in. His countless visits to the beach give us readers an illustration that the water was his friend and shared lots of memories. However, the memories seem to have dissolved when he experiences love for the first time- more like one-sided love. He writes many letters to Laura who seem to be unresponsive “for the address she had given him was Scottish and she was in the Caribbean. ” This shows that Laura does not truly feel the same way back for our protagonist. I believe AS Byatt creates this setting to have it all connect back to the sea.

To make sure he gets his way to Laura, he decides to drop a glass bottle. Here, his intention is selfish, not thinking of what would happen during its potential journey to the Caribbeans by sea. Also, I find a contrast between his past and present self. He grew up collecting bottles and ends up throwing one of his own. Because of his action, “…a green turtle which mistook it[bottle cap] for a glass eel. When this turtle choked and died, the cap was picked from its remains by another turtle, which also choked…a hagfish lunged at it[the ring], swallowed it and choked.” As readers, we see that many marine animals are starting to suffer one after the other. It shows that a small issue can create a huge impact. In this case, the story ends up losing baby birds, two turtles and eel etc.

When Harold seems to give up on Laura, the story concludes his marriage to another woman, and “…strode along Filey Beach collecting plastic bags and debris.” AS Byatt could have allowed the readers to portray Harold as the bad guy for the marines. She is recognising the reality that we, humans can give up on our selfish acts and give in to selfless acts. She also shows one should let go of their selfish act and allow life flow like the body of water.

In Sea Story by AS Byatt, the author tells a love story that also focuses on the environment, specifically the ocean. The main character grew up close to the shore and loved it. He expresses his love for ocean throughout the story, but does not follow his father’s career path as an oceanographer. He is a writer that evidently falls in love with a girl he met at sea. She loves the ocean dearly, but does not love him. Harold desperately tries to reconnect with Laura after she leaves for the Caribbean to work at her dream job, but by releasing the bottle with a letter to her in the ocean he is putting sea life at risk. My question is, does AS Byatt want the reader to sympathize or critique Harold for his actions?

AS Byatt makes it unclear whether or not we are supposed to feel sorry for Harold. Harold is heart broken after he was given the wrong address and email to contact Laura. He desperately tries to reach her and at the end of the story his love letter reaches Laura only after it had broken and decomposed in the ocean. The author purposefully had the letter be so close to being seen by her, but he nevertheless failed. This could create empathy for him. On the other hand, the author made the bottle go through the “Caribbean Trash Vortex.” AS Byatt thoroughly describes the all the bits of trash, their colors, variety, and immense quantity. This description was more detailed than the explanation of Harolds letter. Due to this, I think that this proves we should be skeptical of Harold and not supportive.

Harold could have been seen as a vulnerable, relatable character when he decides what bottle to use and what to put in it for Laura. He is thoughtful when he picks out Laura’s favorite drink as his bottle and AS Byatt calls him “serious” because he puts his grandfathers ring in the bottle as well. A reader could feel bad for him after reading that he really cares for her and never gets his love story with Laura. I do not think that the author wants the reader to feel this way at the end of the story. AS Byatt purposefully explains to the reader all of the harm that Harold causes. His fathers ring does not get to Laura, but it does reach a hagfish and the ring kills this animal. The bottle disintegrates and “the mollymawk tore at it and carried away a smeared strip to feed to its chicks, who would die with bellies distended by this stuff.” Furthermore, two turtles die, an eel, swooping gannets, and fish in general. The author vividly portrays all of the destruction one bottle, a letter, and a ring can cause. Without any trash in the ocean, Laura would not have had to study it and that would not have been the cause of her death. AS Byatt does not want the reader to feel bad for Harold. We should be mad at Harold for his careless mistake and we should not make the same one.

Water, especially the sea, is a gift for the creatures on the earth. The fish and other marine animals live in the ocean freely, while human can get all kinds of resources from it. However, people need to face danger when exploring, for example, the unknown huge creatures, or the sudden storm that can take away our lives and treasures. ‘The Horror at Martin’s Beach’ is telling this kind of story that Capt. James P. Orne and his crew killed an infant monster and exhibits its body on a boat, and were finally killed by the revenge of another monster horribly.

What is the cause of this creepy and miserable story? Maybe some will think that people should never underestimate or underrate the sea which has a huge amount of unknown mysteries. I agree with this, and from my perspective, I have different ideas. As written in the article ‘wonder kept them at their task, and they hauled with a grim determination to uncover the mystery’ I believe that people should not have that kind of mad curiosity that can ignore the uncanny phenomenon and forget about the potential risk. Moreover, I think that human should not hurt or even kill another creature just because of our curiosity, and should respect other creatures. ‘Amidst a blinding glare of descending fire the voice of heaven resounded with the blasphemies of hell,’ is the prof by the writer that there will be a bad result.

For the past two-hundred thousand years, mankind has roamed the Earth doing their best to impose their power over other species. They believe themselves to be invincible to inferiority. As seen in, “The Horror at Martin’s Beach”, by H. P. Lovecraft and Sonia H. Greene, the captain and his sailors decide to kill a being of life for the simple reason of profit. The 4th paragraph reads, “On May 17 the crew…killed, after a battle of nearly forty hours, a marine monster whose size and aspect produced the greatest possible stir in scientific circles and caused certain Boston naturalists to take every precaution for its taxidermic preservation.” Although this is great for our advancements in the knowledge of marine life, are we pushing our boundaries as humans of what is justifiable?

The majority of mankind acts on their own agenda. It is extremely symbolic that the captain sailed out into the ocean, the monsters home, and killed it, then, when he returned to land he was given money. This theme of antagonizing other species comes at what cost? At what point is the money we receive from hunting, deforestation, etc., not worth the cost of another organisms life? I believe the day of August 8, 1922 is symbolic of how humans will have to face their repercussions for their ambitions and destructiveness. It proves no human is immortal or untouchable to the cycle of life and eventually it will catch up to us.

Is Human Intervention of Aquatic Habitats Driven by a Desire of Wealth Having a Negative Impact on Aquatic Life?

Aquatic Life has been negatively affected by human intervention driven by a desire of wealth. It has become a trend to abuse the beauty of these creatures to generate income.  Pet stores and other specific fish stores sell fish to the public and are placed in tanks not suited to their natural habitat. In addition, Aquariums and Oceanariums place their aquatic animals in tanks denying them the right to live in the ocean or other habitats suited for marine life. Aquatic Animals populations have been abused by humans in an attempt for humans to gain wealth.

Human abuse of animals is portrayed in The Horror at Martin’s Beach. The captain of a fishing boat killed an infant sea creature and preserved its dead body to obtain income. In the text it states, “With judicious carpentry he prepared what amounted to an excellent marine museum, and, sailing south to the wealthy resort district of Martin’s Beach, anchored at the hotel wharf and reaped a harvest of admission fees.” (H.P Lovecraft and Sonia H. Greene). The captain’s desire for wealth lead to the unkind and immoral treatment of this whale.

Later in the story, the captain and some others try to pull in another sea creature with a lifeguard buoy which lead to their mental and physical struggles. They becomes so obsessed with pulling the rope in that the sea creature pulls him in the water. The narrator states, “Their complete demoralization is reflected in the conflicting accounts they give, and the sheepish excuses they offer for their seemingly callous inertia.”(H.P Lovecraft and Sonia H. Greene). The author refers to the excuses as “sheepish”because there was no  excuse for why they were fighting this whale. It was no coincidence that the characters fighting the sea creature were pulled into the water.

Human desire for money leads to unfair treatment of aquatic life and the abuse of their beauty which humans are lucky to witness.

Perspective is the way an individual views things. The authors, Lovecraft and Greene, very literally provide us with the speaker’s perspective of the events that supposedly transpired on August 8, 1922 at Martin’s Beach. The description given to us recounts exactly what the individual remembers happening and what he saw throughout the course of the night. Regardless of the content of the story, what I found to be most compelling was how the speaker himself shows how even he is unsure of what really happened that night. Ultimately, the question being asked is how is reliability affected by different perspectives.

While we, as readers, have no reason to doubt the author, he certainly provides us with reasons to do just that: “no two accounts agree” (The Horror at Martin’s Beach Paragraph 1). Within the first two lines of the article, the author has already pointed out to us the unreliability of any recounts of that night. As he goes on to describe to us what he saw, he never fails to remind us no one really knew what was actually transpiring that night. The reason that I find this so interesting is that in general with any form of literature including books, articles, and even news stories, readers tend to trust the author completely. However, learning to question the author often enables us to understand more. Therefore, while we could accept this account as the best possible summary of what happened, even the speaker knows that what he is saying is not entirely reliable: “Certainly there was no lack of witnesses, confused though their stories be with fear and doubt of what they saw” (The Horror at Martin’s Beach 10). The author once again admits to us and reminds us that there is a large possibility for confusion and misconception in his recount and everyone else’s of that night. One thing that the speaker makes clear to us is his own perspective and specifically skepticism of water after his experience. The speaker clearly sees the water as threat and this is simply as a result of his own experiences with it. Had that night been different it is safe to assume that his feelings towards the ocean would be different as well. Ultimately, the fact that perspective is specific to individuals should remind us to always question the reliability of any content that we read and how it is specific to the speaker.

Why do people believe that if you practice something enough you will become a master of the activity?

When in reality there are individuals that have access to better help and are surrounded by a more fortunate environment. Someone who is born from a luxurious family will have benefits that others cannot afford. Athletes with money will have access to professional trainers, equipment and supplements. On the other hand, individuals with a lower financial status cannot afford these privileges and will have to work with what they have. This changes the level of practice because better resources will produce positive results faster. In the novel “They Say I Say” written by Gerald Graff, he states, ”Performing this activity, in other words, depends on your having learned a series of complicated moves-moves that may seem mysterious or difficult to those who haven’t yet learned them”(page 1). I believe that it is difficult for people to learn these complicated moves because they do not have the resources to get the correct information on how to practice an activity. People with money can buy professionals that will show them the correct way to train. Everyone else, for example, may use the internet which can sometimes mislead the person from actually learning how to master the activity. Referring back to athletics, professional trainers are specialized in their career and will guide one to become fit. While someone else might be practicing the wrong exercises or going on a diet that does not work towards their goal.

Does the ocean symbolize admiration and wonder yet fear and horror simultaneously?

In “The Horror at Martin’s Beach” by H.P. Lovecraft and Sonia H. Greene, the ocean is represented as a body of water that contains elements of wonder and awe, as well as elements of vengeance and fear. In the beginning of the short story, prior to the horrific incident, the ocean is viewed as an interesting resource that has the ability to spark wonders among people. Also, the ocean and its objects hold very high importance in the scientific community: “The intrinsic marvelousness of the object, and the importance which it clearly bore in the minds of many scientific visitors from near and far, combined to make it the season’s sensation” (Lovecraft & Greene). Therefore, the ocean has become a sensation for many as it has essentially provided a treasure for people to enjoy and study.

However, following the death of the captain and rescuers, the ocean is inevitably viewed as menacing and horrific. While the captain and rescuers attempt to save the victims in the sea, they seem to be hypnotized by the ocean’s relentless force: “Even the strugglers, after a few frantic screams and futile groans, succumbed to the paralyzing influence and kept silent and fatalistic in the face of unknown powers” (Lovecraft & Greene). The strugglers were unable to withhold themselves from the ocean, causing their eventual succumb. The unknown powers represent the fear and horror that is instilled below the ocean’s surface. Furthermore, when the storm ends, the ocean seems serene, contrary to the previous waves. Despite its apparent serenity and harmlessness, the “faint and sinister echoes of a laugh” are heard from the ocean. This represents the menace of water as it has essentially overpowered the rescuers. Thus, the ocean, and water in general, appears to symbolize wonder and menace as it is both a resource and threat to humans.