What do you think?
Rate this book
兀乇賵丕丨 卮乇賷乇丞
賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 "賱賴賳乇賷 噩賷賲爻" 賳乇賶 賲賵囟賵毓賸丕 賲鬲賰乇乇賸丕 賷毓乇囟 賮賷賴 兀賵噩賴 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 亘賷賳 兀賵乇亘丕 匕丕鬲 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱乇丕爻禺丞 丕賱毓乇賷賯丞 亘賷賳 兀賲乇賷賰丕 匕丕鬲 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱賵賱賷丿丞 丕賱賮噩丞. 賵賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀毓賲丕賱賴 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賳乇丕賴 賷賳鬲賴噩 賳賴噩賸丕 賲賵囟賵毓賷賸丕 賵丕賯毓賷賸丕 賮賷 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱乇賵丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱賯氐氐賷丞 賵賷鬲毓賲賯 賮賷 丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱丿賵丕賮毓 丕賱禺賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丐孬乇 賮賷 兀賮毓丕賱 賵鬲氐乇賮丕鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲.
賵賷賯賵賱 丿丕乇爻賵 丕賱兀丿亘 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷 賵賳賯丕丿賴貙 兀賳 "賴賳乇賷 噩賷賲爻" 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀爻鬲丕匕賸丕 賯丿賷乇賸丕 賮賷 賮賳 丕賱氐賷丕睾丞 賵丕賱丨亘賰丞 賵丕賱氐賳毓丞 丕賱賮賳賷丞貙 賵賴賷 丕賱爻賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘丿賵 噩賱賷丞 賮賷 噩賲賷毓 兀毓賲丕賱賴 丕賱乇賵丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賵丕賱賯氐氐賷丞. 賵賯丿 賱丕賯鬲 乇賵丕賷丞 "兀乇賵丕丨 卮乇賷乇丞" 丕賱鬲賷 賳賯丿賲賴丕 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱爻賱爻賱丞 賲賳 "乇賵丕卅毓 丕賱兀丿亘 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷 賱賱賳丕卮卅賷賳" 賳噩丕丨賸丕 賰亘賷乇賸丕 賮賷 賰賱 賲賳 兀賲乇賷賰丕 賵兀賵乇亘丕貙 賵鬲乇噩賲鬲 廿賱賶 毓丿丞 賱睾丕鬲 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞.
賵賷賯賵賱 丿丕乇爻賵 丕賱兀丿亘 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷 賵賳賯丕丿賴貙 兀賳 "賴賳乇賷 噩賷賲爻" 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀爻鬲丕匕賸丕 賯丿賷乇賸丕 賮賷 賮賳 丕賱氐賷丕睾丞 賵丕賱丨亘賰丞 賵丕賱氐賳毓丞 丕賱賮賳賷丞貙 賵賴賷 丕賱爻賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘丿賵 噩賱賷丞 賮賷 噩賲賷毓 兀毓賲丕賱賴 丕賱乇賵丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賵丕賱賯氐氐賷丞. 賵賯丿 賱丕賯鬲 乇賵丕賷丞 "兀乇賵丕丨 卮乇賷乇丞" 丕賱鬲賷 賳賯丿賲賴丕 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱爻賱爻賱丞 賲賳 "乇賵丕卅毓 丕賱兀丿亘 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷 賱賱賳丕卮卅賷賳" 賳噩丕丨賸丕 賰亘賷乇賸丕 賮賷 賰賱 賲賳 兀賲乇賷賰丕 賵兀賵乇亘丕貙 賵鬲乇噩賲鬲 廿賱賶 毓丿丞 賱睾丕鬲 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞.
230 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1898
9,143 people are currently reading
157k people want to read
About the author
Henry James
4,129听books3,790听followersHenry James was an American-British author. He is regarded as a key transitional figure between literary realism and literary modernism, and is considered by many to be among the greatest novelists in the English language. He was the son of Henry James Sr. and the brother of philosopher and psychologist William James and diarist Alice James.
He is best known for his novels dealing with the social and marital interplay between 茅migr茅 Americans, the English, and continental Europeans, such as The Portrait of a Lady. His later works, such as The Ambassadors, The Wings of the Dove and The Golden Bowl were increasingly experimental. In describing the internal states of mind and social dynamics of his characters, James often wrote in a style in which ambiguous or contradictory motives and impressions were overlaid or juxtaposed in the discussion of a character's psyche. For their unique ambiguity, as well as for other aspects of their composition, his late works have been compared to Impressionist painting.
His novella The Turn of the Screw has garnered a reputation as the most analysed and ambiguous ghost story in the English language and remains his most widely adapted work in other media. He wrote other highly regarded ghost stories, such as "The Jolly Corner".
James published articles and books of criticism, travel, biography, autobiography, and plays. Born in the United States, James largely relocated to Europe as a young man, and eventually settled in England, becoming a British citizen in 1915, a year before his death. James was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1911, 1912, and 1916. Jorge Luis Borges said "I have visited some literatures of East and West; I have compiled an encyclopedic compendium of fantastic literature; I have translated Kafka, Melville, and Bloy; I know of no stranger work than that of Henry James."
He is best known for his novels dealing with the social and marital interplay between 茅migr茅 Americans, the English, and continental Europeans, such as The Portrait of a Lady. His later works, such as The Ambassadors, The Wings of the Dove and The Golden Bowl were increasingly experimental. In describing the internal states of mind and social dynamics of his characters, James often wrote in a style in which ambiguous or contradictory motives and impressions were overlaid or juxtaposed in the discussion of a character's psyche. For their unique ambiguity, as well as for other aspects of their composition, his late works have been compared to Impressionist painting.
His novella The Turn of the Screw has garnered a reputation as the most analysed and ambiguous ghost story in the English language and remains his most widely adapted work in other media. He wrote other highly regarded ghost stories, such as "The Jolly Corner".
James published articles and books of criticism, travel, biography, autobiography, and plays. Born in the United States, James largely relocated to Europe as a young man, and eventually settled in England, becoming a British citizen in 1915, a year before his death. James was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1911, 1912, and 1916. Jorge Luis Borges said "I have visited some literatures of East and West; I have compiled an encyclopedic compendium of fantastic literature; I have translated Kafka, Melville, and Bloy; I know of no stranger work than that of Henry James."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 15,605 reviews
November 1, 2021
I hate when I don't love a classic. It makes me feel stupid, like I'm too ignorant to comprehend literary brilliance. I'm particularly disappointed in myself for not loving The Turn of the Screw, because I'm such a huge fan of all things ghastly and Gothic. And this is both!
But it's true. I didn't care for it. The governess appears seemingly out of thin air, lacks personality or any believable motivation. Her obsession with the children is either utter nonsense or perversely sexual. Neither option is welcomed. The children themselves never demonstrate behavior to suggest they are genuinely charming or particularly sinister. Most egregious, the baroque language misses an opportunity to be indulgent on eerie atmosphere and haunting description. Instead, it all comes across rather plain.
Much of the academic admiration is around James' carefully crafted structure which invites two interpretations: Either the apparitions are real, or are they are the manifestations of the governess's disturbed mind. Either the children are angels, or demons. Dialogue and details are intentionally vague to allow both interpretations, and allegedly this is what makes the book so good.
I didn't see it that way. Ambiguity can be used with great success to create a sense of mystery and suspense. But in this case, I find it irksome. Why are the characters behaving so stupidly? Why are their motivations so senseless? Did I miss a page somewhere?
Given the scant details around the governess's background and her inhuman obsessions, I might argue that she is a ghost herself. I'm sure I could hunt down sentences to back up this unconventional theory. There's probably an argument to be made that she's a space alien. Or that the whole thing is a bizarre dream. It might be a fun project to see how many peculiar interpretations can be made from emphasizing indistinct lines in different ways. I would do it, but honestly one read-through is enough.
All this said, I do think it is indisputable how influential this novella has been on Gothic literature for the past 100 years. I know my critical reaction is a minority opinion on this one. If you鈥檙e a fan, please add a comment and help me understand what I鈥檓 missing.
But it's true. I didn't care for it. The governess appears seemingly out of thin air, lacks personality or any believable motivation. Her obsession with the children is either utter nonsense or perversely sexual. Neither option is welcomed. The children themselves never demonstrate behavior to suggest they are genuinely charming or particularly sinister. Most egregious, the baroque language misses an opportunity to be indulgent on eerie atmosphere and haunting description. Instead, it all comes across rather plain.
Much of the academic admiration is around James' carefully crafted structure which invites two interpretations: Either the apparitions are real, or are they are the manifestations of the governess's disturbed mind. Either the children are angels, or demons. Dialogue and details are intentionally vague to allow both interpretations, and allegedly this is what makes the book so good.
I didn't see it that way. Ambiguity can be used with great success to create a sense of mystery and suspense. But in this case, I find it irksome. Why are the characters behaving so stupidly? Why are their motivations so senseless? Did I miss a page somewhere?
Given the scant details around the governess's background and her inhuman obsessions, I might argue that she is a ghost herself. I'm sure I could hunt down sentences to back up this unconventional theory. There's probably an argument to be made that she's a space alien. Or that the whole thing is a bizarre dream. It might be a fun project to see how many peculiar interpretations can be made from emphasizing indistinct lines in different ways. I would do it, but honestly one read-through is enough.
All this said, I do think it is indisputable how influential this novella has been on Gothic literature for the past 100 years. I know my critical reaction is a minority opinion on this one. If you鈥檙e a fan, please add a comment and help me understand what I鈥檓 missing.
January 2, 2015
Turn of the Screw is a pretty cool story. It's about a governess who either heroically attempts to protect her two charges from malevolent ghosts or goes dangerously bonkers. James leaves it ambiguous and I love that kind of story. Ambiguity works for me. Four stars for the plot. Kindof an abrupt ending though.
On the other hand there's his writing style. I was at this party once and the topic was what would you do if the world was ending and the answer was generally that we would have all the sex. James writes like the world is ending and he's decided to have all the punctuation. Check this entirely typical sentence out:
Fuck you Henry James.
On the other hand there's his writing style. I was at this party once and the topic was what would you do if the world was ending and the answer was generally that we would have all the sex. James writes like the world is ending and he's decided to have all the punctuation. Check this entirely typical sentence out:
I waited, but nothing came; then, in the first place - and there is something more dire in this, I feel, than in anything I have to relate - I was determined by a sense that, within a minute, all sounds from her had previously dropped; and, in the second, by the circumstance that, also within the minute, she had, in her play, turned her back to the water.I don't even know what that sentence means. I haven't seen punctuation wasted like that since James has used so much punctuation that there was nothing but periods left to use in this review.
Fuck you Henry James.
October 10, 2020
鈥淣o, no鈥攖here are depths, depths! The more I go over it, the more I see in it, and the more I see in it, the more I fear. I don鈥檛 know what I don鈥檛 see鈥攚hat I don鈥檛 fear!鈥�
Screen shot from the 1961 version of The Innocents based on the James short story.
A governess is hired to look after the nephew and niece of a man who has inherited the responsibility for the children after the death of their parents. He is very explicit in his instructions to the governess that he is not to be bothered with excessive communications. The governess is young and pretty and wants to impress her new employer by doing exactly what he wishes. She wants to be seen as competent, and in a sense this need to please proves to be a vulnerability that, as she tries to shield and protect, she actually puts everyone at more risk.
Risk of what you might ask?
That becomes the unknown element of the story. The reader doesn鈥檛 really know what to be afraid of. What nature of evil are we dealing with?
The children are ethereally beautiful. The governess is compromised immediately by preconceived notions, that we all have to a certain extent, that beauty equates to goodness. 鈥滻 was dazzled by their loveliness.鈥� When the boy Miles is kicked out of his exclusive school for unrevealed reasons, the governess cannot fathom what he could have possibly done to deserve this level of embarrassing punishment. It was inconceivable to her that he was capable of anything remotely improper.
As the governess begins to try to understand her young charges, she also begins to discover that there are swirling questions about what has happened to other people who have been associated with the children in the past. She cross examines the housekeeper and more carefully the children, ferreting out bits and pieces of information that leave a murky picture in her mind. The reluctance which everyone shows in speaking about the past makes the governess more and more suspicious that something potentially perplexing lies in the truth.
She starts to see dead people.
鈥滻 was ready to know the very worst that was to be known. What I had then had an ugly glimpse of was that my eyes might be sealed just while theirs were most opened.鈥�
Her first thought was to protect the innocence of the children, but maybe what she should have been more worried about was protecting her own innocence. It becomes a game of ignoring these phantoms in the hopes that the children would not become aware of the existence of these ghosts, of Quint, the butler, and Miss Jessel, the ex-governess. Both of these people were obsessed with the children when they were alive. The question becomes what do they want with the children now?
Of course, without confirmation of the existence of these supernatural events from other people, one does naturally tend to start questioning one鈥檚 own sanity.
Henry James weaves in these awkward interactions between the governess and Miles. There are moments when the young lad seems to be attempting to seduce his governess. He calls her 鈥榤y dear,鈥� which sounds innocent enough, but when coupled with innuendos, the words take on a more unseemly connotation. The governess is not totally immune to the charm of the handsome boy. 鈥淥f course I was under the spell, and the wonderful part is that, even at the time, I perfectly knew I was. But I gave myself up to it; it was an antidote to any pain, and I had more pains than one.鈥�
Scholars have debated whether the governess was actually seeing the phantom manifestations or not. There is certainly a desperation to how she attempts to protect the children, fully determined to keep the situation under control without having to contact her employer. We watch her naivety crumble as she is battered by the strange and distant attitudes of the children and the extraordinary circumstances of the spine-chilling past intruding on the present. I was firmly on the side of believing the governess was losing a firm grasp on her sanity, but then James throws a wrinkle into my firm resolve when Miles makes this statement to the governess that they should not miss his sister and the housekeeper (after they have fled the circumstances):
鈥滻 suppose we shouldn鈥檛. Of course we have the others.鈥�
Or is Miles just playing her.
This is a short story, but it is a short story by Henry James. He has some of the same convoluted, difficult sentences that show up in his novels. They may bewilder on a first read, but after another go they start to make more sense. I鈥檝e read enough James to find those complicated sentences, when they appear like Gordian Knots, more amusing than frustrating. This tale left me jangled and apprehensive as if an apparition were still strumming their fingers along the length of my sciatic nerve. If you read it on the most basic level as a ghost story, you will certainly find it unsatisfying. As I started to understand the deeper psychological implications of the interplay between characters, I started to realize that this is a tragedy with elements of horror that left lasting traumatic issues for those that survived.
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:
Screen shot from the 1961 version of The Innocents based on the James short story.
A governess is hired to look after the nephew and niece of a man who has inherited the responsibility for the children after the death of their parents. He is very explicit in his instructions to the governess that he is not to be bothered with excessive communications. The governess is young and pretty and wants to impress her new employer by doing exactly what he wishes. She wants to be seen as competent, and in a sense this need to please proves to be a vulnerability that, as she tries to shield and protect, she actually puts everyone at more risk.
Risk of what you might ask?
That becomes the unknown element of the story. The reader doesn鈥檛 really know what to be afraid of. What nature of evil are we dealing with?
The children are ethereally beautiful. The governess is compromised immediately by preconceived notions, that we all have to a certain extent, that beauty equates to goodness. 鈥滻 was dazzled by their loveliness.鈥� When the boy Miles is kicked out of his exclusive school for unrevealed reasons, the governess cannot fathom what he could have possibly done to deserve this level of embarrassing punishment. It was inconceivable to her that he was capable of anything remotely improper.
As the governess begins to try to understand her young charges, she also begins to discover that there are swirling questions about what has happened to other people who have been associated with the children in the past. She cross examines the housekeeper and more carefully the children, ferreting out bits and pieces of information that leave a murky picture in her mind. The reluctance which everyone shows in speaking about the past makes the governess more and more suspicious that something potentially perplexing lies in the truth.
She starts to see dead people.
鈥滻 was ready to know the very worst that was to be known. What I had then had an ugly glimpse of was that my eyes might be sealed just while theirs were most opened.鈥�
Her first thought was to protect the innocence of the children, but maybe what she should have been more worried about was protecting her own innocence. It becomes a game of ignoring these phantoms in the hopes that the children would not become aware of the existence of these ghosts, of Quint, the butler, and Miss Jessel, the ex-governess. Both of these people were obsessed with the children when they were alive. The question becomes what do they want with the children now?
Of course, without confirmation of the existence of these supernatural events from other people, one does naturally tend to start questioning one鈥檚 own sanity.
Henry James weaves in these awkward interactions between the governess and Miles. There are moments when the young lad seems to be attempting to seduce his governess. He calls her 鈥榤y dear,鈥� which sounds innocent enough, but when coupled with innuendos, the words take on a more unseemly connotation. The governess is not totally immune to the charm of the handsome boy. 鈥淥f course I was under the spell, and the wonderful part is that, even at the time, I perfectly knew I was. But I gave myself up to it; it was an antidote to any pain, and I had more pains than one.鈥�
Scholars have debated whether the governess was actually seeing the phantom manifestations or not. There is certainly a desperation to how she attempts to protect the children, fully determined to keep the situation under control without having to contact her employer. We watch her naivety crumble as she is battered by the strange and distant attitudes of the children and the extraordinary circumstances of the spine-chilling past intruding on the present. I was firmly on the side of believing the governess was losing a firm grasp on her sanity, but then James throws a wrinkle into my firm resolve when Miles makes this statement to the governess that they should not miss his sister and the housekeeper (after they have fled the circumstances):
鈥滻 suppose we shouldn鈥檛. Of course we have the others.鈥�
Or is Miles just playing her.
This is a short story, but it is a short story by Henry James. He has some of the same convoluted, difficult sentences that show up in his novels. They may bewilder on a first read, but after another go they start to make more sense. I鈥檝e read enough James to find those complicated sentences, when they appear like Gordian Knots, more amusing than frustrating. This tale left me jangled and apprehensive as if an apparition were still strumming their fingers along the length of my sciatic nerve. If you read it on the most basic level as a ghost story, you will certainly find it unsatisfying. As I started to understand the deeper psychological implications of the interplay between characters, I started to realize that this is a tragedy with elements of horror that left lasting traumatic issues for those that survived.
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:
October 11, 2024
There is a presumption that a book, if written concurrent with a certain time period during which a ruler of notable longevity reigned and originating from an area of the world long known, during that time period in particular, for an effusiveness of style in excess of that which may be, at a minimum, absolutely required to convey a particular message or idea, may, on occasion, if not predominantly and generally, tend toward a style that, when compared and contrasted with styles of later writers in other, more distant geographies, or even stylists who espoused minimalism within the bounds of the same geographic region, might be best described, at least insofar as it can be generally encapsulated with a description of any sufficient brevity, as, to varying degrees, ponderous, overwrought, and, in the main, at least with respect to the general population, and in particular those of the Twitter generation, overly wordy.
If you enjoyed the preceding 152-word sentence, you will likely enjoy The Turn of the Screw. If you didn鈥檛 make it past the first 140 characters, you鈥檒l want to avoid it, unless your appetite for unintentional double-entendres surpasses your dislike of egregiously prolix prose, as the narrator鈥檚 aptitude for inadvertently making it sound as though she is engaged in particularly inappropriate, Afternoon Delight-style undertakings with her young male charge is prodigious and nigh-Funkeian.
If you enjoyed the preceding 152-word sentence, you will likely enjoy The Turn of the Screw. If you didn鈥檛 make it past the first 140 characters, you鈥檒l want to avoid it, unless your appetite for unintentional double-entendres surpasses your dislike of egregiously prolix prose, as the narrator鈥檚 aptitude for inadvertently making it sound as though she is engaged in particularly inappropriate, Afternoon Delight-style undertakings with her young male charge is prodigious and nigh-Funkeian.
April 12, 2017
Now you see me,
...now you don鈥檛..
What the...
Meaning, understanding and certainty all become elusive chimera in this ambiguous game of hide-and-seek that Henry James plays with us. Have you ever been in one of those weird situations where you wondered if you were losing your mind, doubting whether what you were seeing was real? And... what it was that you were seeing?
This is one of those "what the heck??" novels that you often find in the modernist genre. Not originally classed as a modernist novel, by now it is viewed as one by many modern critics because of the ambiguity and 鈥榣ayers鈥� that James managed to capture.
It is just as slippery and ambiguous and as "what on earth is happening here?" as the most obfuscating of the modernist novels; - one tends to struggle with trying to figure out what is going on like with Virginia Woolf鈥檚 , William Faulkner鈥檚 , Thomas Pynchon鈥檚 .
Henry James might not be playing around as much as 鈥榯rue鈥� modernists do with narrative voice although he built three layers into his narrative viewpoint, and the story is certainly a metatext.
Like most modernists, he does play around to some extent with temporality, but only to a small extent, and only slightly with structure.
However, it is the play with meaning, the : 鈥渨hat the heck actually happened here?鈥� that lends so much ambiguity and scope for interpretation that makes this novella shine.
Part of what points to our narration being unreliable, is the fact that the novella is a nested metatext (being a story someone is telling about a story that someone else told him about a story that someone else told him).
The fun is that it reads like a Gothic novel, and for all intents and purposes, would be a Gothic novel, were it not for the subtleties in meaning and content & context leaping out at the reader; especially the modern, sophisticated reader who doesn鈥檛 actually believe in, you know, ghosts.
However, the story isn't really creepy in the way that conventional ghost stories are.
Well it is, sort of.
But it's also like when you walk into your house at night and the lights are dimmed and there's this hat-and-coat stand at the end of the passage, and in the shadows, it looks like there's a person there, watching... and waiting... and you wonder: 锟斤拷锟絀S THAT...????! Or no, is that just my imagination playing tricks on me?! "
Yet, you take our time, all the time eyeing that shadowy figure,
...and you quickly walk to the light switch, and flick it on.
(Though the governess鈥檚 shadowman had no hat鈥� - therefore, not a gentleman.)
Have you ever had a dream in which you vaguely become aware of the presence of someone you feel you know? You seem to know him well from some other dreamscape, and yet you cannot place your finger on who he is, yet his presence seems so sinister.
If someone were to ask you who the shadowy man at the edge of your vision was, you might reply: 鈥淲hy, Nobody!鈥� ...and yet you fear him, but don't know why. You know the reason is sitting just at the tip of your consciousness, but it鈥檚 all cast in shadow, and yet, it makes you feel so terribly uneasy.
You may even wonder, in such a dream, if that shadowy image could somehow be you yourself, but the thought of that, -the very idea, makes your hair stand on end; gives you a leaden pith of dread that sinks into your stomach and grips your insides with discomfort.
Dream analysts would say that that strangely familiar figure is a projection of the part of your own self that you find unacceptable. This other 'self' can even appear threatening because often our aggressive impulses have to be suppressed as much as, or even more than, our sexual impulses. If that 'self' came loose from under our control, it could be a dangerous thing, and therefore, we fear it, albeit on a subconscious level.
Have you ever had a dream like that? This novella was reminiscent of such a dream; made me feel like I was reading about such a dream.
Some people read this as a ghost story, some as a horror story, and some as a psychological thriller or study.
...there are depths, depths! The more I go over it the more I see in it, and the more I see in it the more I fear. I don't know what I don't see, that I don't fear!'
I must mention that I got most of the detail about the different types of analyses from the Beidler critical edition of that is full of background material: cultural context, history, critical essays and interpretations of the text.
There are Marxist interpretations of this story, Jungian interpretations, Freudian ones, Reader-response analyses, Post-modern, Modern, New Criticism, New Historicism views of the story, you name it.
Oh, and of course, there are those among some of the abovementioned, who take a gay view as well. There is no real evidence for or against the direction(s) James's orientation leaned, though I have read some excerpts of his letters to young men that would incline me to agree that there's a strong possibility that he was gay.
Among the 'gay' proponents, are those who say that the governess is a subconscious projection by James of himself and his repressed urges. (Whatever other conclusions one might come to, you have to admit that the governess is one tight little ball of repressed urges. )
I see her as being under a lot of pressure from various origins. One of the pressures she has, is an urge to gain more power. If you think about it, the governess is actually a nobody. One of the younger children of an obscure country preacher, and a female to boot... not much going for her, beyond some homeschooling (privately bred) is there? ...and now she is suddenly 'at the helm' of an entire household, and quite a wealthy one at that. ...but her charming, seductive employer wants no contact with her. She is "at the helm" all on her ownsome. Quite a situation for an inexperienced young country girl to find herself in.
Wayne C. Booth, a well-known lit crit has said:
In English alone I have counted, before I got too bored to go on, more than five hundred titles of books and articles about [The Turn of the Screw], and since it has been translated and discussed in dozens of other languages the total must yield more than a lifetime's possible reading.
...so yeah... there's been a lot of gabble about this little story, and the interesting part is that hardly anyone seems able to agree on what the story actually says. James has been very subtle and clever. Even in his preface, and in his responses to readers of the story, he did not give the game away. Indeed, he says in his preface, that the reader's "own imagination, his own sympathy and horror will supply him quite sufficiently with all the particulars. "
Ha, and so it has proved to be.
Start of SPOILER section:
Here are some of the variations on interpretations of how the screw really turns:
[END of spoiler section]
Suffice it to say here, that the particular brilliance of his story is for me, that whatever interpretation you make, the story can work for you on that level, and arguments against a particular view can always be refuted by calling foul as an unreliable narrator on any of the three narrator levels. (The governess who wrote the story, Douglas, or Douglas's friend who is telling us the story).
In fact, you can even call upon the fourth narrator, Henry James himself, as having written a story that unconsciously brought out some of his subconscious issues and desires.
Of course James could have consciously written this as a Freudian allegory, but I doubt it, since this novel was published in 1898 and Freud's the Ego and The Id was only published in 1923. However, it may well be that James was influenced by his brother William's interpretations of psychological phenomena.
However you look at it, James knitted the seams of this story so finely, he weaved his web so delicately, that there is no way to tell any which way for certain.
What do YOU think?
...now you don鈥檛..
What the...
Meaning, understanding and certainty all become elusive chimera in this ambiguous game of hide-and-seek that Henry James plays with us. Have you ever been in one of those weird situations where you wondered if you were losing your mind, doubting whether what you were seeing was real? And... what it was that you were seeing?
This is one of those "what the heck??" novels that you often find in the modernist genre. Not originally classed as a modernist novel, by now it is viewed as one by many modern critics because of the ambiguity and 鈥榣ayers鈥� that James managed to capture.
It is just as slippery and ambiguous and as "what on earth is happening here?" as the most obfuscating of the modernist novels; - one tends to struggle with trying to figure out what is going on like with Virginia Woolf鈥檚 , William Faulkner鈥檚 , Thomas Pynchon鈥檚 .
Henry James might not be playing around as much as 鈥榯rue鈥� modernists do with narrative voice although he built three layers into his narrative viewpoint, and the story is certainly a metatext.
Like most modernists, he does play around to some extent with temporality, but only to a small extent, and only slightly with structure.
However, it is the play with meaning, the : 鈥渨hat the heck actually happened here?鈥� that lends so much ambiguity and scope for interpretation that makes this novella shine.
Part of what points to our narration being unreliable, is the fact that the novella is a nested metatext (being a story someone is telling about a story that someone else told him about a story that someone else told him).
The fun is that it reads like a Gothic novel, and for all intents and purposes, would be a Gothic novel, were it not for the subtleties in meaning and content & context leaping out at the reader; especially the modern, sophisticated reader who doesn鈥檛 actually believe in, you know, ghosts.
However, the story isn't really creepy in the way that conventional ghost stories are.
Well it is, sort of.
But it's also like when you walk into your house at night and the lights are dimmed and there's this hat-and-coat stand at the end of the passage, and in the shadows, it looks like there's a person there, watching... and waiting... and you wonder: 锟斤拷锟絀S THAT...????! Or no, is that just my imagination playing tricks on me?! "
Yet, you take our time, all the time eyeing that shadowy figure,
...and you quickly walk to the light switch, and flick it on.
(Though the governess鈥檚 shadowman had no hat鈥� - therefore, not a gentleman.)
Have you ever had a dream in which you vaguely become aware of the presence of someone you feel you know? You seem to know him well from some other dreamscape, and yet you cannot place your finger on who he is, yet his presence seems so sinister.
If someone were to ask you who the shadowy man at the edge of your vision was, you might reply: 鈥淲hy, Nobody!鈥� ...and yet you fear him, but don't know why. You know the reason is sitting just at the tip of your consciousness, but it鈥檚 all cast in shadow, and yet, it makes you feel so terribly uneasy.
You may even wonder, in such a dream, if that shadowy image could somehow be you yourself, but the thought of that, -the very idea, makes your hair stand on end; gives you a leaden pith of dread that sinks into your stomach and grips your insides with discomfort.
Dream analysts would say that that strangely familiar figure is a projection of the part of your own self that you find unacceptable. This other 'self' can even appear threatening because often our aggressive impulses have to be suppressed as much as, or even more than, our sexual impulses. If that 'self' came loose from under our control, it could be a dangerous thing, and therefore, we fear it, albeit on a subconscious level.
Have you ever had a dream like that? This novella was reminiscent of such a dream; made me feel like I was reading about such a dream.
Some people read this as a ghost story, some as a horror story, and some as a psychological thriller or study.
...there are depths, depths! The more I go over it the more I see in it, and the more I see in it the more I fear. I don't know what I don't see, that I don't fear!'
I must mention that I got most of the detail about the different types of analyses from the Beidler critical edition of that is full of background material: cultural context, history, critical essays and interpretations of the text.
There are Marxist interpretations of this story, Jungian interpretations, Freudian ones, Reader-response analyses, Post-modern, Modern, New Criticism, New Historicism views of the story, you name it.
Oh, and of course, there are those among some of the abovementioned, who take a gay view as well. There is no real evidence for or against the direction(s) James's orientation leaned, though I have read some excerpts of his letters to young men that would incline me to agree that there's a strong possibility that he was gay.
Among the 'gay' proponents, are those who say that the governess is a subconscious projection by James of himself and his repressed urges. (Whatever other conclusions one might come to, you have to admit that the governess is one tight little ball of repressed urges. )
I see her as being under a lot of pressure from various origins. One of the pressures she has, is an urge to gain more power. If you think about it, the governess is actually a nobody. One of the younger children of an obscure country preacher, and a female to boot... not much going for her, beyond some homeschooling (privately bred) is there? ...and now she is suddenly 'at the helm' of an entire household, and quite a wealthy one at that. ...but her charming, seductive employer wants no contact with her. She is "at the helm" all on her ownsome. Quite a situation for an inexperienced young country girl to find herself in.
Wayne C. Booth, a well-known lit crit has said:
In English alone I have counted, before I got too bored to go on, more than five hundred titles of books and articles about [The Turn of the Screw], and since it has been translated and discussed in dozens of other languages the total must yield more than a lifetime's possible reading.
...so yeah... there's been a lot of gabble about this little story, and the interesting part is that hardly anyone seems able to agree on what the story actually says. James has been very subtle and clever. Even in his preface, and in his responses to readers of the story, he did not give the game away. Indeed, he says in his preface, that the reader's "own imagination, his own sympathy and horror will supply him quite sufficiently with all the particulars. "
Ha, and so it has proved to be.
Start of SPOILER section:
Here are some of the variations on interpretations of how the screw really turns:
[END of spoiler section]
Suffice it to say here, that the particular brilliance of his story is for me, that whatever interpretation you make, the story can work for you on that level, and arguments against a particular view can always be refuted by calling foul as an unreliable narrator on any of the three narrator levels. (The governess who wrote the story, Douglas, or Douglas's friend who is telling us the story).
In fact, you can even call upon the fourth narrator, Henry James himself, as having written a story that unconsciously brought out some of his subconscious issues and desires.
Of course James could have consciously written this as a Freudian allegory, but I doubt it, since this novel was published in 1898 and Freud's the Ego and The Id was only published in 1923. However, it may well be that James was influenced by his brother William's interpretations of psychological phenomena.
However you look at it, James knitted the seams of this story so finely, he weaved his web so delicately, that there is no way to tell any which way for certain.
What do YOU think?
October 10, 2019
Me at 50%:
And 75%. And 90%.
I was actually really excited to read this classic Henry James novella, a gothic ghost story published in 1898. A young woman is hired to be the governess for two young orphans by their uncle, whose good looks and charm impress the governess. She wants to impress him in turn with her capability, especially when his main command to her is that she never, NEVER, bother him with any problems or concerns.
She's packed off to the uncle's country estate to meet young Flora and Miles, who are delightful, beautiful children. The housekeeper becomes her friend and confidante. There are just a few odd things: strange noises in the house - footsteps, a child's cry - and Miles has been expelled from his boarding school for mysterious, unnamed reasons. But really everything is just fine. Until she starts seeing a mysterious man and woman appear and disappear, and becomes convinced that they are the ghosts of the prior governess and another employee. And she's certain that the children see these ghosts but won't admit it. Also she's quite sure that these ghosts are out to get the children.
How is she so sure of all these things? Who knows? She just is. And the question is: is she really seeing supernatural manifestations, or is she slowly becoming more and more delusional? or both? And are the children innocent or evil? James includes hints but doesn't ever answer these questions.
It sounds like a fascinating psychological examination, with a narrator who is both unnamed and unreliable. So it surprised me a little when I literally could barely keep my eyes open while I was reading it.
The story is told in a roundabout, murky way, which helps create a sense of confusion. You also have to continually plow through sentences like this one:
I think Henry James must have had some sort of allergy to periods. How did he even stay awake while he was writing convoluted sentences like this?
I persevered to the end (not so hard to do when it's only 100 pages), but this story just never grew on me. The whole thing was an odd and murky reading experience, which perhaps Henry James would say was his intent. Too bad it was also so very boring and unsatisfying.
So if you ever have insomnia, I've got the book for you.
I keep thinking maybe I read this wrong because it's such a classic. So I鈥檒l give it another shot. Who knows? Sometimes that works out for me.
And 75%. And 90%.
I was actually really excited to read this classic Henry James novella, a gothic ghost story published in 1898. A young woman is hired to be the governess for two young orphans by their uncle, whose good looks and charm impress the governess. She wants to impress him in turn with her capability, especially when his main command to her is that she never, NEVER, bother him with any problems or concerns.
She's packed off to the uncle's country estate to meet young Flora and Miles, who are delightful, beautiful children. The housekeeper becomes her friend and confidante. There are just a few odd things: strange noises in the house - footsteps, a child's cry - and Miles has been expelled from his boarding school for mysterious, unnamed reasons. But really everything is just fine. Until she starts seeing a mysterious man and woman appear and disappear, and becomes convinced that they are the ghosts of the prior governess and another employee. And she's certain that the children see these ghosts but won't admit it. Also she's quite sure that these ghosts are out to get the children.
How is she so sure of all these things? Who knows? She just is. And the question is: is she really seeing supernatural manifestations, or is she slowly becoming more and more delusional? or both? And are the children innocent or evil? James includes hints but doesn't ever answer these questions.
It sounds like a fascinating psychological examination, with a narrator who is both unnamed and unreliable. So it surprised me a little when I literally could barely keep my eyes open while I was reading it.
The story is told in a roundabout, murky way, which helps create a sense of confusion. You also have to continually plow through sentences like this one:
They had never, I think, wanted to do so many things for their poor protectress; I mean--though they got their lessons better and better, which was naturally what would please her most--in the way of diverting, entertaining, surprising her; reading her passages, telling her stories, acting her charades, pouncing out at her, in disguises, as animals and historical characters, and above all astonishing her by the "pieces" they had secretly got by heart and could interminably recite.
I think Henry James must have had some sort of allergy to periods. How did he even stay awake while he was writing convoluted sentences like this?
I persevered to the end (not so hard to do when it's only 100 pages), but this story just never grew on me. The whole thing was an odd and murky reading experience, which perhaps Henry James would say was his intent. Too bad it was also so very boring and unsatisfying.
So if you ever have insomnia, I've got the book for you.
I keep thinking maybe I read this wrong because it's such a classic. So I鈥檒l give it another shot. Who knows? Sometimes that works out for me.
November 29, 2022
I HAVE YOU, BUT HE HAS LOST YOU FOR EVER!
Il film tratto dal breve romanzo di H.James, del 1961: The Innocents, regia di Jack Clayton, sceneggiatura di Truman Capote, con Deborah Kerr nel ruolo di Miss Giddens, nel magico gotico terrificante splendore del CinemaScope in b&w
Questo libro m'ha messo i brividi, m'ha costretto a leggere solo in presenza del sole per tenermi lontano da buio e tenebre.
I bambini sono o non sono corrotti? Sono vittime, complici o addirittura carnefici? Gli spettri sono reali o allucinazioni? Sono proiezioni dell鈥檌mmaginazione turbata dell鈥檌stitutrice? 脠 lei, figlia di un pastore, cos矛 rigida da inventarsi tutto, o i fantasmi imperversano davvero? Li vede solo lei o anche i bambini? Lo zio dei bambini, cos矛 disinteressato e distante, 猫 forse dio che si disinteressa del mondo? Come muore il piccolo Miles? 脠 forse la stessa istitutrice a soffocarlo in un abbraccio mortale?
Miles e il fantasma di Peter Quint
Io credo che gli spettri esistono, sono reali: la descrizione che l鈥檌stitutrice fa di Quint 猫 chiaramente un ritratto dal vero, non il tratteggio di un sogno, di un鈥檌mmaginazione.
E credo che i bambini vedano gli spettri, anche se il lettore non li vede mai mentre li vedono. Il male 猫 l鈥橧ndicibile.
L鈥檌stitutrice sembra pi霉 uscita da un romanzo della Austen o di Emily Bront毛 che da uno studio di Freud.
L'escalation del terrore.
Ma anche se tutte queste domande rimanessero senza risposta precisa, che importerebbe? Si tratta comunque di una splendida storia d'amore.
Degli effetti dell'amore, intesi anche come possibili danni.
O, 猫 una storia di possessione.
E l'amore, non 猫 forse anche possessione?
Henry James 猫 sommo scrittore che io amo molto. In questo racconto, con il suo gioco di scatole cinesi, sembra allontanare l鈥檕rrore e la tenebra: invece, con reticenze, e trasparenze, con omissioni, e cautele, accresce la tensione fino al diapason.
I grandi prendono un genere, ci s鈥檌mmergono, giocano con le sue regole e convenzioni, ne fanno quello che vogliono, ne fanno altro, e vanno oltre.
Quanto 猫 parente questo racconto al Carteggio Aspern!
Qui, come sempre in HJ, raffinati intricati intrecciati quadri psicologici.
La seconda apparizione dello spettro di Peter Quint
Magnifico, davvero eccezionale anche il film del 1961 in un magico bianco e nero. Jack Clayton doveva essere particolarmente ispirato, non si 猫 mai ripetuto a questi livelli. Titolo originale "The Innocents", chiaramente riferito ai bambini - tradotto in italiota con un banalissimo "Suspense".
Sono seguiti altri adattamenti, ma il primo rimane di gran lunga il migliore.
Inizia con quandro nero e una filastrocca cantata dai bambini che fa venire la pelle d'oca e si capisce dove Morricone si sia ispirato per le colonne sonore dei primi film di Dario Argento.
Prosegue in stile espressionista, peraltro immediatamente abbandonato, con il dettaglio, sempre in campo nero, delle mani di Ms Giddens giunte in preghiera a invocare l'aiuto divino per le vite e le anime degli 'innocenti'.
In questo caso, parafrasando, si potrebbe dire che la morte corre lungo il lago, pi霉 che il fiume.
E quanto possono essere innocenti dei bambini che cantano in continuazione con abbandono e rapimento una lullaby che dice:
We Lay My Love And I Beneath The Weeping Willow.
But Now Alone I Lie And Weep Beside The Tree.
Il pomeriggio del 10 gennaio 1895 Henry James fu invitato dall鈥檃rcivescovo di Canterbury a prendere una tazza di t猫. Seduti davanti al camino insieme ai due figli dell鈥檃rcivescovo, parlarono di apparizioni e terrori notturni, di come stessero sparendo le vecchie care storie di fantasmi. L鈥檃rcivescovo raccont貌 che molti anni prima una signora gli aveva raccontato una storia che aveva appreso da un narratore sconosciuto, quell鈥檃nonimo senza volto che sta sempre all鈥檕rigine di ogni storia: dei bambini erano stati abbandonati alla cura dei loro servi in una vecchia casa di campagna 鈥� i servi perversi e depravati li avevano corrotti, e quando morirono, le loro apparizioni tornarono a ossessionare la casa e i bambini.
Una storia imperfetta e senza pretese, l鈥檕mbra di un鈥檕mbra, che James annot貌 nei suoi Taccuini.
Due anni pi霉 tardi una rivista gli chiese una storia per il numero natalizio e in solo tre mesi, dal settembre al dicembre 1987, James scrisse quello che sarebbe probabilmente diventato il pi霉 famoso racconto moderno.
IO TI HO, MENTRE LUI TI HA PERDUTO PER SEMPRE!
Il film tratto dal breve romanzo di H.James, del 1961: The Innocents, regia di Jack Clayton, sceneggiatura di Truman Capote, con Deborah Kerr nel ruolo di Miss Giddens, nel magico gotico terrificante splendore del CinemaScope in b&w
Questo libro m'ha messo i brividi, m'ha costretto a leggere solo in presenza del sole per tenermi lontano da buio e tenebre.
I bambini sono o non sono corrotti? Sono vittime, complici o addirittura carnefici? Gli spettri sono reali o allucinazioni? Sono proiezioni dell鈥檌mmaginazione turbata dell鈥檌stitutrice? 脠 lei, figlia di un pastore, cos矛 rigida da inventarsi tutto, o i fantasmi imperversano davvero? Li vede solo lei o anche i bambini? Lo zio dei bambini, cos矛 disinteressato e distante, 猫 forse dio che si disinteressa del mondo? Come muore il piccolo Miles? 脠 forse la stessa istitutrice a soffocarlo in un abbraccio mortale?
Miles e il fantasma di Peter Quint
Io credo che gli spettri esistono, sono reali: la descrizione che l鈥檌stitutrice fa di Quint 猫 chiaramente un ritratto dal vero, non il tratteggio di un sogno, di un鈥檌mmaginazione.
E credo che i bambini vedano gli spettri, anche se il lettore non li vede mai mentre li vedono. Il male 猫 l鈥橧ndicibile.
L鈥檌stitutrice sembra pi霉 uscita da un romanzo della Austen o di Emily Bront毛 che da uno studio di Freud.
L'escalation del terrore.
Ma anche se tutte queste domande rimanessero senza risposta precisa, che importerebbe? Si tratta comunque di una splendida storia d'amore.
Degli effetti dell'amore, intesi anche come possibili danni.
O, 猫 una storia di possessione.
E l'amore, non 猫 forse anche possessione?
Henry James 猫 sommo scrittore che io amo molto. In questo racconto, con il suo gioco di scatole cinesi, sembra allontanare l鈥檕rrore e la tenebra: invece, con reticenze, e trasparenze, con omissioni, e cautele, accresce la tensione fino al diapason.
I grandi prendono un genere, ci s鈥檌mmergono, giocano con le sue regole e convenzioni, ne fanno quello che vogliono, ne fanno altro, e vanno oltre.
Quanto 猫 parente questo racconto al Carteggio Aspern!
Qui, come sempre in HJ, raffinati intricati intrecciati quadri psicologici.
La seconda apparizione dello spettro di Peter Quint
Magnifico, davvero eccezionale anche il film del 1961 in un magico bianco e nero. Jack Clayton doveva essere particolarmente ispirato, non si 猫 mai ripetuto a questi livelli. Titolo originale "The Innocents", chiaramente riferito ai bambini - tradotto in italiota con un banalissimo "Suspense".
Sono seguiti altri adattamenti, ma il primo rimane di gran lunga il migliore.
Inizia con quandro nero e una filastrocca cantata dai bambini che fa venire la pelle d'oca e si capisce dove Morricone si sia ispirato per le colonne sonore dei primi film di Dario Argento.
Prosegue in stile espressionista, peraltro immediatamente abbandonato, con il dettaglio, sempre in campo nero, delle mani di Ms Giddens giunte in preghiera a invocare l'aiuto divino per le vite e le anime degli 'innocenti'.
In questo caso, parafrasando, si potrebbe dire che la morte corre lungo il lago, pi霉 che il fiume.
E quanto possono essere innocenti dei bambini che cantano in continuazione con abbandono e rapimento una lullaby che dice:
We Lay My Love And I Beneath The Weeping Willow.
But Now Alone I Lie And Weep Beside The Tree.
Il pomeriggio del 10 gennaio 1895 Henry James fu invitato dall鈥檃rcivescovo di Canterbury a prendere una tazza di t猫. Seduti davanti al camino insieme ai due figli dell鈥檃rcivescovo, parlarono di apparizioni e terrori notturni, di come stessero sparendo le vecchie care storie di fantasmi. L鈥檃rcivescovo raccont貌 che molti anni prima una signora gli aveva raccontato una storia che aveva appreso da un narratore sconosciuto, quell鈥檃nonimo senza volto che sta sempre all鈥檕rigine di ogni storia: dei bambini erano stati abbandonati alla cura dei loro servi in una vecchia casa di campagna 鈥� i servi perversi e depravati li avevano corrotti, e quando morirono, le loro apparizioni tornarono a ossessionare la casa e i bambini.
Una storia imperfetta e senza pretese, l鈥檕mbra di un鈥檕mbra, che James annot貌 nei suoi Taccuini.
Due anni pi霉 tardi una rivista gli chiese una storia per il numero natalizio e in solo tre mesi, dal settembre al dicembre 1987, James scrisse quello che sarebbe probabilmente diventato il pi霉 famoso racconto moderno.
IO TI HO, MENTRE LUI TI HA PERDUTO PER SEMPRE!
November 27, 2024
Some persons always record what did happen to them鈥� And the story is a manuscript of a governess: 鈥淪he was young, untried, nervous鈥︹€�
And there is a man who has hired her鈥� And there are orphans she governed鈥�
And the manuscript was written in a really fanciful style鈥�
She finds children charming鈥� Everything goes on quite smoothly鈥� Then one evening she sees a man she doesn鈥檛 know at the top of the tower鈥� Some days later she sees this man once again鈥� He is looking through the window inside the house鈥� She gets frightened鈥� A series of mysterious occurrences ensues鈥� She gets the jitters鈥�
Sometimes we see some really weird things from the other side or is it just our sick imagination?
And there is a man who has hired her鈥� And there are orphans she governed鈥�
He had been left, by the death of their parents in India, guardian to a small nephew and a small niece, children of a younger, a military brother, whom he had lost two years before. These children were, by the strangest of chances for a man in his position 鈥� a lone man without the right sort of experience or a grain of patience 鈥� very heavily on his hands.
And the manuscript was written in a really fanciful style鈥�
I remember the whole beginning as a succession of flights and drops, a little seesaw of the right throbs and the wrong. After rising, in town, to meet his appeal, I had at all events a couple of very bad days 鈥� found myself doubtful again, felt indeed sure I had made a mistake. In this state of mind I spent the long hours of bumping, swinging coach that carried me to the stopping place at which I was to be met by a vehicle from the house.
She finds children charming鈥� Everything goes on quite smoothly鈥� Then one evening she sees a man she doesn鈥檛 know at the top of the tower鈥� Some days later she sees this man once again鈥� He is looking through the window inside the house鈥� She gets frightened鈥� A series of mysterious occurrences ensues鈥� She gets the jitters鈥�
鈥淣o, no 鈥� there are depths, depths! The more I go over it, the more I see in it, and the more I see in it, the more I fear. I don鈥檛 know what I don鈥檛 see 鈥� what I don鈥檛 fear!鈥�
Sometimes we see some really weird things from the other side or is it just our sick imagination?
October 11, 2022
Where's my SPOOKY?!
I mean, I thought I'd get a few good jump scares out of a book with possessed children in it. You know what didn't happen, not even once, while I was listening to this book?
THIS:
I'm not sure why my teenage self thought The Turn of the Screw was worth 4 stars, but my older-than-teenage self certainly doesn't.
On the surface, it seems like this should be a winner for me in the classic department - short, scary...short. But it was kinda crap.
So the gist is that this governess is seeing the spirits of these two people. One was the ex-governess, and the other was the rascally friend of her boss. And for some unexplained reason, they've COME FOR THE CHILDREN!
The kids won't admit to seeing these spirits, but the governess knows they've been in contact with the children, because...?
*shrugs*
Suspicious stuff? I. Don't. Know.
All I do know is that the kids never actually did anything even slightly creepy.
Anyway, she enlists the help of the feeble-minded housekeeper, and together they try to,
um, pretend everything is ok or something?
What the what?!
That's not a good plan! That's not a plan at all!
And the entire book was filled to the brim with stuff like this. By the end of it I was actively rooting for the ghosts to whisk the kids away just so it would be over.
Ugh. Either ghost stories have changed a whole helluva lot, or this wasn't a ghost story. I mean, it sounded like this governess was just mostly a delusional nutter. She fell in love with the kids' uncle after meeting him once for God's sake! And what was so great about him? That he expressly didn't want her to inform him if there was something wrong with his dead sibling's children?
Meeeeh. Deal with it on your own. Wacka, wacka, wacka!
What a douche pickle! Who could resist falling for that?
Couple that with the fact that her dingy sidekick never sees the ghosts, and I think this chick is more than likely some kind of a loon.
*frowns*
If you're looking for a scary story this October, keep on moving past this one. I think your time would be better spentstealing sorting through your children's Halloween candy than reading this clunky turd.
Non-Crunchy Pantsless October Buddy Read
Because kids are creepy little bastards...
I mean, I thought I'd get a few good jump scares out of a book with possessed children in it. You know what didn't happen, not even once, while I was listening to this book?
THIS:
I'm not sure why my teenage self thought The Turn of the Screw was worth 4 stars, but my older-than-teenage self certainly doesn't.
On the surface, it seems like this should be a winner for me in the classic department - short, scary...short. But it was kinda crap.
So the gist is that this governess is seeing the spirits of these two people. One was the ex-governess, and the other was the rascally friend of her boss. And for some unexplained reason, they've COME FOR THE CHILDREN!
The kids won't admit to seeing these spirits, but the governess knows they've been in contact with the children, because...?
*shrugs*
Suspicious stuff? I. Don't. Know.
All I do know is that the kids never actually did anything even slightly creepy.
Anyway, she enlists the help of the feeble-minded housekeeper, and together they try to,
um, pretend everything is ok or something?
What the what?!
That's not a good plan! That's not a plan at all!
And the entire book was filled to the brim with stuff like this. By the end of it I was actively rooting for the ghosts to whisk the kids away just so it would be over.
Ugh. Either ghost stories have changed a whole helluva lot, or this wasn't a ghost story. I mean, it sounded like this governess was just mostly a delusional nutter. She fell in love with the kids' uncle after meeting him once for God's sake! And what was so great about him? That he expressly didn't want her to inform him if there was something wrong with his dead sibling's children?
Meeeeh. Deal with it on your own. Wacka, wacka, wacka!
What a douche pickle! Who could resist falling for that?
Couple that with the fact that her dingy sidekick never sees the ghosts, and I think this chick is more than likely some kind of a loon.
*frowns*
If you're looking for a scary story this October, keep on moving past this one. I think your time would be better spent
Non-Crunchy Pantsless October Buddy Read
Because kids are creepy little bastards...
October 24, 2020
I was looking for a spooky fall read but I've found this entangling novella that has a lot of material that is simply calling me to analyze it. Besides, reading this work as just a ghost story would be quite unsatisfying. Henry's writing is at the same time brilliant, confusing, convoluted, perplexed and ambiguous. His meandering prose creates the perfect atmosphere of both a haunted mansion and a mind gone mad. It is never direct, precise, solid but subtle, with double entendres and concealed meanings. There is more importance in what is not being said than in things being written about. It is the kind of book that unravels more and more when you keep thinking about it. The novella has a framed narrative and starts with a group of people listening to letters of the governess that have a tone of intimate confidentiality. The governess is the most classical example of an unreliable narrator as her subjective point of view leaves multiple ways of interpretation of events that did or did not occur.
It is especially compelling to look at this novella from a psychoanalytic point of view which will be further discussed in this review. It is interesting that ''The Turn of the Screw'' one of the first works of literature to be subjected to psychoanalyzing a character and speculating about the author's neurosis. It was published three years after , and two years before - and it resonates perfectly with the teachings of Freud. The psychoanalytic interpretation has the lens of a story that is not about ghosts, but rather about the Governess's censored unconscious greatly influencing her conscious mind and actions - especially repressed sexuality. The sexual allusions are written all across this novella. It is more evident that Governess feels some kind of attraction towards the master, but even her relationship with children has some kind of latent desire seen in sensual undertones of language used to describe her behavior toward children. The words infatuation, fascination with beauty, intercourse are being used and the governess is almost obsessed with children and she often embraces them and even kisses them with passion.
鈥�...at this, with a moan of joy, I enfolded, I drew him close; and while I held him to my breast, where I could feel in the sudden fever of his little body the tremendous pulse of his little heart, I kept my eyes on the thing at the window and saw it move and shift its posture鈥�
The hidden Governess's desires ultimately determine her vision of reality and repressed instincts emerge in her irrational behavior that ultimately results in great tragedy. The forbidden grounds she tries to avoid become unavoidable. This struggle between her unconscious and conscious leads to the deterioration of her mind - in that senses she is the embodiment of Freud's notion that the human mind rarely has a rational reason for its thoughts and actions. Her state could be called many things in a psychiatric sense - hysteria, neurosis and even psychotic decompensation with visual hallucinations.
This is a reflection of the strict Victorian area full of taboos, rules and ideas of being good and proper. That results in an extreme division between the good and bad parts of characters seen in literature - a ghost of the madwoman in ,, Dostoyevsky's . That physical manifestation of the dark repressed part of human nature in the last half of the nineteenth century can be seen as a great prologue to Freud's work. When talking to the children the governess takes great care not to discuss topics which society might view as inappropriate or unsuitable for them. She spends much of her energy to avoid any kind of topic which might be construed as improper, which, in turn, causes her to become nervous and anxious. For woman, it wasn't permitted to address her sexual desirers and impulses directly and even more, the children's sexuality was off the limits - an angel figure of a character couldn't have sexual drives.
The mere James鈥檚 vagueness in writing suggests the importance of keeping these desires and instincts repressed in the personal and collective unconscious. The ghosts in this story represent the shadow side of the characters and society - it is hinted that they are peculiar, aggressive, terrifying, promiscuous, and sexually predatory - they invoke both repulsion and strange attraction. With what ghosts represent we simultaneously identify with, desire, and loathe. These parts are excluded from consciousness, therefore these things follow us everywhere.
The central point of governess also has its symbolism. Being a governess in that era was one of the few ways an educated single woman could respectably make a living through her intellectual gifts. The intellectual semi-independence of a woman rises a much more profound question - can the newfound freedom be carried over into the sexual realm? The death of Miles is the death of the ideal of innocence that has been held over the centuries. James shows how profound and skillful as a writer he is exactly hitting all the right spots of culture's denials and incipient discoveries of his era. His art reflects the collective unconscious at the time and that is the greatest accomplishment there is.
It is especially compelling to look at this novella from a psychoanalytic point of view which will be further discussed in this review. It is interesting that ''The Turn of the Screw'' one of the first works of literature to be subjected to psychoanalyzing a character and speculating about the author's neurosis. It was published three years after , and two years before - and it resonates perfectly with the teachings of Freud. The psychoanalytic interpretation has the lens of a story that is not about ghosts, but rather about the Governess's censored unconscious greatly influencing her conscious mind and actions - especially repressed sexuality. The sexual allusions are written all across this novella. It is more evident that Governess feels some kind of attraction towards the master, but even her relationship with children has some kind of latent desire seen in sensual undertones of language used to describe her behavior toward children. The words infatuation, fascination with beauty, intercourse are being used and the governess is almost obsessed with children and she often embraces them and even kisses them with passion.
鈥�...at this, with a moan of joy, I enfolded, I drew him close; and while I held him to my breast, where I could feel in the sudden fever of his little body the tremendous pulse of his little heart, I kept my eyes on the thing at the window and saw it move and shift its posture鈥�
The hidden Governess's desires ultimately determine her vision of reality and repressed instincts emerge in her irrational behavior that ultimately results in great tragedy. The forbidden grounds she tries to avoid become unavoidable. This struggle between her unconscious and conscious leads to the deterioration of her mind - in that senses she is the embodiment of Freud's notion that the human mind rarely has a rational reason for its thoughts and actions. Her state could be called many things in a psychiatric sense - hysteria, neurosis and even psychotic decompensation with visual hallucinations.
This is a reflection of the strict Victorian area full of taboos, rules and ideas of being good and proper. That results in an extreme division between the good and bad parts of characters seen in literature - a ghost of the madwoman in ,, Dostoyevsky's . That physical manifestation of the dark repressed part of human nature in the last half of the nineteenth century can be seen as a great prologue to Freud's work. When talking to the children the governess takes great care not to discuss topics which society might view as inappropriate or unsuitable for them. She spends much of her energy to avoid any kind of topic which might be construed as improper, which, in turn, causes her to become nervous and anxious. For woman, it wasn't permitted to address her sexual desirers and impulses directly and even more, the children's sexuality was off the limits - an angel figure of a character couldn't have sexual drives.
The mere James鈥檚 vagueness in writing suggests the importance of keeping these desires and instincts repressed in the personal and collective unconscious. The ghosts in this story represent the shadow side of the characters and society - it is hinted that they are peculiar, aggressive, terrifying, promiscuous, and sexually predatory - they invoke both repulsion and strange attraction. With what ghosts represent we simultaneously identify with, desire, and loathe. These parts are excluded from consciousness, therefore these things follow us everywhere.
The central point of governess also has its symbolism. Being a governess in that era was one of the few ways an educated single woman could respectably make a living through her intellectual gifts. The intellectual semi-independence of a woman rises a much more profound question - can the newfound freedom be carried over into the sexual realm? The death of Miles is the death of the ideal of innocence that has been held over the centuries. James shows how profound and skillful as a writer he is exactly hitting all the right spots of culture's denials and incipient discoveries of his era. His art reflects the collective unconscious at the time and that is the greatest accomplishment there is.
February 24, 2022
The Turn of the Screw, Henry James
The Turn of the Screw, originally published in 1898, is a novella written by Henry James.
The story, a part of Gothic and ghost story genres, first appeared in serial format in Collier's Weekly magazine (27 January 鈥� 16 April 1898).
An unnamed narrator listens to Douglas, a friend, read a manuscript written by a former governess whom Douglas claims to have known and who is now dead. The manuscript tells the story of how the young governess is hired by a man who has become responsible for his young nephew and niece after the deaths of their parents. He lives mainly in London but also has a country house, Bly. He is uninterested in raising the children. ...
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 賳賵夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 賳賵丕賲亘乇 爻丕賱1972 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 鬲賳诏 丕賴乇蹖賲賳蹖貨 丕孬乇: 賴賳乇蹖 噩蹖賲夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 毓賱蹖 丕氐睾乇 賲賴丕噩乇貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇: 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賲蹖乇讴亘蹖乇貙 賲賵爻爻賴 丕賳鬲卮丕乇丕鬲 賮乇丕賳讴賱蹖賳貙 爻丕賱1335貙 丿乇253氐貙 讴鬲丕亘賳丕賲賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 夭蹖乇賳賵蹖爻貙 賲賵囟賵毓: 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 丕蹖丕賱丕鬲 賲鬲丨丿賴 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 - 爻丿賴19賲
丕蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 乇丕 芦诏乇蹖卮賳 倬蹖讴乇蹖禄 賳蹖夭 亘賴 賮丕乇爻蹖 鬲乇噩賲賴 賵 丿乇 爻賳賳丿噩 亘丕 毓賳賵丕賳 芦趩乇禺卮 倬蹖趩禄 丿乇 爻丕賱1385賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 趩丕倬 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲
乇丕賵蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賳丕賲蹖 丕夭 丕賵 亘乇丿賴 賳賲蹖卮賵丿貙 亘賴 爻禺賳丕賳 丿賵爻鬲卮貙 芦丿丕诏賱丕爻禄 诏賵卮 賲蹖丿賴丿貙 讴賴 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖 丌賲賵夭诏丕乇 倬蹖卮蹖賳 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖卮 賲蹖禺賵丕賳丿貨 讴爻蹖 讴賴 芦丿丕诏賱丕爻禄 丕丿毓丕 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 丕賵 乇丕 賲蹖卮賳丕禺鬲賴貙 賵賱蹖 丕讴賳賵賳 賲乇丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 賳賵卮鬲賴貙 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 亘丕賳賵蹖 丌賲賵夭诏丕乇蹖 噩賵丕賳貙 鬲賵爻胤 賲乇丿蹖 爻鬲 讴賴 爻乇倬乇爻鬲蹖 亘乇丕丿乇夭丕丿賴 賴丕蹖 禺賵蹖卮 (賲丕蹖賱夭 賵 賮賱賵乇丕) 乇丕貙 倬爻 丕夭 賲乇诏 賵丕賱丿蹖賳卮丕賳貙 亘乇 丿賵卮 丿丕乇丿貨 丕賵 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賵賯鬲卮 乇丕貙 丿乇 芦賱賳丿賳禄 賲蹖诏匕乇丕賳丿貙 賵 鬲賲丕蹖賱蹖 亘賴 亘乇丿賳 亘趩賴 賴丕 倬蹖卮 禺賵丿 乇丕 賳丿丕乇丿.貨 倬爻乇 蹖丕 賴賲丕賳 芦賲丕蹖賱夭禄貙 丿乇 蹖讴 賲丿乇爻賴 蹖 卮亘丕賳賴 乇賵夭蹖 鬲丨氐蹖賱 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 丿乇 丨丕賱蹖讴賴 禺賵丕賴乇 讴賵趩讴鬲乇卮 芦賮賱賵乇丕禄貙 丿乇 乇賵爻鬲丕蹖蹖 丿乇 芦丕爻讴爻禄貙 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 賵 鬲賵爻胤 禺丕賳賲 禺丕賳賴 丿丕乇蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦诏乇賵爻禄貙 爻乇倬乇爻鬲蹖 賲蹖卮賵丿貙 氐丕丨亘讴丕乇 噩丿蹖丿 賲毓賱賲賴貙 毓賲賵蹖 芦賲丕蹖賱夭禄 賵 芦賮賱賵乇丕禄貙 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 讴丕賲賱 亘趩賴 賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丕賵 賲蹖爻倬丕乇丿貙 賵 丕夭 丕賵 賲蹖禺賵丕賴丿 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 賲夭丕丨賲 賵蹖 賳卮賵丿貨 賵 ...貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 04/06/199賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 04/12/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
The Turn of the Screw, originally published in 1898, is a novella written by Henry James.
The story, a part of Gothic and ghost story genres, first appeared in serial format in Collier's Weekly magazine (27 January 鈥� 16 April 1898).
An unnamed narrator listens to Douglas, a friend, read a manuscript written by a former governess whom Douglas claims to have known and who is now dead. The manuscript tells the story of how the young governess is hired by a man who has become responsible for his young nephew and niece after the deaths of their parents. He lives mainly in London but also has a country house, Bly. He is uninterested in raising the children. ...
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 賳賵夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 賳賵丕賲亘乇 爻丕賱1972 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 鬲賳诏 丕賴乇蹖賲賳蹖貨 丕孬乇: 賴賳乇蹖 噩蹖賲夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 毓賱蹖 丕氐睾乇 賲賴丕噩乇貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇: 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賲蹖乇讴亘蹖乇貙 賲賵爻爻賴 丕賳鬲卮丕乇丕鬲 賮乇丕賳讴賱蹖賳貙 爻丕賱1335貙 丿乇253氐貙 讴鬲丕亘賳丕賲賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 夭蹖乇賳賵蹖爻貙 賲賵囟賵毓: 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 丕蹖丕賱丕鬲 賲鬲丨丿賴 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 - 爻丿賴19賲
丕蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 乇丕 芦诏乇蹖卮賳 倬蹖讴乇蹖禄 賳蹖夭 亘賴 賮丕乇爻蹖 鬲乇噩賲賴 賵 丿乇 爻賳賳丿噩 亘丕 毓賳賵丕賳 芦趩乇禺卮 倬蹖趩禄 丿乇 爻丕賱1385賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 趩丕倬 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲
乇丕賵蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賳丕賲蹖 丕夭 丕賵 亘乇丿賴 賳賲蹖卮賵丿貙 亘賴 爻禺賳丕賳 丿賵爻鬲卮貙 芦丿丕诏賱丕爻禄 诏賵卮 賲蹖丿賴丿貙 讴賴 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖 丌賲賵夭诏丕乇 倬蹖卮蹖賳 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖卮 賲蹖禺賵丕賳丿貨 讴爻蹖 讴賴 芦丿丕诏賱丕爻禄 丕丿毓丕 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 丕賵 乇丕 賲蹖卮賳丕禺鬲賴貙 賵賱蹖 丕讴賳賵賳 賲乇丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 賳賵卮鬲賴貙 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 亘丕賳賵蹖 丌賲賵夭诏丕乇蹖 噩賵丕賳貙 鬲賵爻胤 賲乇丿蹖 爻鬲 讴賴 爻乇倬乇爻鬲蹖 亘乇丕丿乇夭丕丿賴 賴丕蹖 禺賵蹖卮 (賲丕蹖賱夭 賵 賮賱賵乇丕) 乇丕貙 倬爻 丕夭 賲乇诏 賵丕賱丿蹖賳卮丕賳貙 亘乇 丿賵卮 丿丕乇丿貨 丕賵 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賵賯鬲卮 乇丕貙 丿乇 芦賱賳丿賳禄 賲蹖诏匕乇丕賳丿貙 賵 鬲賲丕蹖賱蹖 亘賴 亘乇丿賳 亘趩賴 賴丕 倬蹖卮 禺賵丿 乇丕 賳丿丕乇丿.貨 倬爻乇 蹖丕 賴賲丕賳 芦賲丕蹖賱夭禄貙 丿乇 蹖讴 賲丿乇爻賴 蹖 卮亘丕賳賴 乇賵夭蹖 鬲丨氐蹖賱 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 丿乇 丨丕賱蹖讴賴 禺賵丕賴乇 讴賵趩讴鬲乇卮 芦賮賱賵乇丕禄貙 丿乇 乇賵爻鬲丕蹖蹖 丿乇 芦丕爻讴爻禄貙 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 賵 鬲賵爻胤 禺丕賳賲 禺丕賳賴 丿丕乇蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦诏乇賵爻禄貙 爻乇倬乇爻鬲蹖 賲蹖卮賵丿貙 氐丕丨亘讴丕乇 噩丿蹖丿 賲毓賱賲賴貙 毓賲賵蹖 芦賲丕蹖賱夭禄 賵 芦賮賱賵乇丕禄貙 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 讴丕賲賱 亘趩賴 賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丕賵 賲蹖爻倬丕乇丿貙 賵 丕夭 丕賵 賲蹖禺賵丕賴丿 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 賲夭丕丨賲 賵蹖 賳卮賵丿貨 賵 ...貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 04/06/199賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 04/12/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
January 5, 2020
The Turn of the Screw is another classic I have been meaning to read for years. I didn't know much about it, but it has come up a lot lately in my 欧宝娱乐 discussions and other books I have read. I was surprised to find out that it is a gothic horror story. Not really sure what I was expecting, but I guess I just had the stereotypical classic novel with people in old clothes with an antique setting on the cover. I know, I know - bad Matthew! Don't judge a book by its cover!
This book reminded me a lot of The Haunting of Hill House and Rebecca. The setting is dark and mysterious, there may or may not be supernatural elements in play, and you are suspicious of the plot and characters the whole time. I think the writing is pretty accessable despite being a classic book - I know that some I have encountered are difficult to get into not because of a bad plot, just because the writing is flowery and confusing (overwritten may be a good word to use). In this case, the writing does a very good job setting the tone and developing the characters.
I cannot say that the final resolution was my favorite. It felt quite sudden and I really thought I had missed something or not understood what happened. However, after reading a summary of the story online, I realized I understood it just fine. So, for me this book was a great journey with a so-so ending.
I recommend this book to horror fans - specifically if you like ghosts and haunted houses. Also, if you are trying to pad your classic reading resume, this is a decent one to try. And, since it isn't too long, it is not too much of a commitment.
This book reminded me a lot of The Haunting of Hill House and Rebecca. The setting is dark and mysterious, there may or may not be supernatural elements in play, and you are suspicious of the plot and characters the whole time. I think the writing is pretty accessable despite being a classic book - I know that some I have encountered are difficult to get into not because of a bad plot, just because the writing is flowery and confusing (overwritten may be a good word to use). In this case, the writing does a very good job setting the tone and developing the characters.
I cannot say that the final resolution was my favorite. It felt quite sudden and I really thought I had missed something or not understood what happened. However, after reading a summary of the story online, I realized I understood it just fine. So, for me this book was a great journey with a so-so ending.
I recommend this book to horror fans - specifically if you like ghosts and haunted houses. Also, if you are trying to pad your classic reading resume, this is a decent one to try. And, since it isn't too long, it is not too much of a commitment.
March 15, 2023
Many aspects of this book we can agree on, such as gothic horror and a battle between evil and innocence rather than good. However, 鈥楾he Turn of the Screw鈥� is so notably ambiguous that we are likely to conclude and accept there is no 鈥榗orrect鈥� way to read this book because it is so open to interpretation. The truth is; I wasn鈥檛 invested enough in the story and the characters to really care.
The plot is simple but the book is not. A governess secures a new post in Bly looking after two orphaned children, who are now in the care of their uncle. However, with ghostly sightings, strange noises and supernatural events a constant, the safety of the people living there is less assured. The author turns the screw on everyone so much so it is difficult to tell who has the connection with the supernatural world and why!!!
The writing style was very good and the best part of the book, but then everything else was lacking in some way. That said, even the writing had its moments of frustration for me. I do love extravagant and elegant prose at times but not ostentatious for the sake of trying to be 鈥榗lever鈥� or convoluted. I am sure there are less complicated ways to portray messages like this 鈥�
鈥淚 could only get on at all by taking "nature" into my confidence and my account, by treating my monstrous ordeal as a push in a direction unusual, of course鈥�. another turn of the screw of ordinary human virtue.鈥�
At times the author created the perfect haunting atmosphere and then it would all but disappear. The characterisation started well and then fell into stereotypical horror book cut-outs - the seemingly innocent child, the apparently loving and caring governess and then the stern and secretive housekeeper.
Alternatively, if you want to stretch your imagination like some of the better literary minds, it was none of these things. Instead, the excuse for the governess鈥� strange behaviour was the sexual tensions and desire that had built up inside her as she continued to lust after her illusive but dashing master and landowner. I need to be convinced of that one or I read a different book. Other critics believed the demonic connection was through the children and that I do agree with. This in itself though demonstrates how ambiguous the storyline and plot was to have interpreted such important parts of the story so differently.
Other authors will have taken the inspiration and threads from earlier stories like this and developed them into greater works of horror or gothic fiction over the years, and so this book has its place. However, although 鈥楾he Turn of the Screw鈥� was very good in parts and was well written (overall) there was nothing special or memorable about it.
As a literary piece and a gothic horror novella I wanted to love this. Unfortunately I did not. This book was no more than a 3 stars for me, but 2 feels mean because the writing is excellent in parts, and it has a safe but intriguing story line. Please read other reviews, some of my GR friends have enjoyed this more than I did and rated higher.
The plot is simple but the book is not. A governess secures a new post in Bly looking after two orphaned children, who are now in the care of their uncle. However, with ghostly sightings, strange noises and supernatural events a constant, the safety of the people living there is less assured. The author turns the screw on everyone so much so it is difficult to tell who has the connection with the supernatural world and why!!!
The writing style was very good and the best part of the book, but then everything else was lacking in some way. That said, even the writing had its moments of frustration for me. I do love extravagant and elegant prose at times but not ostentatious for the sake of trying to be 鈥榗lever鈥� or convoluted. I am sure there are less complicated ways to portray messages like this 鈥�
鈥淚 could only get on at all by taking "nature" into my confidence and my account, by treating my monstrous ordeal as a push in a direction unusual, of course鈥�. another turn of the screw of ordinary human virtue.鈥�
At times the author created the perfect haunting atmosphere and then it would all but disappear. The characterisation started well and then fell into stereotypical horror book cut-outs - the seemingly innocent child, the apparently loving and caring governess and then the stern and secretive housekeeper.
Alternatively, if you want to stretch your imagination like some of the better literary minds, it was none of these things. Instead, the excuse for the governess鈥� strange behaviour was the sexual tensions and desire that had built up inside her as she continued to lust after her illusive but dashing master and landowner. I need to be convinced of that one or I read a different book. Other critics believed the demonic connection was through the children and that I do agree with. This in itself though demonstrates how ambiguous the storyline and plot was to have interpreted such important parts of the story so differently.
Other authors will have taken the inspiration and threads from earlier stories like this and developed them into greater works of horror or gothic fiction over the years, and so this book has its place. However, although 鈥楾he Turn of the Screw鈥� was very good in parts and was well written (overall) there was nothing special or memorable about it.
As a literary piece and a gothic horror novella I wanted to love this. Unfortunately I did not. This book was no more than a 3 stars for me, but 2 feels mean because the writing is excellent in parts, and it has a safe but intriguing story line. Please read other reviews, some of my GR friends have enjoyed this more than I did and rated higher.
October 26, 2020
危蠉渭蠁蠅谓伪 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 蟺慰蠀 纬蟻维蠁蟿畏魏蔚,蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 蔚喂谓伪喂 伪未喂伪渭蠁喂蟽尾萎蟿畏蟿伪 渭喂伪 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 蟿蟻蠈渭慰蠀,蠁伪谓蟿伪蟽委伪蟼 魏伪喂 蠄蠀蠂慰位慰纬喂魏萎蟼 苇谓蟿伪蟽畏蟼.
螚 伪位萎胃蔚喂伪 蔚喂谓伪喂 蟺蠅蟼 慰 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 蔚尉 伪蟻蠂萎蟼 伪魏蟻慰尾伪蟿蔚委 伪谓维渭蔚蟽伪 蟽蔚 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏维 萎 蠁伪谓蟿伪蟽蟿喂魏维 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟿伪 魏伪喂 魏伪蟿伪蟽蟿维蟽蔚喂蟼 蟺慰蠀 伪蠁萎谓蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蔚尉萎纬畏蟽畏 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟽蟿畏 未喂伪魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎 蔚蠀蠂苇蟻蔚喂伪 蟿慰蠀 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏.
螘蟺慰渭苇谓蠅蟼 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蔚 蠈位畏 蟿畏谓 慰渭喂蠂位蠅未畏 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 伪未喂蔚蠀魏蟻委谓喂蟽蟿畏 蔚尉苇位喂尉畏 蟿畏蟼 蟺位慰魏萎蟼 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 蟿慰蠉蟿慰 萎 蟿慰 位伪蟿蟻蔚蠉蔚喂蟼 萎 蟿慰 渭喂蟽蔚委蟼. 螖蔚谓 伪蠁萎谓蔚喂 蟺蔚蟻喂胃蠋蟻喂伪 渭苇蟽畏蟼 位蠉蟽畏蟼.
韦慰 未喂魏蠈 渭慰蠀 蟽蠀渭蟺苇蟻伪蟽渭伪 未蔚谓 苇蠂蔚喂 谓伪 魏维谓蔚喂 渭蔚 蠁伪谓蟿维蟽渭伪蟿伪,蟽魏慰蟿蔚喂谓苇蟼 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽委蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蟺伪蟻蠈渭慰喂蔚蟼 未蠀蟽喂未伪喂渭慰谓委蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻慰魏伪位慰蠉谓 胃伪谓维蟿慰蠀蟼 萎 未伪喂渭慰谓喂魏苇蟼 蔚蟺喂蟻蟻慰苇蟼 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰谓 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟿蠅谓 谓蔚魏蟻蠋谓 蟽蟿慰谓 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟿蠅谓 味蠅谓蟿伪谓蠋谓.
螛蔚蠅蟻蠋 蟺蠅蟼 慰位伪 蔚喂谓伪喂 蟽蠀谓蠀蠁伪蟽渭苇谓伪 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏 蠄蠀蠂喂魏萎 魏伪喂 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蠀纬蔚委伪 魏伪胃蠋蟼 魏伪喂 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 维纬谓慰喂伪 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓 蟽蠂蔚蟿喂魏维 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚尉萎纬畏蟽畏 魏维蟺慰喂蠅谓 蠁伪喂谓慰渭苇谓蠅谓 蟺慰蠀 蟿伪 胃蔚蠅蟻慰蠉谓 渭蠀蟽蟿萎蟻喂伪 伪谓蔚尉萎纬畏蟿伪 魏伪喂 蟺伪蟻伪蠁蠀蟽喂魏维.
韦慰 魏伪魏蠈 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 魏伪喂 蔚蟺喂尾维位位蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽委伪 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 蟿蟻伪纬喂魏苇蟼 蟽蠀谓苇蟺蔚喂蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 蠈蟿伪谓 蟿慰 未蔚蠂蠈渭伪蟽蟿蔚 蠅蟼 伪谓蔚尉萎纬畏蟿慰 ,蟿慰 蠁慰尾蠈渭伪蟽蟿蔚,蟿慰 蟺伪蟻伪未蔚蠂蠈渭伪蟽蟿蔚 魏伪喂 蟿蔚位喂魏维 渭伪蟼 魏蠀蟻喂蔚蠉蔚喂 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅蟿喂魏维 魏伪喂 渭伪蟼 渭蔚蟿伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟻伪蠁蟻慰蟽蠉谓畏.
韦慰 魏伪位蠈 -蔚谓谓慰蠋 蠈蟿喂 蔚尉畏纬蔚委蟿伪喂 蟿蔚魏渭畏蟻喂蠅渭苇谓伪 魏伪喂 位慰纬喂魏维- 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 维位位畏 蟺蟻慰蠇蟺慰胃苇蟿蔚喂 蠀纬蔚委伪 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎, 谓慰畏渭慰蟽蠉谓畏, 位慰纬喂魏萎 魏伪喂 蠄蠉蠂蟻伪喂渭畏 伪谓蟿喂渭蔚蟿蠋蟺喂蟽畏 渭蔚 蟽蠀谓慰蠂萎 蟽魏苇蠄畏蟼 纬喂伪 慰蟿喂未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蔚尉畏纬畏胃蔚委.
韦蠀蠂伪委慰 蔚喂谓伪喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 伪魏蠈渭伪 未蔚谓 渭维胃伪渭蔚 蟿畏谓 伪喂蟿委伪 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻慰萎位胃蔚. 螕喂伪 魏维胃蔚 伪蟺慰蟿苇位蔚蟽渭伪 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 魏维蟿喂 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 蟺蟻慰魏维位蔚蟽蔚.
危蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 慰位伪 蟿伪 魏伪魏维 魏伪喂 伪谓蔚尉萎纬畏蟿伪 蟿伪 蟺蟻慰魏维位蔚蟽蔚 畏 未喂伪蟿伪蟻伪蠂萎 魏伪喂 蟿伪 蠄蠀蠂伪谓伪纬魏伪蟽蟿喂魏维 蟽蠉谓未蟻慰渭伪 蟿畏蟼 谓蟿伪谓蟿维蟼 蟿蠅谓 蠂伪蟻喂蟽渭伪蟿喂魏蠋谓 蟺伪喂未喂蠋谓 蟽蔚 蟽蠀谓未蠀伪蟽渭蠈 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰蟽蟿伪蟽喂慰蟺慰委畏蟽畏 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 伪未喂伪蠁慰蟻委伪 蟿蠅谓 蠀蟺慰位慰委蟺蠅谓 蟿慰蠀 蟺蔚蟻喂尾维位位慰谓蟿慰蟼. 螆蟿蟽喂 蠁蟿维谓慰蠀渭蔚 渭蔚 渭伪胃畏渭伪蟿喂魏萎 伪魏蟻委尾蔚喂伪 蟽蟿慰 伪谓伪渭蔚谓蠈渭蔚谓慰
危韦巍螜唯螜螠螣 韦螚危 螔螜螖螒危 魏伪喂 蟽蔚 蠈蟿喂 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蔚蟺喂蠁苇蟻蔚喂...
鉁★笍猬涳笍鉁★笍猬涳笍
螝伪位萎 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏!
螤慰位位慰蠉蟼 伪蟽蟺伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼!
螚 伪位萎胃蔚喂伪 蔚喂谓伪喂 蟺蠅蟼 慰 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 蔚尉 伪蟻蠂萎蟼 伪魏蟻慰尾伪蟿蔚委 伪谓维渭蔚蟽伪 蟽蔚 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏维 萎 蠁伪谓蟿伪蟽蟿喂魏维 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟿伪 魏伪喂 魏伪蟿伪蟽蟿维蟽蔚喂蟼 蟺慰蠀 伪蠁萎谓蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蔚尉萎纬畏蟽畏 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟽蟿畏 未喂伪魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎 蔚蠀蠂苇蟻蔚喂伪 蟿慰蠀 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏.
螘蟺慰渭苇谓蠅蟼 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蔚 蠈位畏 蟿畏谓 慰渭喂蠂位蠅未畏 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 伪未喂蔚蠀魏蟻委谓喂蟽蟿畏 蔚尉苇位喂尉畏 蟿畏蟼 蟺位慰魏萎蟼 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 蟿慰蠉蟿慰 萎 蟿慰 位伪蟿蟻蔚蠉蔚喂蟼 萎 蟿慰 渭喂蟽蔚委蟼. 螖蔚谓 伪蠁萎谓蔚喂 蟺蔚蟻喂胃蠋蟻喂伪 渭苇蟽畏蟼 位蠉蟽畏蟼.
韦慰 未喂魏蠈 渭慰蠀 蟽蠀渭蟺苇蟻伪蟽渭伪 未蔚谓 苇蠂蔚喂 谓伪 魏维谓蔚喂 渭蔚 蠁伪谓蟿维蟽渭伪蟿伪,蟽魏慰蟿蔚喂谓苇蟼 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽委蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蟺伪蟻蠈渭慰喂蔚蟼 未蠀蟽喂未伪喂渭慰谓委蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻慰魏伪位慰蠉谓 胃伪谓维蟿慰蠀蟼 萎 未伪喂渭慰谓喂魏苇蟼 蔚蟺喂蟻蟻慰苇蟼 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰谓 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟿蠅谓 谓蔚魏蟻蠋谓 蟽蟿慰谓 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟿蠅谓 味蠅谓蟿伪谓蠋谓.
螛蔚蠅蟻蠋 蟺蠅蟼 慰位伪 蔚喂谓伪喂 蟽蠀谓蠀蠁伪蟽渭苇谓伪 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏 蠄蠀蠂喂魏萎 魏伪喂 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蠀纬蔚委伪 魏伪胃蠋蟼 魏伪喂 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 维纬谓慰喂伪 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓 蟽蠂蔚蟿喂魏维 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚尉萎纬畏蟽畏 魏维蟺慰喂蠅谓 蠁伪喂谓慰渭苇谓蠅谓 蟺慰蠀 蟿伪 胃蔚蠅蟻慰蠉谓 渭蠀蟽蟿萎蟻喂伪 伪谓蔚尉萎纬畏蟿伪 魏伪喂 蟺伪蟻伪蠁蠀蟽喂魏维.
韦慰 魏伪魏蠈 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 魏伪喂 蔚蟺喂尾维位位蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽委伪 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 蟿蟻伪纬喂魏苇蟼 蟽蠀谓苇蟺蔚喂蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 蠈蟿伪谓 蟿慰 未蔚蠂蠈渭伪蟽蟿蔚 蠅蟼 伪谓蔚尉萎纬畏蟿慰 ,蟿慰 蠁慰尾蠈渭伪蟽蟿蔚,蟿慰 蟺伪蟻伪未蔚蠂蠈渭伪蟽蟿蔚 魏伪喂 蟿蔚位喂魏维 渭伪蟼 魏蠀蟻喂蔚蠉蔚喂 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅蟿喂魏维 魏伪喂 渭伪蟼 渭蔚蟿伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟻伪蠁蟻慰蟽蠉谓畏.
韦慰 魏伪位蠈 -蔚谓谓慰蠋 蠈蟿喂 蔚尉畏纬蔚委蟿伪喂 蟿蔚魏渭畏蟻喂蠅渭苇谓伪 魏伪喂 位慰纬喂魏维- 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 维位位畏 蟺蟻慰蠇蟺慰胃苇蟿蔚喂 蠀纬蔚委伪 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎, 谓慰畏渭慰蟽蠉谓畏, 位慰纬喂魏萎 魏伪喂 蠄蠉蠂蟻伪喂渭畏 伪谓蟿喂渭蔚蟿蠋蟺喂蟽畏 渭蔚 蟽蠀谓慰蠂萎 蟽魏苇蠄畏蟼 纬喂伪 慰蟿喂未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蔚尉畏纬畏胃蔚委.
韦蠀蠂伪委慰 蔚喂谓伪喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 伪魏蠈渭伪 未蔚谓 渭维胃伪渭蔚 蟿畏谓 伪喂蟿委伪 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻慰萎位胃蔚. 螕喂伪 魏维胃蔚 伪蟺慰蟿苇位蔚蟽渭伪 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 魏维蟿喂 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 蟺蟻慰魏维位蔚蟽蔚.
危蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 慰位伪 蟿伪 魏伪魏维 魏伪喂 伪谓蔚尉萎纬畏蟿伪 蟿伪 蟺蟻慰魏维位蔚蟽蔚 畏 未喂伪蟿伪蟻伪蠂萎 魏伪喂 蟿伪 蠄蠀蠂伪谓伪纬魏伪蟽蟿喂魏维 蟽蠉谓未蟻慰渭伪 蟿畏蟼 谓蟿伪谓蟿维蟼 蟿蠅谓 蠂伪蟻喂蟽渭伪蟿喂魏蠋谓 蟺伪喂未喂蠋谓 蟽蔚 蟽蠀谓未蠀伪蟽渭蠈 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰蟽蟿伪蟽喂慰蟺慰委畏蟽畏 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 伪未喂伪蠁慰蟻委伪 蟿蠅谓 蠀蟺慰位慰委蟺蠅谓 蟿慰蠀 蟺蔚蟻喂尾维位位慰谓蟿慰蟼. 螆蟿蟽喂 蠁蟿维谓慰蠀渭蔚 渭蔚 渭伪胃畏渭伪蟿喂魏萎 伪魏蟻委尾蔚喂伪 蟽蟿慰 伪谓伪渭蔚谓蠈渭蔚谓慰
危韦巍螜唯螜螠螣 韦螚危 螔螜螖螒危 魏伪喂 蟽蔚 蠈蟿喂 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蔚蟺喂蠁苇蟻蔚喂...
鉁★笍猬涳笍鉁★笍猬涳笍
螝伪位萎 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏!
螤慰位位慰蠉蟼 伪蟽蟺伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼!
August 23, 2020
螡慰渭委味蠅 蟺蠅蟼 蠀蟺维蟻蠂慰蠀谓 未蠉慰 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰喂 谓伪 蔚蟻渭畏谓蔚蠉蟽蔚喂 魏伪谓蔚委蟼 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰. 螘委蟿蔚 蟽伪谓 苇谓伪 伪蟺位蠈 纬慰蟿胃喂魏蠈 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪 渭蔚 蠁伪谓蟿维蟽渭伪蟿伪 魏伪喂 蟺蔚蟻委蔚蟻纬蔚蟼 渭蔚蟿伪蠁蠀蟽喂魏苇蟼 未蟻伪蟽蟿畏蟻喂蠈蟿畏蟿蔚蟼, 慰蟺蠈蟿蔚 渭维位位慰谓 胃伪 尾伪蟻蔚胃蔚委 魏伪喂 胃伪 伪蟺慰纬慰畏蟿蔚蠀蟿蔚委, 蔚委蟿蔚 蟽伪谓 渭喂伪 伪蠁萎纬畏蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 魏位喂渭伪魏慰蠉渭蔚谓慰蠀 魏位慰谓喂蟽渭慰蠉 蟿畏蟼 蔚蠉胃蟻伪蠀蟽蟿畏蟼 魏伪喂 蔚蠀伪委蟽胃畏蟿畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏蟼 蠄蠀蠂慰蟽蠉谓胃蔚蟽畏蟼, 蟺慰蠀 喂蟽慰蟻蟻慰蟺蔚委 伪魏蟻伪委伪 伪谓维渭蔚蟽伪 蟽蟿慰 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈 魏伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蠄蔚蠀未伪委蟽胃畏蟽畏, 慰蟺蠈蟿蔚 胃伪 蟿慰 位伪蟿蟻苇蠄蔚喂.
螚 伪渭蠁委蟽畏渭畏 伪蠁萎纬畏蟽畏 魏伪喂 慰喂 未喂蠁慰蟻慰蠉渭蔚谓慰喂 未喂维位慰纬慰喂 维位位蠅蟽蟿蔚, 魏伪胃喂蟽蟿慰蠉谓 蟺喂胃伪谓苇蟼 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 未蠉慰 蔚魏未慰蠂苇蟼. 螣 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 渭苇蟽伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 魏位委渭伪 蟿畏蟼 伪渭蠁喂蟽尾萎蟿畏蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 伪蟺蟻慰蟽未喂蠈蟻喂蟽蟿慰蠀 未蔚谓 蟺蔚蟻喂慰蟻委味蔚喂 蟿喂蟼 慰未慰蠉蟼 蔚蟺苇魏蟿伪蟽畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 苇蟻纬慰蠀 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 蔚蟺喂蟿蟻苇蟺蔚喂 蟽蔚 魏维胃蔚 蔚魏未慰蠂萎 谓伪 蔚蠀蟽蟿伪胃蔚委.
螒纬纬位喂魏萎 蔚尉慰蠂萎 蟿畏蟼 尾喂魏蟿蠅蟻喂伪谓萎蟼 蔚蟺慰蠂萎蟼, 蔚喂未蠀位位喂伪魏维 蟿慰蟺委伪, 蠀蟺苇蟻慰蠂畏 苇蟺伪蠀位畏 渭蔚 蟿蔚蟻维蟽蟿喂慰 魏萎蟺慰, 位委渭谓蔚蟼, 未苇谓蟿蟻伪, 蔚蠀蟻蠉蠂蠅蟻伪 蟽魏慰谓喂蟽渭苇谓伪 未蠅渭维蟿喂伪, 渭喂伪 蠂慰蠉蠁蟿伪 蠀蟺畏蟻蔚蟿喂魏蠈 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏蠈 魏伪喂 伪蟺蠈位蠀蟿畏 伪蟺慰渭蠈谓蠅蟽畏. 螠喂伪 谓蔚伪蟻萎 纬魏慰蠀尾蔚蟻谓维谓蟿伪 苇蟻蠂蔚蟿伪喂 谓伪 蠁蟻慰谓蟿委蟽蔚喂 未蠉慰 慰蟻蠁伪谓维 蟺伪喂未委伪 (苇谓伪 伪纬蠈蟻喂 10 蔚蟿蠋谓 魏伪喂 苇谓伪 魏慰蟻委蟿蟽喂 8 蔚蟿蠋谓), 蟺慰蠀 蔚委谓伪喂 蠀蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 魏畏未蔚渭慰谓委伪 蟿慰蠀 胃蔚委慰蠀 蟿慰蠀蟼, 慰 慰蟺慰委慰蟼 蠈渭蠅蟼 未蔚 胃苇位蔚喂 谓伪 苇蠂蔚喂 魏伪渭委伪 蟽蠂苇蟽畏 渭伪味委 蟿慰蠀蟼. 螌位伪 魏伪位维 渭苇蠂蟻喂 蟿畏 蟽蟿喂纬渭萎 蟺慰蠀 畏 纬魏慰蠀尾蔚蟻谓维谓蟿伪 伪蟻蠂委味蔚喂 谓伪 尾位苇蟺蔚喂 蟿伪 蠁伪谓蟿维蟽渭伪蟿伪 未蠉慰 谓蔚魏蟻蠋谓 蠀蟺畏蟻蔚蟿蠋谓 魏伪喂 苇蠂蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪魏位蠈谓畏蟿畏 蟺蔚蟺慰委胃畏蟽畏 蟺蠅蟼 胃苇位慰蠀谓 谓伪 尾位维蠄慰蠀谓 蟿伪 蟺伪喂未喂维 魏伪喂 谓伪 蟿伪 未喂伪蠁胃蔚委蟻慰蠀谓. 螁位位慰蟿蔚 蟿蟻慰渭慰魏蟻伪蟿畏渭苇谓畏 魏伪喂 苇蟿慰喂渭畏 谓伪 蟿慰 尾维位蔚喂 蟽蟿伪 蟺蠈未喂伪 魏伪喂 维位位慰蟿蔚 胃伪蟻蟻伪位苇伪 尉蔚魏喂谓维蔚喂 苇谓伪 蟽魏慰蟿蔚喂谓蠈, 伪蟿渭慰蟽蠁伪喂蟻喂魏蠈 魏蠀谓畏纬畏蟿蠈 蠁伪谓蟿伪蟽渭维蟿蠅谓 (萎 渭萎蟺蠅蟼 蠈蠂喂;;)
螣 位蠈纬慰蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蟺蠀魏谓蠈蟼 魏伪喂 蠂蔚喂渭伪蟻蟻蠋未畏蟼, 苇蟿蟽喂 蟺慰蠀 谓伪 蟿伪喂蟻喂维味蔚喂 伪蟺蠈位蠀蟿伪 渭蔚 蟿伪 蟺伪喂蠂谓委未喂伪 蟺慰蠀 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蟺伪委尉蔚喂 蟿慰 渭蠀伪位蠈, 蟿慰谓 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰 蟺慰蠀 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蠂维谓蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蔚 未伪喂未伪位蠋未畏 渭慰谓慰蟺维蟿喂伪 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 未喂伪蠁蠀纬萎, 谓伪 蠁伪谓蟿维味蔚蟿伪喂, 谓伪 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬蔚委, 谓伪 伪渭蠁喂蟽尾畏蟿蔚委 魏伪喂 谓伪 伪蟺慰蟻蟻委蟺蟿蔚喂. 螡伪 纬委谓蔚蟿伪喂 慰蠀蟽喂伪蟽蟿喂魏维 蔚蠂胃蟻蠈蟼 蟿慰蠀 委未喂慰蠀 蟿慰蠀 蟿慰蠀 蔚伪蠀蟿慰蠉.
危喂蠅蟺苇蟼 蟺慰蠀 渭慰喂维味慰蠀谓 谓伪 蔚魏蟿蔚委谓慰谓蟿伪喂 蟽蟿慰 维蟺蔚喂蟻慰, 畏 伪委蟽胃畏蟽畏 渭喂伪蟼 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽委伪蟼 蟽蟿慰 未蠅渭维蟿喂慰 蟿畏谓 慰蟺慰委伪 伪蟺慰蠁蔚蠉纬蔚喂蟼 谓伪 魏慰喂蟿维尉蔚喂蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂维 蟽慰蠀 谓伪 伪蟻谓畏胃蔚委蟼 蟿畏谓 蠉蟺伪蟻尉萎 蟿畏蟼, 蟿慰 尉伪蠁谓喂魏蠈 蟽尾萎蟽喂渭慰 蔚谓蠈蟼 魏蔚蟻喂慰蠉 蟺慰蠀 尾蠀胃委味蔚喂 蟿慰 未蠅渭维蟿喂慰 蟽蟿慰 苇蟻蔚尾慰蟼, 蟿慰 蟺伪蟻伪蟿蔚蟿伪渭苇谓慰 维纬纬喂纬渭伪 蟿蠅谓 蠂蔚蟻喂蠋谓 未蠉慰 伪蟺蟻慰蟽蟿维蟿蔚蠀蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓, 慰 纬未慰蠉蟺慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 魏维谓蔚喂 苇谓伪 蟺伪蟻维胃蠀蟻慰 蠈蟿伪谓 魏位蔚委谓蔚喂 魏伪喂 蟿慰 尉伪蠁谓喂魏蠈 伪蟺蠈渭伪魏蟻慰 纬苇位喂慰 蔚谓蠈蟼 蟺伪喂未喂慰蠉 蟽蟿畏 蟽魏维位伪. 螕谓萎蟽喂慰蟼 蟿蟻蠈渭慰蟼.
螌位伪 伪蠀蟿维 未畏位蠋谓慰蠀谓 维蟻蟻畏蟿伪 蟺蠅蟼 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 蠀蟺慰谓慰萎胃畏魏蔚, 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 蔚喂蟺蠋胃畏魏蔚 魏伪喂 未蔚谓 蔚喂未蠋胃畏魏蔚, 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 伪喂蟽胃维谓蔚蟽伪喂 伪蟺位维 魏伪喂 伪蟺慰蟽蟿蟻苇蠁蔚喂蟼 蟿慰 尾位苇渭渭伪 蟽慰蠀 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟿慰 伪蟺慰蠁蠉纬蔚喂蟼, 渭慰喂维味蔚喂 谓伪 蟽蟿慰喂蠂蔚喂蠋谓蔚喂 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 苇魏未畏位慰 魏伪喂 蟿慰 蟺蟻慰魏位畏蟿喂魏蠈.
螘纬蠋 蟿慰 未喂维尾伪蟽伪 伪蟺蠈 蔚魏未蠈蟽蔚喂蟼 螁纬蟻伪 蟽蔚 渭蔚蟿维蠁蟻伪蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 螝慰蟽渭维 螤慰位委蟿畏. 螘谓谓慰蔚委蟿伪喂 尾蟻维未蠀 渭蔚 魏位蔚喂蟽蟿维 蟿伪 蠁蠋蟿伪 魏伪喂 魏慰渭渭苇谓畏 蟿畏谓 伪谓维蟽伪. 螝伪喂 蟿慰 位维蟿蟻蔚蠄伪 纬喂伪 蟿慰谓 伪蠀胃蔚谓蟿喂魏蠈 渭畏 蔚蟺喂蟿畏未蔚蠀渭苇谓慰 蟿蟻蠈渭慰 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 蠄蠀蠂慰位慰纬喂魏苇蟼 蟺蟻慰蔚魏蟿维蟽蔚喂蟼 蟿慰蠀. 螝伪喂 苇纬喂谓蔚 苇谓伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿伪 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓伪 渭慰蠀 尾喂尾位委伪, 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿苇蟼 蟿喂蟼 魏位伪蟽蟽喂魏苇蟼 伪纬维蟺蔚蟼 蟽蟿喂蟼 慰蟺慰委蔚蟼 蔚蟺喂蟽蟿蟻苇蠁蔚喂蟼 魏维胃蔚 蟿蠈蟽慰 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪 谓伪 尉伪谓伪谓喂蠋蟽蔚喂蟼 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蟿畏谓 蟺蟻蠋蟿畏 蠁慰蟻维鈥�
螚 伪渭蠁委蟽畏渭畏 伪蠁萎纬畏蟽畏 魏伪喂 慰喂 未喂蠁慰蟻慰蠉渭蔚谓慰喂 未喂维位慰纬慰喂 维位位蠅蟽蟿蔚, 魏伪胃喂蟽蟿慰蠉谓 蟺喂胃伪谓苇蟼 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 未蠉慰 蔚魏未慰蠂苇蟼. 螣 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 渭苇蟽伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 魏位委渭伪 蟿畏蟼 伪渭蠁喂蟽尾萎蟿畏蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 伪蟺蟻慰蟽未喂蠈蟻喂蟽蟿慰蠀 未蔚谓 蟺蔚蟻喂慰蟻委味蔚喂 蟿喂蟼 慰未慰蠉蟼 蔚蟺苇魏蟿伪蟽畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 苇蟻纬慰蠀 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 蔚蟺喂蟿蟻苇蟺蔚喂 蟽蔚 魏维胃蔚 蔚魏未慰蠂萎 谓伪 蔚蠀蟽蟿伪胃蔚委.
螒纬纬位喂魏萎 蔚尉慰蠂萎 蟿畏蟼 尾喂魏蟿蠅蟻喂伪谓萎蟼 蔚蟺慰蠂萎蟼, 蔚喂未蠀位位喂伪魏维 蟿慰蟺委伪, 蠀蟺苇蟻慰蠂畏 苇蟺伪蠀位畏 渭蔚 蟿蔚蟻维蟽蟿喂慰 魏萎蟺慰, 位委渭谓蔚蟼, 未苇谓蟿蟻伪, 蔚蠀蟻蠉蠂蠅蟻伪 蟽魏慰谓喂蟽渭苇谓伪 未蠅渭维蟿喂伪, 渭喂伪 蠂慰蠉蠁蟿伪 蠀蟺畏蟻蔚蟿喂魏蠈 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏蠈 魏伪喂 伪蟺蠈位蠀蟿畏 伪蟺慰渭蠈谓蠅蟽畏. 螠喂伪 谓蔚伪蟻萎 纬魏慰蠀尾蔚蟻谓维谓蟿伪 苇蟻蠂蔚蟿伪喂 谓伪 蠁蟻慰谓蟿委蟽蔚喂 未蠉慰 慰蟻蠁伪谓维 蟺伪喂未委伪 (苇谓伪 伪纬蠈蟻喂 10 蔚蟿蠋谓 魏伪喂 苇谓伪 魏慰蟻委蟿蟽喂 8 蔚蟿蠋谓), 蟺慰蠀 蔚委谓伪喂 蠀蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 魏畏未蔚渭慰谓委伪 蟿慰蠀 胃蔚委慰蠀 蟿慰蠀蟼, 慰 慰蟺慰委慰蟼 蠈渭蠅蟼 未蔚 胃苇位蔚喂 谓伪 苇蠂蔚喂 魏伪渭委伪 蟽蠂苇蟽畏 渭伪味委 蟿慰蠀蟼. 螌位伪 魏伪位维 渭苇蠂蟻喂 蟿畏 蟽蟿喂纬渭萎 蟺慰蠀 畏 纬魏慰蠀尾蔚蟻谓维谓蟿伪 伪蟻蠂委味蔚喂 谓伪 尾位苇蟺蔚喂 蟿伪 蠁伪谓蟿维蟽渭伪蟿伪 未蠉慰 谓蔚魏蟻蠋谓 蠀蟺畏蟻蔚蟿蠋谓 魏伪喂 苇蠂蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪魏位蠈谓畏蟿畏 蟺蔚蟺慰委胃畏蟽畏 蟺蠅蟼 胃苇位慰蠀谓 谓伪 尾位维蠄慰蠀谓 蟿伪 蟺伪喂未喂维 魏伪喂 谓伪 蟿伪 未喂伪蠁胃蔚委蟻慰蠀谓. 螁位位慰蟿蔚 蟿蟻慰渭慰魏蟻伪蟿畏渭苇谓畏 魏伪喂 苇蟿慰喂渭畏 谓伪 蟿慰 尾维位蔚喂 蟽蟿伪 蟺蠈未喂伪 魏伪喂 维位位慰蟿蔚 胃伪蟻蟻伪位苇伪 尉蔚魏喂谓维蔚喂 苇谓伪 蟽魏慰蟿蔚喂谓蠈, 伪蟿渭慰蟽蠁伪喂蟻喂魏蠈 魏蠀谓畏纬畏蟿蠈 蠁伪谓蟿伪蟽渭维蟿蠅谓 (萎 渭萎蟺蠅蟼 蠈蠂喂;;)
螣 位蠈纬慰蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蟺蠀魏谓蠈蟼 魏伪喂 蠂蔚喂渭伪蟻蟻蠋未畏蟼, 苇蟿蟽喂 蟺慰蠀 谓伪 蟿伪喂蟻喂维味蔚喂 伪蟺蠈位蠀蟿伪 渭蔚 蟿伪 蟺伪喂蠂谓委未喂伪 蟺慰蠀 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蟺伪委尉蔚喂 蟿慰 渭蠀伪位蠈, 蟿慰谓 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰 蟺慰蠀 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蠂维谓蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蔚 未伪喂未伪位蠋未畏 渭慰谓慰蟺维蟿喂伪 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 未喂伪蠁蠀纬萎, 谓伪 蠁伪谓蟿维味蔚蟿伪喂, 谓伪 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬蔚委, 谓伪 伪渭蠁喂蟽尾畏蟿蔚委 魏伪喂 谓伪 伪蟺慰蟻蟻委蟺蟿蔚喂. 螡伪 纬委谓蔚蟿伪喂 慰蠀蟽喂伪蟽蟿喂魏维 蔚蠂胃蟻蠈蟼 蟿慰蠀 委未喂慰蠀 蟿慰蠀 蟿慰蠀 蔚伪蠀蟿慰蠉.
危喂蠅蟺苇蟼 蟺慰蠀 渭慰喂维味慰蠀谓 谓伪 蔚魏蟿蔚委谓慰谓蟿伪喂 蟽蟿慰 维蟺蔚喂蟻慰, 畏 伪委蟽胃畏蟽畏 渭喂伪蟼 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽委伪蟼 蟽蟿慰 未蠅渭维蟿喂慰 蟿畏谓 慰蟺慰委伪 伪蟺慰蠁蔚蠉纬蔚喂蟼 谓伪 魏慰喂蟿维尉蔚喂蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂维 蟽慰蠀 谓伪 伪蟻谓畏胃蔚委蟼 蟿畏谓 蠉蟺伪蟻尉萎 蟿畏蟼, 蟿慰 尉伪蠁谓喂魏蠈 蟽尾萎蟽喂渭慰 蔚谓蠈蟼 魏蔚蟻喂慰蠉 蟺慰蠀 尾蠀胃委味蔚喂 蟿慰 未蠅渭维蟿喂慰 蟽蟿慰 苇蟻蔚尾慰蟼, 蟿慰 蟺伪蟻伪蟿蔚蟿伪渭苇谓慰 维纬纬喂纬渭伪 蟿蠅谓 蠂蔚蟻喂蠋谓 未蠉慰 伪蟺蟻慰蟽蟿维蟿蔚蠀蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓, 慰 纬未慰蠉蟺慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 魏维谓蔚喂 苇谓伪 蟺伪蟻维胃蠀蟻慰 蠈蟿伪谓 魏位蔚委谓蔚喂 魏伪喂 蟿慰 尉伪蠁谓喂魏蠈 伪蟺蠈渭伪魏蟻慰 纬苇位喂慰 蔚谓蠈蟼 蟺伪喂未喂慰蠉 蟽蟿畏 蟽魏维位伪. 螕谓萎蟽喂慰蟼 蟿蟻蠈渭慰蟼.
螌位伪 伪蠀蟿维 未畏位蠋谓慰蠀谓 维蟻蟻畏蟿伪 蟺蠅蟼 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 蠀蟺慰谓慰萎胃畏魏蔚, 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 蔚喂蟺蠋胃畏魏蔚 魏伪喂 未蔚谓 蔚喂未蠋胃畏魏蔚, 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 伪喂蟽胃维谓蔚蟽伪喂 伪蟺位维 魏伪喂 伪蟺慰蟽蟿蟻苇蠁蔚喂蟼 蟿慰 尾位苇渭渭伪 蟽慰蠀 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟿慰 伪蟺慰蠁蠉纬蔚喂蟼, 渭慰喂维味蔚喂 谓伪 蟽蟿慰喂蠂蔚喂蠋谓蔚喂 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 苇魏未畏位慰 魏伪喂 蟿慰 蟺蟻慰魏位畏蟿喂魏蠈.
螘纬蠋 蟿慰 未喂维尾伪蟽伪 伪蟺蠈 蔚魏未蠈蟽蔚喂蟼 螁纬蟻伪 蟽蔚 渭蔚蟿维蠁蟻伪蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 螝慰蟽渭维 螤慰位委蟿畏. 螘谓谓慰蔚委蟿伪喂 尾蟻维未蠀 渭蔚 魏位蔚喂蟽蟿维 蟿伪 蠁蠋蟿伪 魏伪喂 魏慰渭渭苇谓畏 蟿畏谓 伪谓维蟽伪. 螝伪喂 蟿慰 位维蟿蟻蔚蠄伪 纬喂伪 蟿慰谓 伪蠀胃蔚谓蟿喂魏蠈 渭畏 蔚蟺喂蟿畏未蔚蠀渭苇谓慰 蟿蟻蠈渭慰 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 蠄蠀蠂慰位慰纬喂魏苇蟼 蟺蟻慰蔚魏蟿维蟽蔚喂蟼 蟿慰蠀. 螝伪喂 苇纬喂谓蔚 苇谓伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿伪 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓伪 渭慰蠀 尾喂尾位委伪, 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿苇蟼 蟿喂蟼 魏位伪蟽蟽喂魏苇蟼 伪纬维蟺蔚蟼 蟽蟿喂蟼 慰蟺慰委蔚蟼 蔚蟺喂蟽蟿蟻苇蠁蔚喂蟼 魏维胃蔚 蟿蠈蟽慰 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪 谓伪 尉伪谓伪谓喂蠋蟽蔚喂蟼 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蟿畏谓 蟺蟻蠋蟿畏 蠁慰蟻维鈥�
December 13, 2016
...my imagination had, in a flash, turned real. He did stand there!
I could not decide whether I was more intrigued by the Gothic thriller or the intricate of the prose, a truly - truly - labyrinthine prose, which James employs with great effect for the purpose of dissimulation. (Folks would later dub it 'unreliable narration.') You can trust James to phrase the most simplest of ideas and situations in the most imaginative of ways without making a fool of you; but if you still insist on clarity, go ahead and tell us whether the governess really did see the ghost or was it all a figment of her overexcited imagination. In any case, this is one of the finest examples of a story where the style of writing itself suggests ideas to the reader without stating anything in concrete terms.
I (re)read it in one sitting, with racing heart and damp underarms, and, probably my blood pressure also shot up, if only metaphorically. No, it wasn't the horror. Horror films don't scare me, let alone the writing. It was, I realised early on, the pressure of the prose bearing down on my soul, its gravity many times greater than that of the earth, until I could not tear myself away till I had finished the job, panting; like when you're planted on the belt of a treadmill inclined upwards, you are making the effort without going anywhere and can't rest your legs until the segment has run its course and your muscles are fully exercised.
This novella is like a literary treadmill.
June '16.
I could not decide whether I was more intrigued by the Gothic thriller or the intricate of the prose, a truly - truly - labyrinthine prose, which James employs with great effect for the purpose of dissimulation. (Folks would later dub it 'unreliable narration.') You can trust James to phrase the most simplest of ideas and situations in the most imaginative of ways without making a fool of you; but if you still insist on clarity, go ahead and tell us whether the governess really did see the ghost or was it all a figment of her overexcited imagination. In any case, this is one of the finest examples of a story where the style of writing itself suggests ideas to the reader without stating anything in concrete terms.
I (re)read it in one sitting, with racing heart and damp underarms, and, probably my blood pressure also shot up, if only metaphorically. No, it wasn't the horror. Horror films don't scare me, let alone the writing. It was, I realised early on, the pressure of the prose bearing down on my soul, its gravity many times greater than that of the earth, until I could not tear myself away till I had finished the job, panting; like when you're planted on the belt of a treadmill inclined upwards, you are making the effort without going anywhere and can't rest your legs until the segment has run its course and your muscles are fully exercised.
This novella is like a literary treadmill.
June '16.
November 17, 2024
I failed to hang on to this fantastic story where nothing was happening. The "tension" builds up well throughout the story, and the end sentence is striking, but I got bored, waiting for something to happen. In addition, the descriptions of situations or feelings are sometimes quite convoluted, especially in the opening. It was a disappointment, therefore.
December 11, 2020
Welcome back to the newest edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion. I'll be your host today, and my, do I have a show for you.
I hate it when I don't like a classic. People immediately assume that you don't get it or that you need to look at it from the point of view of the readers at the time of publication. I know. I've put in my time reading classics in the past and frequently still do for fun.
Sometimes you simply just don't like a book.
Honestly, I should have loved this. I love ghost stories. I love books where you can examine the psychology of the lead. I like being able to have multiple interpretations for events. It seemed a book I was bound to love.
Yet here I am, having finished and absolutely hating it. It was dull, it was over written (and seemingly in a love/hate relationship with commas considering the extreme over use of them) and while the ambiguity was appreciated, the vagueness of the narrative was not. Half the time I felt like it was like a bad dream, using inaccurate data to come to an illogical conclusion, and rather than intriguing me, it annoyed me.
I know its well loved, but this is a case where the book is simply not for me. The psychological aspect is interesting, but the story isn't. I only finished it because it was extremely short... honestly though, I wish I had not bothered. 1/5 stars
I hate it when I don't like a classic. People immediately assume that you don't get it or that you need to look at it from the point of view of the readers at the time of publication. I know. I've put in my time reading classics in the past and frequently still do for fun.
Sometimes you simply just don't like a book.
Honestly, I should have loved this. I love ghost stories. I love books where you can examine the psychology of the lead. I like being able to have multiple interpretations for events. It seemed a book I was bound to love.
Yet here I am, having finished and absolutely hating it. It was dull, it was over written (and seemingly in a love/hate relationship with commas considering the extreme over use of them) and while the ambiguity was appreciated, the vagueness of the narrative was not. Half the time I felt like it was like a bad dream, using inaccurate data to come to an illogical conclusion, and rather than intriguing me, it annoyed me.
I know its well loved, but this is a case where the book is simply not for me. The psychological aspect is interesting, but the story isn't. I only finished it because it was extremely short... honestly though, I wish I had not bothered. 1/5 stars
June 10, 2013
It is the worst thing in the world to leave children with servants.
Maria Edgeworth , Practical Education, 1798
Of all the vulgar superstitions of the half educated, none dies harder than the absurd delusion that there is no such thing as ghosts.
William T Stead, Real Ghost Stories, 1897
The T of the S is a very mechanical matter, I honestly think 鈥� an inferior, a merely pictorial, subject and rather a shameless pot-boiler.
Henry James in a letter, 1898
Come, let us enter what Wayne Booth called 鈥渢he appalling chaos of critical opinions鈥� about The Turn of the Screw. Out of Henry James鈥� vast output, the shelf-full of thick impressive novels, the hundreds of novellas and short stories, it鈥檚 this 100 page effort, this pot-boiler, which scored him his big hit, which transfixed readers then and now. This little story, in terms of the attention it鈥檚 received, is in the same bracket as Hamlet, Don Quixote and The Divine Comedy. A young governess, an older woman, two children, and two 鈥�. ah , two what, precisely?
Such buzzing attention over one small flower, as Mr Beidler says.
The three main schools of thought are
The ghosts were real
Not a popular idea these days
The ghosts were not real and the governess was insane
As a complete disbeliever in afterlives, ghosts, souls and all of that spooky apparatus, this is the reading I prefer. But what鈥檚 this? 鈥�
Why, since James wrote some half-dozen other stories about ghosts, must we read this one alone as a hallucinatory story? (Peter Beidler, p 195)
Thanks, Peter. Hmm. I鈥檒l ignore that for the moment.
Edmund Wilson promoted the crazy-governess interpretation in 1934. He picks out this nice detail:
Observe from the Freudian point of view, the significance of the governess鈥� interest in the little girl鈥檚 pieces of wood and of the fact that the male apparition first takes shape on a tower and the female apparition on a lake.
Just to remind you :
She had picked up a small flat piece of wood which happened to have in it a little hole that had evidently suggested to her the idea of sticking in another fragment that might figure as a mast and make the thing a boat. This second morsel, as I watched her, she was very markedly and intently attempting to tighten in its place. The Turn of the Screw p55
So, in this reading, the governess is a textbook case of what the Victorians called sexual hysteria. Not much seen, anymore, because it is caused by the severe social repression of female sexuality, which is rarely encountered these days. However, a governess was in a real bad situation in 1840 (when the story is set). She was unmarried, she was living in a strange man鈥檚 house, she could not consort with the lower servants and yet she was not the social equal of her employers. She was in a bind. Check out Jane Eyre for a fantasy resolution 鈥� Reader, I married him! But that鈥檚 not what happens here. So female sexual hysteria was what happened to normal women in a situation where they were not allowed any kind of outlet for their sexuality. They went a bit doo-lally. (That was Havelock Ellis鈥� term.) Their sexual feelings turned into morbid dread of sex. This was an established syndrome of the time. What the favoured remedy was, I do not know.
The Turn of the Screw does indeed appear to me to turn around an axis of morbid sexuality. There is a great mystery about what Quint and Miss Jessell did with (to) the children when they were in charge. Is this linked to what Miles did to get expelled from school? What exactly did he do? 鈥淚 said things.鈥� Who to? 鈥淥nly a few. Those I liked.鈥� So, these things Miles (aged 10) said to his schoolfriends, the boys he liked, were enough to get him expelled.
Stanley Renner :
It is not a ghost story but a psychological drama about the disastrous effects of Victorian sexual attitudes on the development of children. (p285)
The governess sees the ghosts as evil because they are the return of sexual adults into the lives of the children; and she sees them trying to get their hands on the children and turn the children into themselves. (Is there a whiff of paedophilia about this? I don't know.) She wants to prevent any kind of sexual awareness in the children. The story says that when you do this you are, metaphorically speaking, killing the children. One escapes her fanaticism, the other doesn鈥檛.
THE THIRD THEORY : Neither of the above readings can be said to be true as the story is deliberately un-interpretable.
In an essay called The Squirm of the True, Christine Brooke-Rose introduced the post-modern point of view :
I shall not argue for the ghosts or for the hallucinations, but take it as accepted there is no word or incident in the story that cannot be interpreted both ways.
Jose Amoros said that there are three stages in reading the story 鈥� first you trust the governess, then you accept the possibility she is unreliable, then you accept the 鈥渞adical ambiguity鈥� of the story.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain
Then there is
Donovan, 1967, referencing Zen Buddhism
These third-stage readers
see the story as ensuring the constant frustration of every interpreter; it leads readers on a merry chase through one failed reading after another (p248)
THE DEATH OF MILES
The first great question is 鈥渁re the ghosts real?鈥� and the second is 鈥渨hat caused the death of Miles?鈥� This has taxed everyone who has ever commented on the story. This fascinating critical investigation contains no less than SIX pages of quotes about the death of Miles from dozens of critics. A remarkable array of opinion.
This book also presents feminist, queer and Marxist readings, but I fear I have already tried your patience, dear goodreaders, so I will wind up this review.
AND IN THE END
Perhaps when all is said and done the moral of the story of The Turn of the Screw is that you should probably use a reputable professional agency to source your live-in governesses.
August 6, 2019
-驴No la ve usted como la vemos nosotras? 驴Es que no la est谩 viendo ahora..., ahora mismo? 隆Es tan grande como una hoguera! 隆Lim铆tese a mirar, buena mujer! 隆Mire!
"Otra vuelta de tuerca" sigue siendo para m铆 LA novela de fantasmas por antonomasia, como dice la contratapa de mi edici贸n del libro. Y creo que m谩s all谩 de otras que dentro del g茅nero g贸tico marcaron el inicio de estos relatos, como Los misterios de Udolfo (nombrada en esta novela) y El castillo de Otranto, este el libro de Henry James el que instala definitivamente el concepto de lo fantasmal, lo ominoso y lo opresivo en una novela tradicional.
Seguramente hay muchos ejemplos m谩s en este vasto universo de la literatura, pero es que cuando un lector tiene ganas de incursionar en estos relatos es muy probable que el primer t铆tulo que se la venga a la cabeza el t铆tulo de este libro, escritoo por este gran novelista, famoso por haber dividido su narrativa entre Inglaterra y los Estados Unidos.
Este es uno de sus 茅xitos m谩s rotundos, conjuntamente con otras obras como "Retrato de una dama", "Las bostonianas", "Los papeles de Aspern" y "Los embajadores". Su obra es vasta e inolvidable y a煤n hoy se sigue leyendo en todo el mundo.
Esta novela instala otra cuesti贸n crucial en la narrativa y que se refiere a los distintos puntos de vista de los personajes, puesto que cada uno tiene una visi贸n propia de lo que ve o cree ver.
En primer lugar tenemos al personaje principal, la institutriz sin nombre (nunca sabemos c贸mo se llama) que llega a una enorme mansi贸n de Bly para cuidar y educar a dos supuestamente encantadores ni帽os, llamados Miles y Flora. Conocer谩 all铆 al ama de llaves, la se帽ora Grose, un personaje no tan secundario que tendr谩 que mucho que ver a lo largo de lo que sucede a partir de los primeros "encuentros" de la institutriz con presencias extra帽as.
La novela ha tenido m煤ltiples interpretaciones y todas recaen siempre en la institutriz, ya que con el correr de los cap铆tulos, el lector comienza a hacerse ciertas preguntas: 驴son los fantasmas de la anterior institutriz, los que vuelven a la mansi贸n para "quedarse" con los ni帽os y aterrorizarla a ella? Al leer la novela, conocemos la historia de la se帽orita Jessel, que fue joven y hermosa como ella y que muri贸 en circunstancias extra帽as y tambi茅n del criado, el se帽or Quint, supuestamente violento, cruel y promiscuo que es hallado muerto tiempo atr谩s y al parecer ambos no descansan en paz.
驴La institutriz sufre de alucinaciones? 驴est谩 mentalmente desequilibrada? 驴 se est谩 volviendo loca? 驴es paranoica? Todas estas preguntas comienzan a instalarse en nuestra cabeza, pero las respuestas chocan entre s铆 puesto que todas adquieren una probabilidad muy certera. Uno de los pasajes m谩s significativos que se relacionan a estas preguntas se da cuando la institutriz y Flora se encuentran a orillas del lago del mar de Azov y creo que es la mejor escena de esta novela.
All铆 est谩 ella y Flora y la se帽orita Jessel. 驴Est谩 la se帽orita Jessel? La institutriz la est谩 viendo y rec铆procamente Jessel la mira con una mirada demon铆aca y realmente fantasmal, pero Flora... 驴la ve? 驴o la ve y le dice a la institutriz que no?
As铆 est谩n planteados los encuentros con los fantasmas que al inicio son entre la institutriz y ellos a trav茅s de ventanales en el caso del se帽or Quint y en las escaleras y en las habitaciones cuando sucede con la se帽orita Jessel, hasta que comienzan a participar los ni帽os de ellos y tambi茅n la se帽ora Grose.
Todo parece tan claro para la institutriz, pero tan confuso para el lector y este es el juego al que nos lleva Henry James con tanta maestr铆a y genialidad. Es que nunca sabremos si los ni帽os saben y no quieren decirlo o la mente de la institutriz va camino a una colapso mental inevitable. As铆 est谩n planteadas las cosas ya desde el tercer cap铆tulo y terminar谩 las historias con algunos puntos no cerrados, pero manteni茅ndonos a nosotros los lectores realmente expectantes de lo que pueda suceder.
"Otra vuelta de tuerca" hace alusi贸n a t茅rminos como terror, miedo, alucinaci贸n, sugesti贸n, fantasmas, ambig眉edad, muerte y a g茅neros literarios como el g贸tico, el terror cl谩sico, el misterio, el terror psicol贸gico o el thriller.
Esta tan bien relatada por Henry James que hasta 茅l mismo sinti贸 un poco de miedo cuando le entreg贸 las galeradas al editor diciendo "Al terminar estaba tan asustado que me daba miedo ir a la cama."
Puedo imaginar lo que caus贸 en 1891 y m谩s all谩 de que el terror de hoy, a partir de genios como Stephen King pueda considerarse muy superior al terror relatado por Henry James, esta novela nunca perdi贸 su vigencia.
Le铆 este libro por primera vez y me fascin贸. Lo le铆 una segunda vez cuando estudi茅 Letras y me volvi贸 a hechizar.
Y a煤n hoy sigo intentando darle otra vuelta de tuerca...
"Otra vuelta de tuerca" sigue siendo para m铆 LA novela de fantasmas por antonomasia, como dice la contratapa de mi edici贸n del libro. Y creo que m谩s all谩 de otras que dentro del g茅nero g贸tico marcaron el inicio de estos relatos, como Los misterios de Udolfo (nombrada en esta novela) y El castillo de Otranto, este el libro de Henry James el que instala definitivamente el concepto de lo fantasmal, lo ominoso y lo opresivo en una novela tradicional.
Seguramente hay muchos ejemplos m谩s en este vasto universo de la literatura, pero es que cuando un lector tiene ganas de incursionar en estos relatos es muy probable que el primer t铆tulo que se la venga a la cabeza el t铆tulo de este libro, escritoo por este gran novelista, famoso por haber dividido su narrativa entre Inglaterra y los Estados Unidos.
Este es uno de sus 茅xitos m谩s rotundos, conjuntamente con otras obras como "Retrato de una dama", "Las bostonianas", "Los papeles de Aspern" y "Los embajadores". Su obra es vasta e inolvidable y a煤n hoy se sigue leyendo en todo el mundo.
Esta novela instala otra cuesti贸n crucial en la narrativa y que se refiere a los distintos puntos de vista de los personajes, puesto que cada uno tiene una visi贸n propia de lo que ve o cree ver.
En primer lugar tenemos al personaje principal, la institutriz sin nombre (nunca sabemos c贸mo se llama) que llega a una enorme mansi贸n de Bly para cuidar y educar a dos supuestamente encantadores ni帽os, llamados Miles y Flora. Conocer谩 all铆 al ama de llaves, la se帽ora Grose, un personaje no tan secundario que tendr谩 que mucho que ver a lo largo de lo que sucede a partir de los primeros "encuentros" de la institutriz con presencias extra帽as.
La novela ha tenido m煤ltiples interpretaciones y todas recaen siempre en la institutriz, ya que con el correr de los cap铆tulos, el lector comienza a hacerse ciertas preguntas: 驴son los fantasmas de la anterior institutriz, los que vuelven a la mansi贸n para "quedarse" con los ni帽os y aterrorizarla a ella? Al leer la novela, conocemos la historia de la se帽orita Jessel, que fue joven y hermosa como ella y que muri贸 en circunstancias extra帽as y tambi茅n del criado, el se帽or Quint, supuestamente violento, cruel y promiscuo que es hallado muerto tiempo atr谩s y al parecer ambos no descansan en paz.
驴La institutriz sufre de alucinaciones? 驴est谩 mentalmente desequilibrada? 驴 se est谩 volviendo loca? 驴es paranoica? Todas estas preguntas comienzan a instalarse en nuestra cabeza, pero las respuestas chocan entre s铆 puesto que todas adquieren una probabilidad muy certera. Uno de los pasajes m谩s significativos que se relacionan a estas preguntas se da cuando la institutriz y Flora se encuentran a orillas del lago del mar de Azov y creo que es la mejor escena de esta novela.
All铆 est谩 ella y Flora y la se帽orita Jessel. 驴Est谩 la se帽orita Jessel? La institutriz la est谩 viendo y rec铆procamente Jessel la mira con una mirada demon铆aca y realmente fantasmal, pero Flora... 驴la ve? 驴o la ve y le dice a la institutriz que no?
As铆 est谩n planteados los encuentros con los fantasmas que al inicio son entre la institutriz y ellos a trav茅s de ventanales en el caso del se帽or Quint y en las escaleras y en las habitaciones cuando sucede con la se帽orita Jessel, hasta que comienzan a participar los ni帽os de ellos y tambi茅n la se帽ora Grose.
Todo parece tan claro para la institutriz, pero tan confuso para el lector y este es el juego al que nos lleva Henry James con tanta maestr铆a y genialidad. Es que nunca sabremos si los ni帽os saben y no quieren decirlo o la mente de la institutriz va camino a una colapso mental inevitable. As铆 est谩n planteadas las cosas ya desde el tercer cap铆tulo y terminar谩 las historias con algunos puntos no cerrados, pero manteni茅ndonos a nosotros los lectores realmente expectantes de lo que pueda suceder.
"Otra vuelta de tuerca" hace alusi贸n a t茅rminos como terror, miedo, alucinaci贸n, sugesti贸n, fantasmas, ambig眉edad, muerte y a g茅neros literarios como el g贸tico, el terror cl谩sico, el misterio, el terror psicol贸gico o el thriller.
Esta tan bien relatada por Henry James que hasta 茅l mismo sinti贸 un poco de miedo cuando le entreg贸 las galeradas al editor diciendo "Al terminar estaba tan asustado que me daba miedo ir a la cama."
Puedo imaginar lo que caus贸 en 1891 y m谩s all谩 de que el terror de hoy, a partir de genios como Stephen King pueda considerarse muy superior al terror relatado por Henry James, esta novela nunca perdi贸 su vigencia.
Le铆 este libro por primera vez y me fascin贸. Lo le铆 una segunda vez cuando estudi茅 Letras y me volvi贸 a hechizar.
Y a煤n hoy sigo intentando darle otra vuelta de tuerca...
August 16, 2019
What is real , something you see but no one else does, things stare back at you then vanish into the nothingness of oblivion, images that cannot be solid ...ARE YOU GOING INSANE ? Such is the plot of the famous Henry James novella ...The Turn of the Screw, more a study of psychological turmoil than pure terror, yet it has it too. A young unnamed woman takes a job as governess to two small children in an old house called Bly, in rural England, set in the 1800's, she needs the money desperately , a boy Miles 10, and his sister Flora 8 both handsome , intelligent, very mature for their age, they seem quite normal. The siblings guardian a remote uncle living in the city (London) doesn't want to be bothered...no communications just take care of his burden and leave him in peace, not a loving person. The housekeeper, a friendly old lady Mrs. Grove, the governess and her become fast friends. Nevertheless there's a darkness brewing, unsaid but felt, the young lady starts to feel uncomfortable from the very beginning, too many mysteries keeps the atmosphere thick with suspense and what happened to the previous governess? Slowly she begins to discover the truth, a corrosive element bringing death to this estate. A man or maybe not , she sees but that is impossible ...no strangers are here, yet the governess starts asking questions too many to be answered properly. The late valet of the uncle's had an unfortunate accident, Peter Quint a rascal romantically involved with the previous governess also dead, Miss Jessel, the ghosts of the estate, their ghoulish mists cause havoc. How much do the children know or are they behind the apparitions, the present governess feels the stress and pain of the hopeless situation. The phantoms keep appearing and shockingly disappearing, no relief in sight. The pond and Flora, make for a frightening episode for everyone there, will she be saved...A fine mystery that will seem old-fashioned to some modern readers, yet it does have interesting characters trying to survive unknown factors and clear the air of the horror. If you have read the author books before, you'll enjoy it better. Henry James maybe long winded and you are not too sure what's he "talking about "periodically , still the talent is obvious. The adventurous will be happy at finding this writer, I did.
September 16, 2023
Instead of bananas or tacos, I have no doubt Henry James would have been the sort of man who chose instead to have commas on his boxer shorts. I always thought of Henry James as unnecessarily long-winded and so always avoided his books, and though I wasn't wrong, his books, not all of them at least, aren't the unreadable tomes I always considred them to be. I suspect that I may only be able to handle him in short form, however.
As to the actual story, I was hooked. It reminded me of a recent movie starring Maggie Gyllenhaal in which she, a kindergarten teacher, is convinced that one of her students is some sort of prodigy. Is he, or is she projecting? And so, having said nothing about the plot of this one,, I've told you all you need to know,,, and in a much briefer fashion than HJ could ever have dreamed of.
As to the actual story, I was hooked. It reminded me of a recent movie starring Maggie Gyllenhaal in which she, a kindergarten teacher, is convinced that one of her students is some sort of prodigy. Is he, or is she projecting? And so, having said nothing about the plot of this one,, I've told you all you need to know,,, and in a much briefer fashion than HJ could ever have dreamed of.
October 15, 2022
The Turn of the Screw by Henry James is a 2012 Duke Classics publication. (Originally published in 1898)
I鈥檝e been reading classic 鈥榟orror鈥� novels during the month of October for the past couple of years, and it was so fun, I decided to make it a tradition. I have watched several movie versions based on this short story, but, of course, movies tend to take liberties, so I wanted to read the book this year and see it through a fresh lens鈥�
I was surprised to see this classic has only earned a tepid rating average on 欧宝娱乐, though. I understand why someone today would find it rather bland if they are expecting modern day theatrics, which is unfortunate because the atmosphere, nuances, allegory, and subtlety are what made the ambiguous tale the fodder for so much debate- which continues on even today. I doubt anyone, one hundred years from now, will still be debating ANYTHING written today. So, there鈥檚 that.
That said, the writing is hard to follow. It is too wordy- and the capitalization of nearly every pronoun was annoying. Even so, I still managed to read the book in one sitting-as it is a short story. Despite its age, I did find it effective, as I prefer this slow build up over the cheap thrills so prominent today. I could see where readers would experience some chills and thrills back in 1898- and to be honest, I felt a few shivers here and there, too.
Does the story live up to the hype, though? Well, if I had entered the book with overblown expectations, I might have felt disappointed, or at the very least, confused by all the fuss surrounding this book, which has garnered so much attention in movies, television, and even on the stage. But because I was somewhat familiar with the premise, and knew it was meant to be a psychological exercise, I was fine with it. It鈥檚 a book that one might want to read multiple times before one could settle on an opinion about the validity of the ghosts, or any other message one might find buried in the text.
It did not, when first published, come without its criticisms either- but some of that seems ridiculous to me. Maybe the book was simply meant to be unsettling- meant to challenge one鈥檚 own perception of the events described- which is what I think. The only debate I鈥檒l step into is the one that argues the 鈥楪othic鈥� category the book often falls into. Yes, it has some 鈥楤ronte-esque鈥� Gothic tones- but in my opinion, it is not a pure Gothic novel, therefore I would not categorize it as such.
Overall, I thought the story was thought-provoking- though the atmosphere was tainted a bit by my struggles with the writing. Someday I might read it again, and maybe take a closer look at some of the suggested allegory of the story when I have more time to study it.
I think a book that has this kind of staying power, is still popping up on television, and is still the topic of much debate says a lot about the impact of what might have been a simple ghost story. For that reason alone, it deserves at least a four-star rating.
I鈥檝e been reading classic 鈥榟orror鈥� novels during the month of October for the past couple of years, and it was so fun, I decided to make it a tradition. I have watched several movie versions based on this short story, but, of course, movies tend to take liberties, so I wanted to read the book this year and see it through a fresh lens鈥�
I was surprised to see this classic has only earned a tepid rating average on 欧宝娱乐, though. I understand why someone today would find it rather bland if they are expecting modern day theatrics, which is unfortunate because the atmosphere, nuances, allegory, and subtlety are what made the ambiguous tale the fodder for so much debate- which continues on even today. I doubt anyone, one hundred years from now, will still be debating ANYTHING written today. So, there鈥檚 that.
That said, the writing is hard to follow. It is too wordy- and the capitalization of nearly every pronoun was annoying. Even so, I still managed to read the book in one sitting-as it is a short story. Despite its age, I did find it effective, as I prefer this slow build up over the cheap thrills so prominent today. I could see where readers would experience some chills and thrills back in 1898- and to be honest, I felt a few shivers here and there, too.
Does the story live up to the hype, though? Well, if I had entered the book with overblown expectations, I might have felt disappointed, or at the very least, confused by all the fuss surrounding this book, which has garnered so much attention in movies, television, and even on the stage. But because I was somewhat familiar with the premise, and knew it was meant to be a psychological exercise, I was fine with it. It鈥檚 a book that one might want to read multiple times before one could settle on an opinion about the validity of the ghosts, or any other message one might find buried in the text.
It did not, when first published, come without its criticisms either- but some of that seems ridiculous to me. Maybe the book was simply meant to be unsettling- meant to challenge one鈥檚 own perception of the events described- which is what I think. The only debate I鈥檒l step into is the one that argues the 鈥楪othic鈥� category the book often falls into. Yes, it has some 鈥楤ronte-esque鈥� Gothic tones- but in my opinion, it is not a pure Gothic novel, therefore I would not categorize it as such.
Overall, I thought the story was thought-provoking- though the atmosphere was tainted a bit by my struggles with the writing. Someday I might read it again, and maybe take a closer look at some of the suggested allegory of the story when I have more time to study it.
I think a book that has this kind of staying power, is still popping up on television, and is still the topic of much debate says a lot about the impact of what might have been a simple ghost story. For that reason alone, it deserves at least a four-star rating.
August 30, 2024
I'm afraid I just don't understand this novel's reputation!
THE TURN OF THE SCREW is the ambiguous story of a governess teaching two young orphaned children whose uncle guardian has assumed the financial responsibility for their upbringing but wishes to have absolutely no physical or emotional contact with them. Very shortly after she assumes her duties, ghostly apparitions begin to frequent the children's home and the surrounding grounds. Initially, the governess is worried that her sanity may be in question but, when she describes the appearances of the phantoms to the housekeeper, Mrs Grose, they are identified as Miss Jessel, the former governess and corrupt valet, Peter Quint, who left the home under very questionable circumstances. The governess, now convinced that the phantoms are all too real, is terrified that they are attempting to abduct and corrupt the souls of her two precious charges, little Flora and Miles.
Written in 1898, THE TURN OF THE SCREW has a reputation as the quintessential Victorian horror story and is revered in English literature as one of the finest examples of the genre. With advance billing like that, I wanted to like it, I really did. In a desire to be fair and balanced to a novella that has such a lofty reputation, I've taken the liberty of quoting Mary Whipple's eloquent five-star Amazon review (because I've come to trust Mary's opinions and, in fact, this is one of the reviews that prompted me to read it in the first place). Mary characterized the story as " ... still haunting after all these years."
"One of the most seductive of all ghost stories, TURN OF THE SCREW is a sophisticated and subtle literary exercise in which the author creates a dense, suggestive, and highly ambiguous story, its suspense and horror generated primarily by what the author does NOT say and does not describe. Compelled to fill in the blanks from his/her own store of personal fears, the reader ultimately conjures up a more horrifying set of images and circumstances than anything an author could impose from without.
... Though the governess is certainly neurotic and repressed, this novel was published ten years before Freud, suggesting that the story should be taken at face value, as a suspenseful but enigmatic Victorian version of a Faustian struggle for the souls of these children, yet numerous other interpretations find their ardent supporters as well."
While many ideas have been put forward, no unequivocal solutions to the mystery of the story exist because, frankly, James himself provided no explanations which might shed any light on this meta-mystery.
For many readers, this type of ambiguity is quite acceptable. Indeed, it is often the hallmark of a horror story that provides the spine-tingling frisson reaction that lovers of the genre look for. But, frankly, I just didn't care for it. Too me it smacked of an author who had a few rather creepy ideas abrogating his responsibility for the resolution of the plot and leaving it entirely up to the readers.
Even allowing for the literary habits of Victorian writers, the writing style itself, for my tastes, was lofty, muddled, pretentious and extraordinarily difficult to interpret. I found myself reading many sentences over and over again merely to haul a basic meaning out of the words. The reactions and the resulting decisions and actions of the governess and the housekeeper seemed odd, at best, and contrived and silly at the other extreme.
Sure, with the benefit of hindsight, I've read the analysis and the comments and I can see how they apply but, in the reading itself, I just didn't get it at all. And I don't think of myself as an inattentive reader or someone with constrained ideas by any means. So, despite the best of intentions, this is a review that definitely goes against the grain and pans what is generally considered a classic!
Not recommended.
Paul Weiss
THE TURN OF THE SCREW is the ambiguous story of a governess teaching two young orphaned children whose uncle guardian has assumed the financial responsibility for their upbringing but wishes to have absolutely no physical or emotional contact with them. Very shortly after she assumes her duties, ghostly apparitions begin to frequent the children's home and the surrounding grounds. Initially, the governess is worried that her sanity may be in question but, when she describes the appearances of the phantoms to the housekeeper, Mrs Grose, they are identified as Miss Jessel, the former governess and corrupt valet, Peter Quint, who left the home under very questionable circumstances. The governess, now convinced that the phantoms are all too real, is terrified that they are attempting to abduct and corrupt the souls of her two precious charges, little Flora and Miles.
Written in 1898, THE TURN OF THE SCREW has a reputation as the quintessential Victorian horror story and is revered in English literature as one of the finest examples of the genre. With advance billing like that, I wanted to like it, I really did. In a desire to be fair and balanced to a novella that has such a lofty reputation, I've taken the liberty of quoting Mary Whipple's eloquent five-star Amazon review (because I've come to trust Mary's opinions and, in fact, this is one of the reviews that prompted me to read it in the first place). Mary characterized the story as " ... still haunting after all these years."
"One of the most seductive of all ghost stories, TURN OF THE SCREW is a sophisticated and subtle literary exercise in which the author creates a dense, suggestive, and highly ambiguous story, its suspense and horror generated primarily by what the author does NOT say and does not describe. Compelled to fill in the blanks from his/her own store of personal fears, the reader ultimately conjures up a more horrifying set of images and circumstances than anything an author could impose from without.
... Though the governess is certainly neurotic and repressed, this novel was published ten years before Freud, suggesting that the story should be taken at face value, as a suspenseful but enigmatic Victorian version of a Faustian struggle for the souls of these children, yet numerous other interpretations find their ardent supporters as well."
While many ideas have been put forward, no unequivocal solutions to the mystery of the story exist because, frankly, James himself provided no explanations which might shed any light on this meta-mystery.
For many readers, this type of ambiguity is quite acceptable. Indeed, it is often the hallmark of a horror story that provides the spine-tingling frisson reaction that lovers of the genre look for. But, frankly, I just didn't care for it. Too me it smacked of an author who had a few rather creepy ideas abrogating his responsibility for the resolution of the plot and leaving it entirely up to the readers.
Even allowing for the literary habits of Victorian writers, the writing style itself, for my tastes, was lofty, muddled, pretentious and extraordinarily difficult to interpret. I found myself reading many sentences over and over again merely to haul a basic meaning out of the words. The reactions and the resulting decisions and actions of the governess and the housekeeper seemed odd, at best, and contrived and silly at the other extreme.
Sure, with the benefit of hindsight, I've read the analysis and the comments and I can see how they apply but, in the reading itself, I just didn't get it at all. And I don't think of myself as an inattentive reader or someone with constrained ideas by any means. So, despite the best of intentions, this is a review that definitely goes against the grain and pans what is generally considered a classic!
Not recommended.
Paul Weiss
October 27, 2016
2.5 stars rounded up.
A young governess is hired to care for the young niece and nephew of an unmarried man who acts as guardian of the two following the death of their parents. One condition must be upheld, however 鈥� the governess is not for any reason or by any means to contact her new employer. This seemed to me a daunting task and one which I am not certain would appeal to me in the least. The young governess, however, is charmed by the gentleman and agrees to his request. Her story, detailed in the form of a journal, is told years later and we as readers are privy to the psychological turmoil of this young woman. The question becomes whether her distress is based on reality or if her imagination has run wild due to loss of sanity. Each reader will arrive at a different conclusion to this story.
I have been eager to bury myself in this novella for some years now. When I discovered that a group read of this was planned, I took the opportunity to dust off my copy and dive in. It started off as well as I had hoped. I was intrigued; the stage for a satisfying gothic tale was set. After her arrival, the young governess receives a letter indicating that one of her new charges, Miles, is being sent home from boarding school. No reason for the expulsion is provided. Upon meeting Miles and his younger sister, Flora, our protagonist decides there is nothing these two beautiful and angelic creatures could do wrong. She shoulders her responsibility with determination and devotion. Then one day, as she walks upon the grounds, the governess encounters an unwelcome and menacing visitor standing in the tower of the estate house at Bly.
"It was as if, while I took in 鈥� what I did take in 鈥� all the rest of the scene had been stricken with death. I can hear again, as I write, the intense hush in which the sounds of evening dropped. The rooks stopped cawing in the golden sky, and the friendly hour lost, for the minute, all its voice. But there was no other change in nature, unless indeed it were a change that I saw with a stranger sharpness. The gold was still in the sky, the clearness in the air, and the man who looked at me over the battlements was as definite as a picture in a frame. That鈥檚 how I thought, with extraordinary quickness, of each person that he might have been and that he was not鈥� Was there a 鈥榮ecret鈥� at Bly 鈥� a mystery of Udolpho or an insane, an unmentionable relative kept in unsuspected confinement?"
One sighting is followed by another and our young governess notes that there exist not one but two beings seemingly haunting the grounds of Bly. She becomes convinced that these phantoms are those of her predecessor, the former governess Miss Jessel, and that of Quint, the now deceased valet of her current employer. Can anyone else see these visions? She envelops the housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, in her drama. She persists to determine if the children can see these sinister beings as well. She eventually comes to absolutely believe that the phantoms are there to do harm in some way to the children and that it is her duty to protect them at all costs, yet keeping in mind her promise to never burden her employer with any difficulties. She will ask herself whether the children are the innocent little persons she originally thought them to be. Tension naturally escalates and the governess comes to question even her own sanity. And while she does, the reader will do the same. However, details provided in the narrative as well as our own beliefs will sway us to credit either one theory or the other 鈥� a true haunting or a case of perhaps hysteria on the part of the governess. For me personally, the intention of the author was straightforward. But that is only my opinion. Other readers will conclude exactly the opposite. Some readers will say that it was deliberately left ambiguous.
Now you may be wondering why I rewarded only 2.5 stars for this highly regarded, classic ghost story. For me the writing was too convoluted. I personally love a superb turn of phrase and the classics don鈥檛 turn me off. But here I felt tangled up in the wordiness, the dialogue was inaccessible to me. I felt distanced from the characters to a degree that left me feeling too much like a passive bystander. I wanted to be drawn into the melodrama; I wanted to feel that shiver down my spine. I don鈥檛 need or want gruesomeness in my ghost stories, but I do crave a sense of dread as to what will happen next. With this book, the dread was underwhelming. It was like watching an old movie on an old television where the fuzz and static take over the screen; I am not fully captivated as a result. But you may be. If you have ever considered reading this highly acclaimed literary work, then grab a copy. You may love it as others have surely done. It鈥檚 a slim piece and won鈥檛 require a big investment of time. What I loved and appreciated most about this novel was the discussion which followed. I have read a number of opinions, a variety of theories, and each one has been invigorating and enriching. I will read this again鈥� someday.
A young governess is hired to care for the young niece and nephew of an unmarried man who acts as guardian of the two following the death of their parents. One condition must be upheld, however 鈥� the governess is not for any reason or by any means to contact her new employer. This seemed to me a daunting task and one which I am not certain would appeal to me in the least. The young governess, however, is charmed by the gentleman and agrees to his request. Her story, detailed in the form of a journal, is told years later and we as readers are privy to the psychological turmoil of this young woman. The question becomes whether her distress is based on reality or if her imagination has run wild due to loss of sanity. Each reader will arrive at a different conclusion to this story.
I have been eager to bury myself in this novella for some years now. When I discovered that a group read of this was planned, I took the opportunity to dust off my copy and dive in. It started off as well as I had hoped. I was intrigued; the stage for a satisfying gothic tale was set. After her arrival, the young governess receives a letter indicating that one of her new charges, Miles, is being sent home from boarding school. No reason for the expulsion is provided. Upon meeting Miles and his younger sister, Flora, our protagonist decides there is nothing these two beautiful and angelic creatures could do wrong. She shoulders her responsibility with determination and devotion. Then one day, as she walks upon the grounds, the governess encounters an unwelcome and menacing visitor standing in the tower of the estate house at Bly.
"It was as if, while I took in 鈥� what I did take in 鈥� all the rest of the scene had been stricken with death. I can hear again, as I write, the intense hush in which the sounds of evening dropped. The rooks stopped cawing in the golden sky, and the friendly hour lost, for the minute, all its voice. But there was no other change in nature, unless indeed it were a change that I saw with a stranger sharpness. The gold was still in the sky, the clearness in the air, and the man who looked at me over the battlements was as definite as a picture in a frame. That鈥檚 how I thought, with extraordinary quickness, of each person that he might have been and that he was not鈥� Was there a 鈥榮ecret鈥� at Bly 鈥� a mystery of Udolpho or an insane, an unmentionable relative kept in unsuspected confinement?"
One sighting is followed by another and our young governess notes that there exist not one but two beings seemingly haunting the grounds of Bly. She becomes convinced that these phantoms are those of her predecessor, the former governess Miss Jessel, and that of Quint, the now deceased valet of her current employer. Can anyone else see these visions? She envelops the housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, in her drama. She persists to determine if the children can see these sinister beings as well. She eventually comes to absolutely believe that the phantoms are there to do harm in some way to the children and that it is her duty to protect them at all costs, yet keeping in mind her promise to never burden her employer with any difficulties. She will ask herself whether the children are the innocent little persons she originally thought them to be. Tension naturally escalates and the governess comes to question even her own sanity. And while she does, the reader will do the same. However, details provided in the narrative as well as our own beliefs will sway us to credit either one theory or the other 鈥� a true haunting or a case of perhaps hysteria on the part of the governess. For me personally, the intention of the author was straightforward. But that is only my opinion. Other readers will conclude exactly the opposite. Some readers will say that it was deliberately left ambiguous.
Now you may be wondering why I rewarded only 2.5 stars for this highly regarded, classic ghost story. For me the writing was too convoluted. I personally love a superb turn of phrase and the classics don鈥檛 turn me off. But here I felt tangled up in the wordiness, the dialogue was inaccessible to me. I felt distanced from the characters to a degree that left me feeling too much like a passive bystander. I wanted to be drawn into the melodrama; I wanted to feel that shiver down my spine. I don鈥檛 need or want gruesomeness in my ghost stories, but I do crave a sense of dread as to what will happen next. With this book, the dread was underwhelming. It was like watching an old movie on an old television where the fuzz and static take over the screen; I am not fully captivated as a result. But you may be. If you have ever considered reading this highly acclaimed literary work, then grab a copy. You may love it as others have surely done. It鈥檚 a slim piece and won鈥檛 require a big investment of time. What I loved and appreciated most about this novel was the discussion which followed. I have read a number of opinions, a variety of theories, and each one has been invigorating and enriching. I will read this again鈥� someday.
May 19, 2017
"It was as if, while I took in鈥攚hat I did take in鈥攁ll the rest of the scene had been stricken with death. I can hear again, as I write, the intense hush in which the sounds of evening dropped. The rooks stopped cawing in the golden sky, and the friendly hour lost, for the minute, all its voice. But there was no other change in nature, unless indeed it were a change that I saw with a stranger sharpness."Oh, I was not scared (maybe just a little?) the last two days reading the , but I was intrigued, and, I have to confess, confused by beautiful but mazelike prose. How he likes to dissimulate, and you can trust him to phrase his ideas and situations in a most imaginative way. He plays with the reader. So don鈥檛 go looking for clarity, if you do that (as I may have done, or tried to until I realized it was in vain!) you will be lost. But if you insist on clarity, just try to decide whether the governess really did see the ghosts or if it was all a figment of her overexerted imagination. In any case, this is one of the finest examples of a story where the style of writing itself suggests ideas to the reader without stating anything in concrete terms. And that is why I enjoyed this elusive and ambiguous guessing game (and how I suffered to get to this point!).
The narrative revolves on itself continuously via half-formed questions and elusive answers. But suddenly James presents us a real masterful writing, and despite its constant ambiguity, makes us go on:
"It was as if, while I took in all the rest of the scene had been stricken with death. I can hear again, as I write, the intense hush in which the sounds of evening dropped. The rooks stopped cawing in the golden sky, and the friendly hour lost, for the minute, all its voice. But there was no other change in nature, unless indeed it were a change that I saw with a stranger sharpness. The gold was still in the sky, the clearness in the air, and who looked at me over the battlements was as definite as a picture in a frame. That was how I thought, with extraordinary quickness, of each person that he might have been and that he was not."
Simply brilliant, how could I not go on despite my confusion? Nevertheless, there are so many things left unsaid, so may half-sentences, as we see in one of the dialogues between the governess and Mrs. Grouse:
鈥淭hen you do know what she died of?鈥� I asked.
鈥淣o鈥擨 know nothing. I wanted not to know; I was glad enough I didn鈥檛; and I thanked heaven she was well out of this!鈥�
鈥淵et you had, then, your idea鈥斺€�
鈥淥f her real reason for leaving? Oh, yes鈥攁s to that. She couldn鈥檛 have stayed. Fancy it here鈥攆or a governess! And afterward I imagined鈥攁nd I still imagine. And what I imagine is dreadful.鈥�
It is extraordinary, and unsettling I have to repeat, not to know what the truth is. For I discovered soon that there was no truth, so I had to go looking for my own if I could find it! James deceives the reader into believing The Turn of the Screw is a Gothic novel, but its meaning and subtleties, content and context leaps at the reader, especially the sophisticated reader who doesn鈥檛 believe in a simple vision.
Where the ghosts real?
For me this was never true, it is a simplistic explanation, and we can read so much more in James鈥檚 prose.
If there were no ghosts, was then the governess insane?
The poor governess that fell in love in just one meeting with the master, that continually rambles about what is happening, or what she imagines is going on around her. She was living in a strange man鈥檚 house, she could not mix with the lower servants, and besides her charges, the only person she can talk with is the housekeeper (who has nothing to tell her). She was totally alone and troubled. You could say she was suffering from female sexual hysteria. However, I鈥檒l not get into this discussion. Better to read what James says:
"Oh, yes, we may sit here and look at them, and they may show off to us there to their fill; but even while they pretend to be lost in their fairytale they鈥檙e steeped in their vision of the dead restored. He鈥檚 not reading to her,鈥� I declared; 鈥渢hey鈥檙e talking of THEM鈥� they鈥檙e talking horrors! I go on, I know, as if I were crazy; and it鈥檚 a wonder I鈥檓 not."Is that true, or is she deluding herself?
The governess seemed to adore the children. 鈥漈he attraction of my small charges was a constant joy鈥�, although other times her own feelings are not so peaceful:
"Adorable they must in truth have been, I now reflect, that I didn鈥檛 in these days hate them! Would exasperation, however, if relief had longer been postponed, finally have betrayed me? It little matters, for relief arrived. I call it relief, though it was only the relief that a snap brings to a strain or the burst of a thunderstorm to a day of suffocation. It was at least change, and it came with a rush."
Is there some kind of sexual relationship between the governess and Miles?
That there is an a sense of sexuality in the air in The Turn of the Screw, of that I have no doubt. If could be a latent desire. But there seems to be a possibility. He was not a small child, "Turned out for Sunday by his uncle鈥檚 tailor, Miles鈥檚 whole title to independence, the rights of his sex and situation, were so stamped upon him that if he had suddenly struck for freedom.鈥� There is more, as James reminds us:
"I went in with my light and found him, in bed, very wide awake at his ease. 鈥淲ell, what are YOU up to?鈥� he asked with a grace of sociability in which it occurred to me that Mrs. Grouse, had she been present, might have looked in vain for proof that anything was 鈥榦ut鈥�.But later on we discover how she is troubled with Miles:
I stood over him with my candle. 鈥淗ow did you know I was there?鈥�
鈥淲hy, of course, I heard you. Did you fancy you made no noise? You鈥檙e like a troop of cavalry!鈥� he beautifully laughed.
鈥淭hen you weren鈥檛 asleep?鈥�
鈥淣ot much! I lie awake and think.鈥�
I had put my candle, designedly, a short way off, and then, as he held his friendly old hand to me, had sat down on the edge of his bed. 鈥淲hat is it,鈥� I asked, 鈥渢hat you think of?鈥�
鈥淲hat in the world, my dear, but YOU?鈥�
鈥淒ear little Miles, dear little Miles, if you knew how I want to help you! It鈥檚 only that, it鈥檚 nothing but that, and I鈥檇 rather die than give you pain or do you wrong鈥擨鈥檇 rather die than hurt a hair of you. Dear little Miles鈥� 鈥攐h, I brought it out even if I should go too far.鈥�
The story seems indeed to turn around an axis of elusive sexuality. What did Quint and Miss Jessel do with, or to the children when they were in charge? Does this have any link with the relationship between the governess and Miles? There are allusions, but James leaves all open for the reader to decide.
Let鈥檚 not argue if one way or another, for all these interpretations, can be justified. There is no absolute truth. And that鈥檚 the beauty. As a matter of fact, I changed my point of view a few times during my reading. First, of course, I trusted the governess, then I thought she was unreliable and possibly mad, and then I was stricken by a possibility of a relationship with Miles. If there was danger in Bly, why did she not send Miles away with Mrs. Grouse and Flora? Why did she keep him alone with her in the house? So we readers are very nicely lead in a merry chase as we try to understand what James wanted to communicate. Probably that was just what he wanted, not a complete and easy understanding.
Perhaps when all is said and done the moral of the story of The Turn of the Screw is for each of us to decide. Ultimately, it is the play with meaning, the constant questioning regarding what is happening, the overall ambiguity and freedom of interpretation that transforms the readers into participants, that makes this novella brilliant.
In the end, truth is forgotten, and logic seemed to have evaporated; only the persistent and obsessive turn of the screw remains to remind us that all is not as it seems. Feelings that continues with me long after the final sentence.
______
I dedicate this review to my dear friend Vessey, with whom I read this book. Her fantastic reviews helped me when I first started writing mine!
_____
June 10, 2013
Paranormal Activity 6 : The Turn of the Screw
01:25 17th AUGUST 1895 : THE GOVERNESS鈥� BEDROOM
04:55 23RD AUGUST 1895 : FROM THE WINDOW OF THE MAIN STAIRCASE
Anyway, great story, but I must mention three STYLISTIC ISSUES which may perhaps GRATE on the less patient reader.
1) In The Turn of the Screw, as in a lot of HJ鈥檚 stuff, people like to finish each other鈥檚 sentences :
鈥淏ut aren鈥檛 they all 鈥� 鈥�
鈥淪ent home? Yes.鈥� P33
鈥淒id she see anything in the boy 鈥撯€�
鈥淭hat wasn鈥檛 right? She never told me.鈥� P 36
鈥淗e couldn鈥檛 prevent 鈥撯€�
鈥淵our learning the truth? I dare say!鈥� p63
鈥淪urely you don鈥檛 accuse him-鈥�
鈥淥f carrying on an intercourse that he conceals from me?鈥� 鈥� p64
鈥淭hat was the great reason 鈥� 鈥�
鈥淲hy those fiends took him in so long?鈥� p77
鈥淵ou leave him 鈥撯€�
鈥淪o long with Quint? Yes.鈥� P97
2) And people very often answer questions with questions and avoid giving a straight answer :
鈥淒o you fear for them?
鈥淒on鈥檛 you?鈥� 鈥� p47
鈥淎nd you forgave him that?鈥�
鈥淲ouldn鈥檛 you?鈥� p 63
鈥淲ell, do you like it?鈥�
鈥淒o you?鈥� 鈥� p114
鈥淚s that what you did at school?鈥�
鈥淎t school?鈥� 鈥� p 118
3) And being Henry James means that you sandbag your readers with sentences of remarkable opacity when they least expect it :
He never wrote to them 鈥� that may have been selfish, but it was part of the flattery of his trust of myself; for the way in which a man pays his highest tribute to a woman is apt to be but by the more festal celebration of one of the sacred laws of his comfort.
P82
(I was okay until 鈥渂e but by鈥�)
It sufficiently stuck out, that by tacit little tricks in which even more than myself he carried out the care for my dignity, I had had to appeal to him to let me off straining to meet him on the ground of his true capacity.
P 111
I mean, what - uh - huh -
Anyhow, whatever, this is a P Bryant Must Read.
footnote :
for Screw fans, here's my follow-up review of all the lovely theories about it:
September 14, 2017
5 stars to 's .
Perhaps America's greatest writer from our Realistic period, James's ghost story sets itself above all the rest -- and he has a lot to choose from. Consider this story a nanny's mind game - but who is in control?
I studied James in my college years, even dedicating an entire semester to several of his works as one of my independent studies in my English major. Something about the way James told stories spoke to me, and I felt a connection to him as a person and as a writer. Many of his works annoyed me (The Golden Bowl, ugh!) but I still appreciated them. With Turn of the Screw, it was a master class in so many ways.
The plot is still open to interpetation: who is telling the truth? who is alive? who is actually sane?
All the same, the story is quite simple but oh so complex. It's a study of intense psychology where the reader has to determine who is playing this game and who is merely a pawn.
If you like a bit of paranormal, and you are comfortable with a variety of impulse interpretations, you can learn a lot about how to draw in an audience from this book and James himself.
It's more of a long short story, or a short novella, probably readable in one sitting over a few hours. It's a good escape from today's literature with a balance between flowery writing and direct plot and character development.
Take a chance. You will definitely have strong opinions.
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on 欧宝娱乐, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at , where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by. Note: All written content is my original creation and copyrighted to me, but the graphics and images were linked from other sites and belong to them. Many thanks to their original creators.
Perhaps America's greatest writer from our Realistic period, James's ghost story sets itself above all the rest -- and he has a lot to choose from. Consider this story a nanny's mind game - but who is in control?
I studied James in my college years, even dedicating an entire semester to several of his works as one of my independent studies in my English major. Something about the way James told stories spoke to me, and I felt a connection to him as a person and as a writer. Many of his works annoyed me (The Golden Bowl, ugh!) but I still appreciated them. With Turn of the Screw, it was a master class in so many ways.
The plot is still open to interpetation: who is telling the truth? who is alive? who is actually sane?
All the same, the story is quite simple but oh so complex. It's a study of intense psychology where the reader has to determine who is playing this game and who is merely a pawn.
If you like a bit of paranormal, and you are comfortable with a variety of impulse interpretations, you can learn a lot about how to draw in an audience from this book and James himself.
It's more of a long short story, or a short novella, probably readable in one sitting over a few hours. It's a good escape from today's literature with a balance between flowery writing and direct plot and character development.
Take a chance. You will definitely have strong opinions.
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on 欧宝娱乐, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at , where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by. Note: All written content is my original creation and copyrighted to me, but the graphics and images were linked from other sites and belong to them. Many thanks to their original creators.
January 27, 2016
2.5 Stars. GEESH.......Glad it's over! Great set-up to draw in the reader with the anticipated narration of an eerie old manuscript, but Whew! What a verbose read!
I usually love, love, love old creepy gothic horror stories, but this one (to me) was not scary or eerie or even very atmospheric. Now, there were a couple of "sightings" in a window, one in particular that made me think......oh boy......here we go, but my hopes were soon short lived.
Besides a couple of suspicious deaths and the strange ending, I was disappointed. Yep, "A queer business and a queer story" of a governess hired to take care of two beautiful children, ages 8 and 10, in a house that is supposedly poisoned and filled with evil.
Cannot recommend my first Henry James novel.
September 4, 2024
9/4/24: Second time teaching this great and classic Victorian made-for-Christmas eve ghost story; no one can write a ghost story and ignore this grandfather of ghost stories.
9/12/23: I am teaching this story this fall, perhaps for the first time, in a class loosely based on ghosts/liminal spaces/hauntology. I began with Macbeth (I know, could have begun with Hamlet) as a canon, classic text, and then we read this story. I read it more than once in my life, but I listened to Emma Thompson read it the last couple days, and reread it in paper this past week. And saw the excellent 1961 film version, The Innocents twice, so good. I have not seen the Netflix Bly series. The story comes out of the British tradition of telling ghost stories for Christmas. You will recall Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol with all its ghosts. I understand Dickens is the guy who may have begun the Christmas tradition of ghost stories. The Canadian cartoonist Seth has for years been designing a series of little illustrated books featuring Christmas ghost stories, and I own ten or so of them. Cute and creepy!
8/14/23: Finished rereading it. I anticipate some readers might think that James's prose is cumbersome--the story could have been told in half the time!--but as with Poe, the ponderous prose is part of the slow build, the spooky atmosphere that grows.
鈥淭o gaze into the depths of blue of the child's eyes and pronounce their loveliness a trick of premature cunning was to be guilty of a cynicism in preference to which I naturally preferred to abjure my judgment and, so far as might be, my agitation.鈥�
It's a ghost story within a story, told at Christmas time, when in England ghost stories are traditionally told, a bunch around a fireplace. The story: A man's brother dies, leaving him with a ten-year-old nephew Miles, and an eight-year-old niece, Flora. The man leaves the care of the two children to housekeeper Mrs. Grose and a newly hired governess. Recent events: Miles was kicked out of school for vague reasons, and a previous governess, Miss Jessel, has died. . . hmmmmmm.
鈥淚t's beyond everything. Nothing at all that I know touches it."
"For sheer terror?" I remember asking.
He seemed to say it was not so simple as that; to be really at a loss how to qualify it. He passed his hand over his eyes, made a little wincing grimace. "For dreadful 鈥� dreadfulness!"
"Oh, how delicious!" cried one of the women.--The people around the fire anticipating in the ghost story session, and advertising the fright we'll expect.
The new and energetic governess loves the two innocent children, life is so perfect. So beautiful! As with Poe, however, and many gothic tales, beauty is often paired with dread. Wait: Did she just see the image of the former (dead) governess (as in: ghost)?! But who else did, if so? Is she crazy? Does she also see another deceased employee, Peter Quint? If so, what do they want?!
鈥淣o, no鈥攖here are depths, depths! The more I go over it, the more I see in it, and the more I see in it, the more I fear. I don鈥檛 know what I don鈥檛 see鈥攚hat I don鈥檛 fear!鈥�--our agitated governess
鈥淥h, it was a trap 鈥� not designed but deep 鈥� to my imagination, to my delicacy, perhaps to my vanity; to whatever in me was most excitable.鈥�--governess
Gothic fiction. There are explicit references to Jane Eyre and The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe. So we're part of an announced tradition.
The Innocents, near the top of lists of best ghost story films of all time, is SO good, in tandem with the book, which Stephen King says is one of the two best ghost stories of the past 150 years. Part of the difference of opinion about it is that we are not sure what really happens in it; we have to have opinions about it! But we understand that Henry James (may have) believed in ghosts; maybe in discussion with his brother William, who wrote a book on The Varieties of Religious Experience, including attention to spirits, ghosts and the like. But do you belive in ghosts? That's the important question. . . . who's that knocking at the door at this late hour? What's that creak on the stair?
9/12/23: I am teaching this story this fall, perhaps for the first time, in a class loosely based on ghosts/liminal spaces/hauntology. I began with Macbeth (I know, could have begun with Hamlet) as a canon, classic text, and then we read this story. I read it more than once in my life, but I listened to Emma Thompson read it the last couple days, and reread it in paper this past week. And saw the excellent 1961 film version, The Innocents twice, so good. I have not seen the Netflix Bly series. The story comes out of the British tradition of telling ghost stories for Christmas. You will recall Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol with all its ghosts. I understand Dickens is the guy who may have begun the Christmas tradition of ghost stories. The Canadian cartoonist Seth has for years been designing a series of little illustrated books featuring Christmas ghost stories, and I own ten or so of them. Cute and creepy!
8/14/23: Finished rereading it. I anticipate some readers might think that James's prose is cumbersome--the story could have been told in half the time!--but as with Poe, the ponderous prose is part of the slow build, the spooky atmosphere that grows.
鈥淭o gaze into the depths of blue of the child's eyes and pronounce their loveliness a trick of premature cunning was to be guilty of a cynicism in preference to which I naturally preferred to abjure my judgment and, so far as might be, my agitation.鈥�
It's a ghost story within a story, told at Christmas time, when in England ghost stories are traditionally told, a bunch around a fireplace. The story: A man's brother dies, leaving him with a ten-year-old nephew Miles, and an eight-year-old niece, Flora. The man leaves the care of the two children to housekeeper Mrs. Grose and a newly hired governess. Recent events: Miles was kicked out of school for vague reasons, and a previous governess, Miss Jessel, has died. . . hmmmmmm.
鈥淚t's beyond everything. Nothing at all that I know touches it."
"For sheer terror?" I remember asking.
He seemed to say it was not so simple as that; to be really at a loss how to qualify it. He passed his hand over his eyes, made a little wincing grimace. "For dreadful 鈥� dreadfulness!"
"Oh, how delicious!" cried one of the women.--The people around the fire anticipating in the ghost story session, and advertising the fright we'll expect.
The new and energetic governess loves the two innocent children, life is so perfect. So beautiful! As with Poe, however, and many gothic tales, beauty is often paired with dread. Wait: Did she just see the image of the former (dead) governess (as in: ghost)?! But who else did, if so? Is she crazy? Does she also see another deceased employee, Peter Quint? If so, what do they want?!
鈥淣o, no鈥攖here are depths, depths! The more I go over it, the more I see in it, and the more I see in it, the more I fear. I don鈥檛 know what I don鈥檛 see鈥攚hat I don鈥檛 fear!鈥�--our agitated governess
鈥淥h, it was a trap 鈥� not designed but deep 鈥� to my imagination, to my delicacy, perhaps to my vanity; to whatever in me was most excitable.鈥�--governess
Gothic fiction. There are explicit references to Jane Eyre and The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe. So we're part of an announced tradition.
The Innocents, near the top of lists of best ghost story films of all time, is SO good, in tandem with the book, which Stephen King says is one of the two best ghost stories of the past 150 years. Part of the difference of opinion about it is that we are not sure what really happens in it; we have to have opinions about it! But we understand that Henry James (may have) believed in ghosts; maybe in discussion with his brother William, who wrote a book on The Varieties of Religious Experience, including attention to spirits, ghosts and the like. But do you belive in ghosts? That's the important question. . . . who's that knocking at the door at this late hour? What's that creak on the stair?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 15,605 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.