In\u00a0The Turn of the Screw<\/i>, Henry James pays tribute to many an author. Having\u00a0based the governess on a choice of Austen characters, he develops her\u00a0narrative along the lines of some classics from the previous century. The fact\u00a0that the ghosts are human, for instance, while the governess perceives them\u00a0as supernatural, reflects Anne Radcliffe\u2019s\u00a0The mysteries of Udolpho<\/i>\u00a0(1794). A\u00a0novel that the governess mentions in chapter four. In the same sentence she\u00a0recalls the mystery from Thornfield Hall in\u00a0Jane Eyre\u00a0<\/i>(Charlotte Bront\u00eb ;\u00a01847), from which novel James copied the autobiographical structure, the bad\u00a0news from home, and the heroine\u2019s apparent \u201ctendency for deceit\u201d. While the\u00a0sentence itself effectively states that a plot along the lines of these novels\u00a0would not have fooled her for long.<\/p>\n
The screw\u2019s final turn is a strand of poetry that I can\u2019t discuss without\u00a0violating the\u00a0omerta.<\/i>\u00a0 But it is definitely not written by Edgar Allan Poe ; the\u00a0century\u2019s undisputed\u00a0maestro<\/i>\u00a0of gothic suspense, who Henry James seems to\u00a0ignore alltogether. The strand of choice, meanwhile, is cunningly woven into the\u00a0story\u2019s prose. A method of wordsubstitution, so to speak, that leaves it\u00a0virtually invisible to people who suffer from blindness for vital clues on a silver\u00a0plate. But that also leaves the original poem virtually unchanged, because by\u00a0this method even the slightest alteration of the original poem\u2019s order of words\u00a0is out of the question.<\/p>\n
The introductory section is clearly inspired by Nathaniel Hawthorne\u2019s\u00a0Twice-<\/i>Told Tales<\/i>\u00a0(1837). If only by its title. And its recollections of a an evening with friends place\u00a0James in the position of the third narrator :<\/p>\n \u201cSaturday, January 12th, 1895\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Note here the ghost-story told me at Addington (evening of Thursday 10th), by\u00a0the Archbishop of Canterbury: a mere vague, undetailed faint sketch of it \u2013\u00a0being all he had been told (very badly and imperfectly) by a lady who had no art\u00a0of relation, and no clearness: the story of the young children (indefinite number\u00a0and age) left to the care of servants in an old country-house, through the\u00a0death, presumably, of parents. The servants, wicked and depraved, corrupt and\u00a0deprave the children; the children are bad, full of evil, to a sinister degree. The\u00a0servants die (the story vague about the way of it) and their apparitions,\u00a0figures, return to haunt the house and children, to whom they seem to beckon,\u00a0whom they invite and solicit, from across dangerous places, the deep ditch of a\u00a0sunk fence, etc. \u2013 so that the children may destroy themselves, lose\u00a0themselves by responding, by getting into their power. So long as the children\u00a0are kept from them, they are not lost: but they try and try and try, these evil\u00a0presences, to get hold of them. It is a question of the children \u2018coming over to\u00a0where they are\u2019. It is all obscure and imperfect, the picture, the story, but\u00a0there is a suggestion of strangely gruesome effect to it. The story to be told \u2013\u00a0tolerably obviously \u2013 by an outside spectator, observer.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n An author\u2019s notebook is a sketchbook, and its notes are not penned down with\u00a0the intention to share them with others. To question the honesty of Henry\u00a0James in this entry is therefore in itself questionable. To be at the safe side,\u00a0one better takes this entry as evidence of the source\u2019s influence on the result,\u00a0rather than the other way round. But that reversion looks rather temptatious :<\/p>\n location\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Addington Palace (1774)\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>great old country-house Judged by the original story\u2019s outlines, it is a good thing that Henry James left\u00a0us a transcript of his own. The lack of quality, however, is worth noticing,\u00a0because traditional folk tales are usually specific on details like names and\u00a0places. As a result the original story looks very much like a hearsay account of\u00a0a real incident. And that is exactly how Henry James presents it. Both in the\u00a01908 preface, and in the introductory section to his transcript. And its\u00a0narrator is an outsider. Yet, Henry James makes the heroine specific enough on\u00a0names and places to suggest a traditional tale, which it can\u2019t be without being\u00a0specific on the exact nature of the danger that the apparitions represent. Yet, it is on that matter that the narrative goes evasive, while the story\u2019s surviving version needs a very sharp\u00a0observer indeed to recognize the children as bad. As a result, the original\u00a0story\u2019s specific-against-vague effect has been reversed, and a traditional folk tale is once again ruled out.<\/p>\n The status of the children is the key to all interpretation. And because our\u00a0transcript version needs an Elizabeth Bennet to recognize them as bad, it left\u00a0literary criticism sharply divided on the part played by the heroine. Is she\u00a0responding on a genuine threat, or on a delusion? The answer is in James\u2019s\u00a0dealings with two pieces of evidence. One is the boy\u2019s confession that he is\u00a0\u2018bad\u2019. The other is the girl\u2019s bad language. This evidence is in itself genuine\u00a0enough, but it is placed in a context that raises questions about its reliability as proof of a supernatural presence. Not even the independent witness of the girl’s bad behaviour can chance that. A\u00a0problem that in real life never fails to hamper attempts to verify the reported\u00a0sighting of a ghost. As a result the\u00a0sceptical ghosthunter still thinks himself fully entitled to doubt. Just as to be expected in cases when\u00a0the reported ghost is actually there. What about that for\u00a0deceitful ambiguity?<\/p>\n The last detail to notice, is that the first draft was made \u2018much later\u2019 in the\u00a0sense that an author usually sleeps in the same room as his notebook. This is\u00a0the only way to ensure that an interesting idea gets penned down before it\u00a0fades from memory. This one didn\u2019t fade at all, because the final transcript is\u00a0exact on every point that can be checked : Edward Benson was old Trinity, and\u00a0so is Douglas. The archbishop died within two years after telling the story. And,\u00a0according to the upcoming dating attempt, so did Douglas. And he maintains the\u00a0parallel by describing the governess as a true lady. If not by class, then at\u00a0least by personality.<\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n go to next chapter<\/a>\u00a0– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –<\/span>\u00a0back to the previous chapter<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In\u00a0The Turn of the Screw, Henry James pays tribute to many an author. Having\u00a0based the governess on a choice of Austen characters, he develops her\u00a0narrative along the lines of some classics from the previous century. The fact\u00a0that the ghosts are … Continue reading \n
\nsource \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u2018a lady\u2019 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0a governess
\ntold by \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Edward Benson (*1829) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Douglas
\ndate \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Thursday 10 Jan. 1895) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Thursday 26 December
\nretold by\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Henry James (*1843)\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0third narrator<\/span><\/p>\n