Ambiguity And Unfulfillable Gaps In The Turn Of The Screw Essay

The abundance of interpretations and critical analyses of The Turn of the Screw points out the ambiguity of Henry James's writing style. The reality of the ghosts, their character, the nature of their relationship with the children, the type of corrupting influence they exert on the children and the reason behind Miles's dismissal are some of the ambiguous topics which have been at the centre of countless critical essays. While the reality of the ghosts can be questioned in light of the narrator's reliability, the other ambiguities mentioned above all appear in some of the governess's conversations with Mrs Grose and Miles, however, they are never tackled in an explicit or unequivocal manner. Indeed, gaps occur because the use of vague words, indefinite articles and blanks contributes to the ambiguities of the story, rather than helping to give a definite interpretation.

While the reality of the ghosts and therefore their identity is questionable, it does affect the interpretation of the influence that they allegedly exert on the children. The nature of their influence stems from the personality and the behaviour of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel and from the relationship between themselves and the children, which are described in vague words in conversations between Mrs Grose and the governess. Indeed, when they discuss the character of Peter Quint in chapter 6, Mrs Grose describes Quint as much too free (51) and too free with every one! (51), which opens the interpretation of not only the object of Quint's free relationship, but also its nature. Though Mrs Grose evokes Quint in relation to Miles in this conversation, the vagueness of the indefinite pronoun she uses implies Miles was not the only one with whom Quint was too free.

Indeed, in a later conversation, after Mrs Grose refers to Quint and Miss Jessel as both infamous (58) the governess guesses that there was something between them (58), however, the nature of the relationship between Quint and both Miles and Miss Jessel remains ambiguous. While Mrs Grose later asserts that she told Miles she liked to see little gentlemen not forget their station (62) implying that Quint's relationship with Miles did not comply to class boundaries and was therefore immoralshe replies to the governess that there was everything [between Quint and Miss Jessel] (58) and continues that the fellow was a hound (58), implying Quint's personality as morally wrong and sexually depraved. In the same conversation Mrs Grose eventually adds that Quint did what he wished [] with them all (58), which intimates that the relationship between him and Miles might have been homosexual. It is thus possible to interpret from the conversations between Mrs Grose and the governess that the character of the ghosts' corruptive influence is of a sexual nature, however, as it is not explicitly stated but only implied, notably with the use of indefinite pronouns, it remains ambiguous.

The reason behind Miles's dismissal is also discussed ambiguously, this time during a conversation between Mrs Grose and the governess in chapter 2. Indeed, the vagueness of the words used in their dialogue does not allow one single interpretation as to the cause of his expulsion. As Ralph Norrman underlines, it is first both Mrs Grose's illiteracy and the governess's decision to not read aloud the headmaster's letter that causes the exact wording of the letter [] [to become] a blank to the housekeeper and the reader (Norrman, 156). Indeed, the governess only states that [the gentlemen] go into no particulars, which opens the topic of Miles's expulsion to interpretation, despite the governess's claim that that can have but one meaning (34). Then, the words used to describe him, such as bad (34), injury to the others (34), naughty (35) contaminat[ing] (35) and corrupt[ing] (35) are sufficiently vague to be given different and varied interpretations. Who the others are, what type of corruption Miles allegedly exerted and in what way he did it illustrate that there are just as many ambiguities as interpretations attached to Miles's dismissal. Yet, when Mrs Grose reacts to the governess's allegations of corruption by asking are you afraid he'll corrupt you? (35), the idea that Miles's corruption could be of an erotic nature becomes a possible lead of interpretation.

This idea is reinforced by a conversation Mrs Grose and the governess have the next day as they discuss the character of Miss Jessel. Indeed, as the governess says that he seems to like [the governesses] young and pretty (35), Mrs Grose answers that he did (35) and adds that [it was] his way the master's (35). The indefinite personal pronouns obviously cause Mrs Grose to clarify who she is referring to, however, the idea that she could still be talking about Miles and inferring that he has sexual inclinations is elicited. As Ralph Norrman underlines, when the governess takes her up of whom did you speak first? it seems too silly to admit that she meant Miles so she [...] answers who else? (Norrman 158), which creates a blank-type ambiguity (Norrman 158). Thus it creates a gap related to the identity of the person Mrs Grose could have spoken of, which can be filled according to the interpretative reading one makes of the novella.

The ground for Miles's dismissal remains ambiguous and open to interpretation until the governess asks him directly about it in the last chapter, however, it is in vague words that Miles gives his answer. Indeed, one can only gather from the conversation that [he] said things (118) [to] those [he] liked (118), who in turn, must have repeated them [] to those they liked (118). Not only does Miles not explicitly state who the persons he liked were, but he also leaves a blank as to what these things were. Indeed, the governess's questions, What were these things? (119) remains one of the many unanswered questions that the text raises.

While Ralph Norrman brings the numerous ambiguities of Henry James's text to light by explaining the ambiguity-creating devices (Norrman 13) the author used for this purpose, he does not raise the very equivocal relationship between Miles and the governess. When one looks closely at their conversations there are indeed gaps, due to polysemic words and blanks, which contribute to make their relationship yet another ambiguous topic of the story. However, if this ambiguity is not analysed by Norrman, it constitutes another example of what defines Henry James's writing style. In his preface, James writes,

Only make the readers general vision of evil intense enough, I said to myself and that already is a charming job and his own experience, his own imagination, his own sympathy (with the children) and horror (of their false friends) will supply him quite sufficiently with all the particulars. Make him think the evil, make him think it for himself, and you are released from weak specifications. (James, Preface. xxi-xxii)

which suggests that while the gaps in The Turn of the Screw draw numerous filling-ins, a definite interpretation would only ever be significant to the reader's own subjectivity.

Works Cited :

James, Henry. Preface. New York Edition of Henry James. Vol. 12. New York: Kelley. 1971. v-xxiv.

---. The Turn of the Screw. Ed. Peter G. Beidler. Boston: Bedford, 1995. 22-120.

Norrman, Ralph. Techniques of Ambiguity in the Fiction of Henry James : with special reference to In the Cage and The Turn of the Screw. Acta Academiae Aboensis Ser. A. Vol. 52 nr 2 (1977) : 5-189. Print.