Book Review || The Turn of the Screw (1898)
"A strange tale about a repressed young governess who fears her employer's estate is haunted by malevolent spirits."
: 🌕 : SPOILER ALERT : 🌕 :
Odd is the practice of returning upon failure. One fine afternoon I found myself in need of a story most foul & rather than be met with what was promised, I was led with cinnamon-soaked breadcrumbs to the house in the countryside riddled with morose memories & dead children. It would be untrue to claim that my first experience with this story was my failure. Indeed, I did not write this story & though I appreciate that James might have had something devilish in mind; failure to achieve his goal led me to a failure to take my leave when I had the chance.
“Someone else told a story not particularly effective, which I saw he was not following. This I took for a sign that he had himself something to produce and that we should only have to wait. We waited in fact till two nights later; but that same evening, before we scattered, he brought out what was in his mind.”
This is my second time reading this story. Several years ago, I found myself eager to take a bite of anything deemed spooky, garish, & abysmal. While reading the poised prose that James laid on the pages, I found my mind drifting to the slew of other more interesting facts I could conjure up, while the unnamed narrator of this story droned on & on about this issue & that. Readers who, like me, have a penchant for the horrible will most likely have made their way to this book under the same pretences that led me here, twice.
‣‣‣
In essence, this is a story about a young woman who is charged with the care of two young children—one boy, aged 10, & one girl, aged 8. She moves to the Essex house where they are housed after an interview with their uncle who had taken charge of them following the death of both of their parents in India. The main character, the story’s narrator, recounts in a written format the events that led her to lose her mind; she doesn’t regard them this way & rather feels more inclined to revel in the ghost story she pretends to have occurred.
‣‣‣
James’ reputation as a writer precedes him & veteran readers will know of the prowess that accompanies his tales. Indeed, though I found this story utterly stupid & poorly paced, I heartedly admit that the writing style is fluid, dedicated, & structured. The stylistic approach that James undertakes here will not be appreciated by all readers & that is certainly not to say that some readers have a more developed membrane than others. Simply, James writes in a very long-winded way, with commas, semi-colons, & deviations to the main point; all the way roaming the sidelines of what the reader cares to learn.
‣‣‣
As I approached this story for the second time my appreciation for the format did not falter. However, this is the demise of the crux of the story. The opening of this tale begins with a fireplace, a group of friends, & the promise of a story most foul.
Douglas, the man in possession of this story—having been given the written confession & recollection by the woman herself—tells his friends that the account he will share with them is like nothing they would have ever heard of before. Understandably, the group is salivating at the mouth, eager to be rampaged into an obsidian oblivion.
Like the group, I found myself eager to be told the most terrible story in the entire world. Though I have been alive for a few decades by this time, & though I understand that claiming to be the very best at something leads one to fall short; I was nevertheless welcoming of the possibility that Douglas knew of something unprecedented.
This is perhaps the first mistake that James makes. His promise to the reader that the tale of the nanny & two children would be the most scary & terrible story ever, does not offer him any opportunity to live up to this & rather sets the reader up for disappointment & harsh criticism of the story. Ever the sadder this fact becomes following a wonderful introduction with an atmosphere that riddles the plot with intrigue & conspires to please.
‣‣‣
The second mistake James makes & is one that I can hardly blame him for because it does seem to have been his intention; is that he crafted a main character so unpleasant as the one we are met with. Readers will note that she is only twenty years old, hardly old enough to fully comprehend the nuances of life yet, as the publication year would indicate; she fits chiefly into the role that befell many women of this time. It is therefore doubly strange to see her prance around the countryside imagining malevolent ghosts when she is charged with the care of two children whose parents have mysteriously died & who have all but been abandoned to the countryside.
Certainly, the English gentility is not renowned for their gentle kindness. However, the narrator immediately adopts the role of caretaker supreme to the two children & seems to make it her life’s mission to keep them safe from harm. There is nuance to this role, as any parent or guardian will note, yet the narrator is so single-minded as to allow herself to write entries about her loneliness without ever making clear the schedule that fills her day or the way her appearance at the Essex house has made the children feel.
‣‣‣
Here lies the main clue as to the truth of this story. There have been ample texts that explore the duality of the narrative & ponder the truth of the narrator’s situation. Is she going clinically insane or are the ghosts of Quint & Jessel haunting the children?
It might be quaint to pretend that this story makes any sense or offers any silly pretences about the existence of ghosts. However, the narrator’s situation is explicitly stated in her own penmanship. Her entire existence revolves around the children. Before she left home she had little going for her, few friends; nothing but the need for a job.
It's not surprising that she experienced a heightened level of stress when living at the Essex house. In fact, the narrator is unprepared for what she has agreed to do. It would not be uncouth for readers to willingly offer their sympathies.
Though the professional endeavours of the narrator seem normal for the time, she is still very young, & has been given no guidance to best approach fulfilling her role. This being said, her actions led to the traumatization of the children under her care & she is seemingly able to find employment despite this. Indeed, Douglas only knows the narrator because she became his sister’s nanny. Is there no consequence for the actions in this story?
‣‣‣
There are too many reviews to count that denounce, praise, highlight, neglect, ignore, & reflect on this story. Some critics deem the children to be victims of sexual abuse, while others state that their trauma arose simply as a consequence of their circumstances.
I will not pretend to have a clear answer to this eternal question. This story is very quaintly nestled in its time. The characters speak in flowery vernacular that does not make clear their desires or intent. After reading this story twice I have come to the same conclusion; the ramblings & ravings of the narrator are unreliable & therefore leave readers with the impossibility of making a clear conclusion.
‣‣‣
Portions of the story seem to indicate that the relationship between Quint, Jessel, & the children was inappropriate. While in other sections, one is left wondering at the definition of this accusation. Quint & Jessel were pursuing an affair—something uncouth for the time. Yet, they were also very close with the children. Both of these adults then suddenly died, allegedly.
It is unclear whether the closeness of the relationship between the four of them was a breeding ground for sexual abuse or if these caretakers—turned ghosts—were so intent on being around the children because everyone else was mentally out to lunch.
‣‣‣
The narrator inflicts so much stress on the children that it is not altogether surprising that Miles dies as the story concludes. Of course, his death makes little sense. Did he have a heart attack? Did he have a pre-existing condition? Was the stress caused by his lunatic nanny too much for his little heart after so many disappointments & so much isolation?
What made the narrator so certain that Quint & Jessel were evil people? Part of good Horror allows readers to truly immerse themselves into the story but, James does not leave any space for the reader. Rather, the entire story reads like the ramblings of a fool on an errand with no end. Why is that? Why did James not allow readers to feel what the narrator was feeling? Why does the story offer no realism to induce actual terror?
‣‣‣
The narrator riddles the plot with her uncertainty & yet she remains hellbent on her understanding of what is happening; that two ghosts are plaguing the Essex house & trying to take the children away. Why does she feel this way? As a consequence of her isolation, it makes sense that she would be losing her marbles & perhaps a reader with a kinder heart may feel more inclined to forgive her for this but, I am, unfortunately, no such reader.
‣‣‣
This story was a royal pain in my bones. The hope I initially held was dashed & when coming upon the story a second time on Project Gutenberg, I wistfully longed for my original experience to be forgotten.
Therefore, I have only one question remaining; What is the point? When readers are met with this tale, one that promises a riddle unanswered, they will be left with the pondering frustration that is the very obvious revelation; a woman was written as a lunatic with a weak constitution & no identifiable characteristics to her person; then, a child died.
There is no mystery here, save the silly whims of the author who felt it his talent & freedom to write about a woman in a derogatory way. Do not mistake me, people, women, like the narrator exist & they are well-represented in this story. However, the plot is not riddled with intrigue, there is nothing for a reader to devour & ruminate over for hours into the night. Though the writing style is proper & tangible, James is not writing about anything with depth. Where does this leave readers & what was the author trying to convey?
‣‣‣
I have always said that writing a good scary story is very difficult. Not all readers will be terrified by the same subject, nor will every scenario offer readers the chance to feel their hearts flutter. Ultimately, it is the talent of the author in storytelling that allows readers to immerse themselves in objectively terrible scenarios; forgetting their whereabouts to fly through the pages. It is disappointing to note that a man of James’ calibre is renowned for a story that does nothing but bore readers into a lull.
Should you have come across this review or perhaps you have read the story yourself & eagerly wish for companionship that James could not offer, I hope that my words remind you of a story that does exist, though you may not have found it yet, which will offer you the sentient sentence of doom as it patterns the page with colons, commas, & coos; one more nightmare for you to behold, written cautiously by the stranger who has you in mind.
If you would like to read this story, please visit this link — « The Turn of the Screw » by Henry James
C. 💌