Talk:The Turn of the Screw

New Criticism in the opening
I wonder whether New Criticism should be mentioned so prominently in the opening of this article, and I have already taken the step of removing the line to the effect that "new critics allege the story challenges the reader to determine whether the governess is mad; however, his letters suggest it really is just a ghost story" or whatever; it was better than that but there was nothing cited to support the claim about James's letters, and furthermore 1. the story really is clearly intentionally ambiguous on this issue - it's not like James set out to write a simple ghost story and the New Critics got it all mixed up for everyone forever by over-interpreting - which is what the line might have been taken to mean; and 2. in any case, these issues, which are manifestly contentious, require a more subtle and well-referenced discussion than can be done in the opening paragraph; and therefore I suggest that perhaps New Criticism be mentioned as one of the critical schools that have been concerned with James's story, without, however, making pre-emptive judgments about the validity of its claims; and, as a sidenote, that question, broached elsewhere, of whether queer or pederastic readings of the Turn of the Screw should be made note of, is not so peripheral as the replies to that discussion topic would suggest, but rather than stating something like "Miles may have been touching little boys...etc." it would be far preferable to say perhaps "certain critics have brought up the issue of such and such" with particular citations specified, in which case the additional remarking of these themes would be quite appropriate. (68.198.181.134 (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Nationality
Was he American? ... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.196.252 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Yes but naturalised British at the end of his life. 31.50.84.139 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wednesday Addams
Doesn't "The Others" owe something to TotS, too? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Adapations section
I could find no evidence for a movie named "Turn" that "will be released in May 2008", so I removed it. The list of adaptations is probably incomplete anyway.

Added "The Others" though I couldn't find a source that said it was written based on TTotS though the article on The Others says this is true in part. Donimo (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Allusions in popular culture
I'm not sure why there's the reference to Deadwood in this article. Unless a clear connection can be made between the two young characters in the TV series and the novella can be made, I find the allusion to be erroneous. It could just as easily be an allusion to a number of Charles Dickens stories... I'm removing it. Kirkesque (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ghosts in "The Turn of the Screw"
I've read the story; I've taught the story; despite James' elaborate framing technique and the numerous controversies about the novella, I maintain THE GHOSTS ARE REAL. AND THEY'RE SCARY. PERIOD. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Ghosts in "The Turn of the Screw"
The ghosts are real. And they're scary. Period.

Maclennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Henry James' Nationality
James was born in America, but he eventually settled in England. In 1915, he became a British citizen because he thought America should have entered WW I sooner than it did. James died in 1916; America entered the war in 1917. Maclennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Major themes"
This section, like every other "Major themes" section appended to an otherwise adequate article, appears to consist largely of subjective interpretation and original research disguised as a synthesis of unspecified sources. It also is riddled with weasels. It needs major cleanup, merging with the following section on literary significance, or complete deletion. If any of it is kept, it needs to be sourced. I placed the "synthesis" template, but I did not place the multiple "who?" templates. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Original content" ?
This sentence is a little "screwy" if you will forgive the pun:


 * Due to its original content, The Turn of the Screw became a favourite text of academics who subscribe to New Criticism.

It makes it sound as if there was an original story and then a revised story. Also, why is New Criticism so important as to put it in the lead section? The WP article on New Criticsm makes it sound as if that hoary old doctrine is dead in the water. Dynasteria (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Original" clearly refers to story elements not previously used (by James or others) in previous stories, not that there was a previous version of this story. It seems unlikely that readers would understand otherwise, but anyone is free to suggest alternative wordings.
 * Whether or not New Criticism has now been superseded, though perhaps not to the extent suggested, it wasn't at one time and is important in the historical development of Literary Criticism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.161.82 (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Attempt to GA
I have a lot of knowledge about this book, and I think it’s a fairly straightforward path to bring it up to GA. The coverage of books like this is pretty shocking, so I'd really like to help. Just reaching out to see if there's any active watchers of this page who would be interested in assisting. I should be making my first changes over the next few days — first tackling the section on criticism. It’s what needs the most work. This book has a fascinating history of reception because it is so well-documented and the boundaries are so clear. The plot section looks mostly okay to me, but there are some problems with it which I'll get to. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Preserving some sources
Removed the additional reading heading, but preserving the citations themselves here in case they are useful:



ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Nomination
I've nominated the article for GA. There's a few things I still want to change, but they won't take very long, and this process can be quite protracted. They wouldn't result in a fail, in any case. I'd like to thank (I think) for being so rigorous in keeping Adaptations in a good place. I'm glad it didn't devolve into a list, and that everything is so well-sourced. If anyone has anything to say about the article — key omissions, for example — let me know! ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just a quick drive-by comment, but I found that I really wanted a definition of the term "apparitionist" in the reception section -- I can see that there are two schools of thought, "the ghosts are real" vs "she is imagining the ghosts", and I'd guess that "apparitionist" interpretations are "the ghosts are real" interpretations, but in context the sentence seems to mean the opposite. Overall though I think you have done a fantastic job with the article and I am glad to see so much work going into it! The reception section especially does a great job of succinctly summarizing a huge amount of secondary material. ~ oulfis 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Oulfis! I'm so sorry it took so long for me to reply—I just didn't catch this until now. I'm not sure if it was there when you posted your comment, but this is in the Early reception section: Conceptions of the text wherein the ghosts are real entities, aiming to corrupt the children, are generally referred to as the "apparitionist interpretation". Is this the part you thing was vague, or have I since changed it? Again, sorry for the delay, and thanks for the kind words! It really was a labour of love—I really like this story. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Notes for Victoria
Hi, Victoria. I thought I'd make this so you know what I know needs done (or doesn't).


 * Style. Much has been written on Jamesian prose and narration, and there is more than enough material to make a section on how the book deploys James's style.
 * Themes are nigh-impossible to write about for this book. Unlike many other major texts, the themes differ wildly depending on the years, and I think it’s too much work to separate themes by approximate time period. I think, by including sources which talk about different themes, and signposting them well, that the section on critical history can serve as a covert themes section. I will also note that Critical response to The Turn of the Screw is an article that very well could exist, but with only one exception, I haven't written articles yet, and don't really mean for that to be what I spend most of my time doing.
 * Adaptations. I hate writing these sections, so to an extent I'm always going to be coasting off what was there before. During the GA review, I fixed all of the outright broken references, and I'm glad that it’s been curated as prose and not as a list. I'm glad it was being curated, really.
 * Biography... I don't know how much is too much. I think there's more I could find, I don't want to pad it out unnecessary. Not a fan of the gallery spread inside Publication history.

This is pretty much everything that comes to mind right now. Let me know what you think :) It’s come a long way, and I am genuinely proud of it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just logging out for a while, but will take a look later. General rule of thumb re themes is to lean heavily on most recent scholarly sources (who in turn lean on previous sources). Take a look at Hemingway's Big Two-Hearted River re themes. It might help a bit. It's been ages since I've read "Turn of the Screw"! Victoria (tk) 17:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm back. Sorry for throwing so many examples for you but I forgot to mention (sadly, she died) whose work on lit related articles was an inspiration to lots of us. She mentored me back in the day. I particularly like Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.
 * A couple of comments to get you started:
 * It's impossible to read all of the sources, so start with the most recent, as I mentioned above. If you think it's worth going through decade by decade w/ all the various fads in literary criticism, a "Reception history" might be the way to go. For a huge one, see Wadewitz's  Reception history of Jane Austen. I'm kinda stewarding the main Jane Austen article (I've been mostly gone for years), which gives a summary of that huge reception history. All that said, I'm not sure how important it is for us to delineate the reception history; it's more important, in my view, to give succinct overview, and then a good analysis throughout, cited to the best and most recent critics. Ask yourself whether our readers care about literary criticism of half century ago.
 * Yes, style is paramount. Especially James's style. Who liked punctuation. A lot. I tend to write about the modernists, lots of Hemingway. Who did not like punctuation. Not very much at all. Well, there's obviously more, but yes, James is all about style, in my view.
 * James being James, style might be important, but themes are a very close second. Again, if you haven't, familiarize yourself with the most respected and newish critics and lean on them - heavily. The Oxford and Cambridge Companion usually contain all that's needed and the critics they choose are up-to-date, so to speak.
 * Yes, biography is important. These articles about author's works can be used to for biographical detail that often has to be left out of the main biography article, and it's always interesting to know the background, why this work, what the author circumstances were at the time, etc.
 * Don't worry about adaptations. We don't do them - or rather we barely do them. Pick a few of the most important and stuff it all into a single prose para.
 * Hope that helps. I've put this on watch and don't mind being pestered, here or on my talk page. Victoria (tk) 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think I agree with "pick the newest critics". It doesn't make sense to me to cherry-pick a few modern critics and then include them in a themes section. The novella has experienced such a fierce debate that prioritising any of them feels really unusual to me. It’s not that I hate themes sections – I will do it for Dracula – but I don't think a themes section works for this particular text. The themes are scattered and not widely agreed upon. Madness? Weird to describe as a theme—there's a prominent continent of scholars who would disagree (including modern ones; the apparitionist interpretation survives). The supernatural? The same again. Metatextuality? Possibly, but this isn't a theme – it’s part-style, part-structural conceit. Class? It’s present, sure, but it would be better contextualised by Marxist writers in a section for Marxist theory.
 * I am familiar with the text's modern critical landscape, yeah. The reality is that none have been as widely influential than past critics. Putting in any one of them as it comes to themes would border on violating WP:DUE. If Hamlet can get through without a section on themes, I think this can, too!
 * Glad re: adaptations. And style is on the docket, yeah. :) Thanks for the feedback. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
 * I'm not suggesting cherry picking sources and I apologize for giving that impression. Basically for articles in the humanities on Wikipedia, especially one like this that has a plethora of sources, best practice is to look at newer critics, with the assumption that they've done their work and so are familiar with those who came before and usually give some sort of a synopsis of "such and such says x, and such and such says y, but I believe z". That's easier than having to read all the sources. Also, it's important to remember that "comprehensive" means that all of the important points have been addressed. Again it's best practice and doesn't always work.
 * Re themes: the sources lead. It's that simple. If the sources discuss gendering, feminism or misogony, dreaming/hypnosis/mental illness, etc. (I'm writing off the top of my head, but James's brother and his dabbling with hypnotism comes to mind), then our job is to report/summarize the sources as best as possible. My sense is that most of main themes are already in the article in the reception analysis. Some rewriting and swapping "Critical reception" to "Themes" makes a themes section. In my view a themes section is required if going for FA. Themes sections are hard to write but that's what Manual of Style/Novels suggests and I think it's a good way to structure lit articles. Hamlet got through in 2008 and without themes is probably a candidate for removal. Anyway sorry for lack of clarity. P.s The Henry James Review is available at Project MUSE via the Wikipedia library, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 00:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Dark Comedy
I read Turn of the Screw as a dark comedy. The little boy is our sly Mr. James. The governess is hypersexualized. I dont think we need to add pederasrty or any other dark elements about the kid. She's the bad apple. Because of her Victoria sensibilities gone wild but still kept under wraps. She would love the attention of the handsome master, for example. The death of the boy at the end is hilarious to me. And I think it was to Henry James as well. It was too extreme to be a serious story on that count. Moreover it lent ridiculousness. Thank you. 208.126.44.104 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)