Carvel
Collins bases his literary analysis of “The Turn of the Screw” on those
controversial ambiguities which have generated so many discussions among
critics. Collins agrees with Wilson in that the story would be dull without its
ambiguities and he suggests an additional one- according to him, Douglas and
Miles are the same person. This interpretation strengthens Wilson’s view about
Miles’ death- the fact that Miles does not die at the end of the story as the
Governess says. Both critics believe that the Governess is an inaccurate
witness and a victim of hallucinations.
In order to
support his interpretation, Collins states various similarities from the plot:
- Only Douglas’ last name appears/ Only Miles’ first name appears.
- Douglas is ten years younger than the Governess/ Miles is ten when the Governess is twenty.
- The woman is the governess of Miles’ sister when Miles comes home from boarding school/ When Douglas comes home from college he talks with the Governess who has been his sister’s governess.
Moreover,
Collins believes that by carefully arranging details, Henry James opens the
possibility of considering yet another ambiguity: that the Governess’
manuscript is a clear evidence of her mental illness.
We should
bear in mind that Collins’ reading of the story is a possible one. He presents it as a “meaningful ambiguity” . Collins
is doing what James expected from critics to do- “filling the blanks from their
own imaginations”
Collins is
clearly in the non-apparitionist camp, but he acknowledges that no
interpretation can be proven to be exclusively correct. In this sense I agree
with him. I believe “The Turn of the Screw” allows readers to develop countless
of different -and even opposing- readings, all valid.
The richness of this story is precisely in the understanding of how it works.
The richness of this story is precisely in the understanding of how it works.
Clear layout, thorough coverage and personal opinion. Good work!
ReplyDeleteVery clearly explained Magui, I haven't completely understood the comparison between Miles and Douglas in class but now I've grasped it. Thanks
ReplyDeleteVery good summary. I think that Collin's idea about Miles' and Douglas' identities is fully justified and it really makes sense to me that they are the same person. This idea is better shown at the very end. I don't think that Miles really dies- it is unlikely that a child can die at the sight of a ghost; he may be frightened to death, or may suffer from some psychological problems later on in his life, but "death" is too much in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI haven’t thought too much about that, but you (and Collins) have a very good point. I think that the connections between Milles and Douglas are far too evident to be ignored, especially in this book which is stuffed with ambiguities. Douglas and Milles seem to be the same person. However this interpretation, as any non-apparitionist interpretation, doesn’t favor the governess. If we take an apparitionist point of view, it is possible to think of the governess as a hero. When she told that Milles died because he saw the ghost, we can say that at least she tried to save him, and that she actually saved Flora. The ghosts were real and she bravely tried to protect the children.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if we take a non-apparitionist perspective, no matter how we interpret the governess’ words “his (Milles’)heart stopped,” she has to be considered as a criminal. If we take them literally, meaning that he actually died, it sounds very likely to affirm that she killed him (she was alone with the kid in the room); if we take them metaphorically, meaning that there was some kind of sexual intercourse, we should interpret that the governess abused the small boy.
I don't like any side (apparitionist / non-apparitionist) but if i had to pick, i have to admit that, in my view, there is more evidence in favor of non-apparitionist.