"THE TURN OF THE SCREW"を如何に読むか : JAMES批評の焦点

概要

論文の詳細を見る
"The Turn of the Screw" is a "ghost story," and has something enigmatic about it. Many critics have taken it up and tried to explain what the "ghosts" of this story really were. Their conclusions of them have been quite various, and some of them definitely opposite to each other. The first critic who paid serious attention to this story was the author himself, as was the case with most of his works. In a letter to H. G. Wells, James wrote that it was "essentially a pot-boiler and a jeu-d'esprit." This was a rather discouraging remark to his critics, and his" Preface "written for the New York edition proved to be no more than an elaboration upon his remark, though it was a detailed discussion of the source and technical problems of the story. "A piece of ingenuity," "an amusette," or "a fairy tale pure and simple" were some of the definitions given by him. Then, why should there be so much concern? "The Turn of the Screw" is a first person narrative, and the whole story, except the introductory chapter, is told from the point of view of the "central intelligence," a young governess. We cannot be positive of the truth of "her story." She does not seem to a completely reliable witness. Edmund Wilson concentrated upon her "character," and interpreted the whole story from the Freudian point of view. He concluded that the young heroine was "a neurotic case of sex repression," and the "ghosts" were nothing but her "hallucinations." This seemed a sound analysis and won the approval of many critics. For some time it remained the most accepted interpretation of the story. However, could it be that Wilson paid too much attention to her "character" and too little to the story itself? Wasn't this theory just a clever psychological study of a certain "case-history"? Robert Heilman seems to ask such questions. He insists upon the necessity of close texual reading and verbal analysis. What matters for him is, first of all, the verbal pattern, or the language of the story. He finds that some of the recurrent images have a religious implication, and the whole story is directed toward a religious meaning. The "ghosts" are demons, or devils who try to tempt innocent but corruptible children, and the governess is "an expatiatory victim" and saviour. The setting is the Garden of Eden, and the whole story is a modern version of the Fall of Man, an essentially Christian theme, he concludes. Why such a difference in the interpretation of this one story? It is not merely a matter of different "literary tastes" on the part of the critics. What is involved is their fundamental attitude toward the method of literary criticism used. And, at the same time, we may discern in this the changes in the general trend of evaluating all of James's works. Heilman seems to be the more careful reader of the story. But I do not quite agree with his interpretation, because I doubt if James had such a definite standard of moral judgement for the heroine. Heilman tends to ignore the fundamental "ambiguity" of the "central intelligence," so characteristic of James in this period. It seems to me James wanted to remain morally neutral, and that this story represents "an excursion into chaos." This interpretation can be upheld by comparing "The Turn of the Screw" with other stories of this period, and consulting the biographical background of the author at this time.
1954-12-30

"THE TURN OF THE SCREW"を如何に読むか : JAMES批評の焦点

スポンサーリンク

概要

論文 | ランダム

スポンサーリンク