The general rule of thumb when performing manual labor involving screws, ingrained in the mind from youth and persisting forever thereafter, is the age-old, ever-so - mnemonic a little childish, "Righty tighty, lefty loosey". When you expect the screw to tighten, the right way is to turn it, but the opposite is equally true. Pretty simple to remember, isn't it? However, for a long time, the rudimentary logic of expectation versus the fulfillment of that expectation, the simple logic of turning the screw in the correct way to achieve the ideal outcome, has been lost in society in terms of the treatment of women. As Henry James's The Turn of the Screw illustrates, society has placed unreasonable expectations on women in ways that impact them horribly. With the same ignorance as someone who turns a screw to the left expecting it to tighten, society has counterintuitively attempted to strive for utopia through the backward method of subjecting women to rigid gender roles and expecting the world to grow better for them. Since James first published the book, fools and scholars alike have argued fruitlessly and endlessly as to whether the Governess's tale was truly supernatural or not, and so far no conclusive conclusions have been reached. Caught in the heat of a fruitless battle, attentive readers of The Turn of the Screw often immediately look for clues to the true nature of ghosts, ignorantly overlooking the story's potential to serve as ghost-free feminist commentary. As such, although many dismiss his tale as simple horror fiction, Henry James actually uses ambiguity in his narrative to establish the narrator as unreliable. This narrative style serves as a sly commentary on the status of women, as the governess's insistence on the existence of ghosts is highly attributable to the increasing pressure on her to conform to society's traditional gender roles so she can impress the children's uncle . When readers consider her characterization in light of feminist critical theory, it is clear that the need for her conformity drives her to madness, thus forcing her into delusions of grandeur in the guise of the supernatural. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Before venturing into the realm and root of the Governess's predicament, it is necessary to establish the presence, purpose, and relevance of ambiguity in her narrative. When you examine each twist of the tale with great care, it becomes apparent 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 housekeeper herself realizes, she 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 to interpret the story, leaving the true nature of its events up in the air, and with the Governess herself as the narrator, there is both capacity and incentive to tell it differently. a way that portrays her as the heroine. Even so, the mere presence of ambiguity is not enough to color the narrative suspiciously. What matters next is whether the Governess actually wishes to paint herself as the heroine, and, as many of her own admissions imply, she more than certainly does. Early on, he proclaims, “I was a screen – I had to stand in front of them. The more I saw, the less [the children] saw. I began to watch them with a stifled suspense, a disguised excitement” (James 47).Through her dizzying explanation of her opportunity to protect the children from supposed ghosts, the Governess reveals how heroic she wants to appear. She has no fear of apparitions' existence, nor fear for the safety of children, but rather a “disguised excitement,” and that excitement she feels is that of a woman waiting for her chance to be the bold protagonist. Therefore, by writing the Governess's narrative to be full of ambiguity and giving her a clear desire to tell the story a certain way, James establishes that the story's narrator is unreliable. Furthermore, James's story provides even more reason for the Governess to portray herself as she does: her obvious affection for the uncle of the children entrusted to her care. Almost from the beginning of the story, James emphatically expresses the housekeeper's feelings for her employer, her uncle. At the first meeting between the two, "when, for a moment, relieved, happy, [her employer] took her hand, thanking her for the sacrifice, she already felt rewarded" (11). In the simple statement that she "already felt rewarded" after her uncle did nothing but hold her hand lies the proof of the Governess's attraction towards the man. As such, since “the housekeeper herself… was in love with her employer… The presence of such emotional involvement… discredits any claim to objectivity” (Cohen 78). In essence, the governess has feelings for her uncle, and as a result of these feelings, an immovable air of subjectivity envelops her narrative. Thus, just as the housekeeper's desire to appear heroic raises suspicions about the reliability of her narrative, so does the presence of her romantic interest in her employer. Putting the ambiguity aside for a moment, the story offers beneath the surface a biting commentary on the status of women in James's world. Throughout the story, the Governess struggles to remain faithful 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 by 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 novel's conclusion, his conformity does just that in his confrontation with Flora, one of his charges. Flora, fed up with the housekeeper and her talk about ghosts, screams: “I don't understand what you mean. I don't see anyone. I don't see anything. I've never done it. I think you're cruel. I don't like you!" (James 122). As a result of the governess's ardent loyalty to her gender role and her fervent desire to appear maternal and heroic, the very children her employer hires her to raise and protect end up despising her. Below, it is through this harm caused by her conformity that the story serves as a feminist commentary. Furthermore, 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 feminist critical theory, a woman fits into the traditional female gender role if she respects 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, was defined as fragile, submissive" (Tyson 87, 89). If we analyze the actions and the narrative, the fact emerges that it actually meets these requirements. For example, the Governess is “nurturing” when she observes, “I was there to protect and defendthe little creatures of the world... the fascination of whose helplessness had suddenly become too explicit, a deep and constant pain at one's own helplessness" heart" (James 47). Through her words, the governess expresses her sincere desire to protect children from ghosts, and in that sincere desire is the nurturing, maternal aspect of her role. Furthermore, in mental response to Mrs. Grose asking her to contact her uncle, which would have broken an agreement she had made with him in. precedence, the housekeeper says: “He did not know – no one knew – how proud I had been to serve him and abide by our terms” (84) It can easily be deduced from this narrative passage that the Governess also fulfills her gender role in that she is subservient to him; uncle they agree that she will not disturb him and she is proud to be obedient to his requests However, once again taking into account the ambiguity of the story and the unreliability of the narrator, the sad reality that the governess pushes comes to the surface. too far beyond its compliance to society's expectations, driving it to the point of delirium. When she and Miles, her second charge, find themselves alone in her room as the lights suddenly go out, the housekeeper describes the incident as follows: "The boy gave a loud, shrill cry, which, lost in the rest of the shock of the sound, it might have seemed... a note of jubilation or terror. He then goes on to note his reaction and Miles' response, with his cry: "Why, the candle is out!" and Miles replies: " I'm the one who ruined everything, dear!" (109) First, his description of Miles' scream proves intriguing at best, the ambiguity in “either of jubilation or terror” stands out sharply. Through this scene piece, James reestablishes the dubious nature of the Governess's chronicle, since joy and fear are two very distinct emotions. That the Governess considers the two options equally probable raises suspicions about what she has to say. The fact that she wants to highlight fear as a possibility further supports the idea she wants simply appear heroic so she can exude an air of protection and motherhood towards Miles. Even more, Miles's claim that he was the one who blew out the candle makes it clear that the Governess is simply, through the power she has as narrator, creating an ambiguous scenario so that she can step in as the maternal hero. , thus conforming to the social standard of being an educated woman. In the final moments of the story, the Governess again illustrates through her recounting of events an ambiguous situation meant to paint her character in a certain way. After the last encounter with one of the ghosts, he explains: “I took him, yes, I held him in my arms, you can imagine with what passion; but after a minute I began to hear what was really on my mind. We were alone with the quiet day, and his little heart, dispossessed, had stopped” (149). There the Governess stands on the estate, all alone with the corpse of her foster youth resting in her arms, and as is the nature of this story, there are two ways to look at this event: either the Governess valiantly tries and fails to saving Miles from the ghost of Peter Quint, aka the Housekeeper, delusional, kills him herself and blames the supernatural. Considering the two points of view, the Governess has much to gain from telling this part of the tale ambiguously. Once again, the Governess tells the story as if the first viewing were true so as to reflect her character very well, once again showing her excessive acquiescence to her gender roles. However, since the second vision is also possible, this scene brings to light the.