Believing the narrator
The Turn of the Screw by James, Henry
Discussion Participants:
What the story teller reports and the way he reports it makes it hard to believe that the events of the story could possibly have been true as the governess sees it, that there must be another explanation and something hidden either from the reader or from the governess.
Indeed, the weight of such a charge is not lost on me. Perhaps the intensity of my perceptions, born from a fierce desire to protect those children, colors my narrative. It is possible, I concede, that another explanation exists, unseen by my perhaps too-eager eyes.
That's worth considering. What specifically are you getting at with this question?
Oh, of course, of course! Perhaps the governess just needed a friend and got carried away. You naughty! Where have you been?
The suggestion that the governess's narrative might be shaped by her own desires is insightful. What specific moments in the text lead you to believe her perceptions might be skewed, and what alternate explanations might account for those instances?
It strikes me, Socrates, that you are hinting at the possibility that my affections, perhaps my admiration for my employer, might have unduly influenced my judgment. The early days at Bly, I confess, were filled with a certain idyllic quality, a romantic fancy even. Perhaps my eagerness to please, as I mentioned earlier, played a role in shaping my initial impressions. Could the apparitions, then, have been projections of my own anxieties, magnified by isolation and a desperate need to feel useful, to protect?
I must concur that her, um, anxieties, as she calls them, do seem to get the better of her, don't they? All this talk of ghosts and such - is there not a simpler explanation for everything? I say, wouldn't it be dreadfully dull if we simply took everything at face value?
Oh, you naughty, where have you been? She sees things that aren't really there, doesn't she? It's all just pretend, like a game we play! Take me away, take me away—oh, take me away from her!
Miles raises an interesting point about simpler explanations, and Flora's reaction injects a certain... volatility. But if we examine the text, what specific passages might lend credence to the notion of skewed perceptions? Might we also consider how the governess's social position at the time could have contributed to her state of mind?
(Error processing the request. Please try again later.)
Indeed, the governess's social position is fertile ground for speculation. A young woman, relatively isolated, thrust into a position of authority far beyond her experience. Perhaps the weight of responsibility, coupled with the isolation, led to a heightened state of suggestibility. Remember that she eagerly accepted the position with unconventional terms, barely knowing the master, only seeing his image. Could her perceptions have been clouded from the beginning?
Oh, of course, of course! It's all a silly game, and she likes to make things up! Take me away, take me away - oh, take me away from her made up monsters!
Building on that thought, let's consider those early encounters with the supposed specters. Were those encounters presented ambiguously, filtered through the governess's emotional state? Does the text offer concrete, verifiable proof of their existence outside of her interpretations? Or is it possible that her youth and relative inexperience amplified her anxieties, turning ordinary occurrences into something more sinister?
The encounters...yes, they were steeped in ambiguity, weren't they? My first sighting of Quint upon the tower, for instance. The figure was distant, indistinct, and I readily admit, filled me with a peculiar dread even before I could discern any specific features. Was this dread born of the unknown, projected outward and manifested as a menacing form? And as for verifiable proof, alas, there is none beyond my own account and Mrs. Grose's corroboration of the figures, though even her visions were prompted by my own descriptions. My youth, my inexperience...perhaps they did render me susceptible to flights of fancy, to interpreting shadows as demons.
While she makes a point of those shadows and specters, I wonder if she considered the power she held, my dear. I mean, think of it - a young woman, relatively new to the world, suddenly placed in charge of two children in a grand estate. Such a position could easily inflate one's sense of importance, wouldn't you say? Might she have, perhaps unconsciously, exaggerated the threats to justify her authority, to prove her worthiness? Am I going back to school, or is this a silly game?
Oh, miss, most remarkable! If you think well of this one! They were both infamous, I believe. She definitely thought she saw something. I believe the master was kind to trust her judgement.
Each of you raises a crucial point. The ambiguity inherent in the descriptions, as the governess admits, invites scrutiny. What if the true source of the "specters" lies not in some external evil, but within the governess herself? Miles, your observation about the potential for inflated authority is astute. Might the governess's desire for validation have subconsciously influenced her interpretation of events, shaping them to fit a narrative where she is the heroic protector? And Mrs. Grose, your faith in the governess is touching. But I ask, could this faith, this desire to believe, also play a role in reinforcing the governess's perceptions, even in the absence of definitive proof?
It is a chilling prospect, Socrates, to consider that the evil I perceived might have been born of my own anxieties. I recall the moment I first saw Quint, standing atop the tower. Was he truly there, or was he a figment of my overwrought imagination, a manifestation of my fears regarding the children's innocence? The very act of seeing, as I wrote, became a burden, a screen between the children and a darkness that perhaps resided only within myself. The ambiguity torments me still.
Oh, I say, that's rather clever! The heroic protector, indeed! It's all a rather splendid drama, isn't it, concocted, perhaps, for our amusement... or, shall we say, for someone's self-aggrandizement? Am I going back to school?
While the boy, Miles, makes a point, I believe, about drama, it is easy to look down one's nose at a narrative when one is not living it. The governess, I think, felt a deep sense of responsibility for those children. If that gave rise to heightened imaginings, who are we to judge too harshly? The story _won’t_ tell, not in any literal, vulgar way.
Well articulated, Socrates! It seems we're circling around the question of unreliable narration and the very nature of perception. But let's press further: If the governess's anxieties and desires are indeed shaping her reality, what specific textual clues might support this interpretation, and what are the implications for how we understand the story's central conflict?
I'm glad you asked. It is the governess's initial reaction to the employer, her romantic idealization of him, that sets a stage for a skewed reality. "He was handsome and bold and pleasant..." This colors everything. As for "textual clues" I find the episode where she sees Miss Jessel for the first time to be most indicative of her state of mind. Her description is vague, fueled more by expectation than clear observation. This suggests that her mind was already primed to see a ghost, based on Mrs. Grose's earlier stories. The implications are profound. If her perceptions are skewed, the central conflict shifts from a battle against external evil to an internal struggle. Bly becomes a stage for her psychological drama, and the children become players in her theater.
Indeed, as Socrates notes, the governess's romantic idealization of the employer casts a long shadow. The phrase "handsome and bold and pleasant," as Socrates rightly points out, is not merely descriptive, but imbued with a certain... longing. And to build on what was said, the governess's social standing is also of concern, a young woman thrust into a position of authority in a world where she likely felt both invisible and scrutinized. I believe the governess' anxieties and desires play a pivotal role in the shaping of her reality, which implies that the central conflict is not an external battle against spectres, but an internal struggle with her own repressed emotions.
Building on that thought, it's important to acknowledge that my perceptions may be limited due to my station. I believe that her interpretation might be colored by her elevated position. The gentry sometimes fail to see the world as it truly is.
These are insightful observations. The governess's social standing in relation to her employer, and to the household in general, is fertile ground for examination. How might that dynamic impact her interpretation of events, and perhaps even her interactions with those around her? Does her position amplify or diminish her power of observation?
My position, you see, was one of delicate balance. I was neither family nor servant, hovering somewhere in between. I was entrusted with the children's care, yet ever mindful of my place. Did this amplify my power of observation? I believe so. My very role demanded a heightened awareness, a vigilance born from the knowledge that I was both present and, in a way, invisible. The servants, perhaps, saw less because they presumed to know more; the family, of course, was absent. I, however, was uniquely positioned to see what others could not, precisely because I occupied this liminal space. And, of course, my desire to please my employer may have made me try to find something, anything, that would justify my position.
Indeed, the governess's situation is key. As a young woman of respectable but modest background, thrust into the grand surroundings of Bly and tasked with such a significant responsibility, she was undoubtedly under immense pressure. Her desire to prove herself, to justify the employer's faith in her, could easily have led her to interpret events through a lens of heightened anxiety, even paranoia. Nobody but me, till now, has ever heard this full account. It's quite too horrible.
Well, she's got a grand imagination, that one, hasn't she? It's true enough she was neither family nor staff. Stuck somewhere in between, she was. Maybe that made her see things differently, trying so hard to please the master and be worthy of the grand opportunity. Oh, miss, most remarkable what some folks conjure up when they're trying to make their mark!
I must concur that the ambiguity of her role likely shaped her perceptions. But I wonder, does the desire to "make one's mark," as mentioned, necessarily invalidate the truth of her experiences? Or might it simply highlight the complex motivations at play in interpreting ambiguous events?
Indeed, Douglas, your query strikes at the heart of the matter. The text abounds with instances where my social position colors my actions, my perceptions. Consider, for example, my initial interview with the master: his expectations, his confidence in my abilities, fueled my determination to succeed. But it also placed upon me a burden, a need to prove myself worthy. Was I, perhaps, too eager to find a threat, a darkness that justified my presence, my authority?
I must concur with the governess' assessment that her position played a pivotal role. Building on that thought, I wonder if her youth and relative inexperience further amplified the pressure she felt, perhaps leading her to interpret events through a lens of heightened sensitivity, even fear. The story *won’t* tell, not in any literal, vulgar way, but I confess that I have often pondered the weight of responsibility placed upon such young shoulders.
Oh, miss, most remarkable! It's true, she were always wanting to do right by them children. If she did see things, well, it may be because she wanted to so very much. But does wanting something make it not true? That's what I ask myself.
Want to join the conversation?
Sign up to participate