All I have read by James is The Portrait of a Lady, Mac. I enjoyed it very much, and if anything read it too fast to at this point even remember the details so have been wanting to re-read for many years now. So a big thumbs up for it, and maybe that is all of the James I ever need to read?

I've not read much James other than the odd short story, and that was a long time ago. I haven't read The Turn of the Screw, but the early 60's film version of it, The Innocents, is excellent.

James is one of those authors for whom my affection outpaces my familiarity. I've read only his novella "Washington Square" and some of his short stories, including "The Turn of the Screw". But I like Henry James. I just do! I like the idea of Henry James.

Your comment about the style being at odds with the substance in "The Turn of the Screw" is a good one. I think there is a mismatch there, or, maybe better, a tension; whether one thinks the story succeeds or not will partly depend on whether one finds that tension fruitful or interesting in its own right.

I'm teaching my kids sentence diagramming, and I'd love to see a good, juicy James sentence diagrammed. Hey, here's one!

Benjamin Britten wrote an opera based on this story, and it is quite good.

That diagram makes me feel unsafe. :)

I was just wondering how one would diagram that "excessively and unnecessarily convoluted" sample of his writing you provided above. Thought it might help me understand what he was saying, but maybe not.

As a teenager I loved The Bostonians and The Portrait. Ive never read The Turn of the Screw. It used to be the subject of endless criticism in Modern Age because too ghosty ghosts

No the ghost is too subjective and psychological

As I may have said, I heard a Straussian literary /TV critic say that the only way Walter White Can become a real man in this modern world was to become a criminal. He said White achieves manhood through his criminality. It sounded like a great idea for a conference. I thought we could have a conference on man hood or masculinity in popular culture. So to prepare thinking about this I rewatched Breaking Bad. At first it seemed like there could be something in what he said. White obviously does have masculinity issues at the beginning. But as it went on It became very unbelievable. Obviously masculinity is issue but Hank the policeman is a real man without being a criminal, and White several times says to his brother in law, ‘Im not half the man you are.’ To be clear the literary critic thinks White is a hero of the movie In the sense that we should be rooting for him. And I think this is flat out wrong. White has clearly lost his Soul at some point. So I lost interest in the idea of the conference because how can I invite this critic will just be embarrassing to invite him then disagree with him. But meantime I rewatched the whole of Breaking Bad over several months - with a lacunae for the camino. The experience was an extraordinary catharsis. It really is great tragedy. I felt shocked out of my self and moved. It was a different experience for the first time I watched simply because I wasn’t interested in what would happen.

I saw the penultimate True Detective last night. Im truly hooked and even postponed Our Boys till later in the week. It is an excellent thriller with magnificent acting from McConaughy and Harrelson and whoever plays the wife. But I can’t imagine watching it again in five years time and going through that deep catharsis that Breaking Bad gave me. Its not quite on the same imaginative level.

You take nearly-5-hour dog walks? :-)

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Turn-of-the-Screw-Audiobook/B01ATTZF38

I don't think I could handle James in audio. I'd soon be lost. With anything very complex I do too much back-up-and-read-that-again to be able to listen to it.

"Too ghostly a ghost" Ok, I can see that as a valid complaint. It's not exactly the same one I had but it's similar.

Re Breaking Bad and True Detective: the latter is definitely not a tragedy. For me they're too different to bear a lot of comparison. TD is indeed a true detective story, adhering to the classical plot line. Whatever BB is, it's not that. I'm not likely to experience it a second time--too grueling. But what I felt at the end was, among other things, similar to the effect of tragedy in that it was a sense of order and balance restored. I absolutely agree that Walt is not a hero, not someone we should be rooting for past a certain point. And I think that point comes fairly early, at least by the second season.

One thing TD and BB do have in common for me is that they both disturbed my sleep. We made the mistake of watching three episodes of TD at one sitting (the whole DVD) and I slept very badly that night. That happened to me at a couple of points in BB.

I recently read an essay by Louis D. Rubin, Jr. in which he argues that the "repressed sexuality" interpretation of The Turn... should not be discounted simply because James most likely had not read Freud's early work, which was published around the same time as the story. Rubin believes that James could very well have been something of a "Freudian before Freud," although he doesn't seem to believe that the Freudian interpretation of the story is a slam dunk.

Because of this discussion I was going to go ahead and rewatch The Innocents, but maybe I'll read the story first now.

In re: BB, I have a classics prof friend who will not grant that the show is a tragedy because in his view Walter is not a "good man" at the beginning; there can be no real tragic fall for such an unheroic character.

The other guys and I believe that he's being a bit too hard line on the definition of tragedy. The whole point of the thing is that WW is not a hero, but an "average" guy who gets corrupted by money and power (ultimately his own pride, really), and thus the story can still be called a tragedy, even if it's not one in a strict classical sense.

I saw that mentioned somewhere and have been meaning to investigate. Sounds interesting.

"...he's being a bit too hard line on the definition of tragedy."

That was precisely my thought between your two paragraphs, the one quoting the classics prof and the one with your response.

Does "Freudian interpretation of the story" mean "the ghosts aren't real"? My uneducated guess is that if there is repressed sexuality involved it's James's. I.e. if it's in the story it's not conscious. My ignorant opinion is that he meant to be writing a story about real ghosts.

This non-dog-walker would benefit from some of that.

I guess the same is true for me. Except that even with a clear goal I’m only somewhat better. Sigh.

The "Freudian" idea of The Turn... is that the ghosts aren't real, but are projections of the governess's unhealthy mental state. Rubin argues that there are hints in the story that this may very well be the case, and that the idea shouldn't be tossed simply because the story is pre-Freud.

I’m on the road and won’t be able to reply till late tonight. Just letting y’all know.

Theres absolutely no way I could watch two episodes of TD in a row. Its too frightening

Yes except that the final confrontation with the evil guy was not entirely plausible to me. Other than that I thought it was great.

Re getting in shape for the Camino getting harder and harder: let me tell you about being 70. :-) It’s pretty impressive that you can do that.

I have two major problems with exercise etc: I’m lazy, really lazy, and it’s SO boring.

No, I have never bought Modern Age's idea, but I have yet to read (or hear) the story. I don't generally go for those theories about why everything is so terrible. I've got the story on my kindle and will report back shortly.

My sister says I will be doing the Camino when I'm seventy, but lets wait and see. I never have found exercise boring.

"I don’t think much of the idea that they aren’t real, still less of the idea that they are products of sexual repression."

I'll have to read Rubin's essay again after I read the story. My knowledge of it is limited to the film version, which may differ significantly from the book.

By the way, Southern writer Andrew Lytle put out a very good Turn... type novel in the 40s/50s, A Name for Evil.

Rob G: I was glad they buried the whole conspiracy thing. My biggest fear that it would turn into some big Manichean victory of evil (the Tuttles, as Governor, and Sheriff, and everywhere like gas) over good. That's what happens at the end of the final season of The Killings (for example). The police office in the jumper(s) has to flee the country because the forces of darkness are just everywhere.

But the opposite happens. The light is winning out over the darkness.

It was such a relief.

It is a somewhat Manichean story - and it has woven a web too deep to be untangled. But it ends with the points of light in the sky winning out over the darkness.

Mac had said that it was a classic detective story, so I was not surprised in ends in an impossible cave, the intricate bottomless lair of the evil man.

I was really surprised that it ends with the salvation of Marty and Rust. And very touched.

"I was glad they buried the whole conspiracy thing. My biggest fear that it would turn into some big Manichean victory of evil (the Tuttles, as Governor, and Sheriff, and everywhere like gas) over good."

Yes, I wouldn't have wanted that either, but to me it didn't make dramatic sense simply to drop it without any sort of resolution. The whole question just kind of hangs there without a hint one way or the other.

Other than that I liked the ending very much.

"I'm not even sure I understood the second one"

Yes, the plot of #2 was a lot more complicated, with the good cop/bad cop stuff, and also the various criminal groups and political machinations. #3 goes back to the (relative) simplicity of #1, which is a good thing.

Rob, would you recommend skipping #2 and going straight to #3. Do not pass #2 do not get totally confused for nothing

I do like to listen to the whole of a record and not just my favourite tracks on a record, because it makes the favourite tracks more enjoyable to have the dull ones in between

its this kind of compleatist principle which inclines me to watch season 2

Of course!!!

The very thought of watching them out of order makes me feel like the world is imploding.

And I am not even going to watch them.

AMDG

I'm in pretty complete agreement with Grumpy about the ending of TD. I didn't feel the abandonment of the conspiracy story line as a loss at all, partly for artistic reasons--the effect of leaving so much undisclosed, which was so much in keeping with the whole spirit of the thing--and partly because it was sort of lame anyway, to put the slimy Christian guy at the heart of it.

I couldnt possibly watch out of season order first because as Janet say the universe would implode and second for the reason above, that I would enjoy season three more if theres a less good season in the middle. So you would think it was a cut and dried thing But one can always find reasons for indecision. Suppose season two is terrifying and confusing at the same time and not in a good way?

"I didn't feel the abandonment of the conspiracy story line as a loss at all"

It wasn't so much the abandonment per se, but its abruptness. All of a sudden it seemed like it was just no longer there.

"I would enjoy season three more if theres a less good season in the middle"

That makes sense. And there's also the fact that they're extremely different. #2 deals with political corruption, crooked cops, and organized crime, which the others don't, really. At least not directly.

"Suppose season two is terrifying and confusing at the same time and not in a good way?"

It's not really terrifying at all--it has a much different feel in that regard compared with #1. And I found it more complicated than confusing; you just have to pay attention, as there are a lot of crosses and double-crosses.

"There was mention of something very gruesome in one article I read"

Do you remember what it was? I remember one scene that was pretty harrowing but not particularly bloody.

And yes, the abruptness of the abandonment of the conspiracy did make it feel like kind of a glitch. I wondered if maybe they just literally ran out of time to devote more than a remark or two to it and still fit in everything else they wanted to say.

Started to listen to the Turn of the Screw and its very enjoyable so far.

My Chicago hairdresser said only watch Season 1 of TD

But I read the director and the camera guy fell out and the original director only directed some episodes in season 3.

Everyone I know that has watched #3 reckons it's almost as good as #1. #2 obviously gets more mixed reactions.

Watched Cold Pursuit last night, the U.S. remake of In Order of Disappearance, by the same director. If you've seen the original it's not really worth the time. It's neither as tense nor as darkly funny, and while Liam Neeson's not bad, he's no Stellan Skarsgard.

Yeah. Start in the afternoon and stay up all night watching it so when you get to the last couple of episodes it's 4am or something and you're exhausted. A good prescription for psychological health. :-/

Or maybe you have a greater ability to follow him than "people", in this case I, do. I.e. you're smarter. :-) I really think I'd be unable to follow a good many of his sentences if I were hearing them read aloud.

I see what you mean, though I can't really be sure from that sample whether it would help all that much, as it doesn't include the kind of complex passages that can sometimes be confusing. But I can certainly see that it would be more listenable than I thought.

There's a piece by Anthony Lane in The New Yorker about a commemoration in 2016 of the funeral service of Henry James that has this about reading his work out loud:

There was certainly something bracing and vivifying in the service of commemoration, thanks in part to the readers: the actors Simon Paisley Day, Olivia Williams, and Miriam Margolyes, whom Whartonians will recall as Mrs. Mingott in Martin Scorsese’s film of “The Age of Innocence” (1993), and whose elocution remains as ringingly clear as one could hope for — and, it must be said, as James’s prose requires. Indeed, the happy surprise was to learn how fluent he sounds in the reading, or rather in the reading out. Little is more frightening, to the innocent student of literature, than the first sight of a page of “The Golden Bowl,” with those unhurried sentences rolling away into the middle distance like the tributaries of some great, untraceable river. Spoken in public, though, and propelled by the onward pressure of the voice, they make more immediate and more graspable sense. Given that James, bewilderingly, dictated the novel in the first place, you could argue that to hear it aloud is somehow to restore the text to its original form, and to follow the river to its source. Either way, if Margolyes were hired by Harvard to declaim the book, at the start of every course in twentieth-century fiction, the numbers signing up for James would quadruple on the spot.

“Had”?

That certainly sounds appealing. It occurs to me though that my ADD tendency is probably a bigger problem.

I used to enjoy it many many years ago. Not sure why I stopped reading it--partly just lack of leisure I guess, and then I just sort of got out of the orbit it's in.

Im somewhat over halfway through the story on Audible. The ghostliness of the ghosts - and the isolation of the governess - certainly adds to the suspense, because one does have to wonder if all the conversations with the children, where she 'just knows' they know what she's talking about are ironic and double edged. She is sounding so hysterical now I would be half way to thinking the ghosts are in her mind, except for that Mrs Grose, the servant, seems to agree they are there

Another New Yorker piece says the book is “a modest monument to the bold pursuit of ambiguity”:

Its profoundest pleasure lies in the beautifully fussed over way in which James refuses to come down on either side. In its twenty-four brief chapters, the book becomes a modest monument to the bold pursuit of ambiguity. It is rigorously committed to lack of commitment. At each rereading, you have to marvel anew at how adroitly and painstakingly James plays both sides. ...

Although “The Turn of the Screw” is much the most famous of James’s ghostly tales, he wrote supernatural fiction throughout his life—more than seven hundred pages in all. The genre obsessed him. ...

I’ve said that either interpretation of the book (real ghosts/real madness) can seem worse than the other, but this is true only as you’re reading along. You can snap shut the cover of the book, much as you would close up a crypt, on the tale of the unhinged governess and her ill-fated charges. But the crypt creaks open again if she is not mad. When the completed book is once more on the shelf, the more frightening interpretation is the one wherein some actual supernatural agent is loose and walks among us.

If the governess is mad, she has unwittingly killed a bright and beautiful little boy; this is a tragedy, but a local one. If the ghosts are genuine, however, there are jagged cracks in the firmament above us all, and nobody is safe.

The greatest of ghost stories have intuitively understood this radical asymmetry. Evil and Good are not equally or complementarily matched. Good may triumph in the end, and the saved soul may find its way to the celestial bedrock of Heaven. But Evil, for all of its eventual defeat, will never go down easy. It has a cobra-skin shimmer, a mesmerism all its own. Consigned to everlasting misery, the damned are restless in their perdition. Some of them are too nasty for hell, and they sometimes get in among us.

I meant to say no proof that they are real. No note from James saying "In case you're wondering, the ghosts [are|are not] only in the mind of the governess."

Im an hour from the end and Im convinced the governess is compeay nutz

I Listened to the end while making Sunday lunch. I thought it was a good story and I thought the fact that one doesn’t quite know if the ghosts are real adds to it.

True about real life evil, of course. But I don't see it in the story. No point in reading it again with that question in mind, because I'd be too aware of it.

I assume the people who are committed to the likelihood that the ghosts are not real have some way of accounting for things like the ending (avoiding the spoiler).

The first paragraph, that is. The second is not of interest.