After reading Forster, a master of describing the human condition, here's Henry James, the master of syntax. His eternally parenthetic sentences-within-sentences may annoy some, but I actually loved them: you get to the end as if it were a puzzle, go back an realise all is perfectly in place and that it makes sense. And this is what I found most remarkable about the book. 
 The plot could be interesting, and in some level it is. The idea of two horrid ghosts trying to take the worryingly perfect children away with them--two children, I'd say, that are a ton scarier than the ghosts--that could also be all in the head of a governess who's gone crazy (I know critics do not agree on which is the correct reading, but considering the prologue an all, I kinda think James wants us to believe the governess was sane and this is a ghost story after all). Anyway, this conundrum of what is really happening and what is not, was significantly reduced for me in the way characters are written, both the governess-narrator and Mrs Grose are caricatures, so ridiculous I couldn't tell if we were supposed to be laughing, believing them or not--they were so strange to me, saying things like: 
 "No; she's at a distance." I had made up my mind. "She has gone out." 
 Mrs. Grose stared. "Without a hat?" 
 I naturally also looked volumes. "Isn't that woman always without one?" 
 or referring to the children continuously as "helpless creatures" and wishing she could "see the ghost for them" and "shield them", crying at the idea that Miles can actually do something "BAD". I mean, the amount of sobbing that goes on in this book is insane. 
 So, none of their behaviour seems normal to me, and I find it difficult to judge the narrator's reliability when I can't believe anything she says. 
 Anyways, this story was mentioned by Borges in relation to The Invention of Morel, and I can see why. But still, The Invention of Morel is so much perfect-er.