9/4/24: This is the second time I'm teaching this magnificent and classic Victorian ghost story crafted specifically for Christmas Eve. It's impossible for anyone writing a ghost story to overlook this grandfather of all ghost stories.

9/12/23: I'm teaching this story this fall, perhaps for the very first time, in a class that loosely focuses on ghosts, liminal spaces, and hauntology. I started with Macbeth (I know, I could have begun with Hamlet) as a canonical, classic text, and then we delved into this story. I've read it more than once in my life, but in the past couple of days, I listened to Emma Thompson read it, and reread it in print this past week. I also watched the excellent 1961 film version, The Innocents, twice. It's so good. I haven't seen the Netflix Bly series. This story emerges from the British tradition of sharing ghost stories during Christmas. You'll recall Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol with all its ghosts. I understand that Dickens might be the one who initiated the Christmas tradition of ghost stories. The Canadian cartoonist Seth has been designing a series of small illustrated books featuring Christmas ghost stories for years, and I own about ten of them. They're both cute and creepy!

8/14/23: I finished rereading it. I anticipate that some readers might think that James's prose is cumbersome - they might argue that the story could have been told in half the time! But, just like with Poe, the ponderous prose is part of the slow build, the spooky atmosphere that gradually grows.

“To gaze into the depths of blue of the child's eyes and pronounce their loveliness a trick of premature cunning was to be guilty of a cynicism in preference to which I naturally preferred to abjure my judgment and, so far as might be, my agitation.”

It's a ghost story within a story, told at Christmas time, when in England, it's traditional to tell ghost stories, with a group gathered around a fireplace. The story goes like this: A man's brother passes away, leaving him with a ten-year-old nephew, Miles, and an eight-year-old niece, Flora. The man entrusts the care of the two children to housekeeper Mrs. Grose and a newly hired governess. Recent events include Miles being kicked out of school for mysterious reasons, and a previous governess, Miss Jessel, has died. Hmmmmmm.

“It's beyond everything. Nothing at all that I know touches it.”
“For sheer terror?” I remember asking.
He seemed to say it was not so simple as that; he was truly at a loss as to how to qualify it. He passed his hand over his eyes, making a little wincing grimace. “For dreadful — dreadfulness!”
“Oh, how delicious!” cried one of the women. - The people around the fire, anticipating during the ghost story session, and hyping up the fright we'll expect.

The new and energetic governess adores the two innocent children. Life is so perfect. So beautiful! However, as with Poe and many gothic tales, beauty is often paired with dread. Wait: Did she just see the image of the former (dead) governess (as in: a ghost)? But if so, who else saw it? Is she crazy? Does she also see another deceased employee, Peter Quint? If so, what do they want?!

“No, no—there are depths, depths! The more I go over it, the more I see in it, and the more I see in it, the more I fear. I don’t know what I don’t see—what I don’t fear!” - our agitated governess

“Oh, it was a trap — not designed but deep — to my imagination, to my delicacy, perhaps to my vanity; to whatever in me was most excitable.” - governess

Gothic fiction. There are explicit references to Jane Eyre and The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe. So we're part of an established tradition.

The Innocents, which is near the top of lists of the best ghost story films of all time, is SO good, especially when paired with the book, which Stephen King claims is one of the two best ghost stories of the past 150 years. Part of the difference in opinion about it is that we're not sure what truly happens in it; we have to form our own opinions! But we understand that Henry James (may have) believed in ghosts; perhaps in discussions with his brother William, who wrote a book on The Varieties of Religious Experience, which includes attention to spirits, ghosts, and the like. But do you believe in ghosts? That's the crucial question. . . . Who's that knocking at the door at this late hour? What's that creak on the stair?

Okay, I first read the book 20 years ago. At that time, it left a certain impression on me. Now, once again, as I revisit it, I find that it indeed has its shining moments. The story can be quite scary at times, which adds an element of thrill. However, I also feel that it is too long, and there are parts that I think are rather boring.

Nevertheless, the ending is quite surprising, which catches the reader off guard. Additionally, the characterisation of the housekeeper and the children is quite nice. They are vividly portrayed and add depth to the story.

Overall, it is a classic, no doubt about it. But for me, I wasn't 100% convinced. There were aspects that I liked, but there were also some that I felt could have been improved. Maybe it's because my reading tastes have changed over the years. Or perhaps it's just that this particular book doesn't resonate with me as strongly as it does with others.

At times, when one revisits a classic of horror, one realizes that what one is reading is something else. In this case, it is something more complex and meritorious. "The Turn of the Screw" is a psychological thriller revolving around a governess who is both burdened and spurred on by responsibility, and who tirelessly battles for the life or soul of the children entrusted to her.

The protagonist, a model character of the rigid Victorian society of the story, upon encountering the horror and danger of ghostly apparitions, initiates a series of speculations and investigations regarding past events and the behavior of her charges. Haunted by an increasing sense of solitude, she seeks an ally in the housekeeper. The recurrent dialogue with this second adult character allows the protagonist to review the facts and data at her disposal over and over again, seeking confessions (from her companion or the children), trying to place the unknown events in their correct context and thus perhaps obtain some tranquility and strength in the face of all that torments her. And I say this because there are very few details that give us certainty that her vision is correct and not the delusions of an unstable woman or one with mental problems. So much so that her perceptions are constantly changing, showing the children at times as victims and at other times as active agents of evil.

Undoubtedly, that of Henry James and his era was another way of writing to which we are no longer very accustomed. A beautiful narrative, in a contained tone, elegant and slow-burning, that focuses on resolving the main conflict, the torment (shared?) between the governess, the housekeeper, and the children, but which leaves many questions unanswered. It is therefore not a recommended read for those who need a frenetic pace, scares on every page turn, or to have all the loose ends tied up. However, it is a must-visit for those who wish to rediscover a classic by focusing on its structure, prose, and the psychology of a character who seeks the truth as an element of salvation.

Review of: https://elyunquedehefesto.blogspot.co...

Me at 50%:

And 75%. And 90%.

I was truly excited to embark on reading this classic novella by Henry James, a gothic ghost story that dates back to 1898. A young woman finds herself hired as the governess for two charming young orphans by their uncle, whose good looks and charm have made quite an impression on her. Eager to prove her capabilities, especially since his main instruction is to never bother him with any issues or concerns, she heads off to his country estate. There, she meets the delightful Flora and Miles. The housekeeper soon becomes her friend and confidante. However, there are a few strange occurrences. There are odd noises in the house - footsteps and a child's cry. Also, Miles has been expelled from his boarding school for mysterious reasons. But initially, everything seems just fine. That is, until she starts seeing a mysterious man and woman appear and disappear, and becomes convinced they are the ghosts of the previous governess and another employee. She is certain that the children see these ghosts but won't admit it, and she is also quite sure that these ghosts are out to harm the children.

How is she so sure of all these things? It's a mystery. She just is. And the question remains: is she really witnessing supernatural manifestations, or is she slowly losing her grip on reality? Or perhaps it's both? And are the children innocent or evil? James drops hints but never provides clear answers.

The story is told in a convoluted and murky manner, which adds to the sense of confusion. Sentences like the one quoted earlier make the reading experience a bit of a struggle. I found myself wondering how Henry James managed to stay awake while writing such long and complex sentences.

Despite my initial excitement, I persevered to the end (which wasn't too difficult considering it's only 100 pages). However, this story just didn't resonate with me. The entire reading experience was odd and murky, and perhaps this was James' intention. But unfortunately, it was also rather boring and unsatisfying.

If you're ever suffering from insomnia, I might have just the book for you.

Yet, I keep thinking that maybe I misread this classic. So, I'll give it another chance. Who knows? Maybe the second time around will be different for me.

The fact that the ghost of Griffin or whatever it was that was the end of all, first appeared in the little market, in such a delicate childish nature, gives a special meaning... And if one child gives a twist to the key, what would you say about two children?...

We would of course say that the two children give two twists to the key... We would also say that we want to hear their story...

The gothic and Victorian novel of Henry James (better novel) is one of the most controversial - as far as its ending is concerned - books. It definitely belongs to the realm of the fantastic, the ghosts circulate on the pages throughout the story, yet even their very existence is questioned. Do they really exist, or is it all in the imagination of the obsessive governess of two charming children?

I won't give a spoiler, anyway everyone interprets what really happened a little differently in the end. But I will say that I had strong suspicions that the culprit of all the events described is the sexual abuse of the main children which lurks from the beginning - the one, ten-year-old, child was expelled from his school as very bad! The noble uncle who provides them with shelter, servants and education doesn't want to be informed about anything, there was a servant who isolated the little boy for hours while his friend did the same with the eight-year-old girl... Nothing is stated openly, the suggestions and allusions are after all the characteristic of this novel.

It is worth reading it just for the masterful way in which James has woven the words of the story. But remember that the book was written a century ago, the plot is slow and the over-politeness seems annoying. The way the lady expresses herself is definitely old-fashioned, but I think the author conveys us excellently to the atmosphere of the era and thus, perhaps, we can appreciate more the freedom of speech and even thought that we now enjoy...

I love this classic. It is pure suspense.

I don't understand why people despise it so much here. It may not be the novel of the century, but it is so thrilling that it kept me on the edge of my seat during this second reading, even when I had to correct it in a terrible translation.

The story is filled with unexpected twists and turns that keep the reader engaged from start to finish. The characters are well-developed and the writing is excellent.

Despite the flaws in the translation, I was still able to appreciate the beauty and excitement of the original work. I would highly recommend this classic to anyone who enjoys a good mystery or thriller.

It is a must-read for fans of the genre and a great introduction for those who are new to it.

Ooh, what an incredibly fantastic ghost story it is!

I have long been intending to read more of Henry James' works, and this particular one turned out to be such a delightfully fun gothic thriller that it has truly enhanced my impression of his remarkable range as a writer.

The plot unfolds as a governess is hired to take charge of two orphaned children, Miles and Flora, in an English country house. She is instructed to manage everything on her own and not to bother the children's uncle, who serves as their guardian. Soon enough, the governess is alarmed when she catches sight of an unknown man and woman lurking around the estate. The housekeeper then informs her that the couple used to work there but both have passed away. The governess begins to suspect that the children know far more about these so-called "ghosts" than they are willing to admit to her, and she fears for their safety.

This is a highly engaging and fast-paced novella. I was so completely captivated by it that I finished reading it in a single sitting. I listened to this on Audible after coming across a glowing review of Emma Thompson's performance, which was indeed as marvelous as promised. Richard Armitage's narration of the opening was also excellent.

This story has truly whetted my appetite for more gothic tales. It is highly recommended for anyone who enjoys a good spooky and thrilling read.

The story begins with a governess being hired to care for the nephew and niece of a man who has taken on the responsibility after the children's parents' death. The man is clear that he doesn't want to be bothered with excessive communication. The governess, young and pretty, is eager to please her employer by following his wishes exactly. She wants to be seen as competent, but this need to please becomes a vulnerability as she tries to shield and protect the children, yet may actually put them at more risk.

The children are incredibly beautiful, and the governess is immediately influenced by the preconceived notion that beauty equates to goodness. When Miles is expelled from his exclusive school for unknown reasons, the governess can't imagine what he could have done to deserve such punishment. As she tries to understand the children, she discovers there are questions about what has happened to others associated with them in the past. The reluctance of everyone to speak about the past makes her more suspicious.

Then, the governess starts to see dead people. Her first thought is to protect the children's innocence, but perhaps she should have been more worried about protecting her own. She plays a game of ignoring the phantoms, hoping the children won't become aware of the ghosts of Quint and Miss Jessel. Without confirmation from others, she naturally starts to question her own sanity.

Henry James weaves in awkward interactions between the governess and Miles. The young lad seems to attempt to seduce his governess, and she is not completely immune to his charm. Scholars have debated whether the governess is actually seeing the phantom manifestations or not. The story leaves the reader jangled and apprehensive, and it is a tragedy with elements of horror that has lasting traumatic issues for those who survive.

“No, no—there are depths, depths! The more I go over it, the more I see in it, and the more I see in it, the more I fear. I don’t know what I don’t see—what I don’t fear!”

Screen shot from the 1961 version of The Innocents based on the James short story.

Reading this story was a rather underwhelming experience. It was like eagerly queuing up on the opening weekend of a highly anticipated blockbuster that you've been waiting for a year, only to be let down. I was truly disappointed. I had heard great things about this story, being touted as one of the best ghost stories ever written. So excited was I that I immediately downloaded it to my Kindle, despite already having it in one of my paperback collections. I have a penchant for psychological horror, but this story failed to engage me on an emotional level.

I found myself struggling to read through it, having to resist the urge to skim. I believe in reading every word to understand the author's intent. However, this story was hard to decipher, and I often felt detached from it. There were some interesting elements, such as the menace of the two children who appeared angelic but had a darker side, and the governess's doubts about her own sanity. But overall, the story lacked the impact and power that I expect from a good horror story.
On the positive side, the portrayal of the psychological effects of the 'demon children' on the caregivers was well done. You could sense the confusion and distress that the children caused. However, the horror failed to truly resonate with me. I will give the author another chance and read his volume of Ghost Stories, hoping for a better experience. But I don't think I'll be exploring his non-gothic works. While his writing is beautiful, it lacks the emotional depth that I crave in my pleasure reading. My recommendation is that if you're a die-hard fan of gothic fiction and classic horror, you should give this story a try. But if you prefer substance over pretty writing, you might not find much to enjoy here.

I did not find the book very scary, as a horror book should be.

On the contrary, it was quite boring. The writing felt very dated and over-thought.

It seemed as if the author was trying too hard to create an effect that just didn't come across.

At some point, I could feel a bit of the chilling atmosphere, but it faded quickly.

It was disappointing because I had high expectations for a horror book.

I was hoping for something that would really make my heart race and keep me on the edge of my seat.

However, this book failed to deliver on that front.

Maybe it was because the style of writing was not to my taste or perhaps the story just wasn't engaging enough.

Either way, I would not recommend this book to anyone looking for a truly scary read.

I truly despise the moment when I don't have an affinity for a classic. It gives me a sense of stupidity, as if I'm too unenlightened to fathom the literary magnificence. I'm especially disappointed in myself for not loving The Turn of the Screw, considering I'm such a huge enthusiast of all things macabre and Gothic. And this work combines both!

Yet, it's the truth. I simply didn't care for it. The governess seems to materialize out of nowhere, lacking any distinct personality or believable motivation. Her fixation on the children is either complete absurdity or disturbingly sexual. Neither of these options is appealing. The children themselves never exhibit behavior that would suggest they are either truly charming or particularly malevolent. Most shockingly, the elaborate language fails to capitalize on the opportunity to be indulgent in creating an eerie atmosphere and haunting descriptions. Instead, it all comes across as rather平淡无奇.

Much of the academic acclaim revolves around James' meticulously crafted structure, which presents two possible interpretations: Either the apparitions are real, or they are the products of the governess's deranged mind. Either the children are angels, or they are demons. The dialogue and details are deliberately ambiguous to accommodate both interpretations, and allegedly, this is what makes the book so great.

However, I didn't view it in that light. Ambiguity can indeed be employed with great success to generate a sense of mystery and suspense. But in this instance, I find it irritating. Why are the characters behaving so foolishly? Why are their motivations so nonsensical? Did I perhaps overlook a page somewhere?

Given the limited details regarding the governess's background and her inhuman obsessions, I could potentially argue that she is a ghost herself. I'm certain I could unearth sentences to support this unconventional theory. There's probably also an argument to be made that she's a space alien. Or that the entire thing is a strange dream. It might be an interesting project to see how many peculiar interpretations can be derived by emphasizing the indistinct lines in different ways. I would undertake it, but to be honest, one reading is sufficient for me.

That being said, I do believe it is无可争议 how influential this novella has been on Gothic literature over the past 100 years. I'm aware that my critical reaction is a minority opinion in this regard. If you're a fan, please leave a comment and assist me in understanding what I'm failing to grasp.

I think there are two ways to interpret this book.

Either as a simple gothic tale with ghosts and strange metaphysical activities, in which case one will probably get bored and disappointed. Or as a narrative of the escalating cloning of the fragile and sensitive human psyche, which balances extremely between the real and the illusion, in which case one will love it.

The ambiguous narrative and the different dialogues, moreover, make both versions possible. Through the atmosphere of doubt and the indeterminate, the author does not limit the ways of expanding his work and allows each version to stand.

An English estate of the Victorian era, idyllic landscapes, a beautiful mansion with a huge garden, lakes, trees, spacious dusty rooms, a handful of servants and complete isolation. A young governess comes to take care of two orphaned children (a 10-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl), who are under the guardianship of their uncle, who, however, does not want to have any relationship with them. Everything is fine until the moment when the governess starts to see the ghosts of two dead servants and has the unwavering belief that they want to harm the children and corrupt them. Sometimes terrified and ready to give up and sometimes brave, she starts a dark, atmospheric ghost hunt (or perhaps not;;)

The story is dense and stormy, so that it perfectly matches the games that the mind can play, the way it can get lost in intricate paths with no escape, imagine, create, doubt and reject. To actually become the enemy of oneself.

Silences that seem to stretch into infinity, the feeling of a presence in the room that you avoid looking at in your attempt to deny its existence, the sudden extinguishing of a candle that plunges the room into darkness, the prolonged touch of the hands of two uncontrollable people, the creaking of a door when it closes and the sudden distant laughter of a child on the stairs. True terror.

All these things indicate ineffably that what was implied, what was not said and not seen, what you feel simply and turn your gaze away to avoid it, seems to matter more than the obvious and the provocative.

I read it in the editions of Άγρα in the translation of Kosmas Politis. Of course, at night with the lights off and my breath held. And I loved it for the authentic, unstudied terror and its psychological implications. And it became one of my favorite books, one of those classic loves that you return to from time to time in an attempt to relive it as the first time…