Shannon Evans English 301: Criticism

Lifting the Veil of Deception in Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw:

How the Audience Participates In the Authors Impossible Game

When one first encounters Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw, a mental battle of

innocent and complex thoughts ensue; repeatedly challenging one another until the eventual

culmination of a necessary ultimatum. The reader takes on this challenge; finding evidence to

support whichever claim one chooses, but one knows it is impossible to have the satisfaction of

being positively accurate. The reader morphs into an active participator by picking a side and

then trying to prove what is really happening. When becoming a participant in James story it is

common to act (even unknowingly) as either the governess, or Mrs.Grose. In taking the point of

view of innocence (Mrs.Grose), that is, seeing things without suspicion, one becomes a naïve

reader. In contrast, thinking with suspicion turns one into too much like the governess, therefore

over overanalyzing. This participation is necessary, and what James’ intended but it can become

confusing experience. The ultimatum the reader faces in the novel creates the opportunity for

countless intellectual arguments, but in all reality James will always get the last laugh. In her

interpretation of The Turn of the Screw, Shoshana Felman makes pivotal steps in uncovering

James’ mystery. She states that to understand “The distinction James is making between naïve

and sophisticated readers” one must “Analyze the way in which the text’s return upon itself is

capable of trapping both.” (102). James has seemingly agreed that there is a definite trick in his

novel but leaves the deciphering up to the individual. Felman’s claims hold true as far as

evidence goes. She has come as close as one can to figuring out James trick, but all readers of the

story (including the most intelligent critics) are losers in his game because they are submerged in

the argument. Just by reading the book their simplicity of ignorance is gone. Although the trick
 Evans 2

of this book may very well be that there is no right answer, critics are still fueled to prove their

views, and why they hold worth. After figuring out James’ game the process of reading these

critical evaluations could seem pointless, but they still hold plenty of interesting finds on one’s

ability to reason.

If the reader takes on the innocent position of Mrs. Grose; blindly believing almost

anything, they are somewhat taking the easy way out but their opinion is still plausible because

James strategically puts just enough evidence in the novel to support both sides. A naïve reader

will take things as how they are said with no implication of foul play, or being deceived. For

example when one reads from this perspective, one will find validity in trusting the governess

when she claims “She’s there, you little unhappy thing-there, there, there, and you know it as

well as you know me!” (102). The complexity for this reader then lies in the motivations of the

ghosts, and the secrets of the children. Regardless of interpretation the children serve a pivotal

role in the story, their silence both emphasizes the governess’s insanity, and aids in her own

understanding of the ghosts. A gender critic, Priscilla Walton, takes these views and finds new

meaning in many of the instances.

Walton focuses on the sexual complex in the story. She seems to assume the innocent

viewpoint that the ghosts are real (this is shown through Flora’s role models of Mrs.Grose/Miss.

Jessel), and Peter Quint’s (homosexual?) relationship to Miles. Although Walton focuses more

on aspects of gender criticism than the paradox of real/unreal, it still seems that her criticism

shows her assuming the ghosts are real. She then elaborates on why they could be contacting the

children. She also attempts to understand the meaning of Miles death; she argues “The governess
 Evans 3

continues to perform as a subject. This effort leads to her battle of wills with Quint, as the male

subject, for control over Miles.” (357). Walton’s views stem from her beliefs that the novel has

undertones concerning the governess’ sexuality, and the patriarchal battle for the children. There

is solid evidence to conclude her claims could be valid, of course under James’s games there is

no proving this, but there is clear value into seeing how different people can develop conflicting

but equally convincing arguments. This process of interpretation has a lot of value in analyzing

not only the story but individual readers in general.

An individual’s interpretation can show a lot about the person itself. A prime example of

this would be the first man to acknowledge the possibly deranged mind of the governess,

Edmund Wilson. As a follower of Freud, Wilson viewed the novel through a psychoanalytic

microscope, He had tireless and very intelligent efforts in trying to prove his theory, many of his

thoughts seem true and cannot be disproven, but they cannot be proven either. Wilson takes on

the role of the sophisticated reader. He is more like the governess, in terms of suspiciousness. A

sophisticated reader will attempt to delve into proving the governess’ mental instability over the

actual proclamation of real ghosts. By investigating the governess’ instability, suspicious readers

begin to also take on this instability. Since they become like the governess’ it is hard to trust their

judgment of what is true/ not true, or what is real/unreal.

When reading from this view one will see innocence in Flora’s cries/convictions of “I

don’t know what you mean. I see nobody. I see nothing. I never have. I think you’re cruel. I

don’t like you!” (103). Rather than assume Flora is lying, a psycho-analytic reader will attempt

to prove the governess’ insanity. Wilson does this by making some bold assumptions such as
 Evans 4

“The ghosts are merely the symptoms of pathological, abnormal sexual frustration and

repression” (Felman 105). His views have some similar contexts as Walton’s (Sexuality) but the

difference lies in the interpretation of the text, in which Wilson chooses to not believe the

governess. He finds evidence to support his claim in instances of the governess’ sexual

frustration, and the numerous phallic symbols shown. Wilson is audacious in proving his

superiority to James by claiming “One is led to conclude that, in The Turn of the Screw, not

merely is the governess self-deceived, but that James is self-deceived about her.” (187).When

people began to suspect the true nature of The Turn of the Screw, Wilson was reluctant, and was

adamant that even James did not realize the true nature of the governess. He is seemingly saying

that James naively wrote the story and becomes caught in his own trap. This could be true if not

for James acknowledging his trick was intentional. Although both critics would probably claim

their views superiority James trap makes Wilson and Walton’s views equally questionable. Even

though psychoanalytic/ more suspicious readers like to think they have the upper hand in

deciphering The Turn of the Screw with their complex thoughts, and reasoning’s, James still

finds a way to turn the tables on them. Wilson fails to see one of his arguments main flaws.

Felman elaborates on it by concluding that by proclaiming the governess mad, Wilson himself

imitates the madness he proclaims, and then submerges himself in it. When one submerges

themselves in the insanity they are attempting to judge they are no longer an outsider, which

makes their judgment less reliable. This shows the idea that

The Turn of the Screw succeeds in trapping the very analytical interpretation it in effect

invites but whose authority it at the same time deconstructs. In inviting, in seducing the

psych-analyst, in tempting him into the quicksand of its rhetoric, literature, in truth, only
 Evans 5

invites him to subvert himself, only lures psychoanalysis into its necessary self-

subversion. (Felman 196).

Thus the trick is especially harsh on those who are serious and egotistical, especially some

psycho-analytic critics. These critics major mistake is that they become too much like the

governess in terms of evaluating. When they fight to have the superior interpretation by seeing

through things instead of the way they are they fall into the trap. Their descent into the character

and their suspicion of the story are inevitably their downfall.

The Turn of the Screw continues to be a never ending paradox of a story that begs to be

solved, presents resources to solve it, but cannot ever be fully resolved. The trick is so simple yet

so complex it hurts to think about too long. Felman summarizes James game by stating

James’s reader-trap thus functions by precisely luring the reader into attempting to avoid

the trap, into believing there is an outside to the trap. This belief, of course, is itself one

of the traps most subtle mechanisms: the very act of trying to escape the trap is the proof

that one is caught in it. (199).

At the end of the story the governess is unable to find complete satisfaction in her ‘victory’

(because of Miles death). The reader is also unable to be completely satisfied with their

interpretations of the governess’s sanity. Throughout analyzing The Turn of the Screw I

uncovered few of the many reasons why one interpretation will never suffice. First off, different

kinds of criticism (Marxist, gender, etc) find and develop different and conflicting ideas. These

can be included in an interpretation, but a personal bias will complicate it. It also is unsolvable

because so many aspects of the story remain subjective. It is not meant to be solved, not fully
 Evans 6

anyway. Overall, The Turn of the Screw was one of the first stories of its kind to present such a

complex paradox. An added benefit is that it remains timeless in its teachings.

James trap is then the simplest and the most sophisticated in the world: the trap is but a

text, that is, an invitation to the reader, a simple invitation to undertake its reading. But in

the case of The Turn of the Screw, the invitation to undertake a reading of the text is

perforce an invitation to repeat the text, to enter into its labyrinth of mirrors, from which

it is henceforth impossible to escape. (190).

I believe as readers/ participators we cannot become winners, by being involved in the text we

are no longer on the outside. Therefore even if one figures out the game, one has still played

which makes one ineligible. The Turn of the Screw’s thought provoking effect has left countless

interpretations, all right in some ways; all wrong in others, but in the end James will remain the

master, the sole winner.

 Citations Evans 7

Felman, Shoshana. "Turning the Screw of Interpretation." Yale French Studies.

Literature and Psychoanalysis. The Question of Reading. 55/56 (1977): 94-207.

Jstor. Yale University Press. Web. 1 Mar. 2011.

<https://ublearns.buffalo.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/201101_384785/Felman%20T

urning_pp94-113.pdf>.

James, Henry, and Peter G. Beidler. The Turn of the Screw. Boston: Bedford of St.

Martin's, 2010. Print

Walton, Priscilla L. ""He Took No Notice of Her; He Looked at Me": Subjectivities and

Sexualities in The Turn of the Screw." The Turn of the Screw (2010): 348-

59. Print