Henry James Another Turn of the Screw

Since its publication in 1898, The Turn of the Screw has been a subject of heated debate among Jamesian scholars. They cannot decide if The Turn of the Screw is a product of psychoanalysis, an allegory of good and evil, or simply a ghost story. According to Henry James it is a ghost story plain and simple. He referred to the novella as “a piece of ingenuity pure and simple, of cold artistic calculation, an amusette to catch those not easily caught” (Phelps 120). When complimented on the horrifying quality of his tale, James commented, “‘I meant to scare the whole world with that story’” (“Henry James” 794). The Turn of the Screw is, as James said, a ghost story meant to scare the whole world.  James crafted the story in a way that leaves the reader questioning every detail of his tale. The success his ghost story is largely attributed to his choice of narrator, a young, unsophisticated, nameless governess, who is introduced by an equally unreliable source. The Turn of the Screw is cleverly crafted to draw readers into a wildly entertaining and thrilling tale, and then cause them to question every detail of the governesses account.

James acquired the idea for The Turn of the Screw from the Archbishop of Canterbury on January 10, 1805. In a journal entry, James wrote that the story “had been told (very badly and imperfectly), by a lady who had no art of relation, and no clearness” (Matthiessen 178). James concluded that the story should be told by an outsider or “observer.” According to John Lyndenberg, James’s “sole interest in [the governess] was to make her a credible reporter of Bly’s horrors” (274). To achieve the goal of making the governess a “credible reporter,” James  “had to rule out subjective complications of her own—play of tone etc.; and keep her impersonal save for the most obvious and indispensable little note of neatness, firmness and courage . . .” (274). Despite James’s best efforts to keep the governess’s character objective, his choice to relate the horror story from the perspective of the governess gives readers important insight into the governess’s personality and her questionable character.

From Douglas’s preface to the manuscript, the reader learns that the governess is “the youngest of several daughters born to a poor country parson” and “had, at the age of twenty, on taking service for the first time in a schoolroom, come up to London” (James 4). This information reveals that at the time of the event the governess is incredibly naïve and inexperienced with the ways of the world. As a young, poor country girl, she has had limited experience beyond the vicarage. In fact, she is barely qualified for the position as a governess, and only accepts the terms because she is attracted to her employer. Her obvious lack ofexperience in the world causes doubt in her ability to truthfully relate her tale. When the readers realize that the governess has never even seen a full length mirror before, they might conclude that the apparitions she reports seeing might be the reflection of light in a mirror. Because she has never experienced much of what she is exposed to at Bly, the atmosphere of Bly is very exciting to her, yet there is much that she does not understand. Therefore, her naiveté and inexperience make it difficult to trust her narration.

The governess, in addition to being young and inexperienced, is very self-absorbed and rarely sees anything outside of her own perspective; therefore, readers do not get an informed view of the situation at Bly. Leon Edel writes, “We must remember that we are receiving from the governess her story and her interpretation of what she saw or imagined. We are entirely in her mind” (59). From the governess’s self-absorbed perspective, readers cannot accuratelysurmise the personalities of the children or Mrs. Grose. The children and Mrs. Grose are never given the opportunity to defend themselves; thus, the audience is never given an opportunity to truly know these characters. John Enck says, “With the governess as a narrator, the children can never speak for themselves: according to her they at first appear cherubic, later fiendish” (265). Her conflicting view is difficult to follow and to believe. Are the children good or bad? When the governess meets both of the children she is at first “struck” by their beauty and often describes them as angels, but later in the story she is conflicted over the nature of their characters. Her confusion is evident when she describes them as having “false little lovely eyes” (James 57). Are the children evil? Perhaps. Could Mrs. Grose be in league with the children to scare the governess from the house? Possibly. The governess’s perspective is so invasive that it blinds us to the true nature of the children and Mrs. Grose.

In her self-imposed need to protect the children the governess never stops to evaluate the situation, and her hasty generalizations often lead her to irrational and fictitious conclusions. At times her conclusions are so irrational that Mrs. Grose expresses doubt in the governess’s claims. In an effort to persuade Mrs. Grose that she is telling the truth, the governess resorts to lies. Oscar Cargill states, “We cannot examine all of the minute details of the governess’s tendency . . . but we can glance at one or two of the larger demonstrations of her complete unreliability” (152). Of the examples Cargill chooses to cite, there are two that highlight the extremity of her unreliable nature. The first example Cargill points out is when the governess walks into the schoolroom and sees Miss Jessel. The only words that are spoken during this interaction come from the governess when she exclaims, “You terrible, miserable woman!” (James 58). When the governess meets with Mrs. Grose, she leads Mrs. Grose to believe that she had held a conversation with Miss Jessel. Even though the governess had dictated the very detailed incident, she still runs to Mrs. Grose to fabricate the story. Another example Cargill cites is the governess’s unwavering belief that Flora has seen the apparition of Miss Jessel. The idea that Flora had seen the apparition is impossible because, as the governess explains, Flora had “turned her back to the water” (James 29, Cargil 152). Even though she records the details of the instances with Miss Jessel in what we assume to be the truth, she returns to Mrs. Grose and proceeds to add details she did not previously relate to the readers. If the governess is apt to embellish events that occurred seconds before reporting to Mrs. Grose, what is she capable of doing to an entire written manuscript?

As the reader realizes the governess’s evident fabrication, the reader can conclude that the entire tale has been altered to persuade people to believe her tale. According to Thomas Cranfill and Robert Clark, the governess “desperately longs for the confirmation of another witness, the corroboration of a second pair of eyes…. But Mrs. Grose fails her. The housekeeper sees nothing and says so vehemently” (68). In her zealous quest to gain people who will believe her story, the governess ends up pushing them away. Through the governess’s account we are expected to believe that the ghosts are real, but when she lies to gain allies, she raises suspicion to the validity of her story. She is a liar in her own story and as a result her credibility steadily wanes throughout her written statement.  By the time the governess reports seeing Miss Jessel across the lake, the reader has concluded that the narrator of this tale is a nervous wreck, and is predisposed to creating details to fit her claim. As a narrator the governess looses all credibility because she is dishonest within her account.

It is important to note that the governess does describe the apparitions with such detail that Mrs. Grose is able to identify who they are without seeing them herself. This demonstrates a fledgling possibility that the governess is telling the truth about the apparitions. However, that small possibility is stunted before it has time to take root in the plot. In chapter five Mrs. Grose questions her about the man she has seen. Mrs. Grose asks, “Then nobody about the place? Nobody from the village?” The governess responds, “Nobody—nobody. I didn’t tell you but I made sure” (James 22, emphasis mine). The governess has been in town to “make sure” that the man she saw was a stranger. In town she also could have had an opportunity to speak with someone who might have planted the image of Quint in her mind. If the governess makes sure that it is not anyone in town the way she makes sure that the children are conversing with ghosts then it is possible that she weaseled information out of someone.

Even more disconcerting than the fact that she snuck off to town to verify the existence of Quint is the fact that she is the only person who actually sees the ghosts. She believes that the children see and meet with the apparitions, but no proof toward this claim is ever provided. This apparent lack of support drives her to question herself. The governess’s obvious lack of belief in what she sees is a foundation of sand for her audience. The governess is driven to cling to any and every foundation of hope that she is not crazy. Since she is the only one who can see the apparitions and she is a confirmed liar, it is possible that her self-proclaimed “infernal imagination” has run away with her. On this subject John Lyndberg writes, “James meant the ghosts to be real. But what they are we can never quite decide. Sometimes indeed it almost seems as though they are creatures of what she calls her ‘mere infernal imaginations,’ as though she makes them or thinks she does” (Lyndberg 280). She never tells anyone about the account because they would think she is crazy. And they might be right to believe she is because she contradicts her nature and character in the very story that she is writing. The audience does not know what to believe, and the one person who is meant to vouch for her in the beginning of the novella is equally untrustworthy.

Douglas’s purposeis to create credibility for the governess’s personality. He, as the keeper of the manuscript, is the only connection the audience has to the governess, but his assessment of the governess’s character does not contribute to her veracity as a narrator because so little is known about his character. All the information about him is directly connected to the prologue of the manuscript. This information does little more than provide back ground to the story; it does not enhance Douglas’s reliability.

One aspect of Douglas’s life that is made quite certain is his attraction to the governess. He mentions, “I liked her extremely and am glad to this day to think she liked me, too” (James 2). It is this fact that completely eliminates his position as an unbiased advocate of the governess’s credibility. He is biased toward favoring the governess because of his feelings for her. This is wholly dissatisfying because he does not fulfill his designated purpose as the bridge between the audience and the character of the governess. He claims, “She was the most agreeable woman I have ever known in her position; she would have been worthy of any whatever” (James 2), but his feelings toward the governess negate his endorsement for her character. He is biased in his opinion and is no longer credible. The affirmation of Douglas’s feelings for the governess causes readers to question the integrity of Douglas and the governess. Readers might be more apt to accept Douglas’s evaluation of the governess if he, himself, was known to be reliable, but James never gives any indications that he can or should be trusted. 

Douglas’s apparent infatuation for the governess not only creates misgivings about the governess’s character but also the manuscript’s reliability. In the novella Douglas says, “I quite agree—in regard to Griffin’s ghost, or whatever it was” (James 1, emphasis mine). He professes his doubt in ghosts but then he proceeds to build up the horror of his ghost story to an eager audience. Douglas doesn’t come out and say whether he believes the governess saw apparitions, but he does lead the audience to believe that the manuscript is authentic. The ambiguous connection between the governess’s apparent good character and the manuscript leads the audience to believe that the story is true. In reality, Douglas’s middle-of-the-road technique fails to truthfully endorse the tale he begins to tell to the audience in the old house. Douglas is apt to believe her because he had feelings for her, but his indecision damages her credibility and thus the validity of the manuscript is suspect.

In addition to the doubt that Douglas creates, the structural and stylistic choices of this novella contribute to the questionable status of the governess’s reliability. The decision to use a framing technique adds to the unreliability of the tale because James includes himself as a character. This places the responsibility of the story into the hands of Douglas, a man of which very little is known. In “Point of View of The Turn of the Screw,” Alexander Jones says, “As Leon Edel has pointed out, by making himself a character in the story—a member of Douglas’ audience— James has dissociated himself from the events recorded by the governess” (Jones 112). By distancing himself from the governess’s tale, James absolves himself to any link to the story whatsoever. This places the audience in a position to decide whether they trust Douglas and the governess or not. Douglas is like a vacuum because by believing his introduction readers are invariably sucked into the governess’s world without a logical reason to believe her narrations. It would be easier to trust Douglas if James would have provided details to help readers assess his character to decide if they will put stock into his “turn of the screw.”

The framing technique absolves James’s responsibility, but the anonymity of the governess creates further skepticism as to the truthfulness of Douglas’s story. While Douglas’s rejection of a name might be “regarded as the protection a lover might offer” (Cargill 249), Mrs. Grose and the children’s failure to use her name is strange. Was she a factual person? Or has Douglas simply created this story to top the other ghost stories? By purposely creating a nameless protagonist, James has deemphasized the importance of her as a person, and emphasized her position; she becomes a nameless observer of the fantastic events at Bly. This role would suffice if she was simply an unbiased observer; however, she is the narrator and the protagonist of the novella. Throughout the tale her emotions run away with her and she never gives a truthful account of what she is experiencing to Mrs. Grose. Naming the governess would emphasize her humanness. By emphasizing her humanity she would become more personable, approachable, and believable. Thus, emphasizing her human nature would add to the credibility of the story.

The governess’s credibility is shaky at best. She may have Douglas to vouch for her and Henry James to ambiguate her character; however, she cannot escape scrutiny. She is an embellisher of tales with a witness, Douglas, who was once in love with her. Also she doubts herself and what she sees and believes. Her character predisposes her to hasty conclusions which she tries to connect to events that might be imagined. All-in-all this woman has no right to be relating a story as fact when it is clearly fiction. Henry James literary genius is manifested through the governess because who would not be frightened by a deranged, confused, and unreliable narrator? For in fact, the ambiguity and unreliability of the text contribute to the fear and complexity deeply rooted in The Turn of the Screw.

Cargill, Oscar. “The Turn of the Screw and Alice James.” PMLA (1963): 244.

Cranfill, Thomas, and Robert Clark. An Anatomy of TheTurn of the Screw. Austin: Texas UP, 1965.

Edel, Leon. The Psychological Novel 1900-1950. New York: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1955.

Halttunen, Karen. “‘Through the Cracked an Fragmented Self’: William James and The Turn of the Screw.” American Quarterly 40(1988): 487.

“Henry James.” The Yale Review V(1916): 794.

James, Henry. The Turn of the Screw. New York: Dover, 1991.

Jones, Alexander. “Point of View in The Turn of the Screw.” PMLA 74(1959): 112–22.

Lyndenberg, John. “The Governess Turns the Screw.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 1(1957): 37–58.

Matthiessen, F.O., and Kenneth Murdock. The Notebooks of Henry James. New York: Oxford UP, 1961.

Phelps, William. “The 'Iron Scot' Stenographer,” in Henry James, The Turn of the Screw. New York: Norton, 1966: 120.