The Norton Critical Edition which reprints the New York
Edition text and includes background material, contemporary reviews and
selected criticism.
It’s odd to discover Turn was initially serialized in 12
installments – the Norton marks the end of each. So much of the effect depends on a unity of
purpose which must have been lost in such a presentation, or if readers even
remembered the story. If the journal was
a weekly that’s three months for what now most of us read in one sitting. If twice-weekly that’s still a month and a
half and even if it came out every week day that’s over two weeks.
I’d never noticed before that the governess is not named.
Are Quint and Miss Jessel evil? That’s clearly how the apparitions are given
though even being presented through the governess’ account they don’t do
much. In the backstory all they seem to
have done is engage in a romantic liaison – outside good taste perhaps but even
in 1898 hardly evil. (Though the story
is set decades earlier it still feels much of the time of its composition.)
Surely somebody has written a story about Flora after the
events of Turn.
What’s the purpose of the frame story? To some degree this is a convention but I
suppose partly it serves as evidence that the governess is in fact not insane,
to account for some readings of the actual text by earlier representing these
in the frame’s characters, and possibly to make the story more “final” by
presenting it as a fixed text two removes in time (many years from when it was
actually written by the governess who was then recounting events many years in
her past).
This second edition of the Norton Critical came out in 1999
and most of its sampling of recent criticism is already useless. Remember when academics valued the ability to
write well?
The impression I get from the supplemental material is that
it didn't occur to readers for years that the governess might be imagining the
spirits. Not sure I quite believe that. If that’s true though the interesting point
is how ingrained a way of interpretation is that it’s hard to imagine another
way.
If I’m reading the Blackmur piece correctly he’s suggesting
that both the ghosts are real and also that the governess is imagining –
basically that the ghosts are mostly blank and she’s projecting the evil onto
them.
Interesting that James called Turn a “potboiler”
several times and dismisses it for not being as attentive to reality as his
other work. I’m hardly a pro-realism guy
but admittedly do see some of his point.
Also can’t help but wonder how conscious James was of class
differences. He was certainly aware of
it but I suspect in a way that would be offensive today. Some of the servants are listed in
Turn but barely figure in the story though you have to
wonder why not considering the events that may or may not be happening would
have involved them as well. In
A Portrait of a Lady servants sometime flick by almost like,
well, ghosts with just a passing mention during scenes where until then I didn't suspect they were even present.
Since the Quint and Jessel relation is never clearly defined
it’s hard not to think that the most offensive transgression was their
difference in class.
Is Mrs. Grose’s illiteracy an indication of her inability to
interpret the events? Of course if the governess is imagining then she’s not
missing the ghosts, she’s missing the threat of the governess.
There are many more film versions than I realized. This would appear to be a book very unsuited
to film but must be tempting to filmmakers.