Christmas Reading '09: The Turn of the Screw

Yes some good points there, but like I said: "certainly there are huge weaknesses in the Freudian point of view from a psychological and a literary point of view, huge problems" so of course you are going to run into problems with theory - particularly psychoanalysis, because like Virgil says it is not built upon that solid a ground - but this doesn't dismiss the whole thing entirely. Also from an individual point of view, we are going to prefer one theory over another, but just because this is so, it doesn't invalidate another theory for another person.

Personally, I like to keep them all as open as much as possible because my main interest is in opening the reading as much as possible - I'm quite happy for another 50 posters to come on here now and relate different readings of the text, to bring in new things as you did, and as Gladys did with the hysteria.

It is a sad state of affairs, usually, when a text is only capable of one quick reading, and one point of view - this is often a sure sign of mediocre literature. As the wonderful Mr Oscar Wilde said: "Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex and vital/When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself" certainly such applies to this text which Wilde himself said was a “most wonderful, lurid, poisonous little tale”.

(On a side note I think I did OK in my last ever exam, hurrah :banana: which ended up being a defence of theory and a Marxist analysis of a extract of prose, woo whoo, last ever exam..., sorry...though I am allowed to get excited occasionally...:))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

The tale begins the night before the birth of the Incarnate and lasts three days.

---

Where are these three days indicated in the Prologue?

Quote:

---

Poor Douglas, before his death — when it was in sight — committed to me the manuscript that reached him on the third of these days and that, on the same spot, with immense effect, he began to read to our hushed little circle on the night of the fourth.

---

Quote:

---

The whole thing took indeed more nights than one, but on the first occasion the same lady put another question. “What is your title?”

---

I've edited an error concerning three days in my last post. On a Thursday evening four days after Christmas Eve, Douglas tells his tale, over more than one night, about several months at Bly, from June to summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

If not real, it's strange that Douglas relates talks with the aging governess 'in which she struck me as awfully clever and nice', and even stranger the ingenuous way the governess recounts her spring and summer months at Bly. Is the recommendation of Douglas reliable?

---

I had not even considered Douglas's reliability. That is an interesting thought. As I reflect on it now, it does intuitively feel that he may be unreliable.

Quote:

---

Is the science really so clear cut? My reading of research suggests that psychoanalysis, behavioural modification or the ministrations of a receptive pastor generally do as well or better than medication. If the governess is victim to mental illness, on leaving Bly she soon recovers and lives happily ever after without the need for medical intervention.

---

I'm not a psychologist/psychiatrist, so i can't say with any authority. I've mentioned in other places on the forum how my mother has had a mild depression and some paranoid-esk halucinations for a good part of her life, and it's through medications that eliminated them and regulates her. If you read through this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine) about dopamine, which is one of several chemicals that regulates the mind, you'll see that anyone suffering from a lack of it can exibit all these ridiculous freudian claims. Now this is not the chemical that inflicts my mother (I forget which one) but I remembered this one and serves as a perfect example. Also, notice how the dopamine is connected to hormones and glands. It's a bio/chemical issue, not a repressed emotional issue like Freud claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Really short of time, because I have an exam today (it is on theory so at least I am partially revising!)

---

Oh good luck. Concentrate on your test. This can always wait. What ever happened to Jozanny? :lol:

Quote:

---

Did I answer your questioning then with this part, or do you still feel the way you do above?

Again it doesn’t matter when Freud wrote this down at all, in fact he takes the term from Greek mythology which was around long before Freud! It is true that the Oedipal complex is usually ascribed to the boy loving the mother, although it can be the other way around – here the boy figure is taken as Miles and the mother figure the Governess.

---

Yes, I understand your point. I disagree, and if i were in a professional literatrue critic, I would be a dissenting voice in such an approach to literature. I'm fully aware of that view and it dominates the university system. Frankly it's college professors making themselves the equivilant of the artist and justifying their careers and publications.

Quote:

---

Because it is not the same thing as imposing a 20th century ideas onto earlier societies which are very different to ours – because I agree with you here we can’t impose our own ideologies onto past societies (even if it is hard not to). However, doing so via theory is not the same thing because it attempts to explain and understand things in the original context - so Marxist theory (in a literary sense) looks at the structures and institutions of that society and not ours etc, etc.

---

Yeah, I don't care for those readings either. If a social element is important to the story, put it forth. But to impose a theory onto a story that the author had no intention of implying, I don't think that's a valid way to read literature. So why stop at freudian, or Marxian, or feminist theories? Why are there Christian theories (Miles could have been taken over by the devil) or a capitalist theory (The Governess was out to sell her story ;)) or biological theory (the lack of dopamine in the Governess's brain caused her to be delusional)? Those aren't the best examples, but you can see my point. Why is it that all those theories happen to be part of left wing constructs? Is it just possible that it's because over 90% of literature professors are politically on the left? I think there is a relationship there. I'm not claiming their promoting their politics, but it's how they see the world. And therefore that proves that the critic is imposing his views into the work.

Quote:

---

Oh please don’t rest the entire Freudian point of view on this, it is just part of the overall picture. Yes the ending is incomplete because I sure that James is purposely seeking an open sort of ending – which is of course much more fun.

---

I'll have something to say on that later in a day or so. If James intended to end it with the ambiguity, I think the story would be joke and hardly worth anyone's time.

Quote:

---

Author intention ouch! I’ll come back to that another time... Certainly there are huge weaknesses in the Freudian point of view from a psychological and a literary point of view, huge problems. However I don’t agree that we must therefore totally dismiss everything in a black and white, right or wrong manner. Some elements of psychoanalysis are interesting and useful, therein lies its value if nothing else. I mean the ghost/vision debate via Freud in this text has been going, I think, since about 1934!

---

I can understand someone in 1934 reading it that way. But today we know Freud is wrong, so unless james is intentionally using Freud, i see no reason to bring it up.

Quote:

---

I might add that when it comes to using theory in general the very act of interpreting a text means, as Barry says, a person is likely to be using theory “whether they are aware of it or not”. I mean even on a basic level anyone who has ever used symbolism – (white represents purity, a candle flame hope/light) is in part using/interpretation from a psychoanalytical point of view – in transferring or substituting one image for another, which is the basis for a Freudian reading.

---

I'm certainly for using literary theory. I support New Criticism and Formalism as approaches to reading literature, and frankly they are in their way modifications to Aritotle's approach. I have a problem with the critic not remaining objective and imposing his world view into the work of someone not familiar with it and could never have thought of it in the first place.

Quote:

---

Overall, I am concerned with not having to tie the text down to one particular “correct” reading because I don’t think the very best of literature works like that. Certainly theory is not a threat to the art neither does it reduce the status of the author, if anything it supports wider interpretations which only opens and enriches the experience of reading.

---

I'm open for a critic in laying out options, but they have to be objective options. I've accepted the possibility that James could have intended the freudian reading of this story. I'm going to weigh the various possibilities in a post later this week or over the weekend.

Quote:

---

That's a bit of a surprise, I think this little story is quite compelling, though one a first reading I wasn't utterly convinced myself if I recall, it tends you very much grow on you though, or at least it did me and others I know.

---

I'm with Gladys on that. It would seem rather superficial if that were it. But I've only read this once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I don't think real ghosts and a psychological reading of the story are mutually exclusive. The ghosts might exist, but the governess's presentation of them in her manuscript might be colored by her psychological state. In fact, I would be surprised if it wasn't. We know that she was rather overwrought by loneliness and her unexpressed feelings for the gentleman uncle. If the ghosts are not outright creations of her condition, they certainly will be changed in her representation of them.

---

Yes, i agree with that. I may have even alluded to that in my post where I delineated my reading. Not sure if I did. That's part of the "turn of the screw" in that we turn from believing her to doubting her to fianlly accepting her visions. Her psychological state is critical to the story. It's the specific claim of Freudianism that I rejected and now perhaps hold as a possibility, though a remote possibility.

Quote:

---

She may have seen ghosts, but how was she able to attribute such malignant intentions to them so quickly? When she notices Quint outside the parlor window, she immediately knows that he looked for someone else? How does she know this? Even supposing the reality of Quint's apparition, the governess is clearly adding something. Her interpretations just seem to facile--unless you interpret her as some kind of medium who can sense these things. She also positions herself as the sole defender of the children, and portrays the rest of the servants as bumbling illiterates. She won't even alert the uncle after the situation has clearly become a crisis. Increasingly, she sees herself in grand and heroic terms. This isn't exactly a level-headed response to what she's seen. Again, the story seems to be pointing to the alarmingly aberrant mind of the governess, and none of this conflicts with the reality of the ghosts.

---

I agree with all of that. Frankly like I said somewhere, the genre itself requires a nervous young lady proned to romanticizing. But there is a leap of thought to go from that to the claim of freudian repression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Her psychological state is critical to the story. It's the specific claim of Freudianism that I rejected and now perhaps hold as a possibility, though a remote possibility.

---

Yeah, I completely agree. In fact, I don't think we've done a good enough job distinguishing different psychological interpretations from each other. There's quite a difference between saying that the governess has pent up feeling that she displaces into delusion, and saying that governess is experiencing Oedipal sublimation. I think you made it clear which of those interpretations you prefer. What I'm saying, though, is that your interpretation and Neely's are just different species of psychological readings, and that neither exclude the possibility that the ghosts are real. Your last post was making it seem like we have to choose between a psychological reading (whether Freudian or not) and the reality of the ghosts. It tempting to slip into that either/or interpretation, but I think that kind of reading misses a lot of this story's thematic content. As I was saying above, I think much of the story is about the degree to which we pursue certainty and evil in a place that promises neither conclusively. To say that the ghosts are either entirely real or entirely delusion would cover up this question--or, at least, reduce it to a simple choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

if i were in a professional literatrue critic, I would be a dissenting voice in such an approach to literature. I'm fully aware of that view and it dominates the university system. Frankly it's college professors making themselves the equivilant of the artist and justifying their careers and publications.

Yeah, I don't care for those readings either. If a social element is important to the story, put it forth. But to impose a theory onto a story that the author had no intention of implying, I don't think that's a valid way to read literature. So why stop at freudian, or Marxian, or feminist theories? Why are there Christian theories (Miles could have been taken over by the devil) or a capitalist theory (The Governess was out to sell her story ) or biological theory (the lack of dopamine in the Governess's brain caused her to be delusional)? Those aren't the best examples, but you can see my point. Why is it that all those theories happen to be part of left wing constructs? Is it just possible that it's because over 90% of literature professors are politically on the left? I think there is a relationship there. I'm not claiming their promoting their politics, but it's how they see the world. And therefore that proves that the critic is imposing his views into the work.

I can understand someone in 1934 reading it that way. But today we know Freud is wrong, so unless james is intentionally using Freud, i see no reason to bring it up.

---

That's a lot to say so quickly. It sounds like you've got four main problems with contemporary literary theory--and maybe Freudian readings in particular:

1) That it was developed and practiced by self-important professors

2) That it reflects a leftist world view

3) That Freudianism is discredited

4) That certain theories misplace readers attention onto the critics rather than the authors

The first points may be true, but it doesn't really prove anything one way or another. Yes, there are scholars who put their careers over knowledge, but that doesn't necessarily mean their ideas are wrong. It just means they're unpleasant people. Even if your ad hominem is a fair one, it doesn't really change my view of theory.

Similarly, I'm willing to concede the second point, but I don't think it's a reason not to trust theory. Sure, much of theory reflects the leftist atmosphere of Humanities Departments. Yet this doesn't mean that theory is wrong--it just means that theory is limited.

The third point is most damning for Freudianism, and it's why psychoanalytic readings receive the skepticism they do--even from theorist. This is stumbling block for most Freudian critics, and I don't see much of a way around it. I don't think this is true of all theory, though. It's a specific criticism of Freud.

The last point is the most complex. It sounds like what you're complaining about here is what called "the hermeneutics of suspicion"--a familiar phrase probably. I think you're saying that critics should interpret the text as something that's completely aware of itself--something that's consciously trying to create an effect, and either succeeds or doesn't. "The hermeneutics of suspicion," though, argues that the text works its effect in bad faith. It unconsciously bears the marks of the situation in which it was created. Hypothetically, from this perspective, a critic who understands these unconscious messages in the text could claim that they're superior to the author who wrote it--since they see more of the work than the author does. This seems to be your complaint. Yet I think this misses the point. It doesn't matter who is superior--critic or author. Critics are just trying to understand the text, and to do so means that they have to look at what the author consciously expresses and what the author unconsciously expressed. Clearly, there are things that are not meant to be said that somehow come out when one is speaking. When Douglas is describing the governess, it slips out that he's quite enamored of her--even though he never says so directly. When you put on certain clothes, it probably reflects your gender, class, and even nationality, but when you were dressing you probably were not thinking: I'm going to put on my middle-class, male, American outfit today. Things slip out when anyone makes a decision. "The hermeneutics of suspicion" are merely one way of decoding those things that slip out. Any critics who is honest about what they're studying has to admit that there are things like this in a text. If it gives them a big head, I guess that's a personal problem, but it isn't an interpretative one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

On a Thursday evening four days after Christmas Eve, Douglas tells his tale, over more than one night, about several months at Bly, from June to summer.

---

Good catch. I'm not observant enough for those kind of things, and I probably would have just believe the three day timeline until I reread the story again years later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

like Virgil says it is not built upon that solid a ground - but this doesn't dismiss the whole thing entirely

---

When someone says something doesn't stand on solid ground, usually they're trying to dismiss that thing. It sounds like you have some way of rescuing the Freudian reading, but you didn't put it into your last post. Or maybe I overlooked it. I think we've established that James may have been aware of Freud's 1895 work, but Freud's early publications don't really go into the kind of sublimation and Oedipal complex you're talking about. That doesn't come out until well into the twentieth-century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Personally, I like to keep them all as open as much as possible because my main interest is in opening the reading as much as possible

---

That's a good outlook to have, and I hope I'm not shutting down any readings prematurely, but I think a comprehensive Freudian reading built on sublimation is a little weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

(On a side note I think I did OK in my last ever exam, hurrah

---

I'm sure all that stopping and thinking with Barry must have helped you.

Jozanny huffed and puffed off for a bit, but damn you have been busy, and Neely, you were dead on about the governess and evil. James just stuns me to silence at times, with how much he achieves, so simply.

Gladys, I thought the obvious allusion to the importance of three within Christian symbolism comes here, despite that I may have mischaracterized:

Quote:

---

Poor Douglas, before his death -- when it was in sight -- committed to me the manuscript that reached him on the third of these days and that, on the same spot, with immense effect, he began to read to our hushed little circle on the night of the fourth. The departing ladies who had said they would stay didn't, of course, thank heaven, stay: they departed, in consequence of arrangements made, in a rage of curiosity, as they professed, produced by the touches with which he had already worked us up. But that only made his little final auditory more compact and select, kept it, round the hearth, subject to a common thrill.

---

Whether it relates to the Trinity or the Resurrection? Miles may not have literally died, as we have to remember "his heart stopped" is a figure of speech, though of course he may have literally died in the governess's embrace.

Neely, I may be doing an article on TOS, as I have been in conference with certain authorities, and if I might quote you, even informally, I will ask if that is okay when I am ready. Actually you might consider an article yourself, truly. When you are on you really know how to slant a perspective.

With regard to literary theory, I embrace any methodology that extracts meaning inherent in a text. Freud, for instance, seems to offer little of substance for any field of endeavour!

I do agree with Quark that, whatever the psychology, the two ghosts may well be real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

If James intended to end it with the ambiguity, I think the story would be joke and hardly worth anyone's time.

---

Owing to ambiguity I rated the book merely 'Average' and patiently await enlightenment before I repent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Neely, I may be doing an article on TOS, as I have been in conference with certain authorities, and if I might quote you, even informally, I will ask if that is okay when I am ready. Actually you might consider an article yourself, truly. When you are on you really know how to slant a perspective.

---

Yes sure, no problems, pm me if you need any further details, thank you very kindly. :blush: I don't know which part you meant (or even if it was me) but you are of course welcome indeed.

Quote:

---

Owing to ambiguity I rated the book merely 'Average' and patiently await enlightenment before I repent.

---

Quote:

---

If James intended to end it with the ambiguity, I think the story would be joke and hardly worth anyone's time.

---

I don’t understand why any story with an open ending would automatically qualify that text as “average” or a “joke”. Here, if we can’t say one way or another if they were ghosts or not, what bearing does that have on it at all? By the same stroke, is J. B. Priestley’s "An Inspector Calls" also a throwaway text too? Is every text with an air of mystery no good? Is every text that doesn’t provide definitive closure to be treated in the same way?

Quote:

---

That's a good outlook to have, and I hope I'm not shutting down any readings prematurely, but I think a comprehensive Freudian reading built on sublimation is a little weak.

---

Yes it probably is, but I am betting that there are very few, if any, fully compressive readings of this text in existence. I don’t see the harm though in detailing particular elements of interest – I’ve not thought about it all that much to be honest - I just dashed off a few things from when I read it a couple of years ago.

Quote:

---

When someone says something doesn't stand on solid ground, usually they're trying to dismiss that thing. It sounds like you have some way of rescuing the Freudian reading, but you didn't put it into your last post. Or maybe I overlooked it.

---

Not really. I’m far from an expert in Freud, or particularly like psychoanalysis that much, but I think the sublimation as an explanation for the visions just about holds its ground. I didn’t go into detail above because of time, but I think a mentioned a few things previously.

Quote:

---

I think we've established that James may have been aware of Freud's 1895 work, but Freud's early publications don't really go into the kind of sublimation and Oedipal complex you're talking about. That doesn't come out until well into the twentieth-century.

---

I don’t see what that has got to do with it. I’m completely in disagreement, massively so, with Virgil that the author, for some reason, has to be aware of the theory before it is OK to read the text through it. Whether James was aware of Freud or not, has very little bearing on my own thoughts in the matter.

As Neely has indicated, psychoanalytic readings of the story have been around for a long time. Like Neely, I feel TOS does not necessarily have to be analyzed along classic psychoanalytic lines, but it is a useful platform.

Virgil, I think your hostility to Freud goes a little too far. He did revolutionize the way traditional western medicine looked at mental illness--which he recognized was a matter of degree, and he was one of the first to do so. My bosses respected both William James and Freud, and both men are still relevant historical scientists.

I also think, and this is a fresher view for me, that James is raising subtle questions about how believers contemplate salvation. Dickens fondly bludgeons his readers over their heads, and James, in answer to Charles, presents a more nuanced challenge, showing us that we all have degrees of self-interest, which invariably corrupts our souls, even Douglas, and he is only sketched in as a man impacted by an extraordinary experence, though I suspect he is much like Stransom in The Altar of The Dead.

I think James often challenges his readers with spiritual questions, and I will come at this with more vigor if I can manage to present something for publication in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

What I'm saying, though, is that your interpretation and Neely's are just different species of psychological readings, and that neither exclude the possibility that the ghosts are real. Your last post was making it seem like we have to choose between a psychological reading (whether Freudian or not) and the reality of the ghosts. It tempting to slip into that either/or interpretation, but I think that kind of reading misses a lot of this story's thematic content. As I was saying above, I think much of the story is about the degree to which we pursue certainty and evil in a place that promises neither conclusively. To say that the ghosts are either entirely real or entirely delusion would cover up this question--or, at least, reduce it to a simple choice.

---

I see what your saying, and you're looking at the ideas in a rather abstract way. I'm looking at the story as an integrated work of art, and to have the ghost as inconclusive after a 100+ pages is theatrical manipulation - jerking the reader. I'll have more on this possibility later.

Quote:

---

That's a lot to say so quickly. It sounds like you've got four main problems with contemporary literary theory--and maybe Freudian readings in particular:

1) That it was developed and practiced by self-important professors

2) That it reflects a leftist world view

3) That Freudianism is discredited

4) That certain theories misplace readers attention onto the critics rather than the authors

---

Sure I can agree with all those, though I would phrase #2 differently. "That it reflects a leftist world view" is a symptom of critics projecting their world view unto a work. It's not that the overwhelming college literature professors are left wing (though I don't care for that either ;)) but that they impose it on art, art that in many cases was written in an era when current ideas weren't even conceptualized. Yeah that's a serious problem.

Quote:

---

The first points may be true, but it doesn't really prove anything one way or another. Yes, there are scholars who put their careers over knowledge, but that doesn't necessarily mean their ideas are wrong. It just means they're unpleasant people. Even if your ad hominem is a fair one, it doesn't really change my view of theory.

---

I would say that the treatment of art to be mere texts is a devaluation of the art. New Historicism (taken from all the deconstruction crap) goes so far as to claim that a telephone book is as much as a text as Hamlet. And that is not only the critic imposing himself on a work, but actually being superior to it.

Quote:

---

Similarly, I'm willing to concede the second point, but I don't think it's a reason not to trust theory. Sure, much of theory reflects the leftist atmosphere of Humanities Departments. Yet this doesn't mean that theory is wrong--it just means that theory is limited.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

The third point is most damning for Freudianism, and it's why psychoanalytic readings receive the skepticism they do--even from theorist. This is stumbling block for most Freudian critics, and I don't see much of a way around it. I don't think this is true of all theory, though. It's a specific criticism of Freud.

---

Yes, I was being specific to Freud. Once such a theory is proven to be wrong, then any further interpretation of a work through it is flawed, except if the author is intentionally using it or believes in it. Frankly this is really moot. There aren't any real freudian critics out there any more. It's a hold over from the 1930's through 50s when Freud was credible.

Quote:

---

The last point is the most complex. It sounds like what you're complaining about here is what called "the hermeneutics of suspicion"--a familiar phrase probably. I think you're saying that critics should interpret the text as something that's completely aware of itself--something that's consciously trying to create an effect, and either succeeds or doesn't.

---

Yes. That's essentially New Criticism, formalism, or Aristotilianism. That is the true and lasting approach to reading literature. All these other "-isms" will fade into posterity over time.

Quote:

---

"The hermeneutics of suspicion," though, argues that the text works its effect in bad faith. It unconsciously bears the marks of the situation in which it was created. Hypothetically, from this perspective, a critic who understands these unconscious messages in the text could claim that they're superior to the author who wrote it--since they see more of the work than the author does. This seems to be your complaint.

---

I'm not claiming it's in bad faith. It's just a wrong headed approach. A hundred years ago, there was probably 1/20th of the number of literature professors in the world that there are today and 1/20th of the journals. Those journals need to be filled and those professors need to do something and they compete with each other for the next break through. They all want to be the next I.A. Richards or Lionel Trilling or Harold Bloom. Such quanatity and outlet and competition generates a lot of crap, though in all fairness it generates good criticism as well.

Quote:

---

Yet I think this misses the point. It doesn't matter who is superior--critic or author. Critics are just trying to understand the text, and to do so means that they have to look at what the author consciously expresses and what the author unconsciously expressed. Clearly, there are things that are not meant to be said that somehow come out when one is speaking. When Douglas is describing the governess, it slips out that he's quite enamored of her--even though he never says so directly. When you put on certain clothes, it probably reflects your gender, class, and even nationality, but when you were dressing you probably were not thinking: I'm going to put on my middle-class, male, American outfit today. Things slip out when anyone makes a decision. "The hermeneutics of suspicion" are merely one way of decoding those things that slip out. Any critics who is honest about what they're studying has to admit that there are things like this in a text. If it gives them a big head, I guess that's a personal problem, but it isn't an interpretative one.

---

Those are all details the author chose, and if they fit into the story line, then fine. That is not what I'm objecting to. It is one thing to look at those items, it is another to say that the character is sexually repressed because of he is wearing tight jeans, especially if the author was before Freud. That is to draw a conclusion based on the critic's ken of knowledge, or better stated outside the author's ken of knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Virgil, I think your hostility to Freud goes a little too far. He did revolutionize the way traditional western medicine looked at mental illness--which he recognized was a matter of degree, and he was one of the first to do so. My bosses respected both William James and Freud, and both men are still relevant historical scientists.

---

I didn't think I was hostile to Freud, so much as condemning imposing an idea into a work that wasn't intended. But yes, i guess i don't have much respect for Freud. He was in fact a fraud. I think there are books out there that revealed he had falsified his work to reach many of the conclusions he did, and that at a minimum his scientific method was crap. He made far expansive conclusions on a sample of one or two people. As science, his theories aren't credible at all. You can look it up.

I know something about the case history controversy surrounding Freud and Breuer, if this is what you mean by calling a man who spent his life trying to improve mental health treatment "a fraud," but I think your leap is a bit too expansive, even though I understand some feminist theory hostility to Freud's work. Feminist theory hostility is no stranger to James feminine psyches either, but I am not sure that conflict is one of my primary concerns.

Let me get back to the story. I was at the library today and I found the Norton Critical Edition of TOS, and of course those editions have essays and original source material after the story. I've been reading and let me list a few things I've come across so far.

1. In none of the source materials (Jame's notebook and letters and his preface to the work) does he mention Freud anywhere.

2. The germ of the story was a annecdote told to him by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. Where ever he mentions the ghosts, it sounds to me he's referring to them being real. Here's an important passage from the Preface:

Quote:

---

"Good ghosts, speaking by book, make poor subjects, and it was clear that from the first my hovering prowling blighting presences, my pair of abnormal agents, would have to depart altogether from the rules. They would be agents in fact; there would be laid on them the dire duty of causing the situation to reek with an air of Evil. Their desire and their ability to do so, visibly measuring meanwhile their effect, together with their observed and described success--this was exactly my central idea; so that, briefly, I cast my lot with pure romance, the appearences conforming to the true type being so little romantic."

---

Of course you could probably read that different way. :lol:

4. Critics seem to differ as to whether the ghosts were real. Even before the 1934 essay by Edmund Wilson that first introduced the Freudian idea, some critics believed that the Governess was hallucinating.

5. There seems to be a consenus that only the Governess sees the ghosts, and that the children are led to believe what she says.

I've decided to re-read the work. It's worth it. This discussion has inspired me to try to come to some conclusion on it. Plus, now I've got a bunch of essays to go through, and it feels like I'm back in college. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

but I think the sublimation as an explanation for the visions just about holds its ground. I didn’t go into detail above because of time, but I think a mentioned a few things previously.

---

I was just trying to get you to spell it out a little more. There are a number of possible psychological and Freudian readings, and I wasn't sure what exactly you were driving it. You could be saying that the ghosts are an invention of the governess, and that she projects her feelings for the gentleman uncle onto the ghosts. This really wouldn't be sublimation so much as it would be projection.

Another possible reading is that the ghosts are real, and that she diverts her feelings for the gentleman uncle into defending the children. This would be sublimation. Sublimation is the process of diverting illicit desires into some socially acceptable behavior. In The Turn of the Screw, the governess might have to sublimate her desire for the uncle because he is unobtainable. She could do so by focusing on protecting the children from a threat--since that would be something socially acceptable.

Or, perhaps the ghosts are invention of the governess that she projects her sexual desires onto, and she's sublimating her feelings by focusing on shielding the children from a perceived threat. That would combine both of the above readings.

Still another reading is that the governess is sublimating her sexual urges by focusing on defending the children, but the ghosts represent her sexual urges reemerging after being concealed by sublimation. In this reading, the sublimation wouldn't be entirely successful. The ghosts constantly remind her of her unfulfilled desires.

Those are just four possible psychological readings of the ghosts and the governess. I could keep offering up more suggestions, but it might be easier if you explained what it is you were going for. I think the fourth option I gave was the coolest, but the first one seems more in line with the story. Maybe you have something else in mind, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Owing to ambiguity I rated the book merely 'Average' and patiently await enlightenment before I repent.

---

You don't have to defend your rating, but I'm curious why ambiguity is drawback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I also think, and this is a fresher view for me, that James is raising subtle questions about how believers contemplate salvation. Dickens fondly bludgeons his readers over their heads, and James, in answer to Charles, presents a more nuanced challenge, showing us that we all have degrees of self-interest, which invariably corrupts our souls, even Douglas, and he is only sketched in as a man impacted by an extraordinary experence, though I suspect he is much like Stransom in The Altar of The Dead.

---

Wow, you're pretty harsh on Douglas. Do you think he's really "corrupt[ed]" by "self-interest"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Let me get back to the story.

---

It's probably best if we all do that. If you want me to respond to the post before this, I can PM you or something. I think it would lead the thread away from its topic, though, if we really got into Freud and literary theory too much here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I've decided to re-read the work. It's worth it. This discussion has inspired me to try to come to some conclusion on it. Plus, now I've got a bunch of essays to go through, and it feels like I'm back in college. :D

---

And your research has paid off already. I think the points you make above are key to understanding the story--particularly that bit from the Preface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Wow, you're pretty harsh on Douglas. Do you think he's really "corrupt[ed]" by "self-interest"?

---

Douglas is not fully fledged as a character, but yes. I think he is either the model for or modeled on Stransom, as I've mentioned. James presents him sympathetically, of course, but he is besotted with the woman, and her adventure, or both. This is not to say he is a liar, or doesn't mean well, but he sat on this, kept her and her manuscript a secret, until what we may presume to be his old age. It bespeaks obsession, and obsessions transform.

I have to go back and read Virgil's posts again and I shall. I'm also very impressed with the discussion. You have all kept me on my toes, so we all deserve a hand, and I think Henry is pleased. I feel him with me now and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I think he is either the model for or modeled on Stransom, as I've mentioned.

---

That probably means more to you than it does to me. I'm not so well-read on James. In fact, I could count the number of Henry James stories I've read on one deformed, six-fingered hand: The Aspern Papers, Portrait of a Lady, The Bostonians, The Turn of the Screw, The Golden Bowl, Daisy Miller. You'll have to explain the Stransom comparison to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

James presents him sympathetically, of course, but he is besotted with the woman, and her adventure, or both. This is not to say he is a liar, or doesn't mean well, but he sat on this, kept her and her manuscript a secret, until what we may presume to be his old age. It bespeaks obsession, and obsessions transform.

---

I completely agree with that. His estimation of the governess is clearly suspect if he's as enamored of her as Mrs. Griffin seems to believe. Of course, Mrs. Griffin is a bit of a ditz, so I'm not sure if we should believe her. She seems a little overeager to draw these kinds of connections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

That probably means more to you than it does to me. I'm not so well-read on James. In fact, I could count the number of Henry James stories I've read on one deformed, six-fingered hand: The Aspern Papers, Portrait of a Lady, The Bostonians, The Turn of the Screw, The Golden Bowl, Daisy Miller. You'll have to explain the Stransom comparison to me.

---

Not a bad selection at all Quark; when you are of a mind try this one. . What can I say Altar is about? Living in memory? Not living at all but feeding on those who do? It is definitely James at his most Catholic. The French director Truffaut made a movie adaptation.

My most beloved works by James are all of three:

The Portrait of A Lady
The Beast In The Jungle
and
The Altar of the Dead

I could not live without these--not that I haven't read almost everything, but these--they are sheets of soul music that makes everything worth it. I am going to sleep now:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I don’t understand why any story with an open ending would automatically qualify that text as “average” or a “joke” ... Is every text that doesn’t provide definitive closure to be treated in the same way?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

You don't have to defend your rating, but I'm curious why ambiguity is drawback.

---

I adore the majestically obscure endings in such works as Dostoyevsky's The Idiot, Woolfe's To the Lighthouse, Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things, Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Ibsen's Ghosts. All of them offer the possibility of a preferred interpretation. The ending in The Turn of the Screw seems to me impenetrable, simpler, emptier, and therefore of less enduring interest. I find less to ponder, less to inspire. While 'definitive closure' is unnecessary in a novel, the potential for closure is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

5. There seems to be a consenus that only the Governess sees the ghosts, and that the children are led to believe what she says.

---

A consensus whether or not the ghost are deemed real, I presume?

Quote:

---

I've decided to re-read the work. It's worth it. This discussion has inspired me to try to come to some conclusion on it. Plus, now I've got a bunch of essays to go through, and it feels like I'm back in college.

---

That’s cool!

Quote:

---

I was just trying to get you to spell it out a little more. There are a number of possible psychological and Freudian readings, and I wasn't sure what exactly you were driving it.

---

Yes, ok that’s far enough. I think like Virgil though, I really need to return to the text and to gather my thoughts a little better. In short, I don’t see the ghosts as real ghosts at all, but as figments of the governess’s imagination as a result of pent up sexual frustration/repression. I was thinking sublimation mixed with transference really, to answer for the visions of Jessop and Quint. Sublimation, in that she believes that these figures really after the children – which would but her in a socially noble position as defender of the children - mixed with transferring or projecting her love for the master onto the image of Quint - which would explain why he is being classed as an “actor” wearing the master’s clothes etc, etc. I can piece together a few things later today or tomorrow maybe.

As an aside there was a very good BBC adaptation of this story over Christmas (the BBC are good at such dramatisations) and they went to pains to obviously allow for the psychoanalytical reading, even more so than the book suggests. I don’t know if anybody saw it, but it worth a view if anyone can get hold of it.

Quote:

---

I adore the majestically obscure endings in such works as Dostoyevsky's The Idiot, Woolfe's To the Light House, Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things, Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Ibsen's Ghosts. All of them offer the possibility of a preferred interpretation. The ending in The Turn of the Screw" seems to me impenetrable, simpler, emptier, and therefore of less enduring interest. I find less to ponder, less to inspire. While 'definitive closure' is unnecessary in a novel, the potential for closure is!

---

OK, I think I see what you are getting at, though for me there is plenty to ponder! Of course people have different opinions on such things which is perfectly understandable and right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

It's probably best if we all do that. If you want me to respond to the post before this, I can PM you or something. I think it would lead the thread away from its topic, though, if we really got into Freud and literary theory too much here.

---

No, that's alright. I've had my fill of Freud. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

My most beloved works by James are all of three:

The Portrait of A Lady
The Beast In The Jungle
and
The Altar of the Dead

---

Oh those are my three favorites too. But I would add The Ambassadors to the list. I loved that one too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

I adore the majestically obscure endings in such works as Dostoyevsky's The Idiot, Woolfe's To the Light House, Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things, Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Ibsen's Ghosts. All of them offer the possibility of a preferred interpretation. The ending in The Turn of the Screw" seems to me impenetrable, simpler, emptier, and therefore of less enduring interest. I find less to ponder, less to inspire. While 'definitive closure' is unnecessary in a novel, the potential for closure is!

---

Outstanding point Gladys. There are several approaches to ambiguity for an author. It is appropriate to end a story with the future unresolved, though the issues contained in the story are resolved. For instance in the classic "The Lady or the Tiger" the reader is left with a decision. I don't find that kind of ambiguity troubling. More profound examples of that are the D.H. lawrence novels Sons and Lovers and The Rainbow. But when there is ambiguity on the foundational crux of the story, whether the ghost is real or not, and the author takes us through a 100+ pages and leaves it there, I feel that's cheap and just a trick. There better be a very good reason for that.

Quote:

---

A consensus whether or not the ghost are deemed real, I presume?

---

No. :lol: It seems some think the ghost is real and some don't. That's why I need to read the story again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

What can I say Altar is about? Living in memory? Not living at all but feeding on those who do? It is definitely James at his most Catholic. The French director Truffaut made a movie adaptation.

---

I'll have to give it a read at some point. It really wasn't on my radar until you mentioned it, but if both you and Virgil are supporting it then I'll look it up. I don't think it's a long story, so I'll try to read it before this thread closes.

If I had to compare this story to another Henry James work, though, it would probably be Daisy Miller. I think there's a strong parallel between the governess defending the children and Winterborne trying to discover whether Daisy is innocent. Both characters pry into the lives of others and are obsessed with corruption and evil. Both stories make us question what the root of the obsession is, and whether Winterborne and the governess are making the right decisions. Yet I think I like The Turn of the Screw better on this issue since it leaves this issues undecided. The closure of Daisy Miller makes it seem more moralistic. The ending to The Turn of the Screw is more realistic because we never really know whether we've gone too far or whether the evil we were fighting against is real. It's a judgment that we have to make with limited information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

A consensus whether or not the ghost are deemed real, I presume?

---

No, probably not. The critics seem just as confused by this story as we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

As an aside there was a very good BBC adaptation of this story over Christmas (the BBC are good at such dramatisations) and they went to pains to obviously allow for the psychoanalytical reading, even more so than the book suggests. I don’t know if anybody saw it, but it worth a view if anyone can get hold of it.

---

Yeah, the psychological reading makes the story more interesting, but I don't think it's very present in the text. James seems to have focused on telling a good ghost story in the original, and only vaguely sketched alternate psychological interpretations. I think they're there, and that they make the story more worthwhile. I'm glad the BBC version incorporates them into the story. But, in the end, they're only loosely conceived in the novella.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

That's why I need to read the story again.

---

Everyone's rereading the story, I guess. I probably need another reading myself, but I'm short on time at the moment. Besides, it takes all my effort just to keep up with the thread. It's quite a busy conversation.


Speaking of good conversations, I'm sure we would all have one over Under the Greenwood Tree by Thomas Hardy. It's nominated for the Valentine's Day discussion. Go vote for it here:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=50061

I may look up a particular passage here or there, but I have read it many times, and have much on my plate, so, you will all forgive me if for right now I leave a full rereading for a fresh year.

As to the displeasure of Gladys and Virgil, I will say one or two things and then leave well enough alone, as I know I cannot be brought around to The Idiot and I would fain bring around those who deconstruct James with less sympathy, but

1. To me James very strength is he realizes getting hold of an idea is dangerous, even when it goes against committing himself, like to another man, for instance, or to love in general. I think one of his major themes in all of his work is that passion is a double-edged sword.

2. I believe he is in fact a very spiritual writer, but he wants me, as a reader, to decide for myself which way I want to go, how I choose to see modes of redemption.

3. As to the open ending, love it or hate it, the debate goes on. Honestly, I don't know if the ghosts are real or manifestations at any number of levels, but I can never trust the veracity of any of the three narrative voices, and that is where I have to leave that.

And kasie, Miles last words I think, are directed at the governess, essentially asking if she sees Quint, and calling her the devil. That's how I read it.

4. As to James's humor, one caveat: It is easy to forget that nearly all of his work is a comedy of manner, though be it with serious motifs in play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

A consensus whether or not the ghost are deemed real, I presume?

---

Sorry for my poor English and the consequent misunderstanding. While there is 'consensus that only the Governess sees the ghosts, and that the children are led to believe what she says', I presume there is widespread disagreement on reality of ghosts that only she sees?

In this regard I am most interested in Mrs Grose. Does she see the ghosts? Either way, does she believe in them, is she thoroughly superstitious, or is she just kindly humouring the governess? Why is Mrs Grose so guarded about the past and, in particular, the history of Quint, Jessel and the Master? Is she hiding something sinister as the governess suggests, or simply declining to gossip out of respect for the privacy and reputation of others?

I find myself frustrated that none of these questions about Mrs Grose seem answerable, even tentatively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

And kasie, Miles last words I think, are directed at the governess, essentially asking if she sees Quint, and calling her the devil.

---

Here's ambiguity at its worst: “Peter Quint — you devil!” can equally be read either way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

It is easy to forget that nearly all of his work is a comedy of manner, though be it with serious motifs in play.

---

Like Austen and Dostoyevsky, Henry James is deftly amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

4. As to James's humor, one caveat: It is easy to forget that nearly all of his work is a comedy of manner, though be it with serious motifs in play.

---

There is a quiet wit about everything that Henry James writes. I don't know whether there's any real guffaws in his works, but certainly there's humor. The opening frame of the story is quite funny, as are some of the exchanges between the governess and Mrs. Grose. I particularly like the description the governess gives Mrs. Grose of Quint:

"What's he like?"
"I've been dying to tell you. But he's like nobody."
"Nobody?" she echoed.
"He has no hat."

I would have made that little back-and-forth my signature if it wasn't too many lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

In this regard I am most interested in Mrs Grose. Does she see the ghosts? Either way, does she believe in them, is she thoroughly superstitious, or is she just kindly humouring the governess? Why is Mrs Grose so guarded about the past and, in particular, the history of Quint, Jessel and the Master? Is she hiding something sinister as the governess suggests, or simply declining to gossip out of respect for the privacy and reputation of others?

---

Mrs. Grose is hard to gauge in this story because the governess's view of her is so condescending. It's possible she could be as dimwitted as the governess makes her out to be, but that seems unlikely.

It's also hard to determine her views because she doesn't have any direct contact with the ghosts or the letter about Miles. She's always away from the ghosts or shielded from them in some way, and her illiteracy means she can't read the letter.

I'm not sure if we can really come to any conclusion on her interpretation of events. I tend to think of her as acquiescing to the governess, but secretly doubting her at the same time. I'm not exactly sure what makes me say that, though. I'll have to think about it more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

.....In this regard I am most interested in Mrs Grose. Does she see the ghosts? Either way, does she believe in them, is she thoroughly superstitious, or is she just kindly humouring the governess? Why is Mrs Grose so guarded about the past and, in particular, the history of Quint, Jessel and the Master? Is she hiding something sinister as the governess suggests, or simply declining to gossip out of respect for the privacy and reputation of others......

---

I've been wondering about Mrs Grose for some time and meaning to post some similar thoughts, Gladys. I think she is one of the least reliable characters in the story, along with the uncle. It is Mrs Grose who immediately identifies the apparition as Quint, with no prompting from anyone else: I think she is fully aware of what has been happening and is much relieved that the governess has arrived to shoulder the burden of responsibilty. Her later reluctance to confirm the governess' experiences is an indication of her reluctance to become involved again in events which have previously thoroughly frightened and mystified her. Likewise, I think the uncle is fully aware of what has been going on and by stressing to the governess that he does not wish to be involved, is denying any responsibility for the happenings in his own house. It was he, after all, who left the children to the care of Quint and Miss Jessel; Quint had been in his employ for some time - surely he knew the man's character? I think he feels guilt over how events developed - maybe he had come under Quint's malign influence himself and banished the man to the country to escape from him, only to realise too late the peril in which he had placed his wards.

Now, I have offered no textual backup for this interpretation! But James (William) proposed that events should be interpreted by intuitive means rather than logical deduction, so I'm following Jamesian lines of analysis - and was brother Henry doing the same thing?

Thanks for your interpretation of the line from the end of the story, Jozanny, but I'm still not sure how it should be read - it's the final ambiguity.

Quote:

---

I think the uncle is fully aware of what has been going on and by stressing to the governess that he does not wish to be involved, is denying any responsibility for the happenings in his own house. It was he, after all, who left the children to the care of Quint and Miss Jessel; Quint had been in his employ for some time - surely he knew the man's character? I think he feels guilt over how events developed - maybe he had come under Quint's malign influence himself and banished the man to the country to escape from him, only to realise too late the peril in which he had placed his wards.

---

I don't go along with this reading personally. Mrs Grose says that the master didn't know what he was like, although he was "his" man. I think he just wants to be left alone because he doesn't really have any affection for the children and just wants to carry out his sort of bachelor lifestyle.

As for Mrs Grose being unreliable, possibly, but we of course she her through the governess's eyes, who for me is utterly unreliable being full of wild romantic notions and the overblown image of her self-importance - so much so that it makes you wonder that any of us believes a word she says!

I've nearly re-read this story again and if anything, I am more convinced that we are dealing with visions from a deluded mind and not the ghosts of Quint and Jessel. I'll post something else tomorrow on it if I can.

There are a few stock characteristics to Mrs. Grose. First she's Scottish, which in the perception of the Victorians was an unimaginative person, hard working, deligent, and down to earth. Second, she's older, uneducated, perhaps proned to superstition, but practical. She's the perferct contrast to the Governess.

I said earlier that I would be quite prepared to accept various readings on this text, something along the lines of that I could get out of bed next week and support an entirely different reading. Well, having re-read this I am now hardened in my belief in my interpretation that we are dealing with a deluded, almost certainly repressed, individual who sees the visions as a result of that repression. Even if she is not repressed (which I think she is) she is in my mind clearly deluded and not to be believed, and I can't seriously support any reading that argues for the ghosts as real visitants. Put it this way, if I was on a jury I wouldn't believe her story one bit; I'd send her to a madhouse!

I think in terms of Freud we could use some elements to possibly detail how and why, she has visions, but overall I think that she hangs herself as mentally unstable without these regardless. I've made quite a few notes against the governess, but I haven't got time to write them all out!

In terms of Freud, I think that there is a case for sublimation, transference of some sort and Oedipal feeling towards that of Miles, though, as I say I think it stands perfectly well without Freud that these images are part of her twisted imagination regardless of how we classify them.

Virgil, do you still support a reading alongside that of the ghosts, I know you said you were re-reading it, or has the second read changed your mind a little? I just can’t imagine a strong case to be made for the ghosts as real, outside of minor possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

...she is in my mind clearly deluded and not to be believed, and I can't seriously support any reading that argues for the ghosts as real visitants.

---

Supposing the ghosts are fantasy, how are we to explain the following loose ends?

1. The sudden and mysterious departure and death of the former governess, Miss Jessel.
   
   
2. The significance of Quint's untimely death.
   
   
3. The unsavoury relationship that had existed between Quint and Jessel, and their negative influence on the two children.
   
   
4. The reasons for Miles expulsion from school and his impeccable behaviour on returning home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasie

I've been wondering about Mrs Grose for some time and meaning to post some similar thoughts, Gladys. I think she is one of the least reliable characters in the story, along with the uncle.

---

Let's suppose that Scottish Mrs Grose, and eventually the children, are as deluded as the governess. All mystery and ambiguity are resolved, and we are dealing with mass hysteria, not merely female hysteria. In this case, the conspiracy theories, delusions and exaggerations of Mrs Grose infect our impressionable young governess and her two wards.

Mrs Grose is to blame!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

...... Put it this way, if I was on a jury I wouldn't believe her story one bit; I'd send her to a madhouse!.....

---

But didn't you say you had watched the Beeb's version over Christmas, Neely? I have it recorded to watch after these discussions are over as I don't want a visual interpretation to influence me too much but I caught the last few minutes of the live transmission and couldn't quite work out what was happening. I take it the governess (Oh, I wish she had a name!) was being driven off to the local Asylum, though I did at first think she was being taken to be executed, with the Scripture-reading cleric following the carriage. This would be in your line with your interpretation of her being insane - but how do you interpret that final (non-Jamesian) scene of Flora with the new governess?

Gladys: I wouldn't go quite that far - I just said she was unreliable. :)

Supposing the ghosts are fantasy, how are we to explain the following loose ends?

1. The sudden and mysterious departure and death of the former governess, Miss Jessel.

2. The significance of Quint's untimely death.

3. The unsavoury relationship that had existed between Quint and Jessel, and their negative influence on the two children.

4. The reasons for Miles expulsion from school and his impeccable behaviour on returning home.

Yes there are some interesting points, but I don't really see how they connect to the visions versus ghosts debate (even if that is an over simplification of the "debate"). We take a lot for granted because I see the governess as someone who is quick to run with an idea and "reads into" things that are and aren't there. (See below). So for example these points are only significant because the governess runs with the idea of them as important. For me, these two people died young and that's it. Early death would not have been unusual at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasie

But didn't you say you had watched the Beeb's version over Christmas, Neely? I have it recorded to watch after these discussions are over as I don't want a visual interpretation to influence me too much but I caught the last few minutes of the live transmission and couldn't quite work out what was happening. I take it the governess (Oh, I wish she had a name!) was being driven off to the local Asylum, though I did at first think she was being taken to be executed, with the Scripture-reading cleric following the carriage. This would be in your line with your interpretation of her being insane - but how do you interpret that final (non-Jamesian) scene of Flora with the new governess?

:)

---

I'll not spoil the BBC version for you so I won't say on that point - get back to me when you have seen it though and tell me what you thought. As you expect from TV adaptations though they take the liberty at times, but overall it is a good production.

Do you mean the scene when Flora reacts strongly against the governess? Actually that fits into my reading of the governess as a deluded individual from whom any sane person would want to flee, also covered below.

Here is a rough list of some of my main points against the governess in rough note form (please forgive the messiness of it): (And the high threat of typos.)

1 She constantly “reads into” what other people are saying or thinking and then puts her interpretation on that. She is being manipulative, whether she is aware of it or not. She’s just not to be trusted.

Quote:

---

I only sat there on my tomb and read into what my little friend has said to me the fullness of its meaning p81.

---

Quote:

---

“But none the less, between Miles and me, it’s now all out.”
“All out?” My companion stared. “But what, Miss?”
“Everything. It doesn’t matter I’ve made up my mind.” p85.

---

Quote:

---

“He was looking for someone else , you say – someone who was not you?”
“He was looking for little Miles.” A portentous clearness now possessed me. “That’s whom he was looking for.”
“But how do you know?”

---

Quote:

---

“I know, I know, I know” My exaltation grew. “And you know, my dear!”

---

Quote:

---

“Flora saw!”
... “She has told you so?”
“Not a word – that’s the horror”. P45.

---

Quote:

---

“...if I had “made it up”, I came to be able to give, of each of the persons appearing to me, a picture disclosing, to the last detail, their special marks” p50. (Because you so manipulate Mrs Grose.)

---

I just can't trust the governess, she does this throughout.

2 She has lived a sheltered life and is almost certainly repressed in some way.

Quote:

---

I learnt something, at first certainly – that had not been one of the teachings of my small, smothered life; learnt to be amused, and even amusing, and not to think for the morrow. It was the first time, in a manner, that I had known space and air and freedom, all the music of summer and all the mystery of nature. P25

---

Quote:

---

Eccentric nature of my father. P72.

---

3 Her head is full of romance literature and she constantly imagines that she is playing the part in some big romance. She is very unstable and dreamlike.

Quote:

---

“Well, that, I think, is what I came for – to be carried away. I’m afraid, however.” I remember feeling the impulse to add, “I’m rather easily carried away”. P17.

---

Quote:

---

Was there a “secret” at Bly – a mystery of Udolpho or an insane, an unmentionable relative kept in unsuspected confinement? (Of course the reference to Jane Eyre is also apt as the governess in that story married the master!) p28.

---

Quote:

---

I call it a revolution because I now see how, with the word he spoke, the curtain rose on the last act of my dreadful drama and the catastrophe was precipitated. P77.

---

Quote:

---

The book I had in my hand was Fieldings’s Amelia; also that I was wholly awake. I recall further both a general conviction that it was horribly late and particular objection to looking at my watch. P58. (As with previous encounters her visions come after reading or dreaming.)

---

4 She is highly passionate, this is seen in the overflowing of emotion towards the children. Perhaps this is also part of the escape of her repressed and idealised vision of life?

Quote:

---

With a great childish light that seemed to offer it as a mere result of the affection she had conceived for my person, which had rendered necessary that she should follow me. I needed nothing more than this to feel the full force of Mrs Grose’s comparison, and, catching my pupil in my arms, covered her with kisses in which there was a sob of atonement. P21.

---

Quote:

---

“Oh handsome – very, very,” I insisted “wonderfully, handsome. But infamous”. P48.

---

Quote:

---

“... an imperturbable little prodigy of delightful, loveable goodness”. P52.

---

5 She suffers from a lack of sleep, which by itself is enough to cause visions! On the two days she had no sleep at all and the first hints of visions (strange noises etc) came at this time. It was two weeks later that she saw the first vision of Quint, so we can assume that she slept better after that, but we can be relatively certain from this evidence that her excitability results in poor sleep, which only makes the potential for greater visions more likely.

Quote:

---

But it was a comfort that there could be no uneasiness in a connexion with anything so beatific as the radiant image of my little girl, the vision of whose angelic beauty had probably more than anything else to do with the restlessness that, before morning, made me several times rise and wander about my room. P. 16.

---

Quote:

---

I had better have let it wait till morning, for it gave me a second sleepless night. P19.

---

6 She is full of her own self-importance that goes beyond her position.

Quote:

---

I was strangely at the helm! P18.

---

Quote:

---

I dare say I fancied myself, in short, a remarkable young woman and took comfort in the faith that this would more publicly appear. P26.

---

7 She works hard and only has one hour a day to herself. This is also the point when she saw the first two visions/ghosts I don’t take it as coincidence that the one time of day that she can relax her mind is when the visions first appear.

Quote:

---

In the first weeks the days were long; they often, at their finest, gave me what I used to call my own hour.

---

Quote:

---

“When was it on the tower?”
“About the middle of the month . At the same hour”. P35.

---

8 She is in love with the master or, more importantly perhaps, has been in love with the idea of someone of that status.

Quote:

---

[On Quint] He remained there a few seconds – long enough to convince me he also saw and recognised; but it was as if I had been looking at him for years and had known him always. P32.

---

Quote:

---

“I was carried away in London!”...
“Well, Miss, you’re not the first – and you won’t be the last”. P17.

---

Quote:

---

[She refuses to contact the master even when events go too far] They were too beautiful to be posted; I kept them myself; I have them all to this hour. P76.

---

Quote:

---

My letter, sealed and directed, was still in my pocket. P91.

---

9 She actually says that the visions are in her head!

Quote:

---

What arrested me on the spot – and with a shock much greater than any vision had allowed for – was that sense that my imagination had, in a flash, turned real. He did stand there! P26.

---

Quote:

---

Yet it was not at such an elevation that the figure I had so often invoked seemed most in place. P26.

---

Quote:

---

...and the figure that faced me – a few more seconds assured me – a little anyone else I know as it was the image that had been in my mind. I had not seen it in Harley Street – I had not seen it anywhere. P27.

---

10 Mrs Grose does not see the visions.

Quote:

---

Miss! Where on earth do you see anything? P100.

---

Quote:

---

“I took it from her, by the lake that, just then and there at least, there was nobody.” Italics in was. P104.

---

11Flora does not see the visions (or at least she doesn’t admit to it).

Quote:

---

I see nobody. I see nothing. I never have. I think you’re cruel and I don’t like you. P101.

---

Quote:

---

She persists in denying to you that she saw, or has ever seen, anything? P103.

---

12 Miles does not see them either, or doesn’t admit to it, I can't find evidence at the moment, but I have noted it somewhere.

13 She ruthlessly refuses to contact the master, even when it goes way too far, as covered above in letters.

Freudian elements that may support the visions as actual visions (she also mentions repression, “she would repress every betrayal” p99.):

14 The language used to describe Quint is heavily sexual, more so than at any other time in the whole story. This shows her sexual repression which is perhaps partly to answer for her visions.

Quote:

---

“Tower” “measure” “loomed” “grandeur” p26. “so intimately concerned” p29. He’s tall, active and erect. P36, etc.

---

15 Sublimation is perhaps present in her self-imposed role as protector of the children. Here we could argue that her repression is being released in this form.

Quote:

---

I was there to protect and defend the little creatures. P42.

---

[Well no, you are there to teach].

Quote:

---

I was in these days literally able to find a joy in the extraordinary flight of heroism the occasion demanded of me. P42.

---

Quote:

---

They had never, I think, wanted to do so many things for their poor protectress. P56.

---

Quote:

---

They were at this period extravagantly and preternaturally fond of me. P56.

---

16 Transference could be ascribed to the vision of Quint (she could even see herself as Jessel).

Quote:

---

[On Jessel with Quint] “it must have been also what she wished!” (italics on she) p49.

---

Quote:

---

He gives me a sort of sense of looking like an actor. P36 (Actors of course playing the part of someone else.)

---

17 Oedipal feeling perhaps spill over into her affection towards Miles.

Quote:

---

He bent forward and kissed me. It was practically the end of everything. I met his kiss and I had to make, while I folded him for a minute in my arms, the most stupendous effort not to cry. P67.

---

Quote:

---

He “had” me indeed, and in a cleft stick; for who would ever absolve me, who would consent that I should go unhung, if, by the faintest tremor of an overture, I were the first to introduce into our perfect intercourse an element so dire? P67.

---

Quote:

---

My face was close to his, and he let me kiss him simply taking it with indulgent good humour. “well, old lady?” p90.

---

Quote:

---

We sat there in absolute stillness; yet he wanted, I felt, to be with me. P102

---

.

Quote:

---

Get off with his sister as soon as possible and leave me with him alone. P105.

---

Quote:

---

My voice trembled so that I felt it impossible to suppress the shake.
“Don’t you remember how I told you, when I came and sat on your bed the night of the storm, that there was nothing in the world I wouldn’t do for you?” p114.

---

Quote:

---

The idea of grossness and guilt on a small helpless creature who had been for me a revelation of the possibilities of beautiful intercourse. P115.

---

Quote:

---

My sternness was all for his judge, his executioner...p120.

---

As I say, this is just a list of notes, but I think you can see my point (hopefully) against the governess's position, some of them overlap and support each other, the overall point being that I can find little in support of the ghosts as real figures, at least alongside the points above. There are a couple of points in favour of the ghosts, such as a mention at the start of another ghost story with affecting two children, and a couple of minor points here and there, but overall for me the governess is clearly deluded, and the "ghosts" are surely visions of some sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Virgil, do you still support a reading alongside that of the ghosts, I know you said you were re-reading it, or has the second read changed your mind a little? I just can’t imagine a strong case to be made for the ghosts as real, outside of minor possibilities.

---

I just started the other night. Most of my reading gets done on the weekends (unless it's a poem). I did get through the frame part of the story and it seems that Douglas fully believes the ghosts are real, despite acknowledging the Governess being nervous and in love. So far I don't see anything that would suggest that my original reading is incorrect. Those that would claim the ghost is a hallucination still haven't answered why the story is named The Turn of the Screw. Look at this passage from the openning frame:

Quote:

---

"I quite agree--in regard to Griffin's ghost, or whatever it was--that its appearing first to the little boy, at so tender an age, adds a particular touch. But it's not the first occurrence of its charming kind that I know to have involved a child. If the child gives the effect another turn of the screw, what do you say to two children--?"

"We say, of course," somebody exclaimed, "that they give two turns! Also that we want to hear about them."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Yes there are some interesting points, but I don't really see how they connect to the visions versus ghosts debate

---

Here's the connection. Let's assume the two ghosts are mere visions of the governess - nothing but fantasy. My four questions become critical because they have nothing to do with the governess and her fantasies, yet are fundamental to the story, to the mystery. If the ghosts were real, the four are easily answered! Otherwise the four questions hang disconcertingly in the air at the end.

If the ghosts are fantasy I now blame, as I said before, a neurotic Mrs Grose for starting and fuelling the train of events recounted in the transcript of the governess. This would best explain the respect Douglas has for the old governess, and the prologue narrator for Douglas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I just started the other night. Most of my reading gets done on the weekends (unless it's a poem). I did get through the frame part of the story and it seems that Douglas fully believes the ghosts are real, despite acknowledging the Governess being nervous and in love. So far I don't see anything that would suggest that my original reading is incorrect. Those that would claim the ghost is a hallucination still haven't answered why the story is named The Turn of the Screw. Look at this passage from the openning frame:

---

Yes that is one of the points I have got for the ghosts too, there are one or two other little pointers, but overall the evidence against the governess (as I detailed above) is massive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Here's the connection. Let's assume the two ghosts are mere visions of the governess - nothing but fantasy. My four questions become critical because they have nothing to do with the governess and her fantasies, yet are fundamental to the story, to the mystery. If the ghosts were real, the four are easily answered! Otherwise the four questions hang disconcertingly in the air at the end.

If the ghosts are fantasy I now blame, as I said before, a neurotic Mrs Grose for starting and fuelling the train of events recounted in the transcript of the governess. This would best explain the respect Douglas has for the old governess, and the prologue narrator for Douglas.

---

I think if anybody is neurotic that title surely has to go to that of the governess! I just think that Mrs Grose is a little easily led, though from that a little unreliable. But anyway, I don't think that they do become loose ends if we take it that the governess has visions. I don't take it as significant that two middle aged people died in the Victorian period, their deaths I think means little.

With Miles being excluded from school, again it is an annoying little mystery why he has been, but I don't think it is fundamental to the story either way.

More apt I think is the massive list against the governess detailed above most of which point directly to the idea of visions from a deluded mind. I mean how do you explain the fact that she actually admits to having visions, the fact that she stuggles sleeping, the fact that she is sexually repressed, and a thousand other things?

No, I can't read a single page of the story (almost) without seeing something against the governess and that is where the truth of the matter surely lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Here's the connection. Let's assume the two ghosts are mere visions of the governess - nothing but fantasy. My four questions become critical because they have nothing to do with the governess and her fantasies, yet are fundamental to the story, to the mystery. If the ghosts were real, the four are easily answered! Otherwise the four questions hang disconcertingly in the air at the end.

If the ghosts are fantasy I now blame, as I said before, a neurotic Mrs Grose for starting and fuelling the train of events recounted in the transcript of the governess. This would best explain the respect Douglas has for the old governess, and the prologue narrator for Douglas.

---

Very good points Gladys. I'm reserving any judgements until I do my second reading, but it does feel that there are too many unresolved issues if the ghosts are not real.

It is interesting that the skeptics and believers seem to divide over the ghosts according to our skepticism or belief; I am about 91% with Neely, but reserve that last 9% precisely because Miles goes from angelically divine to sinister in the course of 30 pages or so--if his expulsion amounted to little more than boys being boys, we aren't really treated to much evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

It is interesting that the skeptics and believers seem to divide over the ghosts according to our skepticism or belief; I am about 91% with Neely, but reserve that last 9% precisely because Miles goes from angelically divine to sinister in the course of 30 pages or so--if his expulsion amounted to little more than boys being boys, we aren't really treated to much evidence of that.

---

:lol: Yeah, it's hard to explain Miles if the ghosts aren't real. So you lean to the ghosts aren't real theory? How do you explain the title, The Turn of the Screw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I think if anybody is neurotic that title surely has to go to that of the governess! I just think that Mrs Grose is a little easily led, though from that a little unreliable.

---

Why not call both neurotic; doesn't Mrs Grose feed the fantasies of the governess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I don't take it as significant that two middle aged people died in the Victorian period, their deaths I think means little.

With Miles being excluded from school, again it is an annoying little mystery why he has been, but I don't think it is fundamental to the story either way.

---

If so, am I the only one who vainly scanned every page for answers to these mysteries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

If so, am I the only one who vainly scanned every page for answers to these mysteries?

---

No, no, Gladys. I'm re-reading. I'm looking for all that now.