Justin’s review of The Turn of the Screw > Likes and Comments
1544 likes · Like
Fantastic review, Justin! Your writing is excellent.
Justin, just the opposite happened to me! I was reading one of James’ last novels, loved it, then saw the critics AND GR readers hated it. I felt guilty! But I’m gonna go on - I think it’s FAS-KIN-ATING...
I would like to help, but I didn't love the book either. I am not generally a fan of things Gothic and I always assumed that was the problems I had with this. I liked it more than you, perhaps for its exploration of legal insanity and for the very unanswerability (its a word if I say it is) of the questions it raises. I always loved that there is no way to know if she is crazy, (I read it when I was a young lawyer -- an intellectual property lawyer, but still one with an interest in criminal law, and legal insanity.) Still, as short as it was, I thought it was overwritten to the point it lost some of its spookiness and a lot of its power.
Very diplomatic for a book you didn't like. 😂 I couldn't find much to appreciate about it either.
What a perceptive review, Justin. I am also part of the minority except I don't care for anything written by Henry James.
I wasn't at all impressed with it either. But here are one or two thoughts:
- it would be a very strange world indeed in which everybody liked every book;
- maybe books are like cars. All they have to do to become a classic is become "old" (I'm not looking forward to a discussion on how "old" is to be defined);
- it may be no consolation at all, but in your minority opinion, you're not alone — "we" are at least a minority of two.
From the looks of the other comments, "we" are a minority of many more than just two. And now I'll give it a rest.
Don't worry, I almost never like classic books.
I wasn't impressed either.
Great comments! Glad to know I’m not alone on this one. It’s true, no book will ever please everyone. I suspect part of why this has been so influential is how unique it was at the time. The new movie looks like a very loose adaptation, but I might watch it to see if it works better in a visual medium.
Cue upcoming book, "Turn of the Screw and Aliens" (in the tradition of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies)
I've never found a Henry James story or novel that I like. And I think you summed up my sentiments with this: "Why are the characters behaving so stupidly? Why are their motivations so senseless?"
@Marc LOL yes!! Someone needs to write that! :D
Was this your first James? It's an outlier, for sure. I think you need to read a lot more of him to really *get* what he's doing here. But still: as his preface says, he wanted to write a "pot-boiler" and so even he acknowledges that this is not familiar territory for him. It does get better on re-reading, I can attest to that; but all James does.
Proustitute wrote: "Was this your first James? It's an outlier, for sure. I think you need to read a lot more of him to really *get* what he's doing here. But still: as his preface says, he wanted to write a "pot-boil..."
I will absolutely agree that this is not typical James, and everyone should read other things. Washington Square, Portrait of a Lady, Wings of the Dove, all fantastic books. Others too, but those spring to mind.
Justin, I know what you mean. I wasn't a fan of this novel either. My son teaches this to his high school English class and he says it is quite successful - they have great discussions focusing on their confusion -for kids addicted to Sparks notes it breaks through the idea that there is no "right" interpretation in literature.
One of my favs. I remember being creeped out while reading this. I also read it at night at a public park by myself haha.
Jill wrote: "What a perceptive review, Justin. I am also part of the minority except I don't care for anything written by Henry James."
I don't care for James, in general, either. He's a tough one to love, IMO. Great review Justin!
Amen, Justin. My first attempt at reading this was probably about 25 years ago and it became one of the very few books I abandoned because I was so bored with it. I gave it another go back in 2018 and it was a freaking slog, but at least I finished it. And I still wondered what was the big deal about this "classic."
Even the couple of movie adaptations I've watched - the 1961 version (The Innocents) and the one from 1999, both ended up being a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. I'll admit that this new version hitting theaters next week, The Turning, looks a little more interesting. But that might have something to do with me being a fan of Mackenzie Davis & Finn Wolfhard.
Justin wrote: "If you’re a fan, please add a comment and help me understand what I’m missing."
Well, I'm not exactly a James fan, but I've read some of his work and liked some of what I read --though I can see why many people don't, and I'm not an admirer of his prose style. On the whole, I think he was better at long than at short fiction; but IMO his ghost stories are his best work (of course, I like that genre) and this is the best of those. I gave it four stars. Whether or not my review would furnish any useful insight, I don't know, but here's a link to it for whatever it's worth:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .
I am a fan of James. I think the enjoyment comes not while reading him, but in reflection after, or upon a second read, or from reading criticism of a work you've read. I cannot even explain my appreciation or recommend a work, though I remember the story, "The Real Thing," was the work that clicked for me. James requires a slow contemplative read. You might find yourself stopping every other sentence or paragraph to consider why James phrased his his just so. But I think it is worth it. For example I just reread Wolf Hall and my appreciation for that novel was paved by my earlier reading of James.
You all have just about talked me into removing it from my to read list. That’s a good thing in view of the last several I’ve started.
Here's a positive review from the New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-... It still doesn't convince me, but I'd be willing to try James again. Maybe 'Washington Square.'
Oh thank goodness I'm not the only one that didn't enjoy this one. I completely understand how you feel...I always think something must be wrong with me when I don't like beloved classics.
I tried the turning of the screw twice, because I was convinced I must've missed something. I'm normally such a fan of the creepy gothic reads.
But in the end, I just had to accept this book just was not for me and that's ok.
Justin wrote: "Great comments! Glad to know I’m not alone on this one. It’s true, no book will ever please everyone. I suspect part of why this has been so influential is how unique it was at the time. The new mo..." Better don't. it was 3.7 on Imdb.
As if you took my thoughts directly from my synapses- completely agree!
You didn't miss anything. When you read 'classics' like this sometimes you get treasures and other times you see an Emperor with no clothes. Stephen King writes circles around this confusing piece, and the historic popularity is unaccountable.
In my review, I discuss that there was a ghost. There is no ambuguity that people have supposedly considered for a hundred years. The governess did not presume she had seen anything paranormal at first. She was concerned about who the strangers might be. The boy clearly saw a ghost at the end too. That fear on sight killed him was stupid enough for my grade to plummet low. Two stars recognize the beautiful writing and vocabulary that it would enrich us to bring back.
I can't tell you just how happy I am to read this. I too found this a difficult and unsatisfying read.
Not liking a classic doesn't mean you're ignorant. Books shouldn't be considered good or valuable literature just because they are classics, and the turn of the screw is a clear example.
Carolina wrote: "Not liking a classic doesn't mean you're ignorant. Books shouldn't be considered good or valuable literature just because they are classics, and the turn of the screw is a clear example."
I can't begin to tell you how much I agree with what you've said!
Yup I had no idea what was going on. My mind would wander after a few sentences. I think I would’ve gotten just as much out of it if I read it upside down.
Agreed. I think it’s like when people hate a movie critics loved. Isn’t it just as likely that there’s critical snobbery at work here because the work is old and classic … we don’t have to be un-evolved cretins because we don’t appreciate it. One of the critical pieces of this work is the convoluted language. The propriety that involved so much beating around the bush rather than directly stipulated thoughts and impressions is probably why this work was so valued. The intrigue was in the language as well as the story. I think such ambiguity of speech is just strange and difficult to appreciate a century and a quarter later. Like Shrek’s onion having layers … these layers were rather impenetrable. 😉
I'm glad it wasn't just me who struggled with this book! English is my second language and although I'm fluent in every way I can have a hard time reading classics from the 19th century. And still I persist, knowing how challenging it is for me, mainly because many of them aren't translated and this is the only way for me to experience them. I thought this would be a quick little read at only 144 pages in the edition I bought, but I was wrong. It took me a week to get through it, a lot of times I because so tired I had to lay down and sleep after just a few pages as a bedtime reader. I thought I couldn't wrap my mind around this book because of the language issues - a lot of unfamiliar words that I couldn't be bothered to look up all the time, the abundance of commas and the long, confusingly structured sentences - but as I'm not alone in noticing and being bothered by these things I think it's simply that this book isn't for me, not that my language skills aren't up to par. Anyway, I'm hoping my next gothic classic from the 1800's is a more enjoyable experience as I have a few more on my shelf and on my wishlist.
Interesting review Justin! I'm a fan myself but understand your frustrations. May I recommend the film "The Innocents"? It's based pretty closely on this text, but adds more to the horror and motivation through surreal sequences and one or two added lines to provide needed depth. Also all the performances are fantastic, especially the governess played by Deborah Kerr. Here the kids have a bit of that creepy horror kid vibe that makes you wonder if they are just weird kids because of their isolation, or if there is something more sinister going on. Also, the few added lines offer more motivation for the characters... Like the governess saying that her father was an evangelical pastor and taught her to help people, even if they don't want your help. It's a chilling version and I believe it offers more then two versions of events for your pondering.
Wow! You summed up exactly how I feel having just read this book! Thank you for taking the time to express what has been going around in my head the last few days as I read this book!
It is one of my least favourite Gothics. It may be a classic but I almost can't stand to read it, which is a shame because I have to teach it!
I'm guessing it's one those classics that were important for their time (groundbreaking or unusual in some way), but don't stand the test of time and evolving writing standards or practices. Some of James Fenimore Cooper's writing falls into this category.
I personally was mostly confused by this book, and would need to listen again (audiobook) to understand more, but I'm unwilling to slog through it again when there's always a long TBR list!
Deborah wrote: "I'm guessing it's one those classics that were important for their time (groundbreaking or unusual in some way), but don't stand the test of time and evolving writing standards or practices. Some o..."
I get that feeling whenever I read anything by Dickens. Sure there is some good humorous quips you are not going to find elsewhere, but most of the time, I'm just thinking "my guy, you were paid by the word and it SHOWS".
English is my second language but I’ve been learning and dealing in it for 16 years now and I’m fluent in every way. I am currently reading David Copperfield by Charles Dickens and it’s such a big book so I thought why not read something short alongside. Thing is, David Copperfield was published 1850 and the way Dickens writes is very charming and I didn’t struggle as much as I thought I would with the language and understanding. Turn of the Screw was published 1898 I believe and wow!! This book’s writing style is so difficult for me to grasp. I can’t get into the story because I’m too busy tryna figure out what things mean or too busy tryna reassure myself that skipping over parts I don’t understand to keep the story going is okay.
Nada, I can completely see this being frustrating for someone whose first language is not English. Some of the language used is even intended to cause confusion. For example the phrase "Quint was too free with Miles" could mean any number of things, but whatever actually happened was shameful, and is never addressed or elaborated on by the characters in the book. So your mind is purposefully left to wonder. It could mean that Quint was fond of dirty jokes and didn't censor himself around Miles. It could also mean that being such a classist society, they simply spoke to each other or were familiar with each other. Or it could mean child abuse of any kind. So yeah, it's completely fine to not understand everything, as the author has purposefully kept the reader in the dark about the exact nature of the events in the book.
You are so right. Awful, nonsense book, really really bad, from any point of view.
Honestly, I agree completely with your review. If anything I could have been even harsher with regard to the use of vague and superfluous language. I was decidedly unimpressed by this story, both compared to other literature I've read from that period and in general. I really don't understand how this novella was so influential.
It was a 2 month battle but I finally got through that thing. Terrible. It’s a classic to the college lit dorks who thank gravity’s rainbow is awesome. And to the person who compared this crap to Dickens: whhhatttt? Dickens was genius, dude. You are confused.
Brian wrote: "It was a 2 month battle but I finally got through that thing. Terrible. It’s a classic to the college lit dorks who thank gravity’s rainbow is awesome. And to the person who compared this crap to D..."
Brian, while many of his pieces are filled with a very unique humor which I appreciate and some have the brevity to make them worthwhile, many of Dickens's works meander and well, in my opinion just fill up space. It was probably really neat back in the day seeing them as a periodical and not having missed much if you skipped an issue or two... but as a complete novel, I find many of them lacking. Like The Turn of the Screw, just because something is a classic does not make it perfect, or perfect for all readers. That was what was being discussed, the obligatory feeling reading some classics.
Thank you OP. Having just finished Turn of the Screw, I had the same general sentiment. I don’t know how this is supposed to foster a mood of dread, foreboding, etc. It rather comes across as repressed in the descriptions, ‘events’, and characters’ interactions and depths of emotion/motivation. There are, essentially, 4 characters for the majority of the plot and not a personality between them.
Maybe this was influential because of the ambiguity of ghosts. Maybe it spawned the “creepy kids” trope. Maybe a contemporary audience would have felt some sort of sympathy for the characters or better plumbed everything I missed as nuance.
TL;DR (too lousy; did read) : Booo!!!!!
I don't see where the book's charm comes from either. I found the story to be pointness.
back to top
message 1:
by
NAT.orious reads ☾
(new)
Jan 15, 2020 08:17AM
Fantastic review, Justin! Your writing is excellent.
reply
|
flag
Justin, just the opposite happened to me! I was reading one of James’ last novels, loved it, then saw the critics AND GR readers hated it. I felt guilty! But I’m gonna go on - I think it’s FAS-KIN-ATING...
I would like to help, but I didn't love the book either. I am not generally a fan of things Gothic and I always assumed that was the problems I had with this. I liked it more than you, perhaps for its exploration of legal insanity and for the very unanswerability (its a word if I say it is) of the questions it raises. I always loved that there is no way to know if she is crazy, (I read it when I was a young lawyer -- an intellectual property lawyer, but still one with an interest in criminal law, and legal insanity.) Still, as short as it was, I thought it was overwritten to the point it lost some of its spookiness and a lot of its power.
Very diplomatic for a book you didn't like. 😂 I couldn't find much to appreciate about it either.
What a perceptive review, Justin. I am also part of the minority except I don't care for anything written by Henry James.
I wasn't at all impressed with it either. But here are one or two thoughts: - it would be a very strange world indeed in which everybody liked every book;
- maybe books are like cars. All they have to do to become a classic is become "old" (I'm not looking forward to a discussion on how "old" is to be defined);
- it may be no consolation at all, but in your minority opinion, you're not alone — "we" are at least a minority of two.
From the looks of the other comments, "we" are a minority of many more than just two. And now I'll give it a rest.
Don't worry, I almost never like classic books.
I wasn't impressed either.
Great comments! Glad to know I’m not alone on this one. It’s true, no book will ever please everyone. I suspect part of why this has been so influential is how unique it was at the time. The new movie looks like a very loose adaptation, but I might watch it to see if it works better in a visual medium.
Cue upcoming book, "Turn of the Screw and Aliens" (in the tradition of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies)
I've never found a Henry James story or novel that I like. And I think you summed up my sentiments with this: "Why are the characters behaving so stupidly? Why are their motivations so senseless?"
@Marc LOL yes!! Someone needs to write that! :D
Was this your first James? It's an outlier, for sure. I think you need to read a lot more of him to really *get* what he's doing here. But still: as his preface says, he wanted to write a "pot-boiler" and so even he acknowledges that this is not familiar territory for him. It does get better on re-reading, I can attest to that; but all James does.
Proustitute wrote: "Was this your first James? It's an outlier, for sure. I think you need to read a lot more of him to really *get* what he's doing here. But still: as his preface says, he wanted to write a "pot-boil..."I will absolutely agree that this is not typical James, and everyone should read other things. Washington Square, Portrait of a Lady, Wings of the Dove, all fantastic books. Others too, but those spring to mind.
Justin, I know what you mean. I wasn't a fan of this novel either. My son teaches this to his high school English class and he says it is quite successful - they have great discussions focusing on their confusion -for kids addicted to Sparks notes it breaks through the idea that there is no "right" interpretation in literature.
One of my favs. I remember being creeped out while reading this. I also read it at night at a public park by myself haha.
Jill wrote: "What a perceptive review, Justin. I am also part of the minority except I don't care for anything written by Henry James."I don't care for James, in general, either. He's a tough one to love, IMO. Great review Justin!
Amen, Justin. My first attempt at reading this was probably about 25 years ago and it became one of the very few books I abandoned because I was so bored with it. I gave it another go back in 2018 and it was a freaking slog, but at least I finished it. And I still wondered what was the big deal about this "classic."Even the couple of movie adaptations I've watched - the 1961 version (The Innocents) and the one from 1999, both ended up being a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. I'll admit that this new version hitting theaters next week, The Turning, looks a little more interesting. But that might have something to do with me being a fan of Mackenzie Davis & Finn Wolfhard.
Justin wrote: "If you’re a fan, please add a comment and help me understand what I’m missing."Well, I'm not exactly a James fan, but I've read some of his work and liked some of what I read --though I can see why many people don't, and I'm not an admirer of his prose style. On the whole, I think he was better at long than at short fiction; but IMO his ghost stories are his best work (of course, I like that genre) and this is the best of those. I gave it four stars. Whether or not my review would furnish any useful insight, I don't know, but here's a link to it for whatever it's worth:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .
I am a fan of James. I think the enjoyment comes not while reading him, but in reflection after, or upon a second read, or from reading criticism of a work you've read. I cannot even explain my appreciation or recommend a work, though I remember the story, "The Real Thing," was the work that clicked for me. James requires a slow contemplative read. You might find yourself stopping every other sentence or paragraph to consider why James phrased his his just so. But I think it is worth it. For example I just reread Wolf Hall and my appreciation for that novel was paved by my earlier reading of James.
You all have just about talked me into removing it from my to read list. That’s a good thing in view of the last several I’ve started.
Here's a positive review from the New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-... It still doesn't convince me, but I'd be willing to try James again. Maybe 'Washington Square.'
Oh thank goodness I'm not the only one that didn't enjoy this one. I completely understand how you feel...I always think something must be wrong with me when I don't like beloved classics. I tried the turning of the screw twice, because I was convinced I must've missed something. I'm normally such a fan of the creepy gothic reads.
But in the end, I just had to accept this book just was not for me and that's ok.
Justin wrote: "Great comments! Glad to know I’m not alone on this one. It’s true, no book will ever please everyone. I suspect part of why this has been so influential is how unique it was at the time. The new mo..." Better don't. it was 3.7 on Imdb.
As if you took my thoughts directly from my synapses- completely agree!
You didn't miss anything. When you read 'classics' like this sometimes you get treasures and other times you see an Emperor with no clothes. Stephen King writes circles around this confusing piece, and the historic popularity is unaccountable.
message 30:
by
C. (Don't blank click my reviews, comment please!
(last edited Oct 14, 2020 04:45AM)
(new)
In my review, I discuss that there was a ghost. There is no ambuguity that people have supposedly considered for a hundred years. The governess did not presume she had seen anything paranormal at first. She was concerned about who the strangers might be. The boy clearly saw a ghost at the end too. That fear on sight killed him was stupid enough for my grade to plummet low. Two stars recognize the beautiful writing and vocabulary that it would enrich us to bring back.
I can't tell you just how happy I am to read this. I too found this a difficult and unsatisfying read.
Not liking a classic doesn't mean you're ignorant. Books shouldn't be considered good or valuable literature just because they are classics, and the turn of the screw is a clear example.
Carolina wrote: "Not liking a classic doesn't mean you're ignorant. Books shouldn't be considered good or valuable literature just because they are classics, and the turn of the screw is a clear example."I can't begin to tell you how much I agree with what you've said!
Yup I had no idea what was going on. My mind would wander after a few sentences. I think I would’ve gotten just as much out of it if I read it upside down.
Agreed. I think it’s like when people hate a movie critics loved. Isn’t it just as likely that there’s critical snobbery at work here because the work is old and classic … we don’t have to be un-evolved cretins because we don’t appreciate it. One of the critical pieces of this work is the convoluted language. The propriety that involved so much beating around the bush rather than directly stipulated thoughts and impressions is probably why this work was so valued. The intrigue was in the language as well as the story. I think such ambiguity of speech is just strange and difficult to appreciate a century and a quarter later. Like Shrek’s onion having layers … these layers were rather impenetrable. 😉
I'm glad it wasn't just me who struggled with this book! English is my second language and although I'm fluent in every way I can have a hard time reading classics from the 19th century. And still I persist, knowing how challenging it is for me, mainly because many of them aren't translated and this is the only way for me to experience them. I thought this would be a quick little read at only 144 pages in the edition I bought, but I was wrong. It took me a week to get through it, a lot of times I because so tired I had to lay down and sleep after just a few pages as a bedtime reader. I thought I couldn't wrap my mind around this book because of the language issues - a lot of unfamiliar words that I couldn't be bothered to look up all the time, the abundance of commas and the long, confusingly structured sentences - but as I'm not alone in noticing and being bothered by these things I think it's simply that this book isn't for me, not that my language skills aren't up to par. Anyway, I'm hoping my next gothic classic from the 1800's is a more enjoyable experience as I have a few more on my shelf and on my wishlist.
Interesting review Justin! I'm a fan myself but understand your frustrations. May I recommend the film "The Innocents"? It's based pretty closely on this text, but adds more to the horror and motivation through surreal sequences and one or two added lines to provide needed depth. Also all the performances are fantastic, especially the governess played by Deborah Kerr. Here the kids have a bit of that creepy horror kid vibe that makes you wonder if they are just weird kids because of their isolation, or if there is something more sinister going on. Also, the few added lines offer more motivation for the characters... Like the governess saying that her father was an evangelical pastor and taught her to help people, even if they don't want your help. It's a chilling version and I believe it offers more then two versions of events for your pondering.
Wow! You summed up exactly how I feel having just read this book! Thank you for taking the time to express what has been going around in my head the last few days as I read this book!
It is one of my least favourite Gothics. It may be a classic but I almost can't stand to read it, which is a shame because I have to teach it!
I'm guessing it's one those classics that were important for their time (groundbreaking or unusual in some way), but don't stand the test of time and evolving writing standards or practices. Some of James Fenimore Cooper's writing falls into this category.I personally was mostly confused by this book, and would need to listen again (audiobook) to understand more, but I'm unwilling to slog through it again when there's always a long TBR list!
Deborah wrote: "I'm guessing it's one those classics that were important for their time (groundbreaking or unusual in some way), but don't stand the test of time and evolving writing standards or practices. Some o..."I get that feeling whenever I read anything by Dickens. Sure there is some good humorous quips you are not going to find elsewhere, but most of the time, I'm just thinking "my guy, you were paid by the word and it SHOWS".
English is my second language but I’ve been learning and dealing in it for 16 years now and I’m fluent in every way. I am currently reading David Copperfield by Charles Dickens and it’s such a big book so I thought why not read something short alongside. Thing is, David Copperfield was published 1850 and the way Dickens writes is very charming and I didn’t struggle as much as I thought I would with the language and understanding. Turn of the Screw was published 1898 I believe and wow!! This book’s writing style is so difficult for me to grasp. I can’t get into the story because I’m too busy tryna figure out what things mean or too busy tryna reassure myself that skipping over parts I don’t understand to keep the story going is okay.
Nada, I can completely see this being frustrating for someone whose first language is not English. Some of the language used is even intended to cause confusion. For example the phrase "Quint was too free with Miles" could mean any number of things, but whatever actually happened was shameful, and is never addressed or elaborated on by the characters in the book. So your mind is purposefully left to wonder. It could mean that Quint was fond of dirty jokes and didn't censor himself around Miles. It could also mean that being such a classist society, they simply spoke to each other or were familiar with each other. Or it could mean child abuse of any kind. So yeah, it's completely fine to not understand everything, as the author has purposefully kept the reader in the dark about the exact nature of the events in the book.
You are so right. Awful, nonsense book, really really bad, from any point of view.
Honestly, I agree completely with your review. If anything I could have been even harsher with regard to the use of vague and superfluous language. I was decidedly unimpressed by this story, both compared to other literature I've read from that period and in general. I really don't understand how this novella was so influential.
It was a 2 month battle but I finally got through that thing. Terrible. It’s a classic to the college lit dorks who thank gravity’s rainbow is awesome. And to the person who compared this crap to Dickens: whhhatttt? Dickens was genius, dude. You are confused.
Brian wrote: "It was a 2 month battle but I finally got through that thing. Terrible. It’s a classic to the college lit dorks who thank gravity’s rainbow is awesome. And to the person who compared this crap to D..."Brian, while many of his pieces are filled with a very unique humor which I appreciate and some have the brevity to make them worthwhile, many of Dickens's works meander and well, in my opinion just fill up space. It was probably really neat back in the day seeing them as a periodical and not having missed much if you skipped an issue or two... but as a complete novel, I find many of them lacking. Like The Turn of the Screw, just because something is a classic does not make it perfect, or perfect for all readers. That was what was being discussed, the obligatory feeling reading some classics.
Thank you OP. Having just finished Turn of the Screw, I had the same general sentiment. I don’t know how this is supposed to foster a mood of dread, foreboding, etc. It rather comes across as repressed in the descriptions, ‘events’, and characters’ interactions and depths of emotion/motivation. There are, essentially, 4 characters for the majority of the plot and not a personality between them.Maybe this was influential because of the ambiguity of ghosts. Maybe it spawned the “creepy kids” trope. Maybe a contemporary audience would have felt some sort of sympathy for the characters or better plumbed everything I missed as nuance.
TL;DR (too lousy; did read) : Booo!!!!!
I don't see where the book's charm comes from either. I found the story to be pointness.
