Article Response
- Article summary
“The Motive for Murder in ‘The Cask of Amontillado’ by Edgar Allan Poe”
The subject matter of the story contained in the above article is murder. The narrator, Montresor, begins by explaining his motivation for committing murder. Specifically, he mentions that the victim, Fortuna, had insulted him besides causing several other I njuries to his family. In response to these insults, Montresor decides to seek revenge in form of secret murder. Therefore, his primary motivation for killing Fortuna was to exact vengeance. However, he planned to revenge in more strategic way, without posing any threat to himself. Thus, he decides to take advantages of Fortuna’s vulnerabilities, for instance, his fondness for wine. During the carnival season, the narrator enticed Fortuna to accompany him to his home to check the barrel of Amontillado that he had acquired. When they arrived, Montresor led Fortuna to his small crypt. Considering that Fortuna was already drunk, Montresor decided move out of the crypt and begun blocking the entrance with several layers of walls thus, trapping Fortuna inside (Baraban 55).
Besides the above description of Fortuna’s death, Allan Poe’s article contains several argument regarding Mentersor act of murder. Different scholars have argued whether the narrator’s actions were justifiable or not. The narrators’ failure to openly state the motive for his actions has prompted much heated debate on whether his revenge was justifiable. He opens the story by stating that Fortuna had insulted and he was, therefore, supposed to take revenge, but he does not provide clear description about the insult. Besides, his secret act of murder makes his revenge questionable. Also, the narrator fails to disclose the nature of the injuries that Fortuna had caused. In addition to the motives for his act of murder, his approach of revenge also creates suspicion among the readers. Based on the imprecision of the narrator’s actions and motive, his revenge gets considered as unjustifiable by most scholars.
- Article Analysis
In my opinion, the question of whether the narrator’s action is justifiable or not is not answerable owing to the lack of sufficient evidence supporting Montresor’s claims, specifically the injuries and the insults. Thus, this makes it difficult to morally judge the narrator, notwithstanding his horrible crime.
Nonetheless, I consider the narrator as unbalanced and unreliable owing to his subjectivity, which got revealed in many scenes. For instance, in the beginning of the tale, the narrator uses his personal experience of the victim’s insults to regard himself as an executioner. Also, the narrator confesses his story after fifty years. Thus, the period between the occurrence of the story and its narration render the narrator unreliable. This unreliability supersedes the lucid consideration of evidence like the specific occurrence of the insult. In other words, the narrator’s unreliability undermine the accuracy of the evidence that indicates whether his revenge was justifiable.
Moreover, the narrators secrete approach of taking revenge is vital in questioning his motives. This include the narrator’s use of Fortunes’ weakness to manipulate him into entering the crypt. His resultant actions of trapping Fortune inside the crypt represents a form of blind justice. That is, the narrator led Fortuna to unexpected death sentence. As a way of advancing justice, the narrator should have the addressed the problem openly by discussing the issue with Fortuna. Despite the negative actions revealed by the narrator, the determination of whether his actions were justifiable or not is impossible because it lacks clear evidence. Besides, the nature of the insult and injuries alleged by the narrator is left unclassified.