I am a mother. I do not sleep with any windows unlocked nor uncovered. While reading this story, I was up countless times to check and re-check locks, blinds, doors and curtains.

My apologies anyanka, but I must take the middle road at first and say it is a psychological ghost story. It wasn't chains and rattles like A Christmas Carol. It was soft. Did she see what she thought she saw? Was it real? It made no sound, it barely moved. Was it really there? Because it's gone now. It is easy to see how one could begin to second-guess her own mind with no other senses to corroborate what the eyes have seen.

She may not have saved their physical lives but she saved their immortal souls. Do we know if they age? Do they grow up? Or are they always the same age, like Dracula and other un-dead? Does anyone remember how many years ago the strange guardian began caring for them? Is the fact that they do not age the reason the boy never stays at a school more than a year? Does the guardian know what is going on? Does the staff?

More questions than comments. But this is one book that I shall turn over in my mind for quite some time.
PAM

NB: SAME CAVEATS APPLY AS ANYANKA STATED ABOVE: SPOILERS

Anyanka,

Both - or either. Which doesn't tell you much, but I think one must be aware of both interpretations to get the absolute most out of the tale.

I saw the film (with Deborah Kerr - can't stand her as an actress but the film was very good, in black and white) a few years before I read the story. The story is, of course, much more subtle and so it should be. It was when I got to reading it that I realised quite clearly that there were two ways to take it...... I've always wanted, I must admit, to believe that the governess genuinely experienced something nasty. But I have to admit, she may well have been somewhat repressed and therefore open to strange ideas prompted by her subconscious.

Dido

It struck me as a flat out ghost story. A chilling one at that. I was so involved at one point that I nearly jumped out of my skin when my young daughter burst into the bathroom. It was right at the moment that Flora was picking up the dead fern shortly after her whereabouts was discovered. Perfect timing, amazing that the book didn't end up in the tub water.

I suppose any "ghost" story could be characterized as a "psychological thriller". TOTS doesn't have the same tension, or darkness perhaps, as Poe's writing, but it definitely had my hair standing on end.

Faces pearing in windows from outside is extremely spooky, who of us hasn't thought we "saw something" out there?

Not an easy read, but well worth the effort.

I felt that this was a mental breakdown of the Governess.

The story we read-was "her story" with her interpretation of what she thinks she saw.
We did not get any confirmation from anyone-and she was the only one that 'saw' the faces.
The children never said they saw anything and the housekeeper states that she definitely did not see anything.
I thought that she smothered Miles and that she sent Flora away because she was afraid of what she might do to her.

Pat

I generally agree with Pat's assessment. The ghost story never quite rang true with me and the book wasn't as scary as I expected (and I scare very easily). To me, it was all happening in her mind even though that is not how I wanted the story to be, if that makes sense.

I am not at all convinced that this was a mental breakdown. To my mind, the evidence in the book is that it is a true ghost story. The main point is that the governess described Peter Quint accurately to the housekeeper. It was the housekeeper who identified Peter Quint. How could the governess have described PQ so accurately if she hadn't heard of him, or known of him? QED(!)

FWIW:

DD was home for a flying visit and began reading my copy-went back and borrowed a copy from the professor she works for, which contains a preface written by professor's father, who was also a professor-HE contends that Mrs. Grose is behind all the shennanigans-trying to drive the governess mad to drive her away. She uses the governess' naivete and overactive imagination-and maybe some accomplices- to create an atmosphere of evil and danger. Theory is Mrs. Grose also killed the other two-Quint and the first governess. Mrs. Grose wants the young girl all to herself, and maybe she was seduced and betrayed by Quint.

Martin-how do we know that she didn't know of them or what they looked like?

We don't know her background-we don't know what her 'employer' may or may not have told her, we don't know if she had seen pictures of them-maybe Miles & Flora had pictures-the 'story' is only the Governess's story with no rebuttal or input from anyone else!

I stand by my opinion-this was her losing her mind-even temporarily-I think James deliberately left the ending vague - maybe so that future readers would do as we are-debating what he might have intended us to think-or not!

Pat

I don't think she knew what they looked like-she described the "apparition" to the housekeeper, who identified it and then told her the story-the employer had left things vague but reassuring to guarantee she'd take the job. I doubt he mentioned a seduction and two deaths.
That being said, I think she definitely believed she saw something-whether put-up or supernatural-and she slowly spiralled downwards. I thought the children were involved in the deception.

What did the boy do at school to cause his expulsion?

Good point, Martin, about the accurate description. However, as we only know what we are told by the governess, there is no way of knowing the whole story, ever.

Cece, the Grose theory is one that hadn't occurred to me at all! Whether one buys into it or not, it just shows how wide open to interpretation The Turn of the Screw is.

My first encounter with the story was through the film The Innocents starring Deborah Kerr as the governess, as mentioned by Dido, which probably influenced my reading of the novella. Although the film does not make it totally clear whether the ghosts are 'real' or in the governess's mind, there are indicators - early on, a bunch of roses drops its petals as the governess approaches, symbolising her spoiling of innocence.

The novella is much more ambiguous. Quint and Jessel can, for example, be read as metaphors for the children's sexuality, which is barely awakening but perceived by the governess, repressing her own desires for the children's uncle. She also has a rather intense relationship with the children, initially idealising them, jealously possessive of them. I did not feel that she wanted to protect the children's immortal souls from Quint and Jessel's influence, but that she wanted to possess them completely - that her fight against her predecessors was motivated by jealousy more than anything else.

E.g. in Chapter 13 she tells us that she has kept the letters written by the children to their uncle, because they were "too beautiful to be posted; I kept them myself". And in Chapter 17, at Miles' bedside: "... - it made me drop to my knees beside the bed and seize once more the chance of possessing him."

I lean towards seeing the governess as the perpetrator or origin of all the trouble primarily because she conjectures so very much! There is never any hard evidence of anything. Nothing is ever said out straight, but is inferred and concluded by the narrator. She is also the only one who ever sees the 'ghosts'.

Cece, I suspect that Miles' offence was of a sexual nature; either in words or practice. However, here's what the excellent in-depth analysis on the SparkNotes page has to say about my interpretation: James seems to tease us by suggesting that whatever we see in this story reveals more about us and our preoccupations than it does about the story itself.

I deliberately held off reading the SparkNotes pages until after the start of this discussion (and my previous posting), as I prefer to come up with my own ideas first - but it turns out that they are rather similar!

Here is a link that might be useful: SparkNotes 'Turn of the Screw'

He stole.

For some reason the question didn't post to my answer above. It was my understanding that "he stole",

In looking at TOTS from the writer's perspective, it's apparent to me that James believed in ghosts and hauntngs. I really don't think there's any psychological inferenece that the caregiver is going mad.

I imagine having a haunting experience would drive anyone a little "crazy". I feel that this is what James was portraying in his story. There are several inferences throughout the story of apparitions or hauntings, not of a woman who i s imagining things or becoming paranoid.

I felt that Flora picking up the dead fern was hugely symbolic, and that if she was unaware of the ghosts (or death) on a concious level, she sure as heck was aware subconciously. I felt that Miles was much more connected to it and being a boy, was most at risk for influence of outside sources (or evil).

TOTS reminded me of the innocence of children, and what adults "see" (that kids don't), and how adults react to protect them.

I started to read this thread out of curiosity, so I didn't care about the spoilers. The first half (approx) caught me - so I skimmed the end. Am adding this to my list of books to buy on Borders special offer...if I spend $20 I get a free book. Hmmm, is there a minimum time limit in which to spend $20 - like 30 second or less?

Reading James is sort of like walking through a thicket, isn't it? Sometimes you need a scythe to get through it. Below is a link to one of the most comprehensive analyses of the book I've found. It says re James' own intention with the story:

"The first point to be made is that James did not come down unequivocally on one side or the other of the central controversy concerning The Turn of the Screw--focused by Edmund Wilson's famous assertion (in his 1934 essay) that the ghosts are not real ghosts at all but merely the governess's hallucinations' (385). Indeed, James's statements on that score are perhaps as enigmatic as the novella itself."

I, personally, like the idea of it being a psychological ghost story where perhaps the governess sees something that may or may not be an apparition and she degenerates from there. This may be overreaching as an analogy, but it is sort of like thinking about the analogy and symbolism in the book Life of Pi. There's the story we want to believe, and there is what happened. What makes the better story -- or in this case, the most haunting? For me, it's far more creepy to think about it being in the Governess's mind and that the housekeeper may have been trying to take advantage of that. Our hindsight of that time period probably influences our desire to interpret it that way, too.

I like that it can be viewed in either way (what's the name for a picture where you can view it both ways, as a young woman or old woman?) It's sort of like that for me. The big question for me is whether James intended it to be like that, or whether it's just one of those accidental bonuses.

Here is a link that might be useful: A History of its Critical Interpretations

I read this back in November, so I didn't read it closely to prepare for a book discussion. I have to admit that I found it boring, not at all spooky, and found the governess' emotions too dramatic and overdone to be believable or scary. This is strickly from an entertainment POV.

georgia_peach, I like your statement about the story we want to believe and what actually happened. I so wanted to believe the ghost story and kept trying to convince myself of it.

Martin, we don't know that the descriptions of the ghosts actually matched the descriptions of the people. The housekeeper wanted to encourage the governess in her "madness", as did the children. I had not thought about the possibility of the housekeeper planning the entire thing but that is an interesting concept.

I have the Norton Critical Edition of the book that contains numerous essays about the story. I didn't want to read them before this discussion and have my opinion swayed by what James' true intent was but now I will read some of them.

I had done no background research into this book and thought perhaps I should begin. This is what is says in my volume of Masterplots - which I refer to often for a refresher on a book or to answer questions that arise:

"Of all James' work, it best exemplifies his power to understand and depict moral degradation. The real evil lies not in the horror of the apparitions themselves, but in what is happening to change the children from examples of sweetness and innocence to flagrant liars and hypocrites."

As far as Fruedian sex-psychology playing a part in the book, I read a piece that states, "It is important to remember that James's story was published in 1898 and that Freud's first significant work explaining his sexual theory did not appear until 1905. Perhaps it is best to regard such details in the story as no more than coincidental, though they may seem suggestive to the post-Freudian reader."

If Mrs. Grose was indeed involved, she would have perhaps given the names of Quint and Jessel to any description the governess offered. What did it matter if Quint had red hair, black hair or curly hair? What mattered, if indeed Mrs. Grose wanted to further the illusion, was to give these ghosts names. Do we know anything of Mrs. Grose's background? Did she lose a child? Was she denied marriage because of her position as a servant?

PAM

I read this twice and each time got a different interpretation. The first time, I found myself interpreting it as a ghost story, but there was a nagging unsatisfaction in the back of my mind. The second time, certain paragraphs about the naivete of the governess seemed to jump out at me. Upon a closer reading, I became aware that the governess' mind was coming unhinged.

I finally concluded that the story can be taken in more than one way, on more than one level. I think James deliberately set it us as a sort of "rorshach test" for the reader, who will bring his/her own opinions and experience to bear, thus open to more than one interpretation.

I seem to recall that James had a brother who was important in the early psychology of that time period. I need to do more research.

I do have a question about James's style. With his convoluted sentences, I had the impression that English was not his first language. Does anyone know whether he was also fluent in either Latin or German early in his life? I found his sentence construction inimical to the English language and wondered why in the world he wrote the way he did. I think he was an American who lived abroad, much of his life. But did he learn German as a child?

woodnymph, English (American English) was the native language of Henry James. His father was Henry James, Senior, who wrote prolifically (in English, though his style isn't easy to follow either) about Swedenborgianism.

Henry James is writing in the style that was current at the time, actually, though some of his overly qualified statements (the frequent use of "as it were," for instance) make his style uniquely his.

It seems to be a matter of having to get used to his style. He grows on you.

One of his three brothers was William James, a famous psychologist and popular philospher in his day. Their sister was Alice James, who wrote a diary that is now widely read.

(I wrote my Ph.D. thesis on William James. Then I went on to read Henry James in a big way.)

It would be interesting to go from this to Alice's diary (Henry's sister). It has been intimated that the Governess is based on her, particularly as it relates to the topic of hysteria (was she or wasn't she?). Attached is a bio on Alice and it does have remarkable implications for this story.

Here is a link that might be useful: Alice James bio

I forgot to add: please note that Alice's diary finally appears in print the same year that Edmund Wilson asserts in his essay that the ghosts were not real (1934). Coincidence?

Re ?recognition of Quint - it's easy to forget that other staff members worked at Bligh - the Governess could easily have heard about Quint from them - his looks etc. - the rest would be either not known to them or they would be forbidden to speak of other matters.
The Governess was naive AND intense - something had happened 'at home' to cause disharmony (havn't my text open at the moment), but her middle class poverty and unworldliness is exemplified when she saw herself, full length, in a mirror FOR THE FIRST time - imagine looking pretty and adult among trappings of wealth AND for the first time in her life alone - she had been surrounded by siblings up until then. Another woman 'alone' is Mrs Grosse (strange name has it a symbolic meaning?) - so pleased at last to have company and someone above her own station - anxious to please and agree to almost anything.
Is there an issue of child abuse in this novel - on the part of the governess (not Quint) or is it indeed a GHOST STORY - well I can play devil's advocate here because I am not sure.
I am sure however about the overawed mind of the Governess - her crush on the uncle - remeber she was thinking about the uncle in the garden when she looked up and 'saw' Quint who was 'in the habit of wearing his master's clothes'. Her l;anguage is full of extravagant rises and falls - often related to the sea 'she feels all at sea' 'the captain of a ship'. Also worth considering the book she ws reading in bed.
There is also the intriguing issue of the 'silences' described so well by the governess - everything stops - the bird song ceases, etc. - is she suffering from some neurological disease, as one eminent neurologist thought on reading the novel.
The overt and covert sexual imagery does suggest that this has a place in at least one interpretation.
James is supposed to have despised this novella - he called it a 'pot boiler'... 'a trap to catch the unwary' - but I suspect both statements - if any writer knew what she/she was doing it was Henry James.
Again - at some other time I can convince myself - with textual evidence that it is a ghost story.
James did - as Gothic writers do - construct an edifice that keeps the reader well away from the 'truth' - the writer - the fireside story teller - who turns his story over to Douglas who reads the story from a manuscript kep by the Governess. HUmmmm!
Sorry I cant find my yexy just now but hope to be helpful next time

My yexy translates as my text trying to type in the near dark.
Was hoping this would have carried on before I go away - on Sunday night.
Enjoy your read

The ambiguity of the story and possibly untrustworthy narrator make this story fascinating to me. I cannot help but see certain things through modern eyes. The idea of 'corruption' which we can assume has something to do with sex - the fact that the governess is innocent herself (presumably she is chaste, as an unmarried woman in her position would have to be). But my mind turns to the fact that sexual relations or sexual knowledge would have been very dangerous to her. It is not just neurosis - a sexual experience could have literally ruined her life. She would have been unable to support herself, to find a husband, or to live any type of decent life if shame or suspicion had fallen on her. It was a very real danger to a woman like her. We (and James) see it as hysteria, but was it? I realize I am putting a very modern twist on this.

What was the cause of Milo's death anyway? That at least was real. Does his death give validity to the story?

How timely! Colm Toibin, in the Guardian today:

Here is a link that might be useful: How did Henry James make The Turn of the Screw so chilling?

Great piece in Guardian - there is always something interesting to say about the novel and the opera which is about to open
I think I have seen every London production of Britten's opera and it is truly chilling - there is no doubt for the audience that the ghosts are present AND that the governess is severely unstable - Britten's music makes the whole experience unforgettable. Ian Bostridge played a wonderful Quint the last time I saw it - the first time Peter Peers played Quint - this as at the old and ceaket Sadlers Wells - his ghostly presence encumbered by much heavy breathing as he squeezed himself along the corridors of the set and the loud creaking of the floorboards - wonderful voice though.
Bostridge was magnificent and one could easily appreciate not only the beautiful voice but the sinister and seductive power of Quint.

One wonders what happened to the governess - obviously she went on to other households and Douglas fell in love with her.

Thanks for sharing the Guardian article. Has anyone read Toibin's "The Master" (about James)?

I tend to agree with Tate, that James knew all that Freud knew, even before Freud.

I was just going to post that Guardian link!!

I've tried The Master but it bored me rigid, I'm afraid. I got about half-way through and lost interest.

Must get The Innocents - how convenient that it's just come out on DVD....!

I wonder if I would have enjoyed this book more (which is not to say I didn't enjoy it) if I hadn't had to work so hard when reading it? The words are not difficult; at first glance, the style seems quite lucid - and yet...!! It's the only book I've ever read where I would read a paragraph - stop - take a deep breath - and re-read it. Here is one sentence which I had to more-or-less parse to work out its meaning.

It wasn't so much yet that I was more nervous than I could bear to be as that I was remarkably afraid of becoming so; for the truth I had now to turn over was simply and clearly the truth that I could arrive at no account whatever of the visitor with whom I had been so inexplicably and yet, as it seemed to me, so intimately concerned.

I challenge anyone to make sense of that at a first reading!!

Venusia, thanks lots for that Guardian link. I love the fact that, however much I read and learn about the novella and about Henry James, it does not solve the central puzzle for me.

Martin, I had to re-read so many paragraphs... I would highly recommend The Innocents - you probably won't find it as spooky as you already know the story, but when I first saw the film (aged 17) I found it more deeply frightening than any other horror film I had seen before.

Siobhan, Milo's death is one of those things - if you take TOTS as a plain ghost story, then he was frightened to death by Quint's apparition, or his death came about as the governess releases him from Quint's evil influence. On the other hand, if you feel that the governess is insane, then you might decide that either she smothered him (throughout the book she mentions how much she hugs the children, and how she wants to 'possess' them) or that she frightened him to death.

Martin, I agree that the effort it took to read the book probably took something away from it. That is likely the reason I wasn't terrified -- I concentrated so hard on understanding what I was reading that I never really was in the proper mood of the story. Well, that and the fact that I just couldn't convince myself that it actually was a ghost story, hard as I tried. However, I'm sure the movie would scare me out of my mind.

After reading some of the essays in my edition of the book, it seems apparent that nobody really knows for certain how Henry James intended the story to be interpreted. And that is much of what makes the story so brilliant.

One should watch the film if only for the brilliance of Clayton(Director) and Frances (photography) not to mentioned Capote's screenplay. The novel is the novel - the film is another form of communication entirely but although certain scenes are cut, edited, added, it never loses James' intended ambiguity. It is a brillint film in its own right. Several years ago some misguided producer filmed the 'prequel' 'The Nightcomers' which starred Marlon Brando and Patsy Kensit - I thought it gratuitous rubbish.
We all need a concentration workout from time to time, an intellectual exercise,and a damn good story that's why I think all the effort to read James pays off. It is however, a terrifying tale - my hair ALWAYS stands on end when I read Mrs.Grosse's comment 'Quint! But he's dead miss' (forgive me still cant find my text) I think James well understood fear as per Dickinson's:

One need not be a chamber to be haunted,
One need not be a house;
The brain has corridors surpassing
Material place.

Far safer, of a midnight meeting
External ghost,
Than an interior confronting
That whiter host.

Far safer through an Abbey gallop,
The stones achase,
Than, moonless, one's own self encounter
In lonesome place.

Ourself, behind ourself concealed,
Should startle most;
Assassin, hid in our apartment,
Be horror's least.

The prudent carries a revolver,
He bolts the door,
O'erlooking a superior spectre
More near.

We can;t shut the door against the horror of - ourselves!

And then there's a different kind of haunting... The Turn of the Screw has haunted me for years, ever since I first saw the movie and read the novella many years back. For a while it was dormant; then one of my daughters brought home the movie The Others (the title is probably taken from TOTS; Miles, when pressed, admits that there are 'others') which has a similar atmosphere, and made me revisit both the old film, and the novella.

It haunts me because of its ambiguity and my desire to 'figure it out'. No other ghost story has stayed with me in the same way!

There was a version on Masterpiece Theater a few years back-not sure if it was BBC or not-beautifully photographed-all dark and mistly landscapes-but the governess started out tightly wound and just got more and more hysterical-a lot of running frantically hither and yon-so the whole tone was her hysteria, more so than ghosts-although we did see Quint leering in at the window.

I could not agree more about James' convoluted style. I'm sure that is why I felt I had to read the book twice. The second time got easier. I still wonder what his early influences on his writing style were, as I do not find him typical of his age.

As for Miles' death, I interpreted it that the Governess literally frightened him to death so that his heart stopped. I felt he had been set up for this, all along, in the plot.

I absolutely must find the film and see it, but even if there were no films, I'll never forget this tale and its effect on me as I read it.

I found the film The Others to be very much the same as TOTS, both in plot and in atmosphere. I thought it was a great film but I have never had the nerve to watch it a second time! It REALLY scared me, despite having no gore or gross out scenes.

I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I'm glad I saw the opera before reading the book - it helped me to understand James' difficult writing. I don't know if I could have mowed through it cold. I would definitely have to have read it more than once.

I never could decide which kind of story I thought it was: a psychological ghost story or a psychological thriller. I do know it is one of the spookiest stories I have read, in a purely psychological sence.

Contrary to some of you, I did not find James's style that difficult to follow, although I agree it is complicated. (I remember thinking it would be very hard to translate his style). This probably has to do with being used to reading some extremely hard-to-follow stuff my countrypeople have written in English, using Icelandic sentence structures. James is easy by comparison.

I have tried to read James, but have never been able to get passed his prose. But I decided to check out your comments. I love books where there is enough ambiguity for a good discussion like this one. Now you have made me eager to read it. Maybe I'll have the answer (ha!)

Just returned from hols and logging in - interested to read about 'The Others' - I knew the twist because I saw the stage play about 30 years ago -wtih Margaret Lockwood and Donald Houston - very chilling although the film introduced different characters - and very creartively changed the original script.
I did find the film melancholy. lingering, almost disagreeable in its preoccupation with death and disease - surprising childrens' fare.

I picked up Turn of the Screw as it was mentioned here as a scary story, but honestly, I just could not make any progress through it. So many commas in long sentences, I lost track of what was being said! I could only make sense of about every 3rd sentence, so I gave it up--after she saw a woman at the pond, when the children were playing there (at least I think that's what it was happening! LOL!).

It felt really good to put it down an start something else.

Susan

Henry James definitely takes practice, but once you get into his rhythm, it is very rewarding to follow his prose. It goes much better if you can set aside a long block of time to read him, rather than try to pick up and put down, like you can with many modern writers. Part of the tension and the scariness of the book is in his involved sentences with cliffhanger clauses.

On the "Classics" thread, someone mentioned The Turn of the Screw and said we'd done a discussion about it.

Look what a search turned up!