Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Montensor's sanity in the cask of amontillado
Character analysis of montresor in story cask of amontillado
Montensor's sanity in the cask of amontillado
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Mary Maloney in “Lamb to the Slaughter” is a sympathetic character, unlike Montresor in “The Cask of Amontillado”. A sympathetic character is one that you can identify with, and is likable. Mary Maloney from the very start is someone you can sympathize with. She is a calm, demure woman. “Her skin-for this was her sixth month with child- had acquired a wonderful translucent quality, the mouth was soft, and the eyes, with their new placid look, seemed larger, darker than before” (Dahl 87). Mrs. Maloney is six months pregnant, so we immediately begin to sympathize with her. Her household is neat and organized, “The room was warm and clean, the curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight-hers and the one by the empty chair opposite” (Dahl …show more content…
87). Another thing that makes Mary Maloney likeable and relatable is how much she seems to love her husband: For her, this was always a blissful time of day. She knew [Mr. Maloney] didn't want to speak much until the first drink was finished, and she, on her side, was content to sit quietly, enjoying his company after the long hours alone in the house. She loved to luxuriate in the presence of this man, and to feel-almost as a sunbather feels the sun-that warm male glow that came out of him to her when they were alone together. She loved him for the way he sat loosely in a chair, for the way he came in a door, or moved slowly across the room with long strides. She loved the intent, far look in his eyes when they rested in her, the funny shape of the mouth, and especially the way he remained silent about his tiredness, sitting still with himself until the whiskey had taken some of it away. (Dahl 87) She is definitely shown as a sympathetic character, being likeable and easy to identify with. She is also admirable because of having an ideal household, and much love for her husband. Then, suddenly, her husband says he’s leaving her and she kills him. Immediately the perfect household has fallen apart. But despite this, Mary remains a sympathetic character. We feel even more sympathy for her because of what Mr. Maloney tells her. After Mr. Maloney reveals to her what has been troubling him, he says “‘So there it is,’...‘And I know it's kind of a bad time to be telling you, but there simply wasn't any other way. Of course I'll give you money and see you're looked after. But there needn't really be any fuss. I hope not anyway. It wouldn't be very good for my job’” (Dahl 88). We feel satisfied that she has finally stood up to her husband. Her husband is cold to her, even in her pregnant condition, and we feel that his murder was at least a little justified. Even right before his murder he is impolite to her. He has just told her something devastating, yet he speaks to her harshly. “‘For heaven’s sake,’ he said, hearing her, but not turning round. ‘Don’t make supper for me. I’m going out’” (Dahl 88). We feel pity for her, even after she murders her husband. Her first concern is for her child: As the wife of a detective, she knew quite well what the penalty would be. That was fine. It made no difference to her. In fact, it would be a relief. On the other hand, what about the child? What were the laws about murderers with unborn children? Did they kill then both-mother and child? Or did they wait until the tenth month? What did they do? Mary Maloney didn't know. And she certainly wasn't prepared to take a chance. (Dahl 89). She is selfless, caring only for the fate of her child.
So despite the fact that she has just killed her husband, we still sympathize with her. Another factor contributing to her likeableness is that the story is told completely in her point of view. So even if we didn’t feel sympathy for her, we would feel empathy. The story being in her point of view lets you witness how shocked she is by her husband’s announcement, her pain, her love, and all her other feelings. You can understand her motives, why she kills her husband, and all her other actions. It is hard not to sympathize with her, or even excuse her behavior, despite the fact that she murdered her own …show more content…
husband. Mary Maloney is definitely a sympathetic character. Montresor from “Cask of Amontillado” is not a sympathetic character.
The definition of a sympathetic character is one you can relate to, and understand their motives. Though Montresor states his motives, “A thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge” (Poe 1), it is not believable that he would murder someone because of an insult. This makes him not relatable, because though most people want revenge when insulted, they do not murder the offender. Even if they do, they don’t carefully plan out a specific method of death. Montresor does display some darker human traits, such as remorselessness, trickery, vengefulness, and sneakiness, but real people don't usually demonstrate it to the extent that he does. For example, when he says “In pace requiescat” (Poe 5), he doesn’t mean ‘rest in peace’ in the normal way. He actually says it because he doesn’t want anyone to find Fortunato’s bones, and disturb their peace. It is used as a selfish phrase. Also, when he finishes burying Fortunato alive, “[His] heart grew sick; [but] it was the dampness of the catacombs that made it so” (Poe 5). He has just killed a human being, but he feels uncomfortable only because it was damp in the vaults. Montresor is a classic unsympathetic
character. Although Mary Maloney killed her husband, there’s plenty of evidence to support that she loved her husband very much. At the beginning of the story, the author describes how much she loves about him. She even loves him for “the way he sat loosely in a chair, for the way he came in a door, or moved slowly across the room with long strides” (Dahl 87). When Mrs. Maloney notices these small details, it is evident that she loves her husband. It is also stated that “Now and again she would glance up at the clock, but without anxiety, merely to please herself with the thought that each minute gone by made it nearer the time when he would come” (Dahl 87). Mary thinks about her husband so much, that it is clear that she loves him. She is a devoted housewife, ready to wait on him for almost everything. “‘ If you’re too tired to eat out,’ she went on, ‘it's still not too late. There's plenty of meat and stuff in the freezer, and you can have it right here and not even move out of the chair’” (Dahl 87). Then, after her husband announces something devastating, she murders him. Immediately it seems that she didn’t love him as much as we thought she did. “It was extraordinary, now, how clear her mind became all of a sudden” (Dahl 89). Mary even goes as far as to create an alibi and destroy the evidence. But when she comes back from the grocery store, “it really was rather a shock. All the old love and longing for him welled up inside her, and she ran over to him, knelt down beside him, and began to cry her heart out. It was easy. No acting was necessary” (Dahl 90). Though she murdered him, Mary proves many times that she really did love Patrick. Mary Maloney is guilty of murder. She should be placed under immediate arrest and serve a lengthy prison sentence. Mary is pregnant, but that does not excuse the fact that she killed her own husband. “At that point, Mary Maloney simply walked up behind him and without any pause she swung the big frozen leg of lamb high in the air and brought it down as hard as she could on the back of his head” (Dahl 88). This was not an accident. She deliberately hit him. In addition to this, if it were a crime of passion, then Mary wouldn’t have been as clear-headed as she was. “It was extraordinary, now, how clear her mind became all of a sudden. She began thinking very fast. As the wife of a detective, she knew quite well what the penalty would be” (Dahl 89). She immediately begins to try to cover it up. She creates a believable alibi, that she was at the grocery story getting dinner for Patrick. She even actually rehearses a fake grocery store trip, and when she gets back she is truly shocked by Patrick lying on the floor. Mary even goes as far as to destroy the evidence. “‘Please,’ she begged, ‘Please eat [the lamb leg]” (Dahl 91). When the detectives unknowingly eat the lamb leg, Mary proves that she is guilty of murder: “[The weapon is] probably right under our very noses. What do you think, Jack?” And in the other room Mary Maloney began to giggle.” (Dahl 92) What proves the point completely is that Mrs. Maloney admits to herself that she is guilty of murder. “All right, she told herself. So I’ve killed him” (Dahl 89). She shows that she is insane by giggling at the end, and therefore should be placed under immediate arrest. It is also correct for her to serve a lengthy prison sentence, because of the unlawful murder she committed. Mary Maloney is guilty of murder.
In conclusion, Montresor is a very unique and demented character. This story strongly represents three characteristics that Montresor possesses. Montresor’s cleverness is the reason he can irony and detail to the situation. His determination is the driving force for all of his actions in the story. Finally, Montresor’s cruelty is what makes him a one-of-a-kind character with a unique course of action. All of these traits are what answer the question of who is
In Lamb to the Slaughter, Mary Maloney, doting housewife pregnant with her first child, commits a heinous crime against her husband. After he tells her that he is leaving, she become distraught and strikes him in the head with a leg of lamb. Afterwards, Mary...
Montresor is a man who feels pride in himself and in his family, so when Fortunato—an acquaintance of Montresor— “venture[s] upon insult,” Montresor “vow[s] revenge” against him (1). Montresor hastily decides that he must kill Fortunato, even though his use of the word “venture” implies that Fortunato had not yet insulted him, but nearly did. Montresor’s impulsive need for revenge causes him to formulate a plan to murder his acquaintance. He keeps Fortunato intoxicated by “presenting him…[with] wine,” he “fetter[s] him to the granite,” and he “plaster[s] up… [a wall of] new masonry” to trap Fortunato in the catacombs (39, 71, 89). All of these acts are signs that the need for revenge has made Fortunato insane. A person who has any sense of morals would not commit crimes such as Montresor’s. His impetuous decision to exact revenge caused him to lose his
Lamb to the Slaughter is a short story written by Roald Dahl (1953) which the reader can analyze using a feminist lens and Freud’s Psychoanalytical criticism. Mary, the protagonist, is a pregnant housewife who learns from her husband that he is going to leave her. The author describes Mary’s reaction to this terrible news by depicting her as going into a state of fugue in which Mary murders her husband with a frozen leg of lamb, and later destroys the evidence by feeding the cooked lamb to the police officers who come to investigate the murder. This characterization is typical of the attitude of the society of the time of a women, pregnant, presented with a situation she cannot control. Mary’s first instinct is to reject her husband’s news
As characters go, Montresor and the unnamed murderer of “The Tell-Tale Heart” are extremely devious. Montresor from “The Cask of Amontillado” was deceitful enough to use reverse psychology on everyone he
Montresor is filled with regret that he took revenge so cruelly, “My heart grew sick,” (Poe 548). He was manipulated by his own pride and became the fool in the end, rather than Fortunato. Poe displays the Fortunato as a proud man at first, however Montresor’s pride is shown when he feels the first pangs of guilt but refuses to release Fortunato. He regretted his decision to kill Fortunato, however Montresor’s pride wouldn’t allow him to stop. Poe used these moments to subtly reveal Montresor’s
In the short story “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allan Poe, the main character Montresor can be classified as a psychopath. He shows many of the classic signs. These signs include having an overblown sense of self-worth, having superficial charm that allows him to appeal to his victim, and having the ability to manipulate others (Baker). All of these traits put together allow Montresor to lure and murder Fortunato with ease.
He shows absolutely no remorse or any true interest in the effect that his actions will have. Even to go as far to make jokes at the expense of the future murder of his so called “friend.” Like Dr. Stout said, sociopaths can lead people to their impaling doom with much ease. The sheer ease of his master plan of revenge unfolding. His use of reverse psychology on people to have them ultimately do his true bidding. Playing with Fortunado’s trust to his own satisfaction and gain. He exhibits many traits of a sociopath throughout the story. Edgar Allan Poe is well known for doing this in many of his works as seen in classic works like The Black Cat, The Tell-Tale Heart. The protagonists of these stories are also sociopathic, insane, vengeful and blood thirsty people who in reality are in fact the true antagonists. In each of their minds they believe they’re rightfully exacting justice and don’t see any error in their actions or just simply don’t care. They’re also cold, unfeeling, persuasive, and sinister murders who escalate small issues out of proportion. A sinister character is a recurring theme in Poe’s work and Montresor is surely no exception to this
Montresor proves not to mess with someone's feeling. He explains, “I must not only punish, but punish with impunity” (Poe 372). Fortunato does not know that he is going to die, yet Montresor and the reader do know, making the situation dramatic irony. By punishing him with impunity he is going to get revenge that he has wanted now for years ever since he did wrong to Montresor and now that he finally gets the chance of course he will seek revenge on Fortunato. And it is dramatic irony because Fortunato is oblivious to the situation. Montresor proves that one should be careful on what they say. He speaks, “I continued, as was my wont, to smile in his face, and he did not perceive that my smile now was at the thought of his immolation” (Poe 372). Montresor is saying
In the story “Lamb to the Slaughter” by Roald Dahl, Mary Maloney is shown to have a very sinister and manipulative character. In the beginning of the story, Mary Maloney was a normal, loving and caring pregnant housewife that loved and cared for her husband, Patrick Maloney, very much. Earlier at the start of the story we see Mary was waiting for her husband to come home from work. She had set up the house with two table lights lit and plates on the dining table so they can have a very romantic dinner when Patrick comes home. When Patrick came home, Mary was very excited to see him. She would try to offer him some drinks and insisted she would get things in the house he needed so he didn’t have to get up himself. The countless times that Patrick said no to her offers and helpful doings, she still tried to serve and tried to make him feel comfortable and relax after work.
Because Montresor narrates the story in the first person, the reader is able to perceive his thoughts and understand his motivations and justifications for his ruthless murder in a manner which a third person point of view would not allow. Montresor’s personal narration of the events of the story does not justify his crime in the audience’s eyes, but it does offer a unique opportunity for the audience to view a murder from the perspective of a madman killer. It is Poe’s usage of this unique angle that causes the story to be so captivating and gruesomely fascinating. As the story opens, Montresor explains why it is necessary that he “not only punish but punish with impunity” to avenge for Fortunado’s insult to him. This justification for his crime is a piece of information that the audience is able to learn only because they are permitted inside the mind of the protagonist. In the final scene, when Montresor is carrying out his murder pl...
Montresor is the main character who is narrating from the viewpoint of someone in the story that is being told. This gives bias towards Montresor because the audience feels the need to root for him since he is telling the story. Montresor, in the beginning, is able to justify the acts he is about to do, while we are not able to hear Fortunato defend or explain what he has done to Montresor that would cause him to take those actions. “…but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge.” (Poe 108). Since it is told through Montresor, the readers are also able to hear what his thoughts are. This adds an extra layer to the story by giving not only what he is saying to Fortunato to get him to do what he wants, but also his true intentions and thought processes while he is executing his master plan. He explains to the readers that he manipulated his servants into leaving his house for the night so that no one would witness Fortunato at his home. “These orders were sufficient, I well knew, to insure their immediate disappearance…” (Poe
How simple, indeed--at least until we examine a group of irreconcilable paradoxes in the story. To begin with, the names Montresor and Fortunato are synonymous. (Hoffman 223) Secondly, we find that the motive for the crime was some unnamed insult. Motives for killing someone should be important enough to detail. Why does Poe have Montresor gloss over the motives? One view is that Montresor relates the details of the murder not to justify his actions, but as a form of confession. But if this be confession, where is the regret? Again, Poe leaves his readers mystified concerning the time and location for issuance of the narrative voice. If Montresor still lives, he must be a very old man. If so, the phantasms of his deed may have horrified him all of his life. Then why does he not seem horrified? If this be confession, then why does he seem not penitent?
The first indirect factor that could contribute to Montresor’s vengeful act, and thus the story’s theme of revenge, is the character of Montresor. Montresor tends to harbor feelings of resentment and has a hard time not taking things out of context (Womack). He also plans the murder of Fortunato in advance and devises it in such a way that he will not be caught. In killing Fortunato, Montreso...
The major characteristics of the narrator and main character, Montresor, are anger, hatred, and revenge. In the story, he is angry with Fortunato because he believes that Fortunato has wronged and insulted him many times by saying, “thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could…he ventured upon insult…” (Poe). In addition, Montresor’s hatred for Fortunato goes so far that he believes he must kill Fortunato. He mentions this in the story as, “[y]ou, who so well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that I gave utterance to a threat” (Poe). He seems to say that his soul is made of hatred and goes on to say he must give Fortunato the utmost punishment: death. Montresor even shows traits of revenge when he says, “…but when [Fortunato] ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.” and “...I would be avenged…” (Poe). He is saying that he will get revenge on Fortunato, whom he is angry with and hates for being insulted by.