A reading from Rossettis No, Thank you, John - Essay Example

Pamela Braucher English 272 Jude Mesche April 27, 2006 A Reading from Rossetti’s “No, Thank you, John” Christina Georgina Rossetti’s poem entitled “No, Thank You, John” takes its title from the last line of the poem. It summarizes the narrator’s attitude in rebuffing a would-be paramour. This is an extension of the theme of the poem, in which the narrator tries both through humor and bluntness to discourage her suitor, finally making a small allowance that “Here’s friendship for you if you like; but love,- / No, thank you, John.” (lines 31-32). This refusal is made all the more clear by the poet’s technique of truncating what had been iambic trimeter at the close of the quatrains by using caesuras, or pauses, in the form of commas. The comma preceding John’s name is to be expected, but the placement after “No,” rather than simply saying “No thank you,” makes the refusal all the more adamant. This forcefulness proves important when one considers that, while on the surface the poem can be read as an exchange of polite society, certain indicators allow for a much more ribald interpretation. Through a closer examination of the text, both of these interpretations become apparent. The narrator establishes both the format of the poem (i.e. the narrator addressing someone referred to as “John”) and the back story all within the first quatrain of the poem. “John” teases her daily, despite her disavowal of having ever indicated any affection for him. His actions “wax a weariness” (line 3) upon her, an alliterative description of her growing annoyance that makes a slight reference to the moon (and therefore the menstruation cycle). The fact that he uses such terms as “do” and “pray” - the latter being used synonymously with “please” - seem to imply that despite his childish teasing, he is attempting to behave in a civilized manner. These terms can be inferred to mean that the couple are both connected to upper class society… or at least mimic it in order to try for that effect. The second quatrain begins with the narrator reiterating the first line of the poem, except where initially she claims “I never said I loved you…” (line 1) she now states “You know I never loved you…” (line 5). She thus innocently asks why he hounds her acting so forlorn, his face pale as “an hour-old ghost?” (line 8). While this question abides the general forms of propriety, it would indicate a recent death or change, presumably within the last hour. This recent death can also connote the traditional poetic metaphor of the orgasm as “the little death,” which begins to indicate that the narrator may not be as innocent as she appears to be. For while she never “said” the words “I love you”, the question of the physical act is now a possibility. This possibility is expounded upon within the third quatrain, in which the narrator suggests two other girls as possibilities for the suitor. Her comment “…pray don’t remain single for my sake” (line 11) can easily be read as recommending the girls for marriage, yet the implications of the entire stanza are thick with allusions and double entendres. The fact that the narrator refers to “Meg” and “Moll” by first names would indicate one of two things: either the girls are young (or at least juvenile in action and attitude) or they are well known peers of the narrator. In particular, “Moll” could be a reference to Daniel Defoe’s heroine “Moll Flanders”, a protagonist of “flexible virtue” in regards to her sexual activities. By mentioning that pity is required to help “John”, the narrator seems to be teasing him in turn, amused by his distress. By claiming that she “…can’t perform the task.” (line 12), the narrator has chosen an odd, but credible, way of describing the act of marriage as a task: it is made to sound more like a necessary chore. However, when one considers that the phrase “don’t remain single” could easily be replaced by the single word “couple”, which itself relates to sexual activities, the ramifications leaps from appropriate admonishment to saucy recommendation. It is here necessary to comment upon the general structure of Rossetti’s stanzas. The general skeleton up to this point has been basically iambic, with the meter of the four line proceeding in the manner of tetrameter, tetrameter, pentameter, then trimeter. The fourth and fifth stanzas therefore stand out, as they offer the first signs of variance from this pattern. Much like the volta, or turning point, of the sonnet form, these pattern changes coincide with a decided shift in tone of the narrative voice… a manipulation which achieves several different effects. The most obvious metric change is the truncated trimeter of the last line, which is mirrored in the final line: despite missing a syllable, the three stressed syllables lend a forcefulness to the command “Use your common sense.” (line16). The narrator accuses him of being mad (i.e. insane) when she herself is becoming angry at being accused of having “no heart” (line 13), despite her grudgingly admitting the possibility. This anger seems to make her diction slip. There is a stylistic imbalance in line 15, where she continues that he is foolish to be offended “that I don’t give you what I have not got.” While technically correct, given that the phrase “to give” is understood to follow “got” and that the “not got” can be overlooked as by the poetic license of assonance, the fact that the line begins with a contraction and obviously does not use the contraction at the end, despite its availability and acceptability to the meter requirements, results in an overall feeling of awkwardness. This proves to be intentional, as the narrator is beginning to get both impassioned and angry, the spirit of which transfers into the fifth stanza. This stanza proves to be the most unique, as its metric structure follows the pattern of trimeter for the first and last lines while pentameter for the second and third lines. Moreover, the narrator’s mind and intent seems to shift wildly through the course of this stanza. She offers him the tentative olive branch of peace, advising they essentially forgive and forget in the first line. That said, she builds self-righteous anger in the next, demanding that he “Don’t call me false, who owed not to be true…” (line 18). From a socially acceptable view, this could be interpreted as saying “Don’t accuse me of being inconstant in love, for I never claimed to be in love with you.”; from a more ribald approach, it could mean “Don’t get angry at me for my ill repute, for you knew that when we first met.” This latter interpretations gains strength from the narrator’s next comment. Having become incensed, her words have moved from gentle mocking to direct insult when she says she’d “…rather answer ‘No’ to fifty Johns / Than answer ‘Yes’ to you.” (lines 19-20). While the surface reading of these lines is obvious enough, it gains much further ramifications when one considers that the name or term “John” is frequently how a prostitute refers to her customers. If the narrator is a prostitute, she is saying that he could not purchase her affections now, even if the price was more than what she would earn from fifty customers. A woman of high society could easily be aware of this connotation as well, using here for a guttural dramatic effect to emphasize her disdain of the idea, which is an idea very similar to the first stanza’s possibility of lower class people “taking on airs” by imitating the upper class. On the other hand, a refined (and therefore sheltered) lady might instead imply that she would not accept this man’s suit, even if it meant husband hunting through another fifty possibilities. In either case, the lines are meant to have a sting to the listener. The narrator then repents her harsh tone. The sixth stanza declares “Let’s mar our pleasant days no more, / Song-birds of passage, days of youth…” (lines 21-22). The first of these lines literally means “Let us not make our time together, both now and in the future, any worse than they need be.” They were foolish in their youth - be it long ago or an hour ago - for they are both now mature enough to recognize that their youthful lust were like the mating songs of birds: temporary. It has passed. Likewise “passage” connotes that this is a rite of passage necessary for all people to go through. The narrator advises him to focus on the now and forget the past and she will “…wink at your untruth.” This is a couple that will undoubtedly be in the same social circles, whether it be on the street or some aristocratic luncheon. As such, he must pretend that the relationship between he and the narrator ever happened. By winking at him when they meet, she will both acknowledge this fact and act as co-conspirator of his secret: be it a momentary tryst or the shame of her spurning his suit. With this comment, the narrator returns to a gentle teasing, while also re-inserting a bawdy element through the act of winking at a man. This spirit of camaraderie is more explicit in the seventh stanza, for she proposes that they “..strike hands as hearty friends…” (line 25). This action is hardly that of a refined lady, whatever her class. What it does do, however, is try to place “John” on equal footing as a peer. The narrator has chosen to head for the impasse which allows them to both save face: friendship. She reiterates for the sake of clarity that it will be “No more, no less… Only don’t keep in view ulterior ends…” (line 26-27), i.e. that she will offer him friendship so long as he finds enough reserve to keep hidden any secret hopes, at least to the extent that he must not aggravate her with them. Likewise, when she continues this thought “And points not understood / In open treaty.” (lines 28-29), she means that he should not pretend to misunderstand her position after she has been as clear as she can. These lines are particularly interesting for a structural analysis, for this is the only part of the poem where the line enjambment actually bridges the stanzas. By doing so here it, emphasizes the narrator’s effort to “bridge the gap” of the couple’s severed relation. This byplay of interpretations culminates in the final stanza of the poem, for whatever the real situation and relationship, the narrator pleads that “John” “Rise above / Quibbles and shuffling off and on…” (lines 29-30). He must cease arguing with her and his melancholic behavior. The poet here ties off any and all possible interpretations by instructing the listener to “rise above.” If he is a customer “John”, he should act like a gentleman; if he is a gentleman, he should rise above his baser human desires. For whatever his desire may be, the narrator tentatively offers the possibility of friendship, but indicates that love, be it physical or emotional, will emphatically be denied. She has tried humor, teasing, anger and insult… if the only way to force this man to stop “haunting” (line 7) her is to offer the olive branch of friendship, so be it. She does not seem to resent his existence, nor his presence exactly, just his unwanted attentions. Hence the politeness, but firmness, in her final words to him: “No, thank you, John.” Works Cited Rossetti, Christina. “No, Thank You, John.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 8th Edition. Ed. Steven Greenblatt and M.H. Abrams. New York: W.W. Norton and Company 2006. 1478. Read More