Is the general rule when performing manual work involving screws - ingrained in the mind from youth and persisting forever - age-old, always too -a slightly childish mnemonic, "Righty Tighty, Lefty Loosey." When you expect the screw to tighten, the right way to turn it is the right way to turn it, and the reverse is just as true. Pretty easy to remember, right? However, for a very long time the rudimentary logic of expectation versus achievement of that expectation, the simple logic of turning the screw in the right direction to achieve the ideal outcome, was forgotten by society in terms of treatment. women. As Henry James's The Turn of the Screw shows, society places unreasonable expectations on women in ways that impact them terribly. Just as ignorantly as someone turning a screw to the left and expecting it to tighten, society has counter-intuitively attempted to move toward utopia by subjecting women to strict gender roles and hoping that the world becomes better for them. Since James first published the book, fools and scholars alike have debated pointlessly and endlessly about whether or not the governess's story was truly supernatural, and until now no conclusive conclusion has been reached. been fired. Caught in the heat of an unsuccessful battle, attentive readers of The Turn of the Screw often immediately search for clues to the ghosts' true nature, ignorantly overlooking the story's potential to serve as feminist commentary devoid of any specter. As such, although many dismiss his story as simple horror fiction, Henry James actually uses ambiguity in his narrative to establish the narrator as unreliable. This style of storytelling serves as a sly commentary on the status of women, as the governess's insistence on the existence of ghosts is heavily attributable to the increasing pressure placed on her to conform to traditional gender roles of society so that she can impress the children's uncle. When readers examine her characterization in light of feminist critical theory, it is clear that the need for her conformity drives her to madness, thereby forcing her into delusions of grandeur under the guise of the supernatural. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Before venturing into the subject matter and roots of the governess's plight, it is necessary to establish the presence, purpose, and relevance of ambiguity in her narrative. When one carefully examines each twist and turn in the tale, it becomes clear that the governess's story is not as simple as it initially seems. In fact, "almost every detail of the story... can be interpreted in a double sense, and the two possible meanings... are incompatible with each other - as the governess herself account, it is heroic if the first interpretation is valid and guilty of terrible things if it is not” (Lang 110). In other words, there are two ways of interpreting the story, leaving the true nature of its events hanging, and with the governess herself as narrator, she has both the ability and the incentive to do so. tell in a way that presents her as the heroine. However, the mere presence of ambiguity is not enough to give the story a suspicious tone. What matters next is whether the governess actually wants to portray herself as the heroine, and as many of her own confessions suggest, she more than certainly does. From the start, she proclaims: "I wasa screen, I had to stand in front of them. The more I saw, the less [the children] would do it. I began to watch them in muffled suspense, disguised excitement” (James 47). Through the dizzying explanation of her ability to protect the children from so-called ghosts, the governess reveals how much she longs to appear heroic. She is not afraid of apparitions or fear for the children's safety, but rather "disguised excitement", and this excitement she feels is that of a woman waiting for her chance to be a bold protagonist. Thus, by writing the governess's narrative so that it is filled with ambiguity and giving it a distinct desire to tell the story in a certain way, James establishes the narrator of the tale as unreliable. Additionally, James' story provides even more reasoning for the governess to describe herself as she does: her blatant affection for the uncle of the children in her care. From the beginning of the story, James emphatically expresses the governess's emotions towards her employer, the uncle. During the first meeting between the two, “when, for a moment, relieved, delighted, [her employer] held her hand, thanking her for the sacrifice, she already felt rewarded” (11). In the simple statement that she "already felt rewarded" after the uncle did nothing more than hold her hand, is evidence of the governess's attraction to the man. Thus, since “the governess herself…was in love with her employer…The presence of such emotional involvement…discredits any pretense of objectivity” (Cohen 78). Essentially, the governess has feelings for the uncle, and because of these feelings, an air of immovable subjectivity envelops her narrative. Therefore, just as the governess's desire to appear heroic draws suspicion on the reliability of her account, so does the presence of her romantic interest in her employer. Leaving aside the ambiguity for a moment, the story offers a biting edge beneath the surface. commentary on the status of women in James's world. Throughout the story, the governess struggles to remain true to the role that her employer has assigned to her, to the role that society has assigned to women. By definition, a feminist novel “…[shows] us that characters who conform to traditional gender roles are harmed because of those roles” (Tyson 85). In this way, if The Turn of the Screw had the potential to serve as a feminist work, the governess's obedience to her gender role would end up harming her to some extent. Towards the conclusion of the novel, his compliance does just that in a confrontation with Flora, one of his charges. Flora, tired of the governess and her talk about ghosts, cries: “I don’t know what you mean. I don't see anyone. I don't see anything. I never did it. I think you are cruel. I don't love you! (James 122). Because of the governess's ardent allegiance to her gender role and her fervent desire to appear maternal and heroic, the very children her employer hires her to raise and protect come to despise her. Thus, it is through this harm caused by her conformity that the story serves as feminist commentary. Additionally, the governess herself helps bring out the feminist implications of the story through the way she takes her conformity to a delusional extreme. According to critical feminist theory, a woman fits the traditional feminine gender role if she meets certain characteristics. Among these characteristics, "traditional gender roles define women as naturally emotional..., weak, [and] caring," and "the 'real woman,' who fulfilled her patriarchal role in every way, wasdefined as fragile and submissive. » (Tyson 87, 89). If we analyze the actions and the narration, it appears that it indeed meets these requirements. For example, the governess is "nurturing" when she remarks: "I was there to protect and defend the little creatures of the world...whose call to helplessness had suddenly become too explicit, a deep and constant pain of his own commitment. heart” (James 47). Through her words, the governess expresses her sincere desire to protect the children from ghosts, and within this sincere desire is the nurturing and maternal aspect of her role. Furthermore, in mental response to Mrs. Grose asking her to contact the uncle, thereby breaking an agreement she had made with him previously, the governess said, "She didn't know - no one knew - how much I had been proud to serve him and respect our conditions” (84). From this piece of narration, one can very easily infer that the governess also fulfills her gender role in that she is submissive; she and the uncle agree that she must not bother him, and she is proud to obey his demands. However, taking into account once again the ambiguity of the story and the unreliability of the narrator, the sad reality surfaces: the governess pushes her conformity to society's expectations too far, pushing her to the point of illusion . When she and Miles, her second protégé, are alone in her room as the lights suddenly go out, the governess describes the incident as follows: "The boy uttered a loud, high-pitched cry which, lost in the rest from the shock of the sound could have sounded... like a note of either jubilation or terror. She then goes on to note her and Miles' reactions, shouting, "Well, the candle's out!" and Miles responding, "I'm the one who ruined everything, honey!" (109). Firstly, his description of Miles' scream proves intriguing to say the least, the ambiguity in "either in jubilation or in terror" coming through clearly. Through this scene, James reestablishes the dubious nature of the Governess's chronicle, because joy and fear are two very distinct emotions. The fact that the governess places both options as equally likely raises suspicion about what she has to say. The fact that she wishes to present fear as a possibility further supports the idea that she simply wants to appear heroic so that she can give an air of protectiveness and motherhood towards Miles. Even more, Miles' assertion that it was he who blew out the candle makes it clear that the governess is only creating, through the power she has as narrator, an ambiguous scenario so that she can intervene as a maternal hero. , thus conforming to the societal norm of being a caring woman. In the final moments of the story, the governess once again illustrates through her account of events an ambiguous situation intended to paint her character in a certain way. After the final encounter with one of the ghosts, she explains: “I grabbed him, yes, I held him — one can imagine with what passion; but after a minute I started to feel what I was really holding. We were alone with the quiet day, and his little heart, dispossessed, had stopped” (149). There, the governess stands in the estate, all alone with the corpse of the young accused resting in her arms, and as is the nature of this story, there are two ways of viewing this event: either the governess tries valiantly and fails to save Miles from the ghost of Peter Quint, or the Governess, delirious, kills him herself and blames the supernatural. Considering both points of view, the governess has much to gain by telling this part of the story ambiguously. Once again the governess tells the story as.