Reading and Discussion on Poe's "Cask of Amontillado"

This discussion post was the basis of my RA essay because we were required to freely respond to the story, “Cask of Amontillado”. My initial response to the story was that Montresor was idiotic and schemeful. I was able to identify the several tactics he used and depicted Montresor as nothing but a mad man. Through responding to my peers I was able to see their interpretations. It was these responses that helped me paint a picture of Montresor’s true character. This discussion forum allowed me to understand the rhetorical triangle in the story.

My final reaction to "The Cask of Amontillado" is that the rhetor really is a "jest". The story begins with "THE THOUSAND INJURIES", I read this with pity for the rhetor because he claimed to have been repeatedly harassed in one way or another. Then he moves on to saying "You", directly referring to Fortunato, as being the one who strategically hurt him. Which I later found was simply calling him a jest, the rhetor dictates Fortunato to be seen by the reader as a person that willing hurt the rhetor, he says "he knew him so well" and he knew what he would say would hurt him, the rhetor wants us to sympathize with him. In this part he is calling out to Fortunato, almost as it is his fault for causing the rhetor's vengeance because he betrayed the rhetor by hurting his feelings. The rhetor starts the story with the expression of the immense hatred he has for the man, Fortunato. He emphasizes at one point the satisfaction brought to him by imagining the dead man's body burn. It is over the top malicious thoughts, demonstrating no signs of pity. However, as the story unfolds the rhetor begins to show completely different emotions to Fortunato then one would expect.  The first sign of this, was when the rhetor mentions Fortunato as being a "quack". After searching the meaning, I found to be "a person who dishonestly claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field". This insult is followed by being sincere, who the rhetor was like as well, according to him. nevertheless, he follows this statement by showing off that he could buy whenever he pleased and was skillful. He is going against his own words. He refers to the man he had just thought about killing as “my friend”. Several parts of the story he attempts to build his credibility by being a cautious pal, for his sick and persistent friend. This whole story is ironic. The rhetor is not credible at all in this story, regardless of his efforts to paint himself as the “calm, belittled, respectful man”. The story ends with the rhetor stating that when he did not hear “his friend” reply, he dropped the treasure for his friend to see if he was okay. In despite of the rhetor building himself up as being this caring man for his friend, he leaves the man’s bones there, and does not tell anyone until he is caught. I am not sure about you but this does not sound like an honest man. This story was entertain because of how dramatic it was, this man was not admitting to the murder like the other stories we read.