Category: 2016 Blog Post

Christina Rossetti’s poem Goblin Market shows the fear that women’s sexuality brought upon men in the Victorian era as well as the fear of women’s growing knowledge and awareness that was becoming prevalent due to access to education in the middle classes. Rossetti does so by dropping evident hints throughout the poem
using fruit to indicate the object being bartered which in this case is sex and everything ‘unholy’ that comes with being impure. I also think that because Rossetti would have been biased against men especially because of her bitterness towards not being a part of her brother’s pre-Raphaelite brotherhood and so she might have used the evil, demonic goblins to represent men and their tendencies. Another hint would be Laura exchanging a lock of her hair for fruit from the goblin men. In class we talked about how lovers would carry around a lock of each other’s hair-representing Laura having a romantic connection or affiliation to the goblins. I found this really interesting so I decided to look into hair in the Victorian era and what it meant in society and apparently hair also represented women’s sexuality and empowerment because the longer your hair was the more fertile you were so by the Goblins taking a lock of Laura’s hair could mean taking away a part of her womanhood- i.e. virginity and purity or taking away her wholesomeness an
d tarnishing her for future marriage. This poems takes the idea of sexual desire and appetite and instead of using men to show the ‘forwardness’ of desire, Rossetti uses female characters to have those traits. “I ate and ate my fill, yet my mouth waters still,” in this context the author means sexually Laura couldn’t get enough of the fruit (sex) but could also mean generally women are the same as men and have the same urges and should therefore be treated equally. Giving some idea of how Rossetti might have been seeking equality and standing up for feminism even in the Victorian era.

“The Lady of Shallot” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson begins by describing a land that is isolated by two rivers. This is where the Lady of Shallot lives in a tower of “Four grey walls, and four grey towers” (line 15) , unbeknownst to anyone in Camelot, the nearby village. Lady Shallot is described as being isolated, and under a curse that will kill her if she leaves her tower. She is forced to spend her days weaving what she can see of the world through her mirror. However, a knight comes along and sings along a river bank close to the Lady of Shallot. When she hears his voice, she is compelled to leave the safety of her tower and to look out at the rest of the world.

Here is an image of Rapunzel looking out of her window. Her long hair can easily be seen in this image.

Similarly to this story, the story of Rapunzel was written in just elven years earlier in 1822. Although this was a German fairytale, there are many similarities between the two works. In the story of Rapunzel, she is also locked in a tower with the only view of the real world being a window. What is also strikingly similar is that in Rapunzel, the prince only notices her after hearing her sing, just like how the Lady of Shallot only hear her knight after he was singing. In the original version, there is also a part about her weaving a piece of silk that she receives from the prince, each night. This is how she ultimately manages to escape.

There are some noticeable and important differences between these two works though. In the present day story of Rapunzel, when she lets her hair down, the prince rescues her and she can live happily ever after. The Lady of Shallot on the other hand is forced to face her curse, and she dies. In the sooty of Rapunzel thoguh, there is always the happily ever after moment, when the prince and Rapunzel get to live together for the rest of their lives. Yet the knight in the “The Lady of Shallot”, the prince ignores the Lady when she comes into the village on the boat, and pretends that he doesn’t know her.

In the poem, The Lady of Shallot by Alfred Tennyson, written in 1832, there is a curse that forces the title character to stay in her tower in Shallot and continue weaving for what seems to be all eternity. What is interesting about her situation is that it addresses the general idea that the best place for a Victorian woman to be is in the house doing chores. The reader can easily tell from all of the interesting and captivating people who pass by her tower, that the lady of Shallot is missing out on the many wonders and curiosities of life. However, when she tries to escape, which Tennyson seems to be encouraging her to do with all the wonders of life passing by her window, she is struck by the curse and ends up dying. While Tennyson approaches the subject of the new victorian woman, by showing the curse’s hold over lady Shallot, seems to admit that the public is not ready for it yet.

When we fast forward to 1897, the date when Dracula was written, we see Bram Stoker make similar use of curses and nosferatu to discuss the place of women in society. While obviously not enough, we see that 60 years later the tune has changed, as exemplified by Stoker’s character Mina. Mina is also affected by a curse—in this case vampirism—due to her not being proactive in the rest of the main characters’ search for Dracula, and essentially being trapped in her own tower. Once bitten however, Mina begins to take matters into her own hands in finding a fighting Dracula. Unlike the Lady of Shallot, however, Mina is allowed to live. From the time that Tennyson is writing to the time of Stoker, and with as many things equal as possible in the comparison of the Lady of Shallot and Mina, Mina fares much better than the lady. This appears to indicate that, even if slowly, views of women’s’ roles are steadily getting better and more equal.

The poem “No, Thank You, John” by Christina Rossetti is very interesting in light of the time in which it was written as well as in light of the other texts we have discussed in class up to this point. While the ideal Victorian woman is docile and lady like, the speaker in this poem has a strong, defiant voice that is almost sassy in her rejection of man who says he is in love with her. The speaker of “No, Thank You, John” is a new and independent type of women emerging in this era as a result of the Industrial Revolution and changing social norms. Perhaps this is because the author of the poem is a woman surrounded by men who definitely developed a strong personality and had to be defensive around her brother and his fellow members of the Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood she was not allowed to join. The speaker of this poem is a stark contrast to the other female characters we have encountered in our texts thus far. In Dracula Lucy also rejects two suitors, as she has three men who want to marry her. Yet her rejection of her suitors was sweet and kind. She even mentions that she feels bad that she had to let them down. This kind of portrayal of a Victorian woman is typical in many texts, however it is interesting that this woman soon becomes corrupted into an overtly sexual monster. Mina also is a perfect example of what a woman should be and is loyal to her husband, eventually being saved from turning into a vampire. Bram Stoker seems to suggest that a woman’s sexuality and strength can turn her into a monster. Even in Lady Audley’s Secret, despite having been written by a woman, Lady Audley went crazy as a result of trying to marry up and make a better life for herself after she is abandoned by her husband. The poem; “No, Thank You, John” portrays a new kind of independent woman who doesn’t seem to be punished by her actions and the end and takes charge of her life. This poem is interesting to think about in terms of the other texts we have looked at this semester, as well as the era in which they were produced. In Dracula and even Lady Audley’s Secret, there definitely is an anxiety about what will happen if women are independent and in control of themselves. In both cases they end up becoming a type of monster and going insane. While Lady Audley simply becomes a crazy murderess, Lucy is physically transformed into a sexual, bloodsucking vampire. “No, Thank You, John” is the first time we see this type of women, and she is perhaps better off in the end of the poem, ridding herself of John. There is still the annoyance that John expects that the speaker will love him in return, however things seem to be changing at this point, introducing a new type of modern woman who defies men and ends up being perfectly fine.

In this blog post I will be composing a close reading of Christina Rossetti’s poem entitled “In an Artist’s Studio”. In this poem, the female narrator finds herself in the art studio of, presumably, a male artist. There are many canvases with a seemingly similar face that appear in all the paintings. There are two implicit messages within this poem: the loss of female identity in a male-dominated art world, and the reclaiming of a woman’s identity. These two messages are clearly divided in the structure of the sonnet. The octave addresses the claim that a woman’s identity is “hidden” and made as a “one selfsame figure”. Rossetti is claiming that the depictions of queens, nameless girls, and saints are all the same–almost as if the woman’s face and figure is being exploited for the benefit of the artist. Even though she is depicted as various characters, she has “the same one meaning” that doesn’t add nor subtract from her. She remains the same as she is constantly used over and over again like a recyclable object. Additionally, the woman in the various paintings has no voice because she is literally trapped within the canvass where she cannot move nor speak. Instead, she is kept in her place, just like the majority of the women in the Victorian Era.

In the last sestet of the sonnet, the tone changes and the repetition of the word “not” appears multiple times. This repetition is a way for the woman in the poem to push back against the way that men perceive her. The implicit message in the last couple verses that repeat “not as she is” alludes to the fact that all those paintings are not really of her, but are only multiple visions of how the artist wants to see her. It is not her in the paintings, but just a “dream” she fills in the minds of men.

Christina Rossetti’s poem Goblin Market shows the intense fear of female sexuality that was present in Victorian England. The two protagonists of the poem are both young girls, clearly meant to represent the epitome of purity in Victorian culture. Meanwhile, the goblins and their fruit are quite obviously meant to be a representation of unsavory men, and the ruin that their ‘forbidden fruit’ will bring to all those whom they tempt. Furthermore, Laura paid for her fruit by giving a lock of hair to the goblins. Though this holds little to no symbolic meaning in our time, in Victorian times, men would often carry around a lock of hair belonging to their lovers, showing that Laura has been taken as a lover out of wedlock by the goblins. In addition to hair, Laura pays for the fruit with a tear, which, in my opinion, shows that she is unwilling to go through with the transaction, but is so overcome with lust for the forbidden fruit that she feels that she must either eat the fruit or die trying. Just as the Victorians feared a woman engaging in sexual acts outside of wedlock would do, Laura “suck’d and suck’d and suck’d the more” until the fruit was completely gone, but even then did not feel fulfilled. She took the seed of the fruit and planted it, but even watering it with her tears proved to be fruitless. She was thus left with a deep desire that consumed her, wanting again to taste the forbidden fruit which she had been told always to avoid, thus leading to her untimely death, showing Victorian fears about female sexuality.

As mentioned in the article “Christina Rossetti: gender and power” by Simon Avery, Elizabeth Barrett Browning was an inspiration to Christina Rossetti. They were very different poets but both had common concern with the politics of gender and power in their poetry. Rossetti’s poem “No Thank You, John” appears different at first glance but is actually similar to Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poem “A Man’s Requirements.”

Without close reading, “No Thank You John” is a poem of a woman denying a man’s love and “A Man’s Requirements” is a poem of a woman trying to please her man. They appear to be opposites. However, their implications of gender and power are closely related. “No Thank You John” depicts a female using her right to say no to a man. It asserts her independence and equality in a relationship. The last two lines of the poem read “Here’s friendship for you if you like; but love, No, thank you, John.” Rossetti is saying that a woman doesn’t have to love a man just because he loves her. She can choose who to be with and what she wants in a relationship.

The last two lines of “A Man’s Requirements” portray a similar message. The poem reads, “I will love thee-half a year- as a man is able.” Given the fact that the author of “A Man’s Requirements” is female, it is possible to interpret the poem as saying a woman can love just as much and as well as a man. Depending on who you interpret the speaker as (a male or female), the poem could also be depicting what a woman wants from her man. The “man’s” requirements could also be the women’s requirements from her man. By Browning giving requirements for a man to have her love, she too is asserting her independence and equal part in the relationship.

Though one poem denies love and the other seeks love, they both emphasize a woman’s power over her relationships. Women are equal counterparts to their significant male.

In Christina Rosetti’s “The World” she writes of being tempted by some mysterious “she,” writing “By day she woos me to the outer air, / Ripe fruit, sweet flowers, and full satiety” (45). As Rosetti uses fruit and sweetness in Goblin Market to represent sexuality, by pairing “ripe fruit” and “sweet flowers” in conjunction with the repetition of wooing, a sexual undertone is created. The contrasts between the lines about night and day, as represented by the opposites of night and day and switching between the two, create a duality of the woman’s nature. While the day represents a sexual relationship, night shows an evil, monstrous side. By night the woman who was so “soft” and “fair” before transforms into a horned, cloven footed beast. With “serpents gliding in her hair” she is compared to Medusa, incapable of love and threatening to turn anyone she looks at to stone.

Between the sexual undertones of the relationship, the representations of this woman as a monster, and the fact that it was written by Rosetti, a woman, about a woman, I think this poem represents a sexual relationship between two women and the cultural rejection of homosexuality. In the 1860s when this poem was published, not only was homosexuality widely discouraged, same-sex relationships between women weren’t even commonly acknowledged and there was relative blindness towards female sexuality. The fact that a relationship between two women would likely be rejected by society and religion explains Rosetti asking if she “should sell / my soul to her, give her my life and youth, / Till my feet, cloven to, take hold on hell?” The religious anxiety shown in the fear of going to hell due to acting on homosexual desire is also shown in the line calling the presumed lesbian woman “A very monster void of love and prayer,” demonizing the seductress beyond any hope of redemption.

The duality of the woman’s nature represented between the day and night dichotomy in this poem also reminded me of Lady Audley. While Lady Audley was able to woo most with her beauty, her willingness and ability to do anything necessary, including arson and murder, made her into a monster in secret. Lady Audley’s “monstrosity” and her ability to use her beauty to hide her secrets and cunning landed her in a mad house. During the Victorian Era some lesbians and spinsters who refused to marry were also viewed as mentally ill and placed in asylums, much like Lady Audley. Whether giving of “life and youth” and taking “hold on hell” represent an asylum or not, “The World” has strong lesbian undertones representative of the cultural attitudes of the time towards homosexuality.

During our discussion of Christina Rossetti’s Goblin Market we touched upon the possibility of interpreting Lizzie and Laura’s tale as one of incest and homosexuality. I found this to be somewhat reminiscent of the ménage à trois found between Robert Audley, George Talboys, and Clara Talboys from Lady Audley’s Secret. In the novel, we frequently noticed a homoerotic subtext between the two men. To be more specific, we frequently noted Robert’s use of the word “brother” in his descriptions of George. This was particularly strange in the scene where he asked Clara, his supposed romantic interest, to go with him to find George in order “to bring our brother back between us” (LAS 431). This foreshadowed the end of the novel where the three of them lived happily ever after, brother and brother and brother and wife, making up one semi-incestuous family. This dynamic is of course easily seen as well in the aforementioned case of Lizzie and Laura. The two sisters live together in a domestic relationship, and in fact one of them is literally saved by a bizarre and taboo sex simulation. After this, the poem concludes with an explanation of the virtue of sisterly love. Thus, in the end, both tales take an interesting take on the intersection of familial and romantic love. There is of course one important difference, however. In Lady Audley’s Secret the trio is able to openly live together without fear. In Goblin Market, we get the implication of their connection but are not explicitly shown them living together. I would argue that this is because males at the time were accorded additional freedoms to live as they saw fit while women were heavily confined in their choices. This would explain why Laura and Lizzie still end up marrying instead of living together while Robert  could have what he wanted. Even in homosexuality, then, women were still suppressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSICJJq86ic

When reading Goblin Market, I couldn’t help but notice the clear similarities between the colorful imagery of the goblins’ fruit and the feast scene in Pan’s Labyrinth directed by Guillermo del Toro. A little background, Pan’s Labyrinth is a fairy tale that takes place at the time of the Spanish Civil War. The main character, a young girl named Ofelia, is brought with her mother to her step father’s military compound as he wages war against the rebels. In tandem to the human war drama, a mythical Faun creature instructs Ofelia that she is actually the missing princess (Pan) and that she must complete several trials to prove her royalty and return to the throne.

Pan’s Labyrinth contrasts the innocence of female characters like Ofelia and her helpless mother who’s unable to speak up for herself to that of Captain Vidal (Ofelia’s stepfather) who is brutally oppressive and with stereotypical, unflinching masculinity. Vidal’s primary concern throughout the movie is making sure Ofelia’s pregnant mother bears him a son, commenting to a doctor that questions how sure he is that the unborn child isn’t a girl with “don’t fuck with me.”

Midway through the movie, Ofelia’s pregnant mother becomes sick and potentially dying. She asks the Faun for help and he advises her that a mandrake root kept in a bowl of milk under her mother’s bed will heal her. This remedy works until Captain Vidal finds it and throws it into the fire, triggering Ofelia’s mother to go into labor and die in childbirth. This can be likened to Lizzie “remembering her kernel-stone … dewed it with tears, hoped for a root. Watched for a waxing shoot, but there came none; it never saw the sun.” The seed Laura took with her from the goblins had the promise of a cure but it was ultimately useless and not enough. Thus the masculine produced cures were futile, Vidal interrupted the mandrake roots healing effects, and the seeds of the male goblins fruit bore no fruit.

One of the most haunting and memorable moments of the film is during Ofelia’s second trial, whereby the Faun (a male character mind you) commands her to collect a dagger from a creature called the pale man. The pale man sits silent and still at a banquet table covered in delicious fruits and dishes. The Faun comments that “[Ofelia] will see a sumptuous banquet, but don’t eat or drink anything. Your life depends on it.” For if she even so much as tastes the food the pale man will wake up and eat her. Similarly to this scene, Lizzie instructs Laura that “[they] must not look at goblin men, we must not buy their fruits: who knows upon what soil they fed their hungry thirsty roots?” Yet despite this warning, both Ofelia and Laura indulge and eat from the feast of temptation.

The consequences for the two women differ in severity. Upon eating 2 grapes, the pale man eats two of her fairy guides in response, to which the Faun scolds her and claims she must not be the princess, forsaking her until the end of the movie when Ofelia is shot by Captain Vidal, and her blood is the last trial, a sacrifice made allowing her to return to her mythical land. For Laura however, it is only through her sister resisting temptation herself and being covered in the juices of the goblin fruits that end up restoring her.

Where the two stories differ from their depiction of men is in the fulfilling sisterly bond between Lizzie and Laura, who can always look to each other. Pan’s Labyrinth complicates this theme through the Faun who is both a male and protector of Pan, however has the capacity to scold and still control her when she fails to listen to him, as evident in Ofelia eating the grapes and losing two of the Fauns fairys. Additionally, Ofelia confides in her mother at her disliking of Captain Vidal, to which her mother acknowledges his flaws, however compromises that he is just misunderstood and a good provider. Sadly, by the end of the movie Captain Vidal ends up responsible for the deaths of both Ofelia and her mother.