The Turn of the Screw according to Albert F. Stone

Albert F. Stone, Jr. suggests that the reading of The Turn of the Screw should be understood as a mixture of Freudian and Marxist insights.
As a result of the Victorian social structure presented in the book, Stone maintains that it would be inevitable to victimize Flora and Miles. One of the instances belonging to this social system is the indifference of the uncle which was a main characteristic of upper class families. Another instance is the reliance to a vulnerable governess, who belongs to a middle class and is incapable of being tolerant of good and evil in all people. As a consequence of these psychological realities, which are socially engendered, the children are considered to be victimized.
Like Bontly and Spilka, he also defends the position of acknowledging the apparitions as real in the tale’s imaginary world. The governess sees the root of evil only in the ghosts, but it is everywhere, even in the world beyond Bly.
Stone, like Firebaugh, considers the governess not a savior but a “sexual aggressor”, preventing Miles from leaving Bly and seeing the world. This interpretation, Stone recalls, can be seen in the final scene, where Quint is described as ‘a sentinel before a prison’. Miles has not been repressed by the ghosts, but by the inexperienced and ignorant governess. What is more, Stone explains she is similar to Oedipus for her “dreadful boldness of mind” which “urges to uncover every secret”. In her attempt to know and control everything, Flora is forced to physical and emotional prostration and Miles to death. Furthermore, it is probable that the governess wants evil to be focused on Flora and Miles.
All in all, Stone’s article is a clear example of social psychological criticism. His analysis describes the psychological results of an unjust social structure such as the Victorian society.
But Stone believes the story cannot be reduced to this dimension, and he emphasizes the important effect on the reader. So he also offers a sociologically based reader-response criticism. In today’s reality the ghostly effect is not as effective as in that period, though it is essential for the confidences and words that are not spoken in the story providing not only a ghostly effect but also mystery and horror.

Taking into account Stone’s analysis of the book, I find it quite accurate and logical according not only to the social period but also to the psychological connection as a consequence of the social reality. Yet I personally believe that the sociologically reader-response criticism proposed by Stone is the most suitable because of the ambiguity used throughout the book.