Week Two

Reading One: "The Cask of Amontillado"

1. Why has the narrator waited fifty years to tell what he has done?

Maybe the narrator wanted his execution of Fortunate to be a secret for a long time?

Maybe the narrator went crazy from an unstable set of mind and just told the story?

Maybe the narrator became more clear with his state of mind and wanted to look back on why he did what he did?

2. Under what circumstances is he reporting his deed?

"...but when he ventured upon insult i vowed revenge" (p. 165).

Montresor believes that if a person is caught doing wrong then they should be punished. 

3. Why is Montresor angry with Fortunate? Does he have a valid reason to seek revenge?

Within this story, the narrator, Montresor, never clarifies to his audience what Fortunate did wrong to be vengeance against.

4. How would you assess the mental stability of the narrator? Of Fortunate?

Montresor seems unstable within the mind according to the text; however, there is evidence within the pages of the story that Montresor was clearly stable in his mind set (reference to number 6). He is set and determined to execute the wrong doing from Fortunate, even though Montresor is unclear off Fortunate's wrong doing.

Fortunate was intoxicated and has a horrible cough, with this being said Fortunate has no idea what is going on."He turned towards me, and looked into my eyes with two filmy orbs that distilled the rheum of intoxication" (p. 166).

5. Poe is the founder of "ratiocination", which we can think of as early forensics and crime scene investigation. Where do you see evidence of forensic clues provided in the story?

Montresor clearly states the place that they are located; "We came at length to the foot of the descent, and stood together upon the damp ground of the catacombs of the Montresor's" (p. 166).

Also in the ending, Montresor states: "I plastered it up. Against the new masonry I re-erected the old rampart of bones. For the half of a century no mortal has disturbed them" (p. 170).

6. Imagine a scenario in which you are a jury member or judge listening to the prosecution and defense in Montresor's court case. describe the evidence that could be presented from both sides (is Montresor criminally insane, for example)? With which side are you most likely to agree? Why?
As a jury member I would say that Montresor was not in criminally insane; "I hastened to make an end of my labour" (p.170). Clearly if he HESITATED in his job then he must have had the ability to function his mind of what was going on.