The Things They Carried and The Cask of Amontillado

In the wise words of Abraham Lincoln, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.” It’s important for our well-being that we not let our past get in the way of today or tomorrow. This concept is a central theme for both the main character in “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien and the narrator in “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allan Poe. While the two stories are inherently different and set far apart in eras, they share the common ground and the timeless moral of moving on.

In both stories, events occur to instigate a forced separation of past from present; both protagonists must let go of their pasts to cope with the present. Each character has their own personal motivations and demons to address. In “The Cask of Amontillado”, a major change in social status and life renders Montressor’s other internal identity, represented as Fortunato, useless. The character of Fortunato is a constant reminder of Montressor’s personal loss of power, wealth, and the ending of his noble ancestral lineage. He is also a reminder of how cruel Fate and Fortune were in letting these things happen to his family, his world, and consequently him. Montressor is consumed by the idea of revenge; eliminating the past identity of arrogant and privileged Fortunato, thereby letting himself move on and adapt to a different life. He symbolizes moving on from his past by burying Fortunato; he destroys the part of his past that can no longer exist in his present. He does all of this for the sake of himself and his pride, nothing else.

This is in contrast to the catalyst and motivations of Li...

... middle of paper ...

...as an element that “The Cask of Amontillado” lacks; cause and effect. It is a clear, albeit distracted, telling of the moment when Lieutenant Cross realizes the harmful effects of dwelling on the past and thus decides to leave it behind. The resolution in this story is implied, there is no proverbial “happy ending”.

Despite having been set far apart in eras, progressing differently, being under different circumstances, and having separate motivations, the moral of both stories are the same. Life necessitates change, and in the end both men must let go of the past. The ideals and priorities of their former selves can no longer function in the reality of the present; the past’s harmful effects create the circumstances that force both protagonists to move on. For both men, to live in the past is to be your own worst enemy; there is no future in living in the past.