The gothic novel Turn of the Screw, by Henry James, famously divides critics over the story’s ambiguity and faith in the narrator. This psychological thriller forces the audience to either accept the Governess’s accusation that ghosts have corrupted the children under her care, or acknowledge that due to her close proximity to the situation, she unreliably interprets the sequence of events. Throughout the novel, the Governess is blatantly over-enthusiastic and excitable. However, the Governess’s background, Flora’s character changes, and Mrs. Grose’s affirmation of the ghostly identities, advocate in favor of the narrator’s testimony and her reliability to tell the story. Before the main story of Turn of the Screw even begins, we are introduced …show more content…
While it is true that Mrs. Grose never actually saw either Peter Quint or Miss Jessel, she did match their descriptions to the figures the Governess saw. Not only that, but the two ghostly figures are those of the two most recently deceased members of Bly. As for the governess being the only one to ever see them, perhaps that is just a supernatural element of the story. Finally, some critics also hold the Governess accountable for Miles’s death by accidentally suffocating him in an embrace. However, this explanation of the young boy’s death does not quite make sense. The Governess would have to hug Miles extremely tight to have killed him, and it is improbable that she could have done so without Miles trying to fight her off. A more plausible explanation was the boy could have had a previously unknown heart condition, or simply died of fright. If the latter is the case, his fright could be the response to the ghost of Peter Quint. This would make sense with the Governess’s adamant belief in the spirts haunt Bly, and the last words of Miles, “Peter Quint—you devil!” (120) This quote could have possibly acknowledged the existence of the ghost by someone other than the Governess, and give credit to her
The classic ghost story, the Turn of the Screw, is filled with loose-ends and ambiguity. Are the ghosts real or imagined? Is the Governess a heroine or anti-heroine? Are the children really as innocent as they seem? In the novel, Henry James rarely provides an in-depth character that the reader actually gets to know. From the young romantic governess, to the intelligent ten year old, James keeps his characters morally ambiguous in order to further the “Unsolved mystery” style.
In the book The Ghost of Crutchfield Hall, the ghost is Sophia; Florence’s cousin and James’ sister. Aunt adored her, but now that she is dead, Florence, the protagonist, is basically just a replacement of her, but her Aunt clearly thinks that Sophia was much better than Florence is now.
Through out the short novella, 'The Turn of the Screw,' by Henry James, the governess continually has encounters with apparitions that seem to only appear to her. As Miles' behavior in school worsens so that he is prevented from returning, and as Flora becomes ill with a fever, the governess blames these ghosts for corrupting the children, Miles and Flora, and labels them as evil and manipulative forces in their lives. But why is it that these ghosts only seem to appear to the governess even when the children are present at the time of the sightings by the governess? Evidence from the short story leads the reader to believe that the ghosts are not real but are merely the evidence of the fragmenting sanity of the governess.
As humans, we can’t help but to jump to conclusions, but the governess’s assumptions are too misguided and are taken too far without substantial proof. When she first arrives at Bly, she automatically infers that Ms. Grose, although not showing any hint of it, is relieved that the governess is there and simply “wish[es] not to show it” (7). This could be the case, or, as it would seem to any sane person, Ms. Grose could just be unmoved by the governess’s arrival. Her second assumption with Ms. Grose is when they agree on one thing and the governess assumes that “on every question [they should] be quite at one” (9). Some people can hope that a person may have similar ideas to them, but they wouldn’t expect to agree on everything all the time. People understand that we all have different views, but obviously the governess does not. Then, the governess goes on to guess that Miles got kicked out of school because “he’s an injury to others” (11). She has no specific proof that shows he was kicked out for any reason but she is quick to make the inference. She hasn’t talked to the school, the uncle, or even Miles himself to find out what happened, but instead goes along with her own imagination. She also makes many assumptions about the ghost when she hasn’t even been talking to them. She deduces the ghost of Peter Quint “was looking for Miles” but she only had a feeling to base that off of
One issue which, like the rest, can be answered in more than one way is why Mrs. Grose believes in the Governess when she tells her about her ghost encounters. Usually one would second-guess such outlandish stories as the ones that the governess shares throughout the story, yet Mrs. Grose is very quick to believe our borderline-insane narrator. One of the explanations for such behavior could be the underlying fact that Mrs. Grose and the governess have a similar socio-economic background, therefore making them somewhat equal even if the governess does not always seem to think that way. This fact makes them susceptible to trusting and believing each other, and to believing that the ghosts are there, for the people that the ghosts are presenting used to be servants and therefore from a similar socio-economic background. To add on to that, Bruce Robbins proposes in his Marxist criticism of The Turn of the Screw that the idea of a ghost is synonymous to that of a servant, subconsciously making the two lower-class workers of Bly more vulnerable to believe that the ghosts were real; in other words, servants were ghosts....
The issue whether the governess was insane or not may never be solved. Not only because critics seem to be able to find as much evidence as possible to prove their arguments but also, the reliability of the account of the governess colors the whole story with great ambiguity. We are not certain of the state of mind of the governess when she wrote down the story and when she related the story to Douglas. However, as we closely examine the state of mind of the governess, her reliability does appear to be in question. Beidler provided two readings of The Turn of the Screw and in the second one he declared: ¡§the governess saw only what she wanted to see¡¨ (Beidler 9). She was so exhausted from her prolonged insomnia that she envisioned a story with ghosts for herself to fulfill her growth as a governess.
Toward the end of the novel, the governess sees Ms. Jessel and tries to point her out to Flora and Mrs. Grose. However, Mrs. Grose questions the governess by wondering “[w]here on earth does [she] see anything?” (James 70). Even though Mrs. Grose claims that she does not see any figure, it is not certain that she is telling the truth. It is obvious that she is overwhelmed in this scene because Flora is fearful of the governess’ behavior. Mrs. Grose is merely trying to be rational and appeal to Flora’s anxiety over the governess’ temperamental and persuasive attitude. Another argument that could appeal to the governess’ insanity is that she is love struck by the master, causing her to be delusional. This is exemplified through her imagining that the master “would appear…and stand before [her] and smile and approve” (James 15). Nonetheless, she is not imagining any people because in the last scene of the novel, Miles recognizes Peter Quint’s presence by implying to the governess that he is in the room. If the governess was creating the ghosts in her mind, Miles would not verbally notice Peter Quint’s presence in the room. The governess is clearly sane and does not simply imagine the
The governess sees a woman on the other side of the lake and jumps to the conclusion that Flora has seen her and is choosing to act like she didn’t. The child was playing with a boat and had her back turned to the lake. Why would she think that she had to have seen her? There is no proof and does not even ask the child if she saw anything. She automatically assumes it’s Miss Jessel, the previous governess who died and that she is after Flora. She tells her story to Mrs. Grose drawing her in more deeply into believing her crazy hallucinations and Mrs. Grose asks her if she is sure its Miss Jessel and the governess replies “Then ask Flora—she’s sure!” and then immediately comes back to say “no, for God’s sake don’t! She’ll say she isn’t—she’ll lie” ((James 30). She comes to the conclusion that the child will lie about it when there is no reason to suspect that she would. Again, this is her jumping to conclusions, because there is not any proof to say that the children have seen or know anything about the ghost’s. “Thus a very odd relationship develops between the governess and the children, for the more she loves them and pities them and desires to save them, the more she begins to suspect them of treachery, until at last she is convinced that they, in league with the ghosts, are ingeniously tormenting her’ (Bontly 726). “The ghosts appear, thus, when the governess is both aware of the corruption which threatens the children and convinced of her own power to preserve them untainted” (Aswell 53). It’s the governess fabricating all this up in her mind again so she can play the part of
horrible deed. Therefore, the elucidation is that Peter Quint must have corrupted miles. If Miles’
“I was literally able to find joy in the extraordinary fight of heroism the occasion demanded of me (324).” After the governess’s first vision of a ghost, she is delighted that so that she could use this opportunity as a tool to rise as a hero. She also comments that she would thus we able to “succeed where many another girl may have failed (324).” By rising as such a hero, eventually she would obtain the notice and approval by her master.
...t want to be the only one who does. It is another feeble attempt to prove her sanity to herself and to others. However, because she “is so easily carried away”, she soon believes that the children do in fact see the ghosts by reading into their every remark and behavior. By piecing all of this together, the governess proves to herself that she is not insane. The governess in The Turn of the Screw, is a highly unreliable narrator. From the beginning of the story, her energetic imagination is displayed to the reader. With this knowledge alone, it would not be irrational to conclude that she had imagined the appearances of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel. However, these facts in addition to her unsubstantiated inferences allow the reader to intelligently label the governess as an unreliable narrator. Works Cited Poupard, Dennis. “Henry James.” Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism: Volume 24. Ed. Paula Kepos. Detroit: Gale research.; 1990. 313-315.
In his 1948 essay, Robert Heilman explores the suggestion that The Turn of the Screw is a symbolic representation of the conflict between good and evil. Heilman interprets the apparitions of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel as evil forces. He explains that the ghosts only appear to the governess because evil lurks in subtlety before it strikes. It is the duty of the governess to "detect and ward off evil." She must protect the children from the awful ghosts. The governess describes Miles and Flora as beautiful little cherubs whose only fault is their gentleness (James, 18-19). Heilman views the children's beauty as a "symbol of the spiritual perfection of which man is capable." Heilman explains the ghosts' attempts to reach the children by explaining that evil forces will always try to conquer and possess the human soul. Heilman continues to draw from the descriptions of Miles and Flora to support his theories. He points out that the two children are described as having an "angelic beauty" and a "positive fragrance of purity" (James 9, 13). The governess describes them as if they are perfect and beautiful in every way. This repeated vision of beauty, radiance, and innocence parallels the image of Eden. The house at Bly also resembles this image, "I remember the lawn and the bright flowers..." (James 7). The governess makes mention of the "golden sky" and of Flora's "hair of gold," which Heilman believes connects Bly and Flora with these images of golden hues (James 7, 9).
...y the governess brings him up, but also to “all the rest.” These equivocal words refer to the initiation to sex by the governess, which is reinforced by Mile’s pointing out that she “knows what a boy wants!” After Mrs. Grose and Flora leave Bly, the two are once again alone, faced with a tyrannical and silent environment leaving the governess thinking they epitomize “some young couple…on their wedding night.”
The governess only hardly indicates that she is scared the ghosts will physically destroy or kill the children. In fact, Miles’s death comes as a surprise to us as readers. This is because we are unrehearsed in the book to think of the ghosts as a physical threat. Till she sends Flora away, the governess does not seem to consider removing the children from the ghosts. She even does not try to scare away the ghost from the house. Instead, the governess’s abilities focus on the ‘corruption’ of the children by the ghost. Before she could realize about quint, the governess thinks that Miles has been corrupting other kids. Although the word corruption is an understatement that permits the governess to remain unclear about what she means. The clear meaning of corruption in this text means exposure to information of sex. According to governess, the children’s exposure to knowledge of sex is a far more dangerous aspect than confronting the living dead or being killed. Therefore, her attempt to save the children is to find out what they know, to make them admit rather than to forecast what might happen to them in the future. Her fear of innoce...
... through her hug, squeezing the life out of him because of her own fears of the supposed ghosts. Miles response is so ambiguous it leaves the reader with only theories with no way of knowing for a fact what really happened.