Featured Post


The MESSAGE of this separation of children makes it an EVENT. A Foucauldian CUT in strategy. Actually it is an excellent strategy. fo...

Popular Posts

Monday, June 18, 2018


The MESSAGE of this separation of children makes it an EVENT. A Foucauldian CUT in strategy.

Actually it is an excellent strategy. for accomplishing what the state wishes to accomplish. Now I look at it genealogically:

Those entering illegally may also have been considering using their children as kinds of hostages. Taking them creates problems for the US that they probably don't want to have. Maybe it will help if we take them?

BUT it continues separation as a PRECEDENT for obedience to the STATE, as it has genealogically in the past when it was done for the same reasons.

Sparta did it to raise warriors. The Catholic church did it without doing it but "give me a child until s/he is 6 and they will be mine forever. Hitler did it with Hitler Youth and if you have ever met any of them as middle aged adults they will tell you it was the happiest time of their life, the most free.

Ok now we did it to Native Americans. I once had an Inuit patient - depressive and alcoholic. His story was that he was one of 7 - 8? - brothers. His father had a wonderful family, large and cohesive and they would have done very well in their community. But all the children were taken and sent to US schools. My patient told me that they were not allowed to speak their own language and any infraction meant they would have to walk - run? - the gauntlet where they ran naked in the cold and were whipped as they ran to the end of it.

So separation means that children will not speak their parents's language and will be adapted into the ruling culture by the foster families - schools in Native American experience. And this is the MESSAGE! The content is irrelevant as McLuhan tells us so empathizing with the terrified and distraught parents over the loss of their children WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE.

All it will do is make you feel better at expressing your feelings of injustice about it. It will not help them.

At the same time the parents who wish to enter illegally with their children are put in a catch-22. They want their freedom to make a new life. But they risk losing their children - biologically their DNA. This is a sort of Sophie's Choice alternative.

Different potential immigrants will feel differently maybe? It may present them with a choice they secretly wish for. It may not. We cannot know. But this action has been made in The Order of Production of the State and it is being criticized in the Symbolic Order of Exchange and Death.

Or to look at it and read it through McLuhan who has told us not to use moral justifications to oppose a state decision that frightens us and sickens us. Capitalism wishes these immigrants to come in illegally. It means really cheap labor. These were the ones used for ripping out asbestos, for doing demo, the dirty and health dangerous jobs the unions prohibited without stringent restrictions that were very costly.

The CONSEQUENCES for the STATE that Trump's decision will continue for decades, forever. These children will have a variety of experiences from great to horrific. Certainly someone who was a Jesuit careful thinker as Jefferson might have considered the future waves that would come from kidnapping Africans and putting them into slavery in a country founded on the freedom for all.

We are still paying for their actions and will continue into infinity it seems. The same is going to be true for Trump's action. 


It's horrible consequences NOT   Oh  those poor people losing their children.

That is true but it won't work.

Liken it to slavery where children were separated and sold to others. We did it before and the long term results were so horrible we are still suffering from them.

If I think genealogically - FOUCAULT -  about issues more comes up for me to think about, so I am sharing that here.

Thursday, June 14, 2018


I have just finished reading this. I have read many of her novels. I started reading it as the non-fiction memoir it is but as I continued it felt like another novel of hers only this time she was the main character herself. That's the way I read it. I have read this account as a case study in modern medical treatment with lots of great insurance.

IMO Joyce Carol Oates is the BALZAC of the American 20th century. As Balzac is to France, Oates is to America. In novel after novel she keeps up with the lightening fast changes that have gone on. THEM was such a wonderful book beginning with a woman just coming of age after WWII and all the changes she goes through.

Her husband gets sick in the beginning, coughing, wheezing, having trouble breathing. It is Sunday. By Sunday evening she gets him to agree for her to take him to emergency in the hospital at Princeton. He is admitted and diagnosed with pneumonia. She is relieved as that is not the terrible disease it used to be. Her husband is 77 and in good health. she does not mention any vaccination for pneumonia. I am puzzled by this.

He will be on oxygen and seems to be getting better. She is told by a doctor the next day, that they need to know exactly what virus they are dealing with so as to select the correct antibiotic. It turns out to be e-coli in the right lung so they give him the right antibiotic and dose him and he improves.

ME! I am thinking E-COLI and cannot understand the acceptance of normal infection at this stage. Then in another throw away sentence it turns out her husband has been on blood thinners successfully for quite awhile.


And this is accepted as normal, just something older men with high blood pressure are prescribed? I am shuddering that this is so matter of fact.

Joyce Carol Oates is a tenured professor at Princeton University in New Jersey. 
She has the GOLD STANDARD of medical benefits for her and her husband.
No vaccination for pneumonia mentioned. No concern over e-coli? 
She does say that the graveyard shift all seem to be 30 years old or under but this doctor identifying e-coli is not but he is not their regular doctor.

After he is dead she will do an internet search to find out pneumonia with e-coli has a 70% mortality. 
And she isn't told this? Do these people connect any dots?
Where are the doctors who read symptoms and understand disease?
Are they all old and in the grave now?
With just these new young ones with their rote learning?

She begins a week of spending her days at the hospital and her husband keeps improving. The following Saturday - or is it Sunday again- he has been working on Ontario Review pages for the upcoming issue. He is in good spirits, off the oxygen and Oates goes home, and plans on a good nights sleep.

She is awakened around midnight and told she needs to get there right away as he is still alive! She is stunned! So she drives back, gets stonewalled at the entrance by the guard, is finally let in, runs to his room where he has just died a few minutes ago.
Then they begin to ask her about where IT should be taken, the funeral home etc.


And this happens with really great Health Insurance, probably the best available. It turns out she has Universal Health probably accompanied by Medicare as she is now over 65. 

As she continues on in a state of uncomprehending grief  she begins to disintegrate herself. She details this with her insomnia, her depression, her doctor visits, her medication.

She comes down with a terrible case of SHINGLES! Now I am thinking she was not vaccinated for Shingles as probably not pneumonia either. What is going on? She goes right away to the doctor and he tells her she doesn't have them and prescribes something for the terrible itching and burning of shingles. They get worse and she returns the next day and he tells her that yes, she does have shingles and the window of treatment - 24 hours - has closed so the infection can continue for days, months and even years!

She finally questions the doctors. A little bit as she doesn't want to make a crazy scene. What I don't get is that none of his medication was seen as anything abnormal before. That his admittance is treated as if it is normal. And these are very wealthy people with celebrity status at Princeton and she is treated as a nobody as is her husband. Just normal everyday and it isn't at all. 

She discusses the anti-depression meds with her friends at Princeton. (These are academic people!)
And so many of them are on them already. They tell her about them, the side effects, how long it takes for them to kick in, the dosage, etc.

I have read an article about a father taking his son to a prominent eastern boys's boarding school and when you enter for admission you have to go to a building and turn over all the meds your child must take so they can supervise medication. He was overwhelmed by the numbers that were doing this.
Children all over the US and successful adults are on medication to adjust.
Do you understand what all this means?

Are you still with me? 

I have Medicare and Medicaid so I have basically universal health care. Recently I went as I was coughing and wheezing and she asked me my symptoms. Then she went to her screen and I guess did a search. Questions popped up and she read them to me. Then I guess she clicked on next and gave me two prescriptions, one for an inhaler. Now I can just see myself walking around with one of those around my neck getting addicted to it.

At this point I give up and go to my chiropractor. He practices the Palmer Method which is to adjust the Upper Cervical. Take a string, attach a weight, then hold it perpendicular to the floor. Move your fingers at the top just a wee bit. The string will move more and more as the movement travels down. Just a little bit at the top but more so going down. So you see that when your back hurts and your chiropractor works on your lumbar region and it feels better but doesn't stay better. 

It is because you are out of adjustment at the top - your cervix - where your neck is at the base of your head. So the lumbar region will go out soon.

I feel better almost immediately but not yet normal. I go back for adjustments twice a week as when I am coughing uncontrollably I cough myself out of adjustment. So I go 5 times for a month and am better. My wheeze from asthma is gone. I am not on any cough syrup, etc.

The big clinic out patient hospital I go to with its great aesthetic image, the faux oil paintings on the walls, the incredible hugeness of the place but no help for me.
They bill Medicare and Medicaid over $300 for the visit and I have no idea what the Big Pharma meds would have been as I didn't pick them up with my drug benefit. I am guessing it would have been about $1000 total.

Now who is cheating Medicare and Medicaid? They are blaming people but everyday, every hour and minute the over charging is being done by the hospitals and clinics. If a doctor isn't in the medical gang of a hospital, she cannot survive. They can't admit you to the hospital if they are not in their system, etc. so you are forced to join one system or another. You cannot choose a doctor you prefer for X or Y. My chiropractor opted out of the system when the Obama administration changed the rules for chiropractors making it cost prohibitive for my doctor who charges me $20 for each adjustment.

That's cheap right. He does a lot of Amish and Mennonites and he wants to be affordable but he could not under the demands of the government for seeing patients. So he said NO. But he has a practice that is large and devoted. He told me that his training now would cost $160,000 and no way could he have ever afforded that amount. The training schools up their tuition because the student loans will pay it. And then the cost of treatment goes up because the insurance is paying a good percentage of it.



You will go into a database that will follow you forever.
I know a young girl - 8th grade - who has been on meds every day since FIRST GRADE because she had a temper tantrum on the bus one afternoon. Her mother thinks anyone with a stethoscope around their neck, a white coat, and an office in one of these institutions AUTOMATICALLY knows what they are talking about.

This is what you are going to get only much worse. You will be put in a catchment area where you live. Your doctors will be chosen for you by the clinic. If the scripts don't work, well, too bad. If you don't research your sickness you cannot know what you need, and even if you do there is no guarantee that you will be able to get it on your own.

Universal health care in Britain came in after WWII and people were different then. You do not want Americans as they are educated and trained now making life and death decisions for you. And desperate to pay back their student loans. At least I don't.


Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Jack the Ripper/Walter Richard Sickert?

Walter Richard Sickert: sick  sicker  stick  sticker  trick  tricker  trickster  Spring-heeled Jack  Jack the Jumper  Jumping Jack  Richard the Ripper  Jack the Ripper Jack the Jumper runs away  Jack the Ripper stays and sticks, rips open their throats  Both wear cloaks  Saucy Jacky a Ripper post card.

Patricia Cornwell wishes to nail him. Sickert the Ripper is too slippery. The rascal Raskolnikov waits for history to give him his Porfiry. 

Gavin Poole=Marvin Toone They all do that, guys on the run, Lucas said. Pick out a name that sounds sorta like their own.....I was laughing because of the Toone thing. You know, a guitar maker, picking out a name like Toone.
Golden Prey:Sandford, Putnam Penguin Random House,p.233

Sickert is multi-lingual from childhood. German was his native language. French he was speaking in Dieppe, France at five years. English by ten. Others? I don't know but suspect some knowledge but perhaps not fluent. The consequence of multi-lingual is the play on words. Sickert as a boy growing up in London where he lived from age 10, memorized much of Shakespeare and forced his siblings and friends to act in Shakespearean plays he put on as a child. All the word play and puns in Shakespeare were known and played with by young Walter. As an adult Sickert could recite long passages from speeches by Shakespeare.

Sickert's mother loved music and sang in the house when they were children. One favorite was:

I am Jack Jumper the youngest but one
I can play nick-nacks upon my own thumb

We know this from his sister Helena's autobiography as well as much about his childhood.

Saturday, June 09, 2018

Jack the Ripper/Walter Richard Sickert?

Walter Richard Sickert Age 2. In one more year he will begin to undergo 3 Vivisections in the next 2 years on his genitals for a fistula. Without anesthesia. 

In June,1862 Dostoevsky left for his first journey abroad. In July of that year he was in London and it was in London that he came face to face for the first time with the industrial society which he regarded as the triumph of Baal. The thing that struck him most was the contrast between the colossal facade  of riches, luxury, and general prosperity of the few and the abject poverty of the many and their coolie-like  acquiescence in their fate. Dostoevsky wrote in the April, 1863, issue of Vremya, in which he described his impressions of his first visit abroad, the starving soul is humbled and driven to submission, seeking salvation in gin and dissipation and beginning to believe that this is the way things ought to be.Facts oppress the spirit, and if scepticism is born, it is a gloomy, accursed sort of scepticism which seeks salvation in religious fanaticism.

...every Saturday night half a million workers, men and women, with their children, spill into the streets like a flood, flocking to certain parrts of the tkown, and all through the night, till five o'clock in the morning, they are taking part in a bacchanalian revel, eating and drinking like beasts, ...All are drunk, but not cheerfully; ...All seem to be set on getting dead drunk as quickly as possible.

...Anyone who has ever visited London has probably been to the Haymarket, if only once. This is the quarter which is at night crowded with women of the street. In the Haymarket I saw mothers who had brought their young daughters, girls who were still in their teens, to be sold to men. Little girls of about twelve seize you by the hand and ask you to go with them. 

Seeing London at this time through Dostoevsky's eyes is a rare gift for us. Like Conrad he saw the consequences of industrialization.

The Best Stories of Fyodor Dostoevsky translated by David Magarshack Modern Library, 2005. pages xi-xxvi.


In three years Walter Richard Sickert, having just turned five years old, will be brought to this London. He will be brought by his father to the hospital to undergo his third vivisection on his genitals in two years. Without anesthesia. Not known for his tenderness, concern or interest in his children Oswald Sickert will dump little Walter in the hospital, a dank, chilly, inhospitable place with no one there in the evening or all night long. Only one nurse works there, and she goes home at night. 

The message is clear. Fix him. Make him into a Real Boy. Or.........let him die? The miracle is that he didn't. 


Patricia Cornwell has researched him for two decades now and has spent millions of dollars searching for evidence that will provide Proof. While she cannot, I am convinced that Sickert was The Ripper and so is she. The debate rages on as it does with the JFK assassination. 

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Let’s Dump on Trump Some More-Hey It Rhymes!

Scapegoating On Trump Again

A huge dump of information on Trump's doings in India.
As if no one knew that all big real estate deals involve unbridled corruption and payoffs. And as Foucault said, "Information is not knowledge and knowledge is not knowing." So the long lived zine continues on its path of least resistance, Trump bashing. It is pages long and detailed. And this is what pays the bills for journalists. And not just recently.

It seems few have read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and fully understood her deconstruction of the media - newspapers. Raising the Banner to the level of mediocrity to dominate the minds of the mediocracy (that Ellsworth Toohey has programmed) that read it until they can be told and sold (what happens when reading Nietzsche) on anything you want.
Go on read it again until you get it

The title has an addition: Trump Inc. and the corruption of the American Presidency. Well well that's something NEW? When did it stop? Hearst said, "I don't report the news, I make the news." Isn't that plain enough. What is new about the corrupt media displacing on Trump for corruption?

Got me.

Inside this edition is the article Anti-Intelligence another bashing one on Trump.

Ironically, much of the danger Trump poses can be laid at the feet of Barack Obama. Assuming that past norms would be future norms, Obama created the most powerful surveillance state the world has ever seen.. Over eight years, he spent more than $100 billion on everything from eavesdropping satellites encircling the globe, to a million-square-foot building in the Utah desert for storing massive troves of intercepted data, to secret taps on the hundreds of thousands of miles of undersea cables that carry everything from tweets to Google searches to endless chatter. He also unleashed fleets of killer drones around the world, authorized the assassination of Americans without trial, and jailed more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. (p.17)

Ya still didn't get Snowden didja honey?

While blaming Obama for not seeing consequences - Clintons on student debt,3 strikes, repeal of Glass-Steagall etc - I ask when did the last president ever see the consequences of his actions? I cant remember. Someone tell me please!

Whistleblowers are not whistleblowers. They are PARRHESIASTES and Foucault's genealogy on this term goes back to ancient times.

Obama punished more than all previous administrations combined. 
This indicates fear/hatred or maybe even terror/rage
There is no question that Putin started being agressed against when he gave Snowden asylum. A great humiliation for the Free World eh. An inversion from our giving asylum from the USSR Cold War. Two can play this game.

So now Trump is the evil one for being able to use the evil Obama unleashed on us and the world. Does that just make Obama a dummy? Or does it make Obama evil? I know what I think. Do you? (Ssssshhhhh. How about BOTH?)

Wait a minute. Suppose the consequences are different. The spy industry is institutionalized which means it will continue after a presidential administration is forgotten history. But the danger to wives, husbands, children family are still dangers. They will depend on the spy industry to protect them and "their loved ones" in all the years to come. But what happens if they confront the spy industry? Will they take exceptional precautions for you? 

Trump has his own security detail. He trusts them NOT.

The above paragraph is absolute VIOLENCE! And that is not worse than anything Trump has even imagined so far? Gimme a break! and it is embedded in an article (SO WE PROBABLY WONT NOTICE) with tons more information that is not knowledge  - and knowledge is not knowing.

And we are supposed to respect journalists, even from a well thought of zine like The New Republic? A zine that has accumulated respect for decades, over a hundred years isn't it now? Even good journalists are unable to openly tell the truth and they haven't been ever.

Can we please be reminded of Chomsky's 
Manufacturing of Consent
Why a Journalist can NEVER tell us the Truth
All the truthtellers have been manufactured out of their jobs.
You know. They disrupt the discourse, have their own opinions, disagree, argue with the editors and they are weeded out sooner or later and censored before they can do any damage.

Hopefully the resistance that Trump has spawned will make them braver but I haven't seen much evidence of that yet. 

Have you?

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Stefan Simchowitz Read Through Nassim Nicholas Taleb's SKIN IN THE GAME

Stefan Simchowitz
Stefan entered the art world as an EVENT. As a BLACK SWAN as Nassim Taleb might say.
I dont upload books from Amazon anymore if at all possible. Sorry it is not so good an image as Amazon's
Stefan seems to not fully understand his extraordinary position in the art world at this time as he is simply following himself. So far no one is following him but that is just a temporary lag.

I have written my reading of him through Continental Philosophers, particularly Baudrillard and Walter Benjamin. To me he has moved the "selling" of art far away from his idea of collecting. To summarize again he buys directly from the artist he prefers, holds the pieces in his own collection, and uses his ability to make the artist visible and collectible to others. No gallery, no stable, no trotting them around for PR so they can stay in their studios and WORK!

On reading a blog post from one of my favorites Nassim Nicholas Taleb from his latest book:

Now we have the sound bite for Stefan. 
What Stefan has done is HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME! !!!
This is clear. Correct? Stefan has put his money where his eyes have chosen. 
He will profit from his choice. Or not. 
The artist will profit more also. Or not.
So far Stefan is doing very well.
We can say he has a very good eye.

And when you read the Nassim Taleb link on Skin in the Game you will see why Stefan is changing the art collecting world. And Stefan will see why also.

just told him why!

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Henry James:The Turn of the Screw Reading

Barnes and Noble

Oscar Wilde: It is a most wonderful, lurid, poisonous little tale
This is a 1984 Edition and the Introduction is so outdated even for the time it was written. Foucault died in 1984 and Anthony Curtis seems never to have heard any literary criticism newer than Edmund Wilson and Freudian Interpretation of hysteria. He is also woefully lacking in any feminist reading of this great novel. But many reviews on a google search reveal that time has caught up at last for this story.

James himself tosses off this story as "just a ghost story" kind of frivolous story. My reading of The Turn of the Screw reads the ghosts as MASKS concealing the REAL of childhood sexual abuse in the upper classes of England.

Turn of the Screw first published in serial form in 1898 (Collier's) is followed in 1906 by Freud and Breuer's Studies in Hysteria. (also in pdf) This seems to be where Anthony Curtis stopped thinking.

All of us who took an English Literature course in high school or college were assigned the reading of this long short story or novella. As a ghost story and a scary one. As James says in his preface his way was to engage the imagination of the reader to imagine the horror instead of literally writing all the gory details. He does, however,  make sure we read the horror as sexual, if we are awake while reading it. Peter Lang says the same in his masterpiece film M with Peter Lorre.

M (1931) If you have never seen it here it is.

Our Twenty-First Century perception gives us a vastly different reading than all those years ago. We who have been online to know the atrocities of sex slavery, kidnapping of young children, breeding of female sex slaves to raise children used to nothing else as future commodities is to just about collapse our imagination into dirt. The REAL is so much worse than we could ever have known that we shut down. It also seems obvious to my perception that this sort of sexual abuse was a prevalent practice among the governesses and servants in wealthy aristocratic estates. James is I believe saying this by MASKING the REAL as a ghost story.

The master interviews the prospective governess in London and he is a charming man. She is taken with him but I would not say excessively, but she is curious. He instructs her to NEVER contact him about anything in the country estate which she will preside over, nor the children, nor any gossip. NOTHING! She finds this strange, has doubts but decides to accept the position when it is offered.

The governess is read by earlier critics as an hysterical woman, a virgin, young, inexperienced and smitten with a passion for this master.

She is obviously in some level of denial but can share her fears with the head housekeeper Mrs. Grose, and can ask questions when she hallucinates a man on the roof, describing the former valet  (now dead)  - Peter Quint a play on Ibsen's Peer Gynt?-  to the master so precisely as an actor, with red hair, and not a gentleman, the woman names him. The governess repeats that he is not a gentleman  (unlike the master) oh no, but very handsome, a horror, clever and deep, and from that we intuit that he is a sexual predator that certain refined ladylike women instantly recognize and stay away from.

With our 21st Century eyes we have the master, who now lives in his townhouse in London, leaving his handsome valet in the country (not turned out to fend for himself). So can we say that he breaks the relationship either before the children come as a result of being orphaned, or after? At any rate he wishes nothing to do with his former valet. He himself is unmarried, leads a social life he does not want interfered with, so can we assume his relationship with his valet was homoerotic (many recent reviews do) and now over? It feels that way to me. James is seen as a homoerotic and some have even said had pedophiliac tendencies if he did not act on them. He is acutely aware of children's amazing capacities of perception and secret observations, thoughts and feelings. Not unlike Lewis Carroll and his Alice In Wonderland published in 1865. Surely James knew this book. Today both of them along with Darter would be rotting in prison.

The governess has shivery sensations, awaking at night, and she cannot shake them. The children are perfect. Enchanting, intelligent, imaginative, precocious, beautiful, entertaining and she cannot wish for more in either of them. (We will encounter the same defense mechanisms in Walter Sickert after undergoing THREE VIVISECTIONS (the last in 1865 in London) ON HIS GENITALS without ANESTHESIA, to turn him into a REAL BOY or else KILL HIM!)

 The boy Miles is home on summer vacation, having been expelled from boarding school. BUT FOR WHAT? Is that so difficult for us to figure out now? It becomes very clear to our eyes long before the end of the story when he says to his governess, "I said things to those boys I liked. They said things to boys they liked." Well just guess what those things were and this headmaster's horror of boy sexuality and perhaps experimentation that cannot be tolerated.

When the governess is with the little girl Flora by the lake hallucinating the ex-governess - Miss Jessel - (also now mysteriously dead) the child turns her back on the water and the image and plays with a little toy wooden boat putting the mast in the hole where it belongs. Much is made of this Freudian action by Curtis and other reviewers.

Is she telling the governess what happened by the side of the lake?
Is she unconsciously just putting the mast in the hole?
Is she consciously/unconsciously playing?
Is she seductively inviting the governess to respond to her sexual overtures?

IDK. But these are only a few of the readings of this image of her actions. I am sure there are more.

The governess is considered as an hysterical woman in an unconscious state of passion for the master whom she has only seen twice. Here we note the masculine interpretation of the woman in psychological terms outlined by Freud in his Studies of Hysteria. Breuer will abruptly terminate treatment with Anna O when she tells him she is pregnant with his baby. At that moment it must occur to him that everything she has told him about nursing her father and his advances "may also be phantasy" because he knows she cannot be pregnant by him. Is this where Freud gets his interpretation of sexual abuse phantasy instead of the actual abuse for which feminists have raked him over the coals and for which he still burns?

The governess is an amazing psychologist - read Henry James here - as she begins to perceive that these enchanting children are PERFORMING ENCHANTING just for her. Then she wonders if they perceive that she knows they are performing? And she censors her behavior to hide the fact that she knows. And the plot deepens into horror. The governess begins to imagine the horror the children experienced at the hands of these two adults. Quint seeks the company of Miles which is reciprocated and the two spend many hours walking together and talking. Miss Jessell is with Flora a great deal alone. The governess now knows Miss Jessell became a fallen woman with Quint and is greatly disturbed by the intimacy of Quint and Miles and Miss Jessell and Flora. As a virgin and sexual innocent she can imagine the sexual initiation of the children but lacks our ability to visualize exactly how far it might have progressed. As Quint tires of Miss Jessell the children are brought into it to "spice it up?" And as we know from de Sade the perversity only increases as adaptation ensues.

Of course James is able to imagine sexual horror I would venture. But how far. But I think his story is deliberately MASKING what existed between governesses and servants with the wealthy classes. Freud's patients were often first exposed to sexuality very young by them. We have The Wolfman and Dora just to mention two of them.

So as James tosses this story off as a fluffy little ghost story just as Graham Greene tossed off some of his novels as "entertainments."

Was he telling us in the future what was going on and the INVISIBLE VIOLENCE of it?

M (1931)