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)

Extended content

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:

• Haralson, Eric L.; Johnson, Kendall (2009). Critical Companion to Henry James: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-1727-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Heilmann, Ann (2010). "The Haunting of Henry James: Jealous Ghosts, Affinities and The Others". In Arias, Rosario; Pulham, Patricia (eds.). Haunting and Spectrality in Neo-Victorian Fiction: Possessing the Past. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-24674-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Hischak, Thomas S. (2012). American Literature on Stage and Screen: 525 Works and Their Adaptations. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-9279-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Orr, Leonard (2009). James's The Turn of the Screw: A Readers Guide. London, New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-0-8264-3019-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Simon, Linda (2007). The Critical Reception of Henry James: Creating a Master. London: Camden House. ISBN 978-1-571-13319-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Slide, Anthony (2013). Fifty Classic British Films, 1932–1982: A Pictorial Record. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-14851-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Tintner, Adeline R. (1998). Henry James's Legacy: The Afterlife of His Figure and Fiction. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 978-0-807-12157-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

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) @J Milburn: 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Turn of the Screw/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Announcing my intent to review this article throughout the week. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddie! Looking forward to it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• All sources seem reliable

Thank you

• FN 79 has 'archived copy' as its title, which is presumably not correct

Fixed!

• Some of your books don't have specific page numbers (eg. FN's 14, 18, 29, 73 74 probably some more)-- see {{pn}}

Fixed all that I could find!

• you have two sources with the Harvard anchor of Beidler 1995-- there are several ways to resolve this, including appending |ref={{harvid|Biedler|1995a}} and 1995b to the {{cite book}}

Also fixed.

• images seem appropriately licensed.

Very true

• FNs 73 +4 are the same

Je l'ai réparé! ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing " one of literature's most debated works of fiction." mentioned or cited in the article's body

Because it isn't there. I'm an idiot. I spent like an hour reworking this with Primordial Chaos, and I got so caught up on making it catchy that I just... didn't source that. I'm removing it for now, but will be putting it back in when I find a citation to that effect (I'm sure it’s in any one of my books on it). Where it goes in the article? I'd love your feedback on that.

• ", along with some other unnamed characters, " is this really relevant to the article?

I'm going to have to argue in favour of this one. I intend to expand the article, and when I do, I'll include references which justify it. In short, the opening (people gathering around a fire in an old house) invokes the tradition of telling ghost stories. I've reworded it a bit (would appreciate feedback). I do think there's outstanding issues with the plot. They give credence to some theories rather than fact. But it’s pretty reflective and I'll work on that soon. ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think your rewording is better

• " does not have a predecessor in Gothic fantasy is Miles' expulsion from school." I think this is a little different from what the source says, it merely says that it "is the only definite event which does not belong to the world of Gothic fantasy" -- implying there 1) may be other, not definite, events and 2) not explicitly stating that every other event has a predecessor

I've added 'definite' and 'fantasy' given that they're pretty crucial to what Pittock argued! Thanks.

• "as in Matthew Lewis' The Monk (1796), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), and Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897)," is this necessary in the article? what value does it add?

I've cut The Monk, and the author's name. But Gothic fiction is highly intertextual; that's how critics treat it, by discussing them in concert with one another. I do genuinely believe that it’s hard to describe its Gothicity without mentioning the texts it’s discussed with. Happy to hear feedback on this, but I can provide additional citations to demonstrate that—when talking about genre—critics talk about other books. You know I'm new, so if you think this makes the article worse I will remove it... but I think it would stop being as comprehensive.

Yeah, makes sense to me

• "In his nonfiction survey of the horror genre," I think you should date this survey so people know where the 'century' starts and ends.

Makes sense!

• people such as ' Gillian Flynn' and 'Stephen King' may benefit from qualifiers (presumably: Author or something similar)

Done!

• "and finally the likely suicide of novelist " questions: what year? YOu don't give the cause of death for others, why is this different? I don't think 'finally' is needed

Fennimore was a very close friend of James'. Her suicide badly affected him, and he wrote that he felt he could have done something to help her. I've cut the years, but I think that Fennimore died is significant. ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Towards the end of 1897," can you be any more specific?

I looked through the sources; unfortunately, I can't. That's all they give me. I did, however, remove one of the citations, because it’s a primary source and directly mentioned by one of the others, so not sure why it was there. My bad. Does it need to be removed?

No, that's fine

• "influence of spiritualism" feels a bit out of place in background to me-- might it fit better with the stuff under 'genre'?

Good suggestion! I've removed the subheading and shoved it under the ghost story part.

• "he had a strong dislike serial form." missing word?

You got this one for me.

• Working through the prose, it seems pretty close to the Ga level for the most part. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This stung hehe.

Thanks for the review so far! Looking forward to the rest. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm looking at Biedler, and I think you may have the page backing up "Early reviews solely emphasised the novella's power to frighten, and most saw the tale simply as a ghost story." wrong, because I'm not seeing it on p. 131. Could you double check?

Just double checked. What Beidler says is "virtually all of James' contemporaries read it as a spine-chilling ghost story" (130). This was my bad. I'm going to change the wording a bit, too. Some people did think it was something other than a ghost story, but I'm being unnecessarily hyperbolic in my reading of Beidler's words. Great catch!

• can FN 34 back up that it was "The first published review"? This seems unlikely to me (the review itself probably doesn't say "this is the first review", though it's possible it does

 Not done Argh, a life-long problem. I've obviously read that it was the first published somewhere, but where? I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't read it. Leave this one with me; I'm gonna have to pour over my books.

• Did early reviewers have positive or negative impressions?

It’s really hard to find the early reviews, unfortunately. Critical histories pretty much always start with Wilson (then mention Kenton). Some bring up Goddard, who wrote an essay about the psychoanalytic theory but it wasn't published until the 50s (it was discovered posthumously; I think it’s cited on the article somewhere).

• "he "evil" perceived in the text may also be read as an allegory, as with Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde." I'm struggling to understand what this means here-- maybe you could explain somewhere what the allegory is?-- perhaps using efn here?

 Not done I did think about this. I didn't know I was allowed to explain what a critic meant by their words; I thought that would be called out. Based on my reading of his words, what he means was that the ghosts symbolised the evil that's inside all of us. He doesn't say that explicitly, but that's what their consensus on DJ&MH was (and he makes that comparison). Thoughts?

If this is the best detail you got, that's fine

• "As evidence, Wilson indicated that the governess is infatuated with her employer, and connects her sexual repression to her background as the daughter of a country parson" In reading this it's somewhat unclear what Wilson is 'indicating' and what is stated in the text, if that makes sense. For instance, does James write that she's infatuated with her employer and sexually repressed and the daughter of a country parson, or is Wilson arguing that she is some or any or all of these things?

I'll clear this up. Text makes it clear that she's the daughter of a country parson; Wilson is arguing that—because of that upbringing—she is sexually repressed.

• Maybe say who Kenton was. Saying "Wilson's stature as a literary critic" could suggest that Kenton wasn't a critic, when what you're really trying to say is that she wasn't as prominent, I think

This is right; Kenton was an academic, but Wilson remains one of the most influential editors and critics of all time. He's widely credited with reviving the criticism of The Great Gatsby, for example. I'll clear this up!

• FN 42 says ", only three persons had had the temerity to guess that it was something more than a ghost story." Why do you only mention Wilson and Kenton?

 Not done Honestly? Because I've no idea who he's talking about. Henry Beers wrote in the 1910s that he thought maybe she was crazy, but Beers doesn't develop it—it was an aside. Goddard, obviously, but he was dead... Yeah, sorry; don't know what to do with this one. No idea who person number 3 is. Full quote is: [...] only three persons had the temerity to guess that it was something more than a ghost story. The three attracted no attention, but Wilson stirred up an indignant and vociferous opposition [...]

Hmm that's an interesting one. I still think you should mention that there was another person, even if you can't name them and only list them as a stat or smth

 Not done Flagging this up so you see it. I can just mention Beers, and make the Goddard thing clear. Is it editorialising if I say: Three people temerity blah blah [...] (critic) does not name the third, but other critics to have suggested include blah blah Henry Beers, or blah blah with citations to places which mention the possibilities? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to see what you're suggesting actually written out, but it seems like that would work. along the lines of but other critics have noted that X was an early proponetn of the theory might be a possibility (not this phrasing, necessarily but I think it could help avoid fears editorializing).

• "but applied explicitly Freudian terminology" I think you could add a brief gloss of what freudian means — his name is becoming increasingly less well-known, I feel

 Not done I thought that's what the next sentence did: For example, he pointed to Quint first being sighted by the governess on a phallic tower.

Quite right

• "the reader's empathy may hesitate between the children or the governess" this phrasing strikes me as a little unclear as to what you're trying to say

 Not done It is really, really difficult for me to try and explain the application of Todorov. I do think it’s pretty literal, though. Todorov noted that supernatural stories contain hesitation between the real and the unreal. It’s a part of the Fantastic. The "hesitation" is applied by Siebers to the reader wondering who they should feel bad for – the children or the governess. Any advice? ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

On a second reading, I think it's probably fine as is

• "On a first reading of the story, the reader will be drawn" it's hard to definatively say what a reader will or won't do, wouldn't you say?

 Not done Sure; I'm just reiterating that critic's take, though. I also note that there's no page number for that, so I'll track that down tomorrow! The tag is for me.

• "After the debate over the reality of the ghosts quietened in literary criticism" maybe timeframe this?

This one's tough... I'll see what all of them reckon and probably have to EFN it.

Thanks, Eddie. I've flagged questions up with the not done template! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I'm satisfied with the prose. Now just sourcing things.
• EfN notes should have citations at the end of them

I'll do this! Does (a) (attached to 14) need a citation, if it’s the same citation as what it’s attached to? I'll add citations to all of them tomorrow :] — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've spotchecked a few sources, I'd like to check some more shortly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• JSTOR and similar are throwing up quite a few journal articles that aren't incorporated here-- in fact, in one I'm seeing that there have been "well over one thousand publications concerning The Turn of the Screw , making it one of the most studied works of all time" I think that you're definitely at a GA level of comprehensiveness, but bear in mind that you may be expected to draw from an even wider range of sources if you take it towards FAC. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yeah! For sure. There's loads I missed out. My primary goal for GA was just to get the bones on it. If you have a look at what was there before I started, this is what I had to work with when I was researching the book last year for uni. I did so much reading that I felt I could transform the article into a good start without significant work, but in no way is it comprehensive enough for FA. My thought was: GA means a student can get a lot from this. I think I did that? But a lot more is needed for FA, absolutely. The question is: where do I draw the line? Does WP:FRINGE apply to literary theorists? Who knows! Looking forward to finding out, but that's a while off.

PS. I added another Not Done with a Q. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, I'm almost done with the source check-- seems like there are still some page numbers needed (i.e. FN 28) and the efn notes still don't have cites-- (a) should still have one even if it's the same cite. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Footnote 29 didn't have a footnote because the link pointed directly to the page on Archive.org, but I've added it now! I couldn't find the page number for the other, so I replaced it. Anything else, just let me know :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alrighty, this meets the GA criteria after checking sourcing-- the only issues I found were flagged. Passing now. Well done-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:54, 8 January 2021 (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 Wadewitz (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 Wikipedia: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)