I cannot say I was expecting a ghost story when reading the back of this book which says: “a young governess is left in sole charge of two charming and beautiful orphans…and is swiftly drawn into a frightening battle against unspeakable evil”. Being in English class we’re a bit more used to a symbolic sort of evil, but nope, these were scary dead-people who possess little children. Not really my cup of tea, but it was well written and supposedly “the original” in terms of all these modern day mystery ghost stories we see in movies.
The appeal of this book and its literary merit I think lie in the narration of the governess. Even if you don’t think she’s insane when she first sees the ghosts she is most certainly driven insane by them. She considers her herself a heroine, and is very willing to sacrifice herself to the ghosts in place of the children but is truly unable to stay mentally strong. She has no conviction and is not even sure of what she believes. This is definitely masterfully shown considering James never uses any physical evidence to show her going crazy and never even relies on those archetypal symbols such as distortion in a mirror. It’s strictly verbally done; the best way I can describe this is that she talk herself in circles, never coming to any logical conclusions. I think this is best shown in the following lines:
“I preternaturally listened; I figured to myself what might portentously be; I wondered if his bed were also empty and he were too secretly at watch. It was a deep ,soundless minute at the end of which my impulse failed. He was quiet; he might be innocent; the risk was hideous; I turned away.” (63).
If looked at only through a rhetorical lens the prevalence of the semicolon is what stands out and it demonstrates how she thinks she’s come to a conclusion, finished, then questions herself and starts again. Also, “I turned away” as the final of those lines is powerful considering after all that she’s debating she ends up never facing what she fears. She’s willing to stare down ghosts, but she’s frightened to even ask the children what they are up to. She’s definitely not as brave as she tells herself she is.
It can be a bit tedious to read, but it’s definitely evident that James is very purposeful in his drawn-out passages. This sort of narration runs throughout the book so the governess’ moral struggles and attempts to make sense of the mystery make up most of the book with very little progression action-wise.
What I think is most frustrating about this book is the jaded modern day reader will not be scared or surprised at the mystery or really impressed with James’ techniques. I thought it was pretty obvious that the children aren’t as innocent as soon as the governess meets them, since no child could be as perfect as the countless descriptions of “the radiant image of [the] little girl [and boy]…with angelic beauty” and perfect manners(16). We’ve learned that a good majority of narrators, especially if its first-person, are completely unreliable. Maybe in 1898, people would have believed everything the governess said and uncovered the mystery as she did, but for any modern day reader it’s pretty obvious from the very beginning. I found myself hoping the mystery would be beyond that- the children are the killers! The governess is really the bad guy!-but, there’s really not much evidence for any secret meaning. Even of the governess really made up the whole story, it really doesn’t add much of another dimension.
Ambiguity is also really heavily relied on; most questions remained unanswered such as why did the little boy get expelled? Why exactly are the ghosts evil, why are they there, and what do they want? I’m a bit tired of the ambiguous ending, to tell the truth, I feel it’s used absolutely everywhere, and it doesn’t really affect me as strongly anymore. For example, without spoiling it, the book ends in a way that makes the reader and the governess unable to ever be able to find out any answers (121). Again, maybe in 1898 this was new and exciting, but now it just seems a bit weary. If you like modern day horror, this is probably a good book for you since you’ll really see the origins of what has become every Hollywood B movie horror film out there. It’s not really my favorite. I wanted to read "Emma", but they didn’t have it at the book store.
I read this version:
http://www.amazon.com/Turn-Screw-RED-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141194375
Amanda, the last line of your post broke my heart!
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I've heard this book studied/praised for is its use of a narrative frame (a story within a story). I think you hit on a lot of good observations about what would have been new and innovative at the time of the novel's publication.