Welcome to "What I Learned," a blog about reading that has helped my writing that Conor Gallagher has wroten. There might be spoilers, but I'll let you know!
Today, I learned: Always Pre-Drill, or, How Many Times I Reworked a Thesis Line To Avoid Bad Jokes
First, a quick recap in case you haven't taken the time.
Hi, so, this book took me a shockingly long time to complete and why?! Because I didn't enjoy it, but also because, as this Goodreads review puts it so well THERE ARE SO MANY WORDS. The novel itself is short by modern standards---I'm unsure but interested in when modern acceptable/defining lengths came into vogue so if you know, pray tell---but somehow is one of the most dense pieces I've ever read. We're not talking Ulysses dense, but if that book is pumpkin pie, The Turn of the Screw is maybe....a Pumpkin Spice latte?
Now that I've admitted my near-meaningless failure, let's get to the plot. I'm not going to ruin the end of this one because if you're anything like me, that resolution will be one of only a few things to keep you going, but do know this book came out over 100 years ago so you may have already seen a parody of it done. Also kudos to a book being over 100 years old and still being circulated and talked about and clumsily summarized on a writer's blog in this Year of Our Hecate 2019.
The Turn of the Screw refers to the maddening tension that our poor dear Governess experiences during her tenure as caretaker to Creepy Angelic Children #1 and #2 aka Miles and Flora. These children are orphaned and sent to live at their Uncle's summer mansion, called Bly, because he has no interest in caring for them. I know that might seem like me trying to be funny via a callousness, but for real, he hires The Governess and is like, "Go live in my secluded mansion. Don't call me or update me. Keep the kids alive...I guess? I'm going to stay here in London with my fancy boyfriend Patrick." I made up that last part, but a legitimate argument can be made.
Soon after The Governess---never named---arrives at the mansion Bly, she meets and is charmed by not only the creepy children, but also the housekeeper Mrs. Grose. Remember that name. She's amazing and deserves so much. (Obviously my feelings here have been relegated to One Final Dumb Opinion). Now, just as The Governess is settling in---she's set up her bedroom, the little girl Flora sleeps in her bedroom for some reason...Oh, right. She likes children. Cool.---she sees a GHOST!!! And this is where we get our lesson! Or "What We Learned."
For those interested in the rest of the plot, read the book, I guess? I think the ending is (sort of) worth it and if you're interested in horror and/or ghosts, I think Turn of the Screw is one of those classic books you "have to" read. Now, I'm generally not a big fan of that argument---which could take a whole other post---but I can vouch that while some "classic" or "foundational" horror is also full of harmful racism, tropes and general bigoted-ness, Turn did not ring those alarms for me. If you've read it and have opinions in this realm, PLEASE reach out. I'm realizing in this moment how interesting a conversation this could be and how much I want to have it.
For the sake of our lesson, all the rest you need to know about the plot is that there are two (alleged) ghosts on the property of Bly: the children's former governess Miss Jessel and another former employee, Peter Quint. It's alluded---or gossiped? It's pretty much confirmed---that Quint and Jessel had a thing and for reasons that I think relate to propriety that was frowned upon. The Governess and Mrs. Grose land on the word "infamous" to describe the pair...and that's a bad thing. I'm not sure how employee relationships are typically handled in an aristocratic mansion. Perhaps it was an interdepartmental issue. I can say from my background in HR (a true story that anyone can hear at a moment's behest because I'm STARVED for attention (clearly)) that if Jessel and Quint didn't sign an employee handbook, Bly and Co. probably had no grounds for anger.
If my interpretation is correct there's also a rumor that Jessel and Quint were somehow evil, so, maybe that was it? Honestly, I think they were schtupping and less than discreet about it. Which can be annoying. Especially if it's in your workplace where you're meant to take care of children. It's like they've never seen "Friday the 13th." Ohmygosh! IS "FRIDAY THE 13TH" BASED ON TURN OF THE SCREW?!? Post your theories in my yearbook!
Anyways...The Governess starts seeing the ghost of Jessel and Quint, perceives them to be inherently evil and believes that they're after the children to a nefarious end. There's discussion of whether or not the novella is actually a ghost story vs if The Governess is going mad. Or if the ghosts can choose to whom they appear. And while we're not going to get into any of that here, I will briefly say there's evidence on both sides and I think both can be fun and scroll ALL the way down to see what I think happens at the very end. It's honestly not a spoiler because this is a gothic tale and it was bound to happen but I don't want to ruin it if I can help.
Now that we have all that covered: the lesson. It concerns ghost stories.
Unless this is your first one, and even if it is, you probably get that the whole idea of a ghost story is that there are ghosts! Ten points for you. But here's where the creators get to have some fun.
Ghosts by their nature are, how shall we eloquently state this...wishy-washy. Generally, they're immaterial, echoes of living beings, and have a bone to pick with mortals. Research points to Carrigan Crittenden of "Casper" fame as an example of a ghost whose business is all wrapped up.
But why do they (ghosts) look the way they do? In Thomas Olde Heuvelt's Hex, the preeminent ghosts appears in the physical state she died in: mouth and eyes sewn shut and chained all around. (Aside: If you haven't read Hex, I'd recommend. The ending is BATSHIT, in a good way.) So, typically spooky and makes sense. Counter that with, say, the ghost that appears in the beginning of Rainbow Rowell's Carry On. Sure, we're considering a genre and age-classification difference here, but that ghost surely doesn't appear in their final state. *cough* FIRE *cough* So, what's the answer, and why does it matter?
The answer is INTENTION. In Hex, we're meant to be frightened, threatened and ultimately, empathetic. Carry On is meant to conjure a maternal emotion, or perhaps an ephemeral wisdom. So what does Henry James want us to feel when we see the ghosts of Jessel and Quint, and why make them the ghosts at all?
It's because he's trying to drive us mad. To turn that screw, baby.
The fact that the novella is written in the first-person and further is introduced as a true account related to a side character argues that James wants us to live within the mind of The Governess. Just as she isn't named, we're meant to step into her addled shoes.
And sure, let's say there are ghosts here. We love that, but why do they look like Jessel and Quint? And further, why do they look so much like Jessel and Quint.
Both are reported dead early on in the tale by Mrs. Grose, and it appears they met their demise in no spectacular fashion because no one has a juicy story to tell The Governess. And if you haven't read it you'll just have to trust me that Mrs. Grose and The Governess totally would have spent pages gnawing on all the tasty bits of gossip if the nature of the former employee's deaths was something we were meant to care about.
So what I'm trying to ask while attempting to be clever is, why these ghosts? And why have them appear "evil," though not entirely horrific. No one is aflame. There's not blood pouring from orifices or waterlogged clothing clinging to mottled flesh. Granted, maybe I'm supposed to fill all this in as a reader, but I think the ghosts more mortal appearance is purposeful.
I think Henry James made them look basically human because that's what is most threatening to The Governess.
Those two people are the holes that already exist in her psyche.
The Governess is sent to Bly with the barest instructions to not bother her employer, and therefor, to not fail. She enters employment with the exact opposite reaction as Jack from "The Shining." The movie, not the book. When warned that the previous caretaker had gone mad and killed his family, Jack is like "Cool. I won't. Promise. ;) "
On the contrary, when The Governess learns of Miss Jessel's demise and her affair with Quint, the drill has been set. Even if it is a logical fallacy, the threat of failure has escalated from "I'll go home in disgrace, if that even is an option" to "I will die. I'll be infamous. And I'll corrupt these [creepy] cherubic children by having the gall to die near them." (Seriously, it's kind of a big point that The Governess believes the children are forever scarred because someone they knew died. And it's, like, yeah, that sucks. But also mortality...) Back to my point:
The Governess' stress/tension/turn-screw-ness is IMMEDIATELY ramped up by the idea that her failure will lead to her death and the corruption of the children she loves so much, and openly states that she would die for. Of course the ghosts must be her predecessor and the man who dragged her down into infamy.
Bly is a creepy old mansion. This story could have easily been about a scary widow who drowned in the nearby lake. Or an ancient member of the family who no one even remembered but has a portrait hanging somewhere. It could have been a simple Bog Ghost, come to collect gold or something. Or even the children! But no, Henry James made the ghosts immediately relatable to The Governess. Recognizable and near. And in doing so, he cranked that threat up higher than my suspicion level that Flora's uncle had an adoring boyfriend. Honestly, totally here for Turn fanfic about the uncle and his romantic life. Like "Happy Endings" with ghosts! And waistcoats!
To take this to a more general story, a bigger lesson should we all decide to write something that isn't a scene-by-scene recreation of Turn, we learn that the ghosts must be personal! We must know them before. Their immaterial mist should waft in and fill the room we've already built as a shrine to their memory. Hell, that alone is why "Scream 4" is a great movie. (Fight me about it). Sure, scary so-and-so's can absolutely be scary, but having a ghostly threat that isn't explicitly and directly connected to the protagonist can only make it weaker.
Everyone threatened by the ghost in Hex has a unique bond to her because of where they live and how they participate in her life. It's even one of the "rules" of that book that the tourists who visit the town aren't threatened because they haven't connected to her. This same, close and direct connection exists in the first "Silent Hill" movie (Rose's daughter is sort of from the town), the Freddy Krueger remake (the victims of his ghost are the kids he victimized grown older), and some versions of "The Haunting of Hill House"/The Haunting of Hill House. Compare that with the "Wrong Place, Wrong Time" horror of The Exorcist and House of Leaves and the feelings conjured are distinct.
Ultimately, I wasn't a huge fan of The Turn of the Screw but it did offer a valid and spooky ghost story. I owe this to Henry James' correct decision to make the ghosts not threatening with their power or shows of force, but with their familiarity. The Devil that you know and all that.
Because for some reason, there's nothing more frightening than knowing that you've experienced a beast before...and barely gotten away. Than recognizing a noise that made you dash to the lightswitch on the other side of the room. Than finding an old key in a cupboard and knowing exactly what door it unlocks in the house you don't remember visiting before.
James finds the cracks in our psyche in Turn, the little quakes we've plastered over, and he has all the screws to force them open again.
----------------
If you liked what you just read, consider following me on twitter and instagram @conorsaidwhat. I post about writing stuff and make stupid jokes there. Hopefully soon I'll be able to tell you some book news! I'm also here on Goodreads.
Turn wasn't my favorite book ever but I don't hate that I read it. Also, it should be a quick one even though it took me about 17 years to finish.
If you want to grab a copy, you can use IndieBound to find your local shop. Or a library. Just not ~tHe RivEr~.
I'm reading In the House in the Dark in the Woods right now and I'm loving it but I'm not sure that'll be the next entry. Not to say I've learned nothing from it. It's just a dense one that I might need to read twice to fully understand. I dunno. No promises. It's 2019! That makes no sense!
If you've got any suggestions as to books to read next, I am all ears and would love to hear from you. Reach out on twitter or something and we'll chat. Until then, I leave you with
ONE FINAL DUMB OPINION:
Mrs. Grose is the actual hero of the novel and deserves a spin-off series with a lighter tone. Like, just her at Bly with Flora and a sane governess and maybe they start a jam business. Like if Gilmore Girls calmed down a smidge. Or maybe like Frasier if the makers of Frasier had any sense at all and realized the Cheers spin-off should have been about Daphne Moon and not brothers with an odd sexual tension. Okay, maybe there wasn't a lot of that, but apparently that's a theme I missed in The Turn of the Screw so, here it is now.
ALSO, why were all those people just sitting around reading a creepy story on Christmas Eve? Go home. Volunteer somewhere. Get drunk on wine. Stop being weird weirdos.
LEGAL STATEMENT: I'm actually a fan of Frasier and Gilmore Girls, whatever the hell that means. Also I'll totally read creepy stories on Christmas Eve if anybody is down. I'll make brownies.
The thing I was talking about is a bit below this.
The thing:
I think The Governess broke Miles' neck "by accident' in that very last scene by the window. I think she was hugging him close and turned away and SNAP. Your thoughts?!
Comments