Rossetti's Poem- No Thank You John Flashcards
What is No Thank You John about?
Like much of Rossetti’s work, the poem is written from the point of view of a woman and explores her experience of society. In particular, “No, Thank You, John” explores the gender dynamics and social expectations between a man romantically pursuing a woman who refuses him.
The poem, No, Thank You, John, is one of Christina Rossetti’s romantic poems and is mainly about a conflicting relationship between a woman and a man, named John. The poet depicts her true feelings towards the man, whom she looks upon as a friend. But the man concerned wants to develop a deeper relationship with her although she is trying her utmost to make him understand that she considers him only as a friend and does not have any special feelings for him. And this difference in their feelings caused a conflict between them. So it is just like a one-sided conversation and we are given an impression of John’s demands through the chastisement of the narrator (the poet).
The summary
The female speaker insists that she has never told a man named John that she loved him. She asks John why he insists on provoking her every single day and relentlessly asking her to consider his romantic overtures through various pleas.
The speaker tells John that he knows she has never loved him in the past. It is not her fault that she is the object of his admiration. The speaker asks John why he persistently torments her with a face as pale and worn out looking as that of a newly-formed ghost.
The speaker suggests that perhaps Meg or Moll would be willing to receive John’s attentions if he went after them instead. She begs John not to stay single for her, as she cannot return his romantic affections.
The speaker echoes back John’s declaration that she is heartless. She admits that it is possible she is heartless. However, he is irrational to be angry at her for not returning his love, as she just does not love him. The speaker begs John to be rational.
The speaker suggests they should let the past go. She tells John not to call her deceitful or unfaithful, as she does not owe him anything. Indeed, the speaker declares that she would rather refuse fifty other men named John than accept his love.
The speaker asks John to stop making their days so unpleasant with his unwelcome and unreciprocated romantic overtures. The speaker points to the flights of songbirds and the days of childhood, both fleeting and momentary events. The speaker advises John to live in the moment and forget the past. For her part, she’s willing to be good-humored about his false expectations of her love.
The speaker graciously offers to be friends with John. Only friends, she stresses. And if they are friends, John cannot have any ulterior motives or private and one-sided expectations. She wants them to rise above John’s arguments and pestering. Again, the speaker offers friendship to John, however she refuses to give him love.
Unrequited Love and Gender
“No, Thank You, John” is a dramatic monologue with a female speaker directly addressing a man named “John.” This man keeps pestering the speaker to engage in a relationship with him, even though the speaker firmly rejects his romantic overtures. She remains resolute despite John’s verbal attacks on her character, again and again telling him that she’s just not interested and that his interest isn’t her problem. The poem thus challenges the typical dynamics of traditional love poems, in which male speakers are wounded by their unrequited love for women. Instead, the poem suggests that these men are not victims at all, but rather stubborn aggressors who are responsible for their own emotions.
John hounds the speaker to return his love, leading the speaker to ask John why he insists on “teas[ing]” her. The verb “tease” is often presented as something women do to playfully provoke men. Here, though, the speaker reverses this stereotype by associating teasing with John’s actions. Although teasing is often seen as something playful and harmless, John’s teasing is incessant, happening “day by day.” John’s constant demands for love are “wear[ying]” for the speaker, who is sick and tired of his demands.
In response, the speaker repeatedly makes it clear that she does not return John’s feelings. She says that she “never loved” him and that it is “[n]o fault of [hers]” that he loves her. The speaker thus firmly refutes any of John’s attempts to blame her for his unrequited love; he is responsible for his own feelings.
The speaker then wonders why John “haunt[s] [her]” like a “ghost” with his demands. Being haunted by a ghost is a terrifying and emotionally taxing experience. Therefore, the speaker reiterates that John’s demands are emotionally draining, and even frightening, for her. The speaker even suggests the John turn his attentions to other women, such as “Meg or Moll.” The speaker thus stresses that his attentions are neither flattering nor desired, and would be better for both of them if they were directed elsewhere.
Consequently, John responds with anger and personal attacks. He “takes offence” at the speaker not reciprocating his love and declares that the speaker has “no heart.” John’s anger suggests that he believes the speaker owes him her love, and that she is unfairly robbing him of this love by refusing him. This reflects the gender dynamics of the time, wherein unmarried women were expected to respond favorably to the attentions of men.
The speaker also asks John not to call her “false,” implying that he has already done so. A “false’ individual is one who is unfaithful or deceitful. John, therefore, continues to criticize the speaker’s character. John believes that the speaker is morally wrong because she does not love him.
In contrast to John’s emotional anger, the speaker “[r]ise[s] above/ [q]uibbles” and John’s attacks, literally declaring she is above all of John’s attempts at provoking a fight. Instead, she graciously offers “friendship” to John, but nothing more. Moreover, the speaker responds to John’s anger with a humorous tone throughout the poem; although the speaker is no less forceful in her rejection because of this humor, this lightheartedness contrasts sharply with John’s persistent anger. The speaker thus comes across as distinctly more level-headed and charitable than John.
Literary men have often been depicted as victims in their unrequited love, but the poem casts John as an obnoxious aggressor rather than a romantic, lovelorn hero. An ultimately, the poem implies that the speaker’s decision to remain resolute despite John’s aggression shows her strength of the character and that of other women like her.
I never said I loved you, John:
Why will you tease me day by day,
And wax a weariness to think upon
With always “do” and “pray”?
Rossetti’s speaker begins her dramatic monologue with a refutation to the unheard listener. The speaker in this poem is both playful and coy while holding her ground steadfastly. The very first line of the poem is blunt which is contrary to what is often seen as the Victorian feminine ideal, meek, and submissive. But Rossetti in her own life, clearly held the view that ‘it is better to be unmarried than being unhappily married.
The man is “teasing”, a word often reserved for women, but in his persistence is also infuriating. Rossetti’s speaker puts emphasis on her irritation with the alliterative “wax weariness” while the words like “do and pray” indicate his persistence in persuading her –those imperatives are commanding her: but she is not commanded.
You Know I never loved you, John;
No fault of mine made me your toast:
Why will you haunt me with a face as wan
As shows an hour-old ghost?
In this second stanza of No, Thank You, John, the frustration, and assertiveness go higher–perhaps it is a response coming from the speaker to the listener, when she says –“you know”, which many mean refusing to give any ground. The most interesting line of this stanza is the second line when she says: “no fault of mine” which suggests disgust with social conventions assuming that women ‘lead on’ or ‘entrap’ men in some way–how little has changed! The suggestion that women are no matter what to blame for men’s feelings is strongly refuted. The speaker is depicted as a very confident woman who not only refuses her suitor but also forces him to see the truth of his situation instead of blaming her. The poem goes on the language of the speaker becomes harsh and insulting. Moreover the use of words like –“haunting”, “ghost” – are to force him to stay away from her.
I dare say Meg or Moll would take
Pity upon you, if you’d ask:
And pray don’t remain single for my sake
Who can’t perform the task.
When the third stanza of No, Thank You, John starts, it becomes very clear from the use of words like “I dare say” that the conversation between the speaker and listener is going to be bitter. This may be because of the listener who continues to argue back, and the language becomes harsher still. The husband would be taken for “pity”, not for love, emphasized at the beginning of the line. The alliterative choice of “Meg or Moll” brings into light the names yet simultaneously makes them the same; there isn’t any reason to differentiate between these second-choice girls, they are all the same for his purposes –as perhaps is she, in the end, for there is little to suggest she believes he genuinely loves her. Her choice of “can’t perform” also makes the poem interesting as Victorian literature often has suggestions like “Love Can Be Learned,” or will return sooner or later–and is actually the basis of several arranged marriages –but the speaker completely rebuts that suggestion. She believes that marriage is a “task” to be performed, a chore instead of a joyful blessing.
I have no heart?-Perhaps I have not;
But then you’re mad to take offence
That don’t give you what I have not got:
Use your common sense.
The very initial rhetorical question, in the above stanza, denotes that she’s repeating an accusation flung at her by the speaker in his growing anger. Her following wordplay –“you’re mad to take offence /That I don’t give you what I have not got” –suggests that she even now retrains an element of humor about the situation, though it’s now more frustrating and sarcastic with him. She bluntly says – he is “mad” and the single-line imperative “use your common sense” which almost treats him like a child being rebuked instead of an equal. However, she stays firm: she says that she is not having love to give him and so will not be able to marry him.
Let bygones be bygones:
Don’t call me false, who owed not to be true:
I’d rather answer “No” to fifty Johns
Than answer “Yes” to you.
In the above lines, the tone gets a little more conciliatory. The speaker wants the listener to allow her the choice. All through the above lines, she remains insistent and persistent in her decision, and says: she’s never been “false”. Though in the very first line of this stanza, she gets a little friendly, that friendliness quickly turns sarcastic when she says: “I’d rather answer No to fifty Johns”
In fact, she does not want to budge from her decision, no matter how insistent the listener may be. When he accuses her of betraying her, she soundly refutes him. The speaker says that he himself has created this relationship without any input from her, “who owed not to be true.”
Let’s mar our pleasant days no more,
Song-birds of passage, days of youth:
Catch at today, forget the days before:
I’ll wink at your untruth.
In this stanza of No, Thank You, John, the speaker finds herself tired of the argument going between them and she finally agrees to “wink at your untruth” -agree to disagree, yet we both know it is an “untruth”. The presentation of sweeter imagery –“song-birds”, “days of youth”, “pleasant days” are elusively lovely, yet vague, but they do indicate that life is short enough to spend arguing and having a grudge. “Catch at today” encourages him to move on from her, and spend his time in more pleasant pursuits.
Let us strike hands as hearty friends;
No more, no less; and friendship’s good:
Only don’t keep in view ulterior ends, And points not understood
In open treaty. Rise above
Quibbles and shuffling off and on:
Here’s friendship for you if you like; but love,-
No, thank you, John.
While parting, in the above lines, the speaker warns that this is no ploy –“don’t keep in view ulterior ends/and points not understood//in open treaty.” The language of conciliation in undefined loved-war suggests her determination; the “treaty” ought to bring peace if both parties stick to it. “Hearty friends” is large-hearted, and displays her wish to carry on her friendship yet she is not going to brook marriage or love. “No more, no less, and friendship’s good” –there is value in being good friends.
In the last three lines, she also makes an appeal to his pride, when she says:–“rise above/quibbles”. The use of word “quibble” makes it seem childish and petty again. She big-heartedly offers “her friendship for him, but then leaves the decision to him. Even the last line of No, Thank You, John shows that she is still persistent in her decision, and since the very start of the poem, she hasn’t budged a bit and says: Marriage, with John at least, is not for her.
Literacy Context
“No, Thank You, John” shares some similar thematic concerns with “Goblin Market.” Both poems are told from a woman’s point of view and centered around women’s experiences with men in society. Both may also be interpreted as a critique of the gender dynamics between men and women in a patriarchal society.
Historical context
During the latter half of the 19th century, the “woman question” was a pressing concern for many in Britain. The “woman question” was the term Victorians used to refer to debates around the role and nature of women in society. Many began to question the traditional and restrictive roles defined for women that assigned them value and meaning only in association with men. Women had few rights at the time Rosetti lived. They were unable to vote, and upon marriage their wages and property became their husband’s.
Victorian England was characterized by strict social mores in general, with women relegated to a domestic life of homemaking and child rearing. Frank discussion of the female body was considered extremely taboo, and women were also expected to remain chaste, pure, and modest until marriage. Within the confines of marriage, women were then expected to fulfil their duties to their husbands—who gained legal control over their wives’ lives and bodies through the marital contract. The idea of marital rape thus did not exist, and divorce was also heavily frowned upon. Women who did have sexual relationships out of wedlock were deemed “fallen” and shunned by society, even left to bear the responsibility of any extra-marital pregnancies on their own.
Though Rossetti’s feminist legacy is complicated—for example, she did not fully support the women’s suffrage movement—she did believe in the power of female representation in government. Moreover, Rossetti’s work was frequently centered on the female experience. Additionally, Rossetti often explored and challenged traditional gender roles in her work, as can be seen in “No, Thank You, John.”
