If the child gives the effect another turn of the screw, what do you say to two children—? We say, of course, somebody exclaimed, that two children give two turns!

In the shadowed confines of a secluded English estate, an air of ominous chill hangs thick. This is the setting for a tale both eerie and macabre, a maelstrom of mental ambiguity where the boundaries between reality and illusion blur with tantalizing finesse.

The narrative unfolds with a governess, a figure of innocence and naivety, summoned to care for two orphaned children, Miles and Flora. Through the lens of the governess, we embark on a distressing journey where the ghosts of the past lurk in the shadows of the present. As the governess assumes her duties, she becomes increasingly aware of apparitions that haunt the premises. Ghostly specters of the former valet, Peter Quint, and the governess's predecessor, Miss Jessel, emerge from the shadows, casting a sinister web over the household. With each passing encounter, the governess descends further into paranoia and obsession, convinced that the spirits seek to possess the innocent souls of the children.

Yet, in her frantic attempts to shield Miles and Flora from the malevolent forces at play, she becomes ensnared in a web of deceit and delusion. The children, seemingly angelic, harbor dark secrets of their own, their whispers echoing through the corridors. Are they the innocent pawns in a diabolical game orchestrated by the malevolent spirits, or are they the architects of their own demise?

James' psychological tapestry of terror obscures reality, leaving us to ponder the fragility of sanity and the corrosive power of fear. It makes us question what is real and what is merely a figment of the governess' tortured imagination. The story lingers in our minds, like a persistent shadow, long after we have turned the final page.

3.8/5

A Legendary Horror Classic

This is truly a legendary horror classic! One can easily envision how supremely creepy it would have been when it was first penned.

Although it presented a hint of the cliched weak Victorian women, the governess in this story was, in fact, usually quite brave. She demonstrated courage in the face of the unknown and the potentially terrifying.

I also greatly appreciated the ambiguous ending. While such endings most often tend to annoy me, in this case, I find myself liking the sense of wonder it creates. Am I to believe that the governess was crazy, or were the ghosts truly real? This ambiguity adds an extra layer of mystery and intrigue to the story, leaving the reader to ponder and form their own interpretations. It makes the experience of reading this classic horror tale all the more engaging and memorable.

Evil can assume a plethora of forms.

It might lurk in the shadows, waiting to strike.

But what's truly terrifying is when it hides behind ignorance and neglect.

This book had such a profound impact on me as I struggled to fully understand what precisely enabled this evil to flourish.

In this particular instance, it would almost be more bearable if this manifestation were outside the bounds of human interaction.

It's a truly horrific story that raises serious questions about nature and nurture.

How does evil come to be?

Is it inherent within us, or is it shaped by our environment and the choices we make?

These are the kinds of questions that this book forces us to grapple with, leaving us with a sense of unease and a desire to understand the true nature of evil.

I finished it after effort, as it didn't create for me, but only in the end, the anxiety of the next page. I evaluate the book based on the data of the distance it was written. It is a classic Gothic fantasy novel, pioneering for the then data of the literature of horror and of course the supernatural in the 19th century.

The ghosts, in other horror stories of the era, made their appearance dragging their chains (see A Christmas Carol), yet here they make their appearance as they were in life. This gives greater intensity to the reader, even more so to the reading public of 1898, when the novel was first published. So if from the point of view of the era's status quo regarding the measures and standards of society - James is influenced by the writing of the Brönte sisters, as for the innovations in the Gothic style perhaps he was influenced by the then recent arrival of Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Regarding the writing style, I found the book dense and difficult to read in some places, but it is a classic, so I'm not surprised.

Otherwise, in general terms, I can say that I liked it and I have no complaints about the ending. It was unexpected, so automatically - for me at least - very possible.

Finally, here is a mystery that I truly adore. It is a spine-chilling Gothic mystery. The question at hand is whether the governess is insane. Are the apparitions merely in her mind? I won't disclose what else she does. Or does she? You are supposed to ponder. You are not reading this to obtain definite answers. We each reach our own conclusion. I relish the ambiguity. I appreciate that readers can discuss this from various perspectives.

I like this novella because it seizes your attention right from the beginning and never releases its grip. It is concise. It is intense. It is perplexing in parts, yet the confusion compels you forward, heightening the suspense. And when you reflect on the confusion, the fact that there is confusion does make sense.

This is a novella to be experienced. How? I wholeheartedly recommend obtaining the audiobook narrated by Richard Armitage and Emma Thompson. Armitage narrates the preface, which is brief yet an essential element of the story. He portrays the role of the story's unnamed narrator as he relates to us how his friend Douglas obtained the manuscript penned by the governess. Then Emma Thompson reads the governess' tale, which is presented in the form of a first-person narrative. All in all, it is a highly effective presentation.

And who is Douglas? Am I the only one wondering about that?

**I'm afraid I just don't understand this novel's reputation!**

**THE TURN OF THE SCREW** is a story full of ambiguity. It's about a governess who is teaching two young orphaned children. Their uncle is the guardian and has taken on the financial responsibility for their upbringing, but he wants no physical or emotional contact with them. Shortly after the governess starts her job, ghostly apparitions begin to visit the children's home and the surrounding area. At first, the governess is worried that she might be losing her mind. But when she describes the phantoms to the housekeeper, Mrs Grose, they are identified as Miss Jessel, the former governess, and a corrupt valet, Peter Quint, who left the home under very suspicious circumstances. The governess, now convinced that the phantoms are real, is terrified that they are trying to abduct and corrupt the souls of her two precious charges, little Flora and Miles.

Written in 1898, **THE TURN OF THE SCREW** has a reputation as the quintessential Victorian horror story and is highly regarded in English literature as one of the finest examples of the genre. With such high praise, I really wanted to like it. I even quoted Mary Whipple's eloquent five-star Amazon review to be fair and balanced. Mary described the story as still haunting after all these years. She said it was a sophisticated and subtle literary exercise, with the suspense and horror coming from what the author didn't say and didn't describe. The reader has to fill in the blanks with their own fears, which ultimately creates a more horrifying set of images and circumstances.

However, despite all the praise, I just didn't care for it. I thought the ambiguity smacked of an author who shirked his responsibility for resolving the plot and left it all up to the readers. Even allowing for the literary habits of Victorian writers, I found the writing style lofty, muddled, pretentious, and extremely difficult to understand. I had to read many sentences over and over again just to get a basic meaning. The reactions and decisions of the governess and the housekeeper seemed odd at best and contrived and silly at worst.
Sure, with hindsight, I can see how the analysis and comments apply, but when I was reading it, I just didn't get it at all. I don't think of myself as an inattentive reader or someone with limited ideas. So, despite my best intentions, this review goes against the grain and pans what is generally considered a classic. I do not recommend it.

Paul Weiss

The Turn of the Screw by Henry James is a 2012 Duke Classics publication. (Originally published in 1898)

I've been indulging in classic 'horror' novels during the month of October for the past couple of years. It's been such a delight that I've decided to make it a cherished tradition. I've watched several movie adaptations based on this short story. However, as we all know, movies often take creative liberties. So, this year, I was determined to read the book and view it from a fresh perspective.

I was rather surprised to discover that this classic has only received a lukewarm average rating on Goodreads. I can understand why someone in the present day might find it somewhat dull if they are anticipating the theatrics of modern times. This is truly unfortunate because it's the atmosphere, the nuances, the allegory, and the subtlety that have made this ambiguous tale the subject of so much intense debate, a debate that persists even today. I highly doubt that anyone, a hundred years from now, will still be debating anything written in the current era. So, there's that.

That being said, the writing can be quite challenging to follow. It's overly wordy, and the capitalization of nearly every pronoun was rather irritating. Nevertheless, since it's a short story, I managed to read it in one sitting. Despite its age, I did find it effective. I much prefer this slow build-up over the cheap thrills that are so prevalent today. I can envision how readers in 1898 might have experienced some chills and thrills, and to be honest, I felt a few shivers here and there myself.

Does the story live up to the hype, though? Well, if I had approached the book with exaggerated expectations, I might have felt disappointed or, at the very least, confused by all the fuss surrounding it. After all, it has received so much attention in movies, television, and even on the stage. But since I was somewhat familiar with the premise and knew that it was intended to be a psychological exercise, I was quite okay with it. It's a book that one might want to read multiple times before being able to form a definite opinion about the authenticity of the ghosts or any other message that might be hidden within the text.

When it was first published, it didn't escape criticism either. But some of that criticism seems rather absurd to me. Maybe the book was simply meant to be unsettling, meant to challenge one's own perception of the events described, which is what I believe. The only debate I'm willing to engage in is the one regarding the 'Gothic' category that the book often falls into. Yes, it has some 'Bronte-esque' Gothic tones, but in my opinion, it's not a pure Gothic novel, so I wouldn't classify it as such.

Overall, I thought the story was thought-provoking, although the atmosphere was slightly marred by my difficulties with the writing. Someday, I might read it again and perhaps take a closer look at some of the suggested allegory of the story when I have more time to study it. I think a book that has this kind of longevity, that is still being featured on television, and that is still the topic of much debate speaks volumes about the impact of what might have initially seemed like a simple ghost story. For that reason alone, it deserves at least a four-star rating.

2.5 stars rounded up.

A young governess is hired to care for the young niece and nephew of an unmarried man who becomes their guardian after the death of their parents. However, there is one condition: the governess must not contact her new employer for any reason or by any means. This seems like a daunting task to me, and I'm not sure it would appeal to me at all. The young governess, though, is charmed by the gentleman and agrees to his request. Her story, told in the form of a journal years later, reveals the psychological turmoil she experiences. The question then becomes whether her distress is based on reality or if her imagination has run wild due to a loss of sanity. Each reader will reach a different conclusion about this story.

I have been eager to read this novella for several years. When I found out that a group read was planned, I took the opportunity to dust off my copy and start reading. It began as well as I had hoped. I was intrigued, and the stage was set for a satisfying gothic tale. After her arrival, the young governess receives a letter informing her that one of her charges, Miles, is being sent home from boarding school without explanation. Upon meeting Miles and his younger sister, Flora, the protagonist is convinced that these two beautiful and angelic children could do no wrong. She takes on her responsibility with determination and devotion. Then, one day, as she walks around the grounds, the governess encounters an unwelcome and menacing visitor standing in the tower of the estate house at Bly.

The sightings continue, and the young governess realizes that there are not one but two beings haunting the grounds of Bly. She becomes convinced that these phantoms are those of her predecessor, Miss Jessel, and Quint, the deceased valet of her current employer. She involves the housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, in her drama and tries to determine if the children can see these sinister beings as well. She eventually believes that the phantoms are there to harm the children and that it is her duty to protect them at all costs, while still keeping her promise not to burden her employer with any difficulties. Tension builds, and the governess begins to question her own sanity. As she does, the reader will do the same. However, the details in the narrative and our own beliefs will influence us to believe either in a true haunting or in a case of hysteria on the part of the governess. For me, the author's intention was clear, but that's just my opinion. Other readers may come to the opposite conclusion. Some may say that it was deliberately left ambiguous.

Now, you may be wondering why I only gave 2.5 stars to this highly regarded classic ghost story. For me, the writing was too convoluted. I love a well-written phrase, and I'm not put off by the classics. But here, I felt lost in the wordiness, and the dialogue was hard for me to understand. I felt distant from the characters, like a passive bystander. I wanted to be drawn into the melodrama and feel a shiver down my spine. I don't need gruesomeness in my ghost stories, but I do want a sense of dread about what will happen next. With this book, the dread was lacking. It was like watching an old movie on a fuzzy TV screen; I wasn't fully captivated. But you may have a different experience. If you've ever thought about reading this acclaimed literary work, then give it a try. You may love it as others have. It's a short book and won't take much time to read. What I loved most about this novel was the discussion that followed. I've read many opinions and theories, and each one has been interesting and thought-provoking. I will read this again... someday.

I often firmly believe that writing is more important than plot to the extent that it can salvage a mediocre plot, and this belief is very dear to me. And it is stories like these that realign my reading perspective in that direction.

Henry James’ story doesn't have any inherent flaws; rather, it holds the promise of blooming into a fully fledged masterpiece. The premise of a series of apparitions haunting the governess of a house, causing her to cast a net of suspicion over all the residents, especially the children, is indeed worth exploring for an exciting journey. However, its development is severely hampered by the numerous convoluted and endless sentences, almost as if the book is cursed. I'm not overly bothered by such literary devices, especially when they work together to bring out the deeper meaning, even if it's not immediately clear to the reader. But I found myself constantly getting lost in the verbose and unproductive passages that did nothing to advance the story; worse still, they stalled the little progress it had made in the first few pages.

Despite providing a quiet and conducive atmosphere for reading, I found my concentration wavering many times. As a result, the book might have descended into a forgettable affair if it weren't for the climax, which managed to retrieve some of the lost verve. There were some brilliant moments that, like sparks, prevented my reading experience from being a complete failure. The characters are drawn with a steady and neutral hand, meaning that I could envision the solid outlines of the characters moving and floating, but I wasn't compelled to stop them and ask for more of what lay beneath the surface. They caught my attention but not my full involvement.

This was my first encounter with Henry James, and I'm currently undecided. Perhaps another opportunity to explore his works is in order, when the writing might not be compared to Marcel Proust and the plot might not be compared to The Conjuring 2.

I was in search of a spooky fall read, but instead, I stumbled upon this entangling novella that seems to have an abundance of material just waiting for me to analyze. Merely reading this work as a simple ghost story would be highly unsatisfying. Henry's writing is, at the same time, brilliant, confusing, convoluted, perplexed, and ambiguous. His meandering prose creates the perfect atmosphere, not only of a haunted mansion but also of a mind on the verge of madness. It is never direct, precise, or solid; rather, it is subtle, filled with double entendres and concealed meanings. What is not being said holds more importance than the things that are written about. It is the kind of book that reveals more and more as you continue to think about it.

The novella has a framed narrative and begins with a group of people listening to the letters of the governess, which carry a tone of intimate confidentiality. The governess is the most classic example of an unreliable narrator, as her subjective point of view leaves multiple ways of interpreting the events that did or did not occur.

Looking at this novella from a psychoanalytic point of view is especially compelling and will be further discussed in this review. Interestingly, "The Turn of the Screw" is one of the first works of literature to be subjected to psychoanalyzing a character and speculating about the author's neurosis. It was published three years after "Studies on Hysteria" and two years before "The Interpretation of Dreams" - and it aligns perfectly with the teachings of Freud. The psychoanalytic interpretation views the story not as being about ghosts but rather about the Governess's censored unconscious having a significant influence on her conscious mind and actions - especially repressed sexuality. The sexual allusions are scattered throughout this novella. It is more evident that the Governess feels some sort of attraction towards the master, but even her relationship with the children has a latent desire that can be seen in the sensual undertones of the language used to describe her behavior towards them. Words like infatuation, fascination with beauty, and intercourse are used, and the governess is almost obsessed with the children, often embracing and even passionately kissing them.

The hidden desires of the Governess ultimately determine her perception of reality, and her repressed instincts manifest in her irrational behavior, which ultimately leads to a great tragedy. The forbidden grounds she tries to avoid become inevitable. This struggle between her unconscious and conscious leads to the deterioration of her mind - in that sense, she embodies Freud's notion that the human mind rarely has a rational reason for its thoughts and actions. Her state could be described in many psychiatric terms - hysteria, neurosis, and even psychotic decompensation with visual hallucinations.

This is a reflection of the strict Victorian era, full of taboos, rules, and ideas of being good and proper. This results in an extreme division between the good and bad parts of characters, as seen in literature - like the ghost of the madwoman in "Jane Eyre", "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", and Dostoyevsky's "The Double". The physical manifestation of the dark, repressed part of human nature in the last half of the nineteenth century can be seen as a great prologue to Freud's work. When talking to the children, the governess takes great care not to discuss topics that society might view as inappropriate or unsuitable for them. She expends a great deal of energy avoiding any kind of topic that might be misconstrued as improper, which, in turn, makes her nervous and anxious. For a woman, it was not permitted to address her sexual desires and impulses directly, and even more so, the children's sexuality was off-limits - the angelic figure of a character could not have sexual drives.
The mere vagueness in James's writing suggests the importance of keeping these desires and instincts repressed in the personal and collective unconscious. The ghosts in this story represent the shadow side of the characters and society - they are hinted to be peculiar, aggressive, terrifying, promiscuous, and sexually predatory - invoking both repulsion and a strange attraction. With what the ghosts represent, we simultaneously identify, desire, and loathe. These parts are excluded from consciousness, and therefore, these things follow us everywhere.
The central point of the governess also has its symbolism. Being a governess in that era was one of the few ways an educated single woman could respectably make a living through her intellectual gifts. The intellectual semi-independence of a woman raises a much more profound question - can the newfound freedom be extended into the sexual realm? The death of Miles is the death of the ideal of innocence that has been upheld for centuries. James shows just how profound and skillful a writer he is by hitting all the right points of the culture's denials and incipient discoveries of his era. His art reflects the collective unconscious of the time, and that is his greatest accomplishment.

Oh, the past two days of reading "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James have been a truly captivating experience. I wasn't exactly scared (maybe just a teensy bit?), but I was definitely intrigued. And, I have to admit, I was also quite confused by James' beautiful yet labyrinthine prose. He loves to dissimulate, phrasing his ideas and situations in the most imaginative ways, playing with the reader. So, if you're looking for clarity, you might as well give up (as I initially did until I realized it was futile!). But if you can embrace the ambiguity, it's a whole different story.

The narrative constantly loops back on itself, with half-formed questions and elusive answers. But then, suddenly, James presents us with a masterful passage that makes us want to keep going, despite the confusion. For example, the description of the intense hush in which the sounds of evening dropped, with the rooks stopping cawing and the friendly hour losing its voice, is simply brilliant. It creates a sense of unease and anticipation that keeps the reader hooked.

However, there are so many things left unsaid in this novella. So many half-sentences and unanswered questions, as we see in the dialogue between the governess and Mrs. Grouse. It's extraordinary and a bit unsettling not to know the truth. But that's the beauty of it. We have to read between the lines and form our own interpretations.
One of the big questions that keeps coming up is whether the ghosts are real or not. For me, it's not as simple as that. The story is so much more than a straightforward Gothic tale. It's about the governess' state of mind, her unrequited love for the master, and her isolation in the strange house. Maybe the ghosts are a figment of her overactive imagination, or maybe they're a manifestation of her deepest fears and desires.
Another question that arises is whether the governess is insane. She seems to be living in a world of her own, constantly rambling about what she sees and imagines. But can we really blame her? She's in a difficult situation, alone in a strange house with only the children and the housekeeper for company. Maybe she's suffering from female sexual hysteria, as some have suggested. But again, it's not that simple.
There's also the question of the possible sexual relationship between the governess and Miles. There are definitely hints of sexuality in the air, but it's never明确stated. Maybe it's just a latent desire on the governess' part, or maybe there's something more going on. The fact that Miles is not a small child anymore and seems to be aware of his own sexuality adds to the ambiguity.
In the end, I think the moral of the story is for each of us to decide. The play with meaning, the constant questioning, and the overall ambiguity make this novella a truly brilliant piece of literature. It forces us to think, to question, and to form our own opinions. And that's what makes reading so enjoyable.
I dedicate this review to my dear friend Vessey, with whom I read this book. Her fantastic reviews helped me when I first started writing mine!

The Turn of the Screw is an extremely intense psychological tale of terror that commences on Christmas Eve within an old house.

It centers around a Governess who arrives to live with and look after two young children. The Governess initially adores her new role in charge of the young ones. However, her tranquility is soon disrupted when she starts to witness ghosts.

Really? I hold a different opinion. I found it to be rather boring and outdated, and just a touch silly. In my view, it would be more suited as a B movie, and that's about its level of quality.

It fails to engage me on a deeper psychological or emotional level. The plot seems rather simplistic and lacks the complexity and depth that I would expect from a truly great work of literature.

Perhaps others may see something more in it, but for me, it falls short of expectations.