Christmas Reading '09: The Turn of the Screw

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't have much time to make a proper reply, but I'll do what I can in what time I have for you:

You point out some good observations Neely.

Ha, ha thank you, that is good praise coming from you in these matters.

What you point out as Freudian can be read into any gothic novel. There is always a young lady who can be viewed as repressed. Just look over a dozen gothic novels. This is part of the genre. You can also say that Isabel Archer from James’ Portrait of a Lady, written before Freud in 1880, can be seen as repressed.

Every gothic story has a repressed woman in it.

And so whenever there is a young woman in love, the author is implying Freud? You mean when Madam Bovary dreams and romanticizes, when Anna Karenina dreams and romanticizes, when Catherine Earnshaw dreams and romanticizes, when Jane Erye dreams and romanticizes, the authors are referring to Freud, even though Freud didn’t even think of his theories for decades? Because a character dreams and romanticizes proves nothing. Young women dream and romanticize. In fact, young boys dream and romanticize. Pip (Great Expectations), Tom Sawyer, Tom Jones, and Don Quixote, for crying out loud. Was Don Quixote sexually repressed?

Incidentally, Studies on Hysteria (with Josef Breuer) (Studien über Hysterie, 1895), was the only major work of Freud published before The Turn of the screw, 1898.

Whether James is aware of Freud or not doesn’t matter. Whether the author is consciously using Freud’s ideas or not doesn’t matter. I actually think that James was aware of Freud which is why I asked Jozanny about this earlier, but the point is that any theory can be applied well before the actual theory was formalised, whatever the theory is. It is perfectly acceptable, say, to use psychoanalysis or most other theories in order to examine any literature, even as far back as Greek literature for example – (which is of course where the Oedipal complex is taken from anyway). If we are talking about applying theory to a text it makes absolutely no difference what the author was consciously trying to do or construct – I mean you can even psychoanalyse the author in their motives, though I am not a fan of this much, but it is still there.

You are quite right to point out that any of the characters you mentioned and others “could” be sexually repressed, but you have to argue your case for this on an individual basis. I happen to think that in the case of this story the Governess is much stronger than in other situations, she seems to me quite a strong candidate as a sexually repressed individual.

And sexual freedom? Until the 1960s there was no sexual freedom. In fact 99% of the people before the middle of the 20th century would be considered sexually repressed by your definition. James wouldn’t of thought her limited sexuality as unusual.

Of course I wasn’t referring to waving bras around or wearing mini-skirts, I am quite well aware of the constraints of the Victorian period for women, especially those of the middle or upper classes. This only plays into the fact that she would have had no natural sexual outlets. My minor point about the vicarage is that it is not impossible to image that her life as the daughter of a vicar could have been even stricter, I mean why did James tell us this? Of all the things she could have been she happens to have lived in a vicarage, which would could assume (though we would be making assumptions) that things would have been even tougher? Who knows, it is just a small point, but still it adds to the case.

Oedipal? I thought Freud was quite clear that Oedipal was for a boy loving his mother, and did not apply to women. And Freud did not use the term Oedipal until 1910, a full 12 years after this story was written.

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.

Sure, I agree, that she is attracted to the master, but why are you saying it’s Freudian? She’s actually quite conscious of the fact that she is. There is nothing unconscious about it.

No, there is nothing unconscious about it, there doesn’t have to be. The point is that this woman has no sexual outlets and so they have to be let out in some way, which is why she sees the visions – this is called sublimation.

I have read a number of Jame’s work, and he often uses the word “vulgar” to mean lower class or common. Frankly, that doesn’t necessarily refer to sex. What Douglas is answering is Mrs. Gryphon’s question of “Who was she in love with?” The story doesn’t say in some “literal, vulgar (meaning common story telling) way” but in an artful way. James is concerned with art and the art of story telling, and he is contrasting that with common, vulgar street anecdotes.

Yes OK, that is fair point about the word vulgar, but I wasn’t referring to sex in this instance, more that it won’t tell in a simple way, vulgar outright way, it will be more complicated than that.

when Jane Erye dreams and romanticizes, the authors are referring to Freud, even though Freud didn’t even think of his theories for decades?

I think I have laboured the point about the author not having to be aware of psychoanalysis (or any theory for that matter) but, actually Jane Eyre is a very good text for psychoanalysis, Feminist and for Marxist theory as it happens...

Young women dream and romanticize. In fact, young boys dream and romanticize. Pip (Great Expectations), Tom Sawyer, Tom Jones, and Don Quixote, for crying out loud. Was Don Quixote sexually repressed?

Well, like I said before you can make the case if you want to, though I think some would be more successful arguments than others. In the case of the Governess here I think there is a strong case to answer in terms of Freud. If I had time I would bring more examples, but I don’t at the moment – maybe I will at a later date if necessary.

Oh there is definitely romanticizing going on, that I agree. But that is a different thing from Freudian repression.

Well yes, that is up to you to see how you read it, personally I see it in terms of Freudian repression for the most part, though as I say I don’t think it answers all the points - I don't think James is looking for total closure in this text particularly.

And where does it say that the Governess was “frustrated?” That’s your term, not James’.

Yes that is my term because it is my argument, I think that there is a case to be made in the things I quoted previously and in other points I didn’t have time to include.

What is Freudian about any of this? You are reading into all of that. The full figured draperies? The long glasses? The empty chambers? The dull corridors? That’s Freudian? What??

Empty chambers and dull corridors are very common terms referring to, shall we say, a female dissatisfaction, it's just another peg in the argument.

Now here I agree with you. The ghost clearly is represented in sexual language. In the interest of saving space, I will agree with the rest of your analysis of how she uses sexual terms to describe the ghost. I agree there. But sexual language is a far different thing than a Freudian interpretation.

Well the two often go hand-in-hand with one another, especially if the argument is that she seeking sexual satisfaction, it therefore follows that sexual language is going to slip out in the text.

So let’s say there is a repressed desire here. What’s the point? A Freudian story would go along the lines that the repressed desires would cause her to see a ghost, that the ghost was an outgrowth of the repression. And I would be inclined to agree with this as a Freudian story, if the ghost was imagined. But the ghost turns out to be true and real!!

Yes that would be one of the arguments that I am suggesting. I don’t see that it is conclusive that there is or isn’t an actual ghost in the story, as proof so I think it is very much an open debate, but I take it seriously that she admits at one point that the visions are in her head (as I previously quoted).

Therefore repression had nothing to do with it. And what does Miles’ death at the end have to do with her Freudian expressions? He dies because the ghost took his life. You have to tie her repression with the story line, otherwise it’s just an interesting detail, like she had blond hair. What does her Freudian repression have to do with the story? What is the theme that you are alluding to? All you did was point out a few observations. You have not tied anything into a coherent statement. I repeat, what does her repression have to do with the story?

Well I suppose his death could been taken for the natural conclusion to the Oedipal complex, she smoothers him and consumes him.

Though as I said above I give far more weight to her repression and think that it has to be seriously considered as a result of the ghosts as internal visions due to sexual repression. So if this is the case, it has a lot to do with the story!

[Virgil]

All the passages you quote are most interesting, particularly: 'The figure that faced me was – a few more seconds assured me – as little anyone else I know as it was the image that had been in my mind.'.

Whether or not Freud could pontificate on these passages, I agree with Virgil that the young governess seems an unremarkable romantic of the Mills and Boon variety, complete with subtle sexual innuendo. Many a young woman has consciously seen the world this way since time immemorial, so why invoke Freud? In her transcript, our venerable governess dispassionately recounts her romantic fantasies as an impressionable and insecure girl in a strange place.

Incidentally, Studies on Hysteria (with Josef Breuer) (Studien über Hysterie, 1895), was the only major work of Freud published before The Turn of the screw, 1898.



I agree, but do others?

we seem to have had the same reading.

Ha, ha thank you, that is good praise coming from you in these matters.

Why thank you kindly Neely.

Whether James is aware of Freud or not doesn’t matter. Whether the author is consciously using Freud’s ideas or not doesn’t matter.

Now this is where I fundementally disagree with you. A critic doesn't have the right to impose his vision into the story. Sure I can accept an evolving understanding of a work. Sometimes we get new insights into the culture it was written in or the author writing it, but to impose a 20th century idea into a past work where the author had no conception of that idea is to put tghe critic at the same level as the author. In some cases, with the contemporary modes of analysis (New Criticism, deconstruction, etc.) is to actually put the critic in a superior role to author. That to me is outrageous. I will say that at least freudians don't go so far.

I actually think that James was aware of Freud which is why I asked Jozanny about this earlier, but the point is that any theory can be applied well before the actual theory was formalised, whatever the theory is.

It's possible James was aware of bits and pieces of Freud, and I think te Freudian argument rests on whether the ghosts are real or not. If they are real then the whole Freudian argument collapses. If not real, it think you have a legitamate reading.

It is perfectly acceptable, say, to use psychoanalysis or most other theories in order to examine any literature, even as far back as Greek literature for example – (which is of course where the Oedipal complex is taken from anyway). If we are talking about applying theory to a text it makes absolutely no difference what the author was consciously trying to do or construct – I mean you can even psychoanalyse the author in their motives, though I am not a fan of this much, but it is still there.

You are assuming that Freudian psychology is valid and science. I think it's been pretty much repudiated by contemporary psychology. There is no psychoanalysis, there is no oediple complex, there is no id, ego, or superego. If you can find a map of the brain that shows those parts, let me know. Psychologists don't use word associations and seek hidden memories to find some deep event that caused a person to go crazy. Insanity is biological and medications are used to treat the patient. Patients don't sit on a couch and recount their childhood. Unfullfilled sexual desires doesn't make a person go bonkers. Millions of people go years without sex and there is nothing psychologically wrong with them. Other than for historical purposes, Freud is not taught in psychology departments. The only place that Freud is taught these days is in literature departments. Now ask yourself, if Freudian psychology turned out to be a crock (I say if, because i know you don't accept what I just said ), then everything all these Freudian critics have written is a waste of time. To me the only time it's ligitamate to use Freudian interpretation is if the author intended it to be in the work.

You are quite right to point out that any of the characters you mentioned and others “could” be sexually repressed, but you have to argue your case for this on an individual basis. I happen to think that in the case of this story the Governess is much stronger than in other situations, she seems to me quite a strong candidate as a sexually repressed individual.

I don't know. Jane Eyre, Madam Bovary, you can make the case they are sexually repressed. But ok, I'll acknowledge that the Governess has not had sex.

Of course I wasn’t referring to waving bras around or wearing mini-skirts, I am quite well aware of the constraints of the Victorian period for women, especially those of the middle or upper classes. This only plays into the fact that she would have had no natural sexual outlets. My minor point about the vicarage is that it is not impossible to image that her life as the daughter of a vicar could have been even stricter, I mean why did James tell us this? Of all the things she could have been she happens to have lived in a vicarage, which would could assume (though we would be making assumptions) that things would have been even tougher? Who knows, it is just a small point, but still it adds to the case.

Ok, accepted.

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.

Oh I see your poiint now.

No, there is nothing unconscious about it, there doesn’t have to be. The point is that this woman has no sexual outlets and so they have to be let out in some way, which is why she sees the visions – this is called sublimation.

Well, like I said before you can make the case if you want to, though I think some would be more successful arguments than others. In the case of the Governess here I think there is a strong case to answer in terms of Freud. If I had time I would bring more examples, but I don’t at the moment – maybe I will at a later date if necessary.

This rests on whether the ghost is real or not.

Empty chambers and dull corridors are very common terms referring to, shall we say, a female dissatisfaction, it's just another peg in the argument.

I'm not aware. Ok, I'll accept it. I've led sheltered life.

Yes that would be one of the arguments that I am suggesting. I don’t see that it is conclusive that there is or isn’t an actual ghost in the story, as proof so I think it is very much an open debate, but I take it seriously that she admits at one point that the visions are in her head (as I previously quoted).

Ah, now that didn't occur to me. I will acknowledge there is a Freudian reading possible (on the slim basis that James had heard of Freud's ideas), if the ghosts turn out to be not real. I think the freudian argument rests on this.

Well I suppose his death could been taken for the natural conclusion to the Oedipal complex, she smoothers him and consumes him.

Well, that's unlikely. To be honest, as I read those last pages, I can't figure out what Miles dies of. Something supernatural is the only explanation I can come to.

Though as I said above I give far more weight to her repression and think that it has to be seriously considered as a result of the ghosts as internal visions due to sexual repression. So if this is the case, it has a lot to do with the story!

Yes, I agree if the ghosts are not real. I will have to read the story again one day and defintely keep your ideas in mind. But by your reading, what does the title The Turn of the Screw refer to? It can't be sexual, that would be too vulgar for James.

[Gladys]

I will acknowledge there is a Freudian reading possible (on the slim basis that James had heard of Freud's ideas), if the ghosts turn out to be not real.

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?

Insanity is biological and medications are used to treat the patient.

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.

Freud aside, let us suppose our governess is suffering from a three-day bout of female hysteria. Wikipedia tells us:

Female hysteria was a once-common medical diagnosis, made exclusively in women ... Hysteria was widely discussed in the medical literature of the Victorian era.

Galen, a prominent physician from the second century, wrote that hysteria was a disease caused by sexual deprivation in particularly passionate women: hysteria was noted quite often in virgins, nuns, widows and, occasionally, married women.

A physician in 1859 claimed that a quarter of all women suffered from hysteria ... one American physician expressed pleasure that the country was ”catching up” to Europe in the prevalence of hysteria. One physician cataloged 75 pages of possible symptoms of hysteria and called the list incomplete...

In 1873, the first electromechanical vibrator was used at an asylum in France for the treatment of hysteria. While physicians of the period acknowledged that the disorder stemmed from sexual dissatisfaction, they seemed unaware of or unwilling to admit the sexual purposes of the devices used to treat it.

Even if female hysteria has briefly beset the governess, I still find the novella less than convincing.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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

Now this is where I fundementally disagree with you. A critic doesn't have the right to impose his vision into the story. Sure I can accept an evolving understanding of a work. Sometimes we get new insights into the culture it was written in or the author writing it, but to impose a 20th century idea into a past work where the author had no conception of that idea is to put the critic at the same level as the author. In some cases, with the contemporary modes of analysis (New Criticism, deconstruction, etc.) is to actually put the critic in a superior role to author. That to me is outrageous. I will say that at least freudians don't go so far.

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.

Oh I see your point now.

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.

I'm not aware. Ok, I'll accept it. I've led sheltered life.

Ah, now that didn't occur to me. I will acknowledge there is a Freudian reading possible (on the slim basis that James had heard of Freud's ideas), if the ghosts turn out to be not real. I think the freudian argument rests on this.

Well I suppose his death could been taken for the natural conclusion to the Oedipal complex, she smoothers him and consumes him.

Well, that's unlikely. To be honest, as I read those last pages, I can't figure out what Miles dies of. Something supernatural is the only explanation I can come to.

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.

You are assuming that Freudian psychology is valid and science. I think it's been pretty much repudiated by contemporary psychology. There is no psychoanalysis, there is no oediple complex, there is no id, ego, or superego. If you can find a map of the brain that shows those parts, let me know. Psychologists don't use word associations and seek hidden memories to find some deep event that caused a person to go crazy. Insanity is biological and medications are used to treat the patient. Patients don't sit on a couch and recount their childhood. Unfullfilled sexual desires doesn't make a person go bonkers. Millions of people go years without sex and there is nothing psychologically wrong with them. Other than for historical purposes, Freud is not taught in psychology departments. The only place that Freud is taught these days is in literature departments. Now ask yourself, if Freudian psychology turned out to be a crock (I say if, because i know you don't accept what I just said ), then everything all these Freudian critics have written is a waste of time. To me the only time it's ligitamate to use Freudian interpretation is if the author intended it to be in the work.

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 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.

For it is not about closing the text down to any particular reading, but in keeping it open. I’m quite willing to roll out of bed next week and look for evidence to support a completely different reading along the ghost line or something else entirely. I had a very quick glance at some journal articles yesterday, one of them from the psychoanalytical debate for/against the ghosts/visions. The other suggested that the Governess acts as a medium whose very presence triggers the appearance of the ghosts she is trying to dispel!

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.

Even if female hysteria has briefly beset the governess, I still find the novella less than convincing.

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.

[Quark]

It's possible James was aware of bits and pieces of Freud, and I think te Freudian argument rests on whether the ghosts are real or not. If they are real then the whole Freudian argument collapses. If not real, it think you have a legitamate reading.

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. 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.

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 three days at Bly. Is the recommendation of Douglas reliable?

I noticed Douglas's approval, as well. That would seem to lend credibility to the governess's tale. One wonders whether this is undermined by the suggestion that Douglas is in love with her. Perhaps Douglas's take on the story is clouded by his feelings for the governess.

Also, I don't know how I feel about describing the governess's narration as "ingenuous."

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.

The open ending seems to be there for thematic reasons, as well as fun, although fun is not a word I usually associate with Henry James. A couple of pages back, Virgil talked about the "instability" of the story's meaning which I think is an important point, and the ending plays into this greatly. The story questions, not only whether meaning is reachable, but also the degree to which it's worth pursuing. Remember that it's the governess's insatiable need to know and to make other admit the truth that drives her to extremes. At some points in the story, she's less interested in the welfare the children than she is in exposing the ghosts. To some degree her quest for certainty is what kills Miles. Whether she psychotically smothered him or exorcised his tormenting ghost, the governess's motivation for this is the need to make Miles vindicate her version of events. She wants the certainty of a well-corroborated story. James seems to question whether there ever can be an agreed upon story, and he shows what can happen when one presses too hard for one.

One could say the same thing about the theme of good and evil in this story. In the preface to 1907 edition of his stories, James notes that he was trying to draw the most disturbing picture of evil possible in The Turn of the Screw. I don't know whether he succeeded in doing that, but that's at least what he thought he was doing. I think the same questions that the story poses about the demand for certainty could apply the fight against evil. The governess portrays herself as a noble hero because she tries to expel the evil ghosts from the household, but one wonders whether simply fighting evil makes one good. The governess's actions endanger and scare those around her. At one point, the story draws an equivalence between her and Quint. After the governess sees Quint outside the window, she leaves the house to put herself in Quint's place and looks in, only to scare her assistant. In a sense, she has become as disturbing as the ghosts. More disturbingly, if we take a comprehensive psychological reading of the story and say the ghosts are just the governess's delusions, then we're left to conclude that evil is just the obverse image of our thwarted desires. When we try to fight evil, then, we're just fighting ourselves--or our delusions, at least.

Both of these themes seem to rely on the undecidability of the ending.

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”.

Sure, but just because one is using a theory doesn't mean they accept the validity of all theories. Freud is a controversial figure, and any interpretation based on his work is going to run into resistance.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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 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...)

[Gladys]

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

Where are these three days indicated in the Prologue?

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 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.

[Virgil]

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.

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.

[Virgil]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Virgil]

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.

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.

[Quark]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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]

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:

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.

[Gladys]

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.

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.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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. I don't know which part you meant (or even if it was me) but you are of course welcome indeed.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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

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?

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.

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.

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.