In his essay “Fantasy and Confession in The Turn of the Screw,” Greg Zacharias explores the key aspects behind the governess’s motives and reasons for her confession and constant (albeit unsuccessful) protection of Miles and Flora. Zacharias begins his essay with claiming that the ghosts that the governess sees are the motivators behind most of her actions. In other words: “[the] ghosts become the basis of and are crucial to the governess’s fantasy, which, in turn, is crucial to the maintenance of her symbolic order” (325). Zacharias comments that this “fantasy allows her to handle reality,” implying that the governess builds the world around her according to her interactions with these apparitions (325). As a result of the multiple ghost sightings, the governess, according to Zacharias views herself as a “heroin of Bly” due to the fact that she believes that her “heroic duty” is to protect both Flora and Miles (329,330). The governess uses this false sense of heroinism to reassure herself that she is performing a duty that will “satisfy the master” of Bly and will ultimately give her a sense of fulfillment (330). The governess’s main objective in Turn of the Screw is to use the ghosts that she is seeing to “sustain a sense of unity with the big Other and continue to strive to recover the impossibly irrecoverable objet petit a” even if she can never truly obtain that goal (331). In conclusion, the governess’s confession, according to Zacharias, is “a representation of truth shaped by the unconscious,” which is an interesting way to look at how the governess views herself and her position in helping both Flora and Miles (320). Zacharias explores the unconscious ways in which the governess is attempting to justify her position and self-worth, and in return concludes that the governess is really trying to fulfill her (self-prescribed) role as a hero of the Bly estate.
At one point in his essay, Zacharias brings up the point that the governess was never truly afraid of the ghosts, but rather entered a cycle of emotions which included the desire to “protect the children… followed by high anxiety and self-doubt” which would repeat every time she saw a ghost (327). In order to forward his analysis, I would encourage Zacharias to look deeper into the psychology behind these emotions, and the actions that result from them. Perhaps the scientific reasoning for this emotional cycle would give some more clues about the governess’s confession. Is this emotional cycle normal for people who see strange apparitions? Would the governess’s composition/actions change if she dealt with the ghost sightings in a different way? A more in-depth look at the psychology behind the governess’s reactions would be an interesting follow up to Zacharias’s analysis because it would give more backing/justification to the governess’s actions. This might even result in a greater understanding of her confession; would her confession look the same if she had different emotional reactions to seeing the ghosts? Many questions arise when thinking about the psychological background of the governess’s reaction to seeing the ghosts, and it would be interesting to see why the governess reacted the way she did in terms of psychological understanding.
I talked about the “confession” part of Zacharias’ essay as well. It seemed like the most potentially nuanced component and very interesting, especially contemporarily when we can look at the far more complicated nature of the human psyche. I also think that approaching from the angle of confession is interesting because it allows the critic to avoid, somewhat, the conversation about the truth or fiction involving the ghosts, confession simply acknowledges the governess’s personal guilt, guilt that could arise from any reading of the book. I think the conversation then opens up the option of whether or not the governess ever should feel guilty and if she should why should she, what components of her action are worthy of revision and if she shouldn’t why shouldn’t she, is her guilt largely a product of her existence in a society that transfers and pressures guilt into the wrong places. You talked a lot about applying contemporary psychological criticism to the book. As I read some of the early critics it was interesting to see how much they relied on Freud to conduct their own psychoanalysis. At a time when Freud has been largely proven wrong do you think that one would run into issues with James applying his own contemporary viewpoints on psychology to the work? As a work of fiction maybe it would be better to analyze the Governess with a Freudian perspective, not because it is correct psychoanalysis but because it was the frame of thought closest to what James may have worked with.
Will Drury