The Vengeance In The Cask Of Amontillado By Edgar Allan Poe

There is something beautiful about the power that lies within literature. Literature has the ability to provide a medium for self expression, to embody history, to entertain, but more importantly it often makes a statement about humanity. It captures the essence of human experience, and thus by studying literature we discover more about the world around us. An example of a well written piece that captures the human experience is Edgar Allan Poe's “The Cask of Amontillado.” Poe's story tells a tale of vengeance and biased justice, a widespread theme that can be found throughout history within the tales of men. While the subject matter may not be new, it is nevertheless meaningful. There are many different approaches to analyzing literature

The story is narrated by Montresor and is told from his point of view. Such an occurrence is not new, but considering it is a tale of vengeance one must question the reliability of the narrator. From the tales beginning to end the audience discovers that the motivation behind the cold murder that takes place in the crypt is rather ambiguous. Montresor in the beginning claims, “The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge” (Poe, 108). Yet for such a bold statement Montresor does very little to illustrate the thousand injuries in question, nor the insult that serves as a tipping point. Everything the audience knows about Fortunato and his alleged actions comes from the mouth of Montresor, and there is no one else to verify these statements as true. “The Cask of Amontillado” is told by a biased narrator, and thus there should be skepticism revolving around the nobility of the crime committed. The story contains shocking elements of horror in Fortunato being buried in alive, but the true horror stems from the fact that it is unclear why he was punished at all. Justice is the ally of the righteous but the line between justice and raw vengeance is thin, this is made evident by the bias presented by

By the end of the plot it becomes clear that the crime detailed by Montresor occurred quite some time ago. As “for half of a century” no one has disturbed the resting place of Fortunato. Within the passing of fifty years it seems no scandal or controversy has surrounded Montresor at all. Fortunato was punished with impunity at the discretion of Montresor. Yet, it is curious that with fifty years of passing time Montresor still does not give a real reasoning behind his actions. Vivid detail is given on the account of what events transpired, how Montresor fooled Fortunato into following him into that crypt. Where the setting changed from the lively carnival to the family crypt. How Fortunato was buried out of the view of the public eye, his death hidden just like the full truth of that incident is hidden from the audience. The details of Montresor descent from the world of the living to the hellish setting of the crypt are given perfectly. Yet, fifty years after the fact and Montresor still can provide little reasoning for why committed murder that