The Insensitiveness of the Narrator

The Thorn, a poem by William Wordsworth, is an intriguing piece of work that, if not properly interpreted, can perplex the reader. The poem begins by depicting nature on a mountain top; the aged thorn that has been overgrown by moss. The narrator then introduced Martha Ray, a human character who appears to be very sad and always weeping. However, the story abruptly ends to explore the existence of the thorn, an idea that confuses the reader regarding the poem’s emphasis. The narrator’s way of expressing himself is the subject of the poem. His ideas are more focused on how the manner in which the narrator expresses his himself is the focus of the poem. His ideas are more focused on how the manner in which the narrator associates his ideas rather than the “events” which only reflect his imagination. The lack of imagination in the narrator results in his insensitive and unsympathetic nature which can be shown by the way he describes the events and the objects within the poem.

A fundamental aspect of the narrator’s insensitiveness is the manner in which he structures his story. Instead of creating a prefatory work, the narrator utilized a poetic afterword with the story of Martha being illustrated like just a simple description of an event. According to Ashton, the narrator simply described the thorn tree which he joined with Martha’s story. He, thus, suggest that the story ”was created from the thorn, and figurative meaning from the literal” (Ashton 175). This form of narration involves the passage of a story from place to person which makes the significance of humanity to be disregarded. Empty sympathy is further revealed in the shifting tenses; the present events are brought rapidly into the past. This imbalance is caused by the inner narrative the mariner tells about himself after which readers are taken back to the thorn (Priestman 65). By creating a dual perspective in the story, the narrator enacts and reenacts his experiences which culminate into empty sympathy and broken vows.

The narrator’s ignorance and lack of sympathy is evident in his declaration of unfamiliarity with the story. He admits to being a visitor in the village, and although the story of Martha Ray has been told from his lips, he is not aware about it fully. Ashton states that ”the narrator’s ignorance splits the ballad’s structure, generating a parallel situation in which present recapitulates the past” (175). This means that the repetition of the pain that Martha passes through shows the utilization of tautology rather than the application of empathy and pity towards the character. According to Priestman, the ignorance of the previously related events shows his experiences to a prior time, thus, he climbs the mountain through ‘mist and snow’ to observe Martha Ray (68). In his observation, the seeming innocence meets experience which is evident when he claims, ”Instead of jutting crag, I found / A Woman seated on the ground” (Abrams and Stephen II. 186-187). Surely the equation of the two reflects the anesthetized heart of the narrator. His innocence evidently does not embrace experience, thus, souring self-consciousness.

The nature of description towards Martha reveals his lack of imagination of the situation finds herself. The narrator, who does not fear the female character he describes, is expected to imagine, embrace, and sympathize. However, he proves to bound by the harsh laws governing the society in the story by failing to sympathize with pain without pleasure. He states, ”I did not speak—I saw her face; / Her face!—it was enough for me; / I turned about…” (Abrams and Stephen II. 188-190). The abrupt turn of events can be witnessed in this stanza; instead of explaining the situation that Martha finds herself in, the narrator diverts the attention of the reader to the physical look of the character. He stops to remind himself of the ”face” he observed. The significance of the physical appearance is made apparent with the use of tautology; ”face” is mentioned twice in the stanza. It is difficult to agree with Gerard who writes that Martha Ray’s ”dereliction is alleviated… by the narrator’s sympathy” (Ashton 176). This is because it is obvious there is no empathy the narrator feels at all.

The anesthetized nature of the narrator can be evident in his impression of Stephen Hill. In the poem, the narrator fails to harbor any form of imagination of passion towards Martha when he fails to acknowledge the evil did of the ”lover” (Priestman 68). Because he follows the footsteps of Stephen Hill, he reconsiders the actions of his male character whom he narrates as: ”But Stephen to another Maid / Had sworn another oath; / And, with this other Maid, to church, / Unthinking Stephen went” (Abrams and Stephen II. 113-116). Rather than acknowledging that Stephen has been ”unfeeling,” the narrator claims that he is ”unthinking” simply because he is unable to feel himself; this diction is coldly mechanical. Furthermore, the ”fake” pity of various objects in the poem shows the lack of sympathy from the narrator. He keep on patronizing throughout the story: ”Poor Thorn,” ”Poor Martha,” and ”Poor child.” As Ashton would suggest, “only the poor can afford to call each other poor,” the pity of the narrator shows how poor he is in imagination (Ashton 177). He fails to recognize the swearing of another oath by Stephen.

Furthermore, the church amplifies the insensitiveness of the author when they acknowledge the reunion of Stephen Hill. Lack of sympathy manifested in the men associating with Martha reflects the absence of passion in the ”church” which decides to accept Stephen and the other ”Maid” while on the other hand attempt to crucify her when they suspect she killed the infant. Because they suspect that Martha could have murdered her child, they are all ready to crucify her for it, acting sympathetic to the infant. The narrator states, And some had sworn an oath that she / Should be to public justice brought; / And for the little infant’s bones / With spades they would have sought” (Abrams and Stephen II. 221-224). The all-to-public justice shown by the villagers reflects the empathy they possess; just as Stephen sworn another oath, they swear an oath to destroy the sympathy they ”lack.” Ashton claims that the society is presented by village gossips-among whom include the narrator (179). They are impotent to ameliorate the tragedy of the story and actively reveal their breach of faith.

Nature has been utilized by the author to show the insensitivity of the narrator. The ”thorn” described in the story is different from the botanical thorn readers are aware of. The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a thorn as ”A species of arma, growing on the various parts of certain plants for their defense” (Ashton 82). This definition reflects on the mimosa that shuts its leaves when one touches it; similarly, a thorn has points in order to defend itself. In the Wordsworth’s poem, the ”sensibility of mimosa” reflects the narrator who is a selfish individual that does not allow himself to be touched. Ashton suggests that this definition reveals the setting of The Thorn which accords with the botany of the plant” (82). However, the thorn in the poem means more than a botanical allegory since it lacks ”prickly points.” The narrator describes it as ‘a thorn that wants its thorny points… a toothless thorn.’ Furthermore, Priestman claims that the natural objects in the poem reflect the narrator’s feeling. He states, ”Dryness of the pond suggests a dry-up of the emotions… But all four objects—tree, pond, hillock and moss—are linked with ideas of misery…” (Priestman 72). The roughness of the objects reflects the nature of the narrator; one who has a hard heart, and is unable to feel the pain of others. His ”toughness” makes him insensitive of all the suffering and agony of Martha.

In summary, the poem reflects the nature of imagination and perception of the narrator. He is just a visitor who has come to listen to other people’s story just like the ”gossiping villagers.” He narrates the thorn in details including the surrounding objects that have impact on the characters’ experience. He further talks about Martha Ray whom he explores deeply about her pain and agony. Unfortunately, he does not develop sympathy or empathy on his character. Instead he glorifies her experience by acting with naivety just like the villagers, an element that is evident through his choice of words. The poem reflects the aspect of feminism in the society; it is evident that women in the story are not glorified; the society can only see their weaknesses but fails to acknowledge their dimension of humanity.

Works Cited

Abrams, Meyer Howard., and Stephen Greenblatt. ”The Thorn.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 8th ed., Norton, 2006, pp. 252–258.

Ashton, Thomas L. ”‘The Thorn’: Wordsworth’s Insensitive Plant.” Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 2, 1972, pp. 171–187. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3817024.

Priestman, Donald G. ”Superstition and Imagination: Complementary Faculties of Wordsworth’s Narrator in ‘The Thorn.’” The Journal of Narrative Technique