The Turn Of The Screw Essay

The Turn of the Screw is a novella written by Henry James published close to the turn of the century. The novella tells an undoubtedly gruesome tale of ghosts and the corruption of innocence. However, nearly a decade after its conception, some readers began to question if the story was really about ghosts at all, instead a tale of a sexually repressed young Governess too mad to even have the inkling to self-evaluate. Over a century has passed since the book first made its debut in 1898, and it continues to be discussed and pondered by a plethora of literary critics with no hope of reaching a conclusion. The reason for this is Henry James never meant for there to be a resolution to the problem.

When writing his works James often draws inspiration from the social issues of the time and those he comes in contact with. In the case of The Turn of the Screw James was
inspired to write the tale after a visit with his friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, E.W. Benson, at his country residence. The Archbishop told James of a story that he had been told years prior concerning dead servants and children (Henry). The story told by the Archbishop is known as “The Case of Miss Lucy R.” The tale has many similarities to The Turn of the Screw, from the infatuation with the wealthy and handsome employer, to the retention of crucial letters, to the anxiety felt after accepting their hired position (Cargill). The similarities between the two stories can not be overlooked, or discounted, however “The Case of Miss Lucy R” may itself not have come from the source which James had originally claimed. A statement from the Archbishop’s son stated that the tale “was absolutely new, and neither my mother nor my brother or I had the faintest recollection of any tale of my father’s which resembled it” (Dietrich). It is highly unlikely that if the account did in fact come from the Archbishop that his family would be utterly unaware of its existence. The lack of consistent accountability as to the origins of one of the seemingly most significant inspirations for the book calls into question what else about the story is open for interpretation. It is explained that instead James most likely drew his inspiration for his tale from psychical research. “Henry James based his ghost story, The Turn of the Screw, on an incident reported to the psychical society, of a spectral old woman corrupting the mind of a child” (Roellinger). While he was not a member of the society himself, James had several friends who were, which could very well have supplied him with these accounts. In fact it appears that a number of the governess’s encounters with the ghosts were directly based on stories reported to the society (Dietrich). The origins of the novella itself is ambiguous, therefore it is valid to conclude that the book follows its origins.

James made many clear and intentional choices as to how he characterized the main character, and narrator of the story, the Governess. While the reader never learns the name of the Governess or much of her personal history, there is no shortage of insights into her inner psyche. From the very beginning of the novella, the reader begins to question if there is some psychological issues surrounding the Governess, starting with a simple suspicion of bipolar tendencies and escalating to the fear of potential psychotic madness. She frequently makes mention of her vivid imagination and the emotions she allows to actively control her thoughts, even admitting to Mrs. Grose that she is “rather easily carried away” (Davis). She experiences fits of extreme behavior and emotion, documenting early on that she “had no drop again till the next day”, inferring that she frequently experiences drastic fluctuations, leading to emotional instability. In addition, the Governess also admits herself that she is prone to anxiety and “flights of fancy.” Due to the Governess’s self-characterization and drastic actions there is no way of knowing for sure how she comes to the conclusions she gets to, it can not even be known if there are aspects of the story being left out, or made up, as she is prone to getting “carried away”. The instability of the Governess makes the reader question if she is a reliable source of information. There is no definitive proof that any of the accounts by the Governess are accurate at all. There is “never any reason for supposing that anybody but the governess sees the ghosts… she believes that the children see them, but there is never any proof that they do”. James himself admits that her record of “so many intense anomalies and obscurities-by which I don’t of course mean her explanation of them, a different matter” (The). However, the story is told through a first person point of view, and the tainted recollection of the emotionally unstable Governess is the only lense available to the reader. James consciously made the decision to characterize the Governess as “hysterical, compulsive, overly possessive, tense, excitable, nervous, lacking wisdom, and prone to make faulty judgements” and over all unreliable as a source, yet chose for her to be the only perspective the story is told from for the soul strategic purpose of enhancing the ambiguity of the story (Dietrich).

Those who believe The Turn of the Screw is a cut and dry ghost story are classified as the Formalists, also known as the New Critics, while those who believe the governess is hysterical with built up sexual repression are called the Freudians.
The two interpretations rarely agree with one another and often one side will disprove the other side, unfortunately built on ignoring some of the important points made by the other (Dietrich). No matter the theory given, there are holes that can not seem to be
explained.

“... Freudian reading says that the reason Miles and Flora are behaving strangely towards the governess is because her oppressive and smothering behavior is frightening them. The New Critics explain this same phenomena by believing that the children are in league with the ghosts and are behaving strangely towards the governess due to their corruption. Either of these interpretations could be conceived as true, yet they both ignore some very important points of the other. The New Critic analysis neglects to attend to the fact that the governess has no proof of the children actually seeing the ghost, which is a major factor in the Freudian interpretation. The Freudian analysis, however, fails to reflect thoroughly on Miles’s behavior in the final scene, where he speaks of both Miss Jessel and Peter Quint, which would give evidence that he was aware of their ghostly existence and would support the New Critic theory of it being a true ghost story.” (Dietrich)

If the tale was meant to me solely a ghost story, or solely an account from a maddened young lady, then there would be solid explanations and rationale, instead of partially incomplete speculatory theories. “Both interpretations leave gaps in their analysis, never fully explaining the elusive truths of this story” (Dietrich). James left intentional holes in either story to insure that no matter how anyone interpreted it, their would still be questions that needed answers, leaving his work “committed to lack of commitment” (Leithauser).

“James frequently referred to The Turn of the Screw in correspondence. However, the meanings of many of these references are unclear because James burned the original letters of inquiry to which the letters were replies” (Parkinson). In these such letters, James denies claims made by the inquirer about the book, however there is no way of knowing what exactly he is denying. James made a conscious decision to destroy the only account of the question to his answer, proving once again that he did not want the true intentions of the novella to be known. James’s actions are that comparable to a criminal attempting to destroy any evidence linking himself to a foul deed. However, the only crime James is guilty of is causing countless arguments amongst literary enthusiasts attempting to make sense of a book he purposely created to be ambiguous. Furthermore, “to push the ambiguity even further, James made certain revisions to the 1908 New York version” of his highly controversial novella. He reportedly replaced many verbs and increased the use of the possessive pronoun “my” (Dietrich). These changes could have been as simple as an author displeased with his first revision, but it is possible that after the book had been released for ten years the author made the strategic decision to make slight, yet impactful changes to his work to further confuse his readers and “make jurors of us all” (Leithauser). It is easy to see why “Henry James’s novella The Turn of the Screw has been referred to by scholars as the author’s ‘most puzzling and controversial work’ ” (Critical).
This work stands out not only amongst the rest of James’s oeuvre, but the countless other stories that have earned the title of a “classic”. While no one can say with certainty what James intended when writing his work, and not all of its readers will agree on a theory. However, what all who have been cursed by the haunting uncertainty of the novella can agree that James refuses to come down on either side
(Leithauser).