Album Artwork for "Pu$$y Market" for its original release as a single.
Even today, female writers—and all writers for that matter—are writing under the totalizing discourse of a patriarchal society. While one might hope that writers of oppressed and underrepresented demographics would have the liberal views of liberal writers today, that is not always the case. The school of New Historicism discourages the condemnation of literary works containing sexism as purely sexist, encouraging readers to look on the flip side—depending on historical context—and see how a work subverts patriarchal roles and expectations. Published in 1862, Christina Georgina Rossetti’s poem “Goblin Market” has been met by critics with highly contrasting critical views, including back and forth debate on its feminism or lack thereof. Due to the poem’s two independent female lead characters, mystic and parable-esque qualities, among other things, many critics have defined “Goblin Market” as proto-feminist, while others have deemed it as reinforcing of the patriarchy. Albert D. Pionke, writing in 2012, even posits that discussion of “representations of gender” are “likely irresolvable” (897). I agree with critics’ classification of “Goblin Market” as a proto-feminist work, but wish to look further by contrasting the work with contemporary poetry with similar trends. In order to explore the extent to which Rossetti’s acclaimed proto-feminist values function in “Goblin Market,” I will analyze the themes of sex as commodity and the agency of female sexuality alongside the song “Pu$$y Market,” by Gumball Machine, featuring Cupcakke, released in 2016, and other works in Cupcakke’s growing discography.
The plot of “Goblin Market” is relatively simple, functioning like a fairy tale or parable, as many critics have noticed. Sisters and maids, Lizzie and Laura hear the regular cry of goblins from the titular market. Laura eats the fruit from the goblin men and begins to die. Lizzie saves Laura by braving the goblin market and returning to Laura, bruised, beaten, and covered in goblin fruit. On Lizzie’s command, Laura sucks the juices from Lizzie’s body and is cured. “Pu$$y Market,” running just over three minutes long, has an equally simple plot. The speaker[1] warns the auditor of an “economic crisis” (Gumball Machine 32). Due to a surplus in the commodity, “dicks [have] bottomed out,” and have lost all economic value (Gumball Machine 36). Because of this drop, the demand for the commodity of female sexuality has gone up: “[p]ussy’s always the most wanted / [d]ick’s as common as McDonalds” (Gumball Machine 25-26). This change in the economic playing field results in the titular “Pu$$y Market.” Between the accounts of the economic situation, the speaker makes repeated sexual requests and advances towards the auditor and a tertiary third person character referred to only by male pronouns. These intercalary verses suggest a more literal “Pu$$y Market,” one that either sells sex or sexuality, rather than the “Pu$$y Market” implied by the other versus, which potentially refers to a market trend, like a “Bull Market” or “Bear Market.” The first and most obvious difference between the two works is that, on the surface level, there is no sex in “Goblin Market.” While the speaker in “Pu$$y Market” makes overt sexual advances towards her auditors, Rossetti’s work is relatively PG and takes textual interpretation to find sexual themes. Regardless, I am going to look at the elements and moments in “Goblin Market” that have brought upon the strongest response by most critics. A commonly analyzed element of “Goblin Market” that points the poem in a proto-feminist direction is the depiction of female desire. Contrasting Christina Rossetti’s brother Michael Rossetti’s arguments that Christina Rossetti intended no “complex literary or ideological motives for the poem,” Kathleen Anderson and Hannah Thullbery, in their article “Ecofeminism in Christina Rossetti’s ‘Goblin Market,’” argue that “the question of female desire or appetite is a central feature of the poem” (63). Rather than desire as side-plot or desire on the terms of a man, “Goblin Market” puts female desire upfront. Alison Chapman notes this in her book The Afterlife of Christina Rossetti: “The sentimental tradition, seen in the nineteenth-century as the only properly feminine mode for women poets, insists that women’s poetry is confessional and personal,” (6). Rossetti takes advantage of this cultural loophole to discuss female desire in a manner passable as children’s literature. Anderson and Thullbery go on to highlight that “[t]he female protagonists of ‘Goblin Market’ are not temptresses but tempted, a shift that gives the two sisters the power of choice,” (65). I agree that being the tempted gives Laura and Lizzie more sexual agency, and having the goblin men be the “temptresses,’ so to speak, is fascinating gender play, but this throws an interesting light on the “Pu$$y Market” speaker. The “Pu$$y Market” speaker is, at least to some degree, a temptress, but that diminish her sexual agency? Anderson and Thullbery’s dichotomy would suggest so, but I don’t believe the lines are so strict. The “Pu$$y Market” speaker’s role as a temptress does not necessarily surrender her sexual agency because of her status as a businessperson. Anderson and Thullbery do not define or qualify what it means to be a “temptress,” but their discussion implies a woman reminiscent of the Great Whore of Babylon from Revelations: a symbolic one-dimensional evil woman who uses her sexuality to bring the downfall of men. The “Pu$$y Market” speaker aims to provide a commodity that is mutually beneficial for both parties. She emphasizes the pleasure of the consumer: “put that dick in my mouth / [j]ust like a mic on stage,” and of herself: “[g]et on your knees do yo deed / [y]ou need to make me cum faster” (Gumball Machine 3, 4, 12, 13). The “Pu$$y Market” speaker gets what she want, and the consumer does not lose anything. In addition, she regularly assigns herself power, identifying as a “master,” and a “CEO in these jeans,” (Gumball Machine 11, 23). An argument could be made that this ‘need to please’ attitude is a reinforcement of the patriarchy on the subconscious level, but psychoanalysis aside, the “Pu$$y Market” speaker has active agency in her choices just like Laura and Lizzie. Laura’s trade of her “golden lock” for the goblin fruit has warranted mixed, but frequent response from critics (Rossetti 126). With poems like Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock,” hair as a synecdochic symbol of the woman it’s affixed to has become a motif in English poetry, especially when underneath a male’s gaze[2]. In her article "The Price of Redemption in 'Goblin Market',” Jill Rappoport states that Laura’s “sexuality is seized through a curl of hair” and Laura “ultimately surrenders her body” through her act (854). For Rappoport, Laura’s act is one of submission and surrender. Dorothy Mermin in “Heroic Sisterhood in Goblin Market” looks at this scene as an act of curiosity. The poem, Mermin explains, “is about art as well as sex,” and that the Laura’s hijinks “[represent] the development of female autonomy in a largely female world” (107). The lock cutting scene is less of a submission for Mermin, and instead a “fantasy of feminine freedom” (108). One thing that Mermin conveniently ignores in her analysis is the “tear more rare than pearl” that Laura drops, which most critics cite enthusiastically as an example of Laura giving up her sexual agency and proof of her “surrender” (Rossetti 127, Rappoport 854). The line drills in the connection between Laura’s flesh and value, but it consequently paints her as sad. Robin Sowards attempts to divorce the tear from consent regret in "Goblin Market's Localism.” He argues that Laura is not sad that she is selling herself, but rather that she is breaking the covenant between herself and Lizzie. Most other critics tie the tear to Laura’s submission.
I argue that the readiness in which Laura clips her hair moves her act into a more consenting direction, though I do not believe this reconciles the matter completely. Immediately after the goblins suggest she “[b]uy from [them] with a golden curl,” Laura “[clips] a precious golden lock” (Rossetti 125). There are no lines of contemplation, no lines of debate, and not even a narrative explanation of where the scissors might have come from, Rossetti juxtaposes the act immediately after the suggestion. The “tear” comes only after Laura acts independently, under her own desires, and with no threat described (Rossetti 127). Sexual consent in 2017 may run by different rules—Laura’s consent is neither vocal nor enthusiastic—but given that the sexual theme in “Goblin Market” is not acting in the literal, I argue that Laura’s speed in her clipping reinforces Mermin’s model of “feminine freedom” (108).
Conversely, the speaker in “Pu$$y Market” proudly likens herself to objects. The speaker compares herself to a consumable good at the end of the first verse, saying “I stay under his arms like deodorant” (Gumball Machine 15)[3]. In the music video, a servant of Cupcakke holds a silver platter bearing a can labeled “Pussy Stank Drank.” Several characters in the music video are seen drinking the contents of this can. While this is not a likening of Cupcakke herself, the can represents female sexuality as a literal consumable good. At times the “Pu$$y Market” speaker appears to be giving herself away without receiving anything, while at other times there is an exchange: “take a nigga earnin’s” (Gumball Machine 54). The main two differences here are enthusiasm and agency. Laura cries post hair-clipping, but the “Pu$$y Market” speaker objectifies herself with glee. Laura submits to the goblin’s request for her hair while the “Pu$$y Market” speaker dominantly initiates any objectification. On another side, Anderson and Thullbery cite Lona Packer’s 1958 article “Symbol and Reality in Christina Rossetti’s ‘Goblin Market’” in which they detail Packer’s argument as a drawing “a war between the sexes.” In this sense, even if Laura and Lizzie had absolutely no sexual agency at all, the fact that Rossetti devotes narrative space to her crying and that we as readers sympathize with the character, the work can be considered proto-feminist. Paraphrasing Packer, Anderson and Thullbery write, “[the poem] critiques men’s sexual abuse of women and decimation of their sense of selfhood” (67). If one is to interpret Laura’s first interaction with the goblin men as a rape of power, Rossetti’s focus on Laura and Laura’s ability to overcome the result point the poem again into a proto-feminist direction. Possibly the greyest and most confusing area of “Goblin Market” is the scene in which Lizzie presents herself bruised and juice covered body to Laura:
Most critics read these lines in one of two ways: psychosexual or religious. It’s hard to ignore the sexual implications of “suck my juices,” while at the same time the scene parallels the Eucharist. The juices that once began to kill Laura now heal her, complicating things further. To make sense of this I will synthesized claims from Rappaport, Anderson and Thullbery, and Anna MacDonald in her article "Edible Women and Milk Markets: The Linguistic and Lactational Exchanges of Goblin Market." Each of them touch on the matter in a coordinating manner that I believe argue well harmoniously.
Anderson and Thullbery explain the healing powers of Lizzie’s juice arguing that “[n]ature offers sustenance that, although initially perverted by the goblins and used against the women, eventually offers them a chance at healing and renewal,” implying that since Lizzie is the one offering the commodity rather than the goblin men, the fruit now has the potential to heal (80). Rappoport has a similar take, arguing that the sheer act of giving alters the function of the juice, emphasizing the difference between “gift and market economies” (862)[4]. Rappoport argues that this is a critique of capitalism, and that in a market driven society, the proletariat consumers get burned. When individuals chose to share commodities freely, healing can occur. MacDonald brings into play the up and coming trend of analyzing “mid-century novelists’ troubling portrayals of lactation in popular novels as entry points into Victorian anxieties pertaining to classed and gendered embodiment,” arguing that the sucking in “Goblin Market” can be read along these lines (para 1). MacDonald argues that “[t]he sucking scenes evoke another food source—breastmilk,” unifying the juice with the other food imagery in Rossetti’s poem (para 3). While Lizzie is objectifying herself, the connotation is not negative. Her body is a gift. This argument adds an interesting sideways connection to some of the messages Cupcakke instills in her music. While MacDonald uses the breastmilk metaphor to desexualize the “suck my juices” scene, Cupcakke sexualizes breastfeeding with lines directed at a lover: “come suck the milk out my fucking breast” (“Spider-Man Dick” 33). Is this sexualization? Is this nurturing? Is this Freudian? I believe Cupcakke’s hypersexual absurdity blurs these readings into obscurity. Given that she has sexualized everything from ramen noodles to the democratic process, I think it’s safe to keep that line as an unknown. So can “Goblin Market” be classified as a proto-feminist poem? Sure. Can it be classified as a sexist poem? Also sure. There are a world of opinions on this special poem that are fascinatingly contrasting. As I have said, I would classify the poem as proto-feminist given the effective commentary on sexual agency and sex as commodity. Despite that, the poem is clearly imperfect. If Michael Rossetti is to be believed, this could be a consequence of a poet writing to entertain than to politicize. Regardless, the complexities of gender theory and feminism in a real world setting are equally imperfect with a world of voices likely more diverse than the opinions on “Goblin Market.” A contemporary work like “Pu$$y Market” goes to show that all works, in whatever time period, are made up of substance and holes. You can read the substance for moral or read the holes for filth, and it just goes to show how multifaceted poetry can be when politics are sublimated. Both “Goblin Market” and “Pu$$y Market” carry some interesting themes intersecting sex, religion, capitalism, and while they may have been written 155 years apart from one another, they both exemplify the controversies of the cultural spheres in which they were written.
Footnotes
[1] I am using the word ‘speaker’ here rather than ‘rap artist’ or ‘rapper’ for simplicity and convention. In addition, both Cupcakke and Gumball Machine rap in “Pu$$y Market’, but since there is not one line that Gumball Machine raps that Cupcakke does not double at some point, I will treat the lyrics of the poem as being spoken by one ‘speaker.’ [2] The heteronormativity here is in light of the literary tradition. If someone knows of hair-fetishizing lesbian erotic poetry, I would be thrilled to read it. [3] Vocally, Cupcakke delivers these lines in her typical, joyful, hypersexual tone. In the official music video for the song she delivers the line while sitting in a throne surrounded by two scantily clad servants (one male presenting, one female presenting) and with a smile on her face. [4] This could perhaps explain the dichotomy of selling versus giving in the intercalary verses of“ Pu$$y Market” Works Cited Anderson, Kathleen and Hannah Thullbery. "Ecofeminism in Christina Rossetti's 'Goblin Market'." Victorians: A Journal of Culture and Literature, vol. 126, 2014, pp. 63-87. Web. Chapman, Alison. The Afterlife of Christina Rossetti. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000. Print Cupcakke. “Spider-Man Dick.” Audacious. Def Starz, 2016. MP3 Gumball Machine. “Pu$$y Market.” Ft. Cupcakke. Gumball Machine, 2016. MP3. MacDonald, Anna E. "Edible Women and Milk Markets: The Linguistic and Lactational Exchanges of Goblin Market." Nineteenth-Century Gender Studies 11.3 (2015). Web. Mermin, Dorothy. “Heroic Sisterhood in ‘Goblin Market.’” Victorian Poetry, vol. 21, no. 2, 1983, pp. 107–118. JSTOR, Web. Pionke, Albert D. "The Spiritual Economy of 'Goblin Market'." SEL: Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 52, no. 4, 2012, pp. 897-915. Web. Rappoport, Jill. "The Price of Redemption in 'Goblin Market'." SEL: Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 50, no. 4, 2010, pp. 853-875. Web. Rossetti, Christina Georgina, and Arthur Rackham. Goblin Market. New York: F. Watts, 1969. Print. Sowards, Robin J. "Goblin Market's Localism." Modern Philology: Critical and Historical Studies in Literature, Medieval Through Contemporary 110.1 (2012): 114-139. Web.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 3018
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
POPULAR
|