Besides the obvious intrigue of this week’s readings that discuss so many sightings of mermaids in very early years, I was drawn to the way they discuss the shift of their view. While we’ve analyzed at length the difference between their original view in society as creatures of lust, to a symbol of femininity and fertility, to their modern interpretation as child’s play, there doesn’t seem to be much of this recognition from the previous generations during the existence.

The exact statement really holds a lot of value: “The Mermaid has long been considered by many as a fabulous animal, but some naturalists have declared there is too much evidence of the existence of these animals to warrant them in pronouncing the mermaid to be solely a creature of fancy” (Penguin, 241). Their verbiage in particular, referring to them as animals, really begins a new definition in and of itself. While they’re somewhat referred to as a cross between fish and human in the rest of the reading, it’s clear where the author of this particular section draws the line. Their animal existence seems to completely separate them from the human existence, as if totality is the only true definition of being excluded from animal definition.

It’s especially intriguing because of how it leans into the idea that in the wake of their reality, they are animals, but humans are not. Only in fiction can they be considered entirely something of marvel, but when they may actually be something of fact, their existence must become detached from ours. Despite the same evolutionary process that created us being something that would be a part of their existence, and the fact that their cognitive ability matches our own, they must be completely disconnected and unassociated with the “perfection” that humanity supposedly holds. Even the contemplation of their existence needing to have complete evidence, despite there already having been, proves this need to deny them so we do not have to work around any creature that we would consider remotely comparative to us.

It truly in one sentence reflects our disrespect of them, our need to stare and make them “creatures of fancy” when we don’t believe they can defend themselves or find any kind of retaliation, but in the event of their actuality, we’re unsure of how to respond besides disconnection as animalistic beings. Without this shield of their non-existence, we’d have to recognize the inevitability of coexistence with something as cognitive as us, and humanity’s selfishness cannot do this. Instead, we refuse to accept them as a part of us, or a part of the world whatsoever.