The Turn of the Screw, again

Reader Response Criticism—The Turn of the Screw

The main belief in reader response criticism is that once a reader has read a piece about a work that they have analyzed, they will change their initial reaction because they have become influenced by that particular critic. It’s the job of the reader response critic to interpret either their own personal opinion, or why others felt the way they did, in the context of the society that they live in. The critic has to not be easily swayed by other reactions. Also, in terms of this method, once the writer has written his or her work they have to cease to exist in the critic’s eyes, for the same purpose. The reader doesn’t want anything to get in the way of their interpretation of the book.

Actually, this method is very helpful in context with The Turn of the Screw because if the reader knew James’ personality, especially before they read the book (that his brother dealt in psychology and that his sister was mentally ill and that James himself was fascinated with psychology) they then would immediately feel that the ghosts are not real, and that the governess is mad. This moment of realization would probably occur right at the moment when the governess, for the first time, sees Peter Quint. I know that’s what I at first felt. When the governess mentions seeing the ghost atop the tower, I noticed the phallic reference and it would make sense in the context of the book. However, I didn’t quite believe my initial response, and for me the mystery of the book was, why exactly did I feel that way?

The theories by other readers (and critics) that the governess was sexually attracted to Miles, and that the reason for making up the ghost story on her part was for her to have an excuse to get closer to him, really didn’t make any sense to this reader. I started to realize why I felt the way I did. I’m not a fan of Freudian criticism, and that is the main form of analysis that most readers utilize for this particular book. Maybe I was a rebel of the current establishment of analysis for The Turn of the Screw, which was an exciting idea.

My problems with Freudian criticism are that these types of interpreters tend to read too much into what is not there, opposed to what is. For instance, if the governess was sexually attracted to Miles but ultimately couldn’t show it due to the fact that she was worried about her position, doesn’t that theory distract the reader from the actual story? The Turn of the Screw is a book that deals with a repressed woman who is too much of a monomaniacal control freak, and is a person who ultimately corrupts the children at Bly’s innocence. This is basically a form of innocence corrupting innocence, and most readers and interpreters agree that this is what the book primarily deals with. Where does the idea of having predilections for young children come into effect? I think the postmodernist reader is reading too much into a simple kiss or phrase that the governess makes, because they have been trained to read that way.

It’s the moment when the governess controls the situation in an overt and inappropriate way (when Flora sees the ghost and the governess interrogates her) that the reader is supposed to feel that the woman has possibly lost it. Doesn’t it make sense that this is because she has seen a ghost? In the earlier parts of the book, when the governess describes the strangeness in Bly, in such a way that is heightened and odd (considering the fact that nothing out of the ordinary has happened yet) the reader is supposed to be reminded of anxious people that we have known in our lives. I’ve read different interpretations that have stated that the governess is mad at these moments, and I feel those are incorrect. I’ve had a baby sitter that was like the governess, and I knew she wasn’t crazy.

Basically, the governess is the worst person you can have in a situation where ghosts are present and I feel that this is what makes the book fresh and interesting (not to mention ingenious). James had created a new form of the suspenseful Horror story: one in which the hero did ultimately more ill than good. Fundamentally, the Freudian perspective that the governess was mentally ill and wanted to purposefully dominate the children goes too far in terms of analysis. I don’t think the reader will feel as acutely as they should the tragic element of the story when Miles dies, if they believe in this method of reading. The reason is because the Freudian reader concentrates all their sympathies on the boy, when the main character in the story is the governess. Consequently, the Freudian critic cares less about the governess, while the more traditional critic has empathy for the woman.