In Edgar Allen Poe’s “Cask of Amontillado” there is a connective play on words used to create a theme of irony. Montresor has been offended in some way by his friend Fortunato and does not take this insult lightly. Using his passion of fine wines against him, Montresor lures a drunken Fortunato into the catacombs of his home. Catacombs are a group of passageways under the home, usually used in ancient homes as a burial place for ancestors. In “Cask of Amontillado” Poe uses this as the deep and dark place where Montresor tells Fortunato he is holding the Amontillado for his tasting.
The irony enhances the brutality of the murder as the reader knows throughout Montresor is planning some revenge while Fortunato believes he is going to sample his friends wine. Secondly Poe weaves verbal irony, a statement in which the meaning that a speaker employs is sharply different from the meaning that is ostensibly expressed, throughout to add humor to the story. The story is filled with verbal irony as Montresor is planning on killing Fortunato so almost every word he speaks is ironic as he convinces Forunato continue into his catacombs to his eventual death. This is seen when Montresor tricks Fortunato into testing his Amontillado by telling him he is bringing it to Luchesi to which Fortunanto replies “Luchesi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry” and Montresor replies “[a]nd yet some fools will have it that
Him being drunk in this scene allows Shakespeare to develop his character both positively and negatively through an example of malapropism. He mishears a question asked of him by Olivia and ultimately confuses the word ''lethargy'' with ''lechery.'' Although the result of this is comic, it is also quite a crude joke and is an example of 'bad comedy'. This shows that Toby has a rude, inappropriate side to him. The reader second guesses their first opinion of him and sees a selfish side to him, as he is drunk at his cousins funeral with no regards to other peoples feelings.
As well as when Montresor describes Fortunato especially with “the wine twinkling in his eyes”. How has the author described the characters to make them seem like real people? Through human emotions and the concept of revenge Poe gives these fictional characters a more human thought and feeling to help to convey them as real people. Also, Poe creates Montresor as an “unreliable narrator” to show human flaws. Does the author expect the reader to make an emotional connection to the story?
Explain your answer. Will accepting a gift isn’t a sin, but accepting real expensive gifts without any particular reason is disturbing. So I don’t think any philosophy waned advice Ricky to accept
Works Cited Bailey, Mark D. "Demographic Decline in Late Medieval England: Some Thoughts on Recent Research." Economic History Review 49 (1996): 1—19. Benedictow, Ole J. The Black Death, 1346—1353: The Complete History. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2004.
“The Cask of Amontillado” was based in the 1800s in Europe. Fortunado, and Amontillado were the two main characters. Fortunado was the one who ended up dying or being killed at the end of the story. Suprisingly Amontillado was the one who ended up killing him too, Amontillado killed him by being very sneaky and sly, and getting Fortunado to trust Amontillado with his life. This costed him at the end.
The reader is presented with the first situation where Montresor who is the narrator of the story complains about Fortunato’s insults. Montresor feels as if he has put up with Fortunato’s offenses for too long until the day he “snapped” Montresor start by telling us that Fortunato has hurt him and insulted him and Montresor soon going to want and get revenge on Fortunato. The narrator finally meets up with Fortunato at the carnival celebration and he’s very drunk, loud.. Nobody knows how old the narrator is but they assume he’s around his 80’s. Montresor takes Fortunato somewhere to get his revenge and that’s what he did He got the perfect opportunity to get revenge so he lured Fortunato into what we would call a cave and he chained Fortunato onto the wall of the cave and bricked him in. Fortunato was begging for his life but the Montresor ignored him.
While it is perfectly plausible to argue that Oedipus had no specific “tragic flaw”, there are two character traits that combined, couple to form a flaw that leads ultimately to the demise of Oedipus Rex. If Oedipus’ fate were indeed predestined, then regardless of his actions he would have ended up in the same place. Suffice to say that even if Oedipus were the perfect person, he would have ended up fulfilling the prophecy made of him. From this we can conclude that it is unlikely that the outcome of the play was governed by fate, since Sophocles would have little to no reason to write what he did. If fate indeed determined destiny then what was to happen would have happened and Oedipus could have done nothing to prevent it, the play would be boring and Sophocles no more than a simple play write.
But that's what folks call me (Singer)." Gimpel is actually a saint whose actions convey his innocence. When Gimpel references his interactions with his classmates, he states, "I was no weakling. If I slapped someone he'd see all the way to Cracow. But I'm really not a slugger by nature.