I think the greatness of the book is how vague it is. Is the governess crazy? Are the children crazy or possessed? Are there really ghosts? When the governess speaks to the children, do they know which "he" and "she" she asks about and vice versa? I wondered if they understood one another, and how much of the conversations were one-sided. The governess presumes so much without asking even why Miles is expelled from school. First, she believes him to be an angel, and then a demon, but how much did his behavior really change?
Looking back, most of the motivations, especially of the children are coaxed.
For instance, at the lake, is Flora really possessed and ugly, or is she just
scared of her freakish and unrelenting governess? The children may be biding
there time until there Uncle arrives, thinking that the governess mails their
letters and that he's busy. Meanwhile, the governess has the letters hoarded.
The reader is left wondering how the governess identifies the ghosts. While
Mrs. Grose reveals Peter Quint's identity upon hearing his description. Then
the governess pounced on the idea and furthered it rapidly. Also, the governess
jumped at the Miss Jessel idea without any real reasoning at all. One thing
that I found odd was the crying on the steps - where she first sees Miss Jessel
cry there, and then she cries in the same location. What did that mean? Was
it to show how similar they were in temperament and position or for some other
purpose? Is Miss Jessel only the governess' idea of what she is or could become?
The governess's love of the master is also inexplicable. Does she truly feel
his love is reciprocated through his disinterest? Does Mrs. Grose understand
that she's in love with the Master? She was so worried about Miss Jessel and
Peter Quint controlling the children, but she was doing the same thing. The
governess was definitely strange, but it's impossible to argue the children
were not. They were equally strange.
In the closing scene, did Miles or the governess name Miss Jessel at the end?
I wasn't sure who said it. The "he"s and "she"s leave almost
any scenario to be possible.
One of my strangest ideas was trying to connect the prologue to the main story.
I began wondering if Miles was really Douglas, and that Miles did not die at
the story’s end. After finishing the book, I went back to the prologue
and re-read it. I was surprised at the end that we did not return to the story-telling
group and the tale instead just ended. In reading Douglas's description, he
not only gives off the impression that he was in love with the governess, putting
his impartiality into question. He also says that the woman was his younger
sister's governess. That made me wonder if his younger sister was Flora and
he was still-alive Miles. Of course, I may be over-reaching. The main purpose
of the prologue may just have been to put some more distance between us and
the governess, and the manuscript a contrivance to be able to tell such a long
story.
What is also odd about the future of the governess is that after such a horrid
experience, would she really seek a new position as a governess after all this?
I surely wouldn't. I wonder also at the conditions the governess agreed to.
Go to an isolated house and raise two children you have never seen without
ever contacting their one relation. Why would someone agree to that?
One online article mentioned that they believed that the Mrs. Grose was in
fact the children’s' mother from an affair with the Uncle, and that the
governess had taken control of the children from their mother making her the
inferior in her own home. Stemming from this, it was suggested that Mrs. Grose
was conniving to make the governess mad and plant the ideas in her mind. I
did not see that at all during my reading, but it's another interesting take.
The Turn of the Screw is one of those books that leave so many questions in
the air, and such an eerie feeling that it demands a re-reading.