The Loss of The Savior in Images – The Goblin Market
Playboy’s 1973 illustrations of The Goblin Market leaves little imagination room as to what is going on in Christina Rossetti’s poem. The poem is very complex in the ideas it presents. Rossetti’s work can be interpreted as spiritual, sexual or as a story encouraging the bond between sisters as unbreakable. For the most part though, it is very sexual, for our time. When this was written, 1859, Rossetti was volunteering at the St. Mary Magdalene Penitentiary in Highgate which helped correct fallen women (The Poetry Foundation). This greatly helps in understanding the content of The Goblin Market. The physical redemption of Laura because of Lizzie’s sacrifice and offering is a huge reference to Christ. The two illustration forms shown in this post have both lost reference to Lizzie being a Christ like figure. Playboy’s illustrations are very literal in their message. John Bolton’s graphic illustrations are not nearly as sexualized but still do not depict the story in a religious way, either. What causes later, visual interpretations of the poem to lose their interest in the religious hints?
In Rossetti’s original publication, Lizzie is attacked by the goblins in lines 390-439, that’s one line shy of 50 lines of attack. It’s a pretty large and important piece of the poem and is shown in Playboy and in Bolton’s illustration. But in neither of the depictions, is Lizzie emphasized as “White and golden” (Line 408).
The idea of Lizzie offering up her body to be eaten in lines 486-523 also don’t seem to be pushed in the illustrations as religious. They are heavily sexualized, so far in Playboy that they have Laura performing oral sex on Lizzie. The lines never mention anything that vivid. So why the extreme sexualization of these two sisters? Instead of the recognition going to Lizzie as a savior for Laura, the imagery places them in a more comprising set up.
Lizzie has made the decision to fix the problem for Laura in lines 322-328 and goes searching for the goblins. As she approaches the situation she is prepared for their offerings and stands her ground against them. She goes to obtain the fruit and maintains her dignity, unlike her sister Laura who went because she was interested in what the goblins had. The goblins don’t go for this and attack her, as said earlier, in a lengthy portion of the poem. This also resembles Christ’s crucifixion, but only in connection with lines 464-475. Here Lizzie says,
“She cried, “Laura,” up the garden,
“Did you miss me?
Come and kiss me.
Never mind my bruises,
Hug me, kiss me, suck my juices
Squeez’d from goblin fruits for you,
Goblin pulp and goblin dew.
Eat me, drink me, love me;
Laura, make much of me;
For your sake I have braved the glen
And had to do with goblin merchant men.”
(Rossetti, Lines 464-475)
The Bible says,
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
(1 Corinthians 11)
It doesn’t match directly, but Lizzie has gone through a traumatic event and has come back to her sister offering herself as redemption for her problems. Like Christ who has given his body and blood as an offering for his followers. Where is this in illustrations for this poem?
Neither of the two examples show Lizzie as a savior like this portion.
Playboy’s, and somewhat Bolton’s, images focus on the sexual aspects of the poem and remove reference to Christ. The poem isn’t widely published in Christian magazines but made it into Playboy. Even though this was first published as a poem for children. The difference from The Victorian Period and 1973 is pretty clear. Somewhere, at some time in the one hundred-ish years between the publication and reprint in Playboy, the interpretation of the poem switch from Godly, savior, redemption poem to a heavily sexualized piece of work. The language for current times is beyond suggestive, was this intentional from Rossetti? Either way, it is lost in the image translations of the poem.
Works Cited
Rossetti, Christina. “Goblin Market.” The Longman Anthology of British Literature. Ed. David Damrosch & Kevin J.H. Dettmar. 5th Ed. Vol. 2A. New York: Longman, 2012. 1650-63. Print.
1 Corinthians. New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Print.
“Christina Rossetti.” The Poetry Foundation. Web. 5 Dec. 2015. <http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/christina-rossetti#poet>.
An intriguing look at something that really could (no pun intended) swing both ways, that is, either to the spiritual and the Christlike metaphor or to the physical/sexual/erotic. I found this an intriguing look at the poem.
I found this post interesting because you pointed out how the poem’s interpretation changes over time. In 1859 the poem was more likely to be interpreted for its spiritual and religious aspects because of the Victorian mindset, but over a hundred years later our society has shifted to revolve around sexuality. It is not surprising that playboy focused on the highly eroticized themes of the poem in their illustrations, but it is intriguing how Rossetti’s language becomes liberated in a way it was not before. Rossetti’s underlying sexual motifs were always there but today’s society (specifically playboys illustrations) takes her text to a new level and opens up new perspectives for the reader.
It seems that these images demean Rossetti’s work, but personally I believe that they express what she may have intended. While the theme depicted is still strong in the poem, neglecting the key connection with religion makes the work seem over sexualized and lesser than it truly is. It may be that the poem captures the perfect amount of sexual tension as well as religious tone without the help of graphic makeovers. I believe that the images displayed by Play Boy may help some picture what Rossetti was intending to create in mind alone. A philosopher may want to argue this further, but in reality, it is a poem up for speculation within one’s self, and its meaning is determined through the connection that each individual gains. Public debates on it are defeating the purpose of the audience intended. Rossetti made the poem open ended to all audiences in order to create an opportunity for all ages, genders, class groups, and intelligence to apply their own moral to the story. The connection between Lizzie and Christ adds a depth even deeper than is already apparent, but this must not be confused by cross examining. So for these images to, whether intentionally or not, leave this out, is only seemingly a disgrace to Rossetti.
I find this poem intriguing. When I read it for the first time, I thought it was very sexually charged. After reading your blog, I wonder if I view the poem as sexual because of the culture in which I live. If I lived in 1859 would I view the poem differently? Or would I pretend that I did not see the comparison to sexual acts since people during the Victorian period suppressed sexual feelings (exterior vs interior).
I’ve removed some of the images because overuse may infringe on Playboy’s copyright (also let’s keep the blog open to a larger age-range). All this said, this post begins to take a look at some changes in the interpretation, but is it incredibly difficult to suggest that the Victorians would not have access to the sensual interpretation of the poem. Yes, the sexual aspects are heightened in the later illustration, but could the reason be that it was possible to visualize it this way in the later versions in ways that would not be possible in the Victorian period illustrations? Ultimately this comes down to a question of different audiences. The audiences are not the same, so why would the interpretations be the same? A more in-depth engagement with these questions might lead to more complex conclusions.
I thought that your post was really interesting. I have read Goblin Market before in another class and I thought that your argument was great. The way you bring up the sexual part of the poem is interesting because I feel like people back in the day, chose to ignore these thoughts. After reading this, I feel like people back in the day were maybe hiding these sexual thoughts.
Interesting post! When I read Goblin Market I didn’t fully recognize the spiritual and religious connotations to it. But, now having read your post, I can see that during the time Goblin Market was written, the theme would have been completely different than what it is now. Just like you said, I read it as extremely sexualized, but putting myself in the Victorian shoes, I wouldn’t see them as seeing it that way. Extremely thought provoking post and job well done!
I was struck by the allegorical elements of the poem, too. Like you, I think that was likely very much Rossetti’s intent. I think, though, that she was also quite deliberate in invoking the sexual imagery as well. Upon considering her audience, much of which probably consisted of young women who fell victim to the “goblins” of her time, and the portions of Victorian society that felt content to judge them, it makes sense that she would use images like these. I think that this poem perfectly embodies the duality of Victorian society. It is written a style that evokes the innocence of a fairy tale, while holding,a darker and more serious subject matter at its core.
You do a great job arguing an alternative view of the poem. I like the comparison of the eucharist. I think the way Playboy treats this poem just further sexualizes women, one of the themes we see in the poem itself (the fallen woman narrative). It’s interesting that they do this, seemingly fulfilling the view that may be challenged in “Goblin Market.” Well done.