soo_donewithu has joined the conference. pandapal90 has joined the conference. stichure: hey nwo Niki Hacker has joined the conference. pandapal90: hello stichure: hey now soo_donewithu: hello Niki Hacker: hi all. Niki Hacker: cant stay . just wanted to say hi. Niki Hacker has left the conference. stichure: how nice screenwriter911 has joined the conference. stichure: we are into the last phase of this class. I expect that he will have made yor selection for your final paper very quickly if you have not done so already\ screenwriter911 has left the conference. screenwriter911 has joined the conference. screenwriter911: hello stichure: hey screenwriter stichure: remember that your choice should be carefully made so that you can apply two distinct critical perspectives. stichure: tonight where going to get into the last section of literature and that is fiction stichure: tonight... cask of amontillado stichure: formalist analysis stichure: while drama differs from traditional poetry and that we do not have stanzas, lines and verses and that there is not necessity for... or expectation of... a rhyme or meter scheme, the added notion of character is also important factor to consider....and in fiction, we have yet another element and that is narrative stichure: there are three types of narrative, only to which really concerned this class... first and third stichure: first-person narrative is the story being told by character within the story stichure: third person narrative can even be omniscient, in which all thoughts and feelings of all the characters are revealed or, more commonly, limited omniscient, in which the author either chooses only to reveal one character or chooses to selectively reveals several characters, often to mask the obviousness of the plot stichure: another perspective is a third person objective in which no information about the thoughts or feelings of characters is revealed... and awards, the work is presented as if it were a play. We can hear what the characters say we can observe what they do, but we are not given any insight as to motive beyond their actions or the readers understanding of human behavior stichure: which perspective do we have in cask of amontillado and what effect does it have one story stichure: on the story sigh screenwriter911: first person. stichure: and the effect? screenwriter911: it makes it personal, intimate, chilling. screenwriter911: horrorible. screenwriter911: horrible. stichure: why pandapal90: Montresor has it out for Fortunato stichure: or how screenwriter911: we delve into the mind of a murderer. pandapal90: revenge stichure: that is true, panda and how does the first-person narrative affect this stichure: why would the author choose this approach, screenwriter pandapal90: it gives the reader the only Montresor's perspective screenwriter911: to control the story for maximum effect. luvelyluxe has joined the conference. stichure: that is true panda luvelyluxe: hello stichure: screenwriter, to what specific effect stichure: lovely... we are discussing cask amontillado and narrative perspective... we are also focusing on formalist analysis screenwriter911: to chill the reader with what Montresor is thinking. stichure: how would this be different if the story were told from third person screenwriter911: the actions of montresor only make sense from his perspective. stichure: that's an important factor screenwriter911: murder must make sense even if it is cooked in the brain of a madman. stichure: while Poe was not necessarily the first to use this approach, he was certainly one of the best at its... using a first-person narrative to tell a story from the perspective of what most people would consider to be the villain... pandapal90: we wouldn't be made aware of Montresor's thoughts screenwriter911: his actions only seem reasonable if we look at his actions through his twisted logic. stichure: well, band, if we were given a third person omniscient, we would know the thoughts of both characters completely stichure: panda pandapal90: oops stichure: what is the basic plot of this story soo_donewithu: revenge pandapal90: Montresor is seeking revenge and plots to kill Fortunato stichure: for those of you who have covered the story in another course, whether it be a college course or high school course, most likely the perspective that you chose was either a formalist direct analysis of obvious symbols are in historical analysis putting within context the references within the story stichure: by what means panda... for what reason done stichure: what is the means by which Montresor will kill Fortunato screenwriter911: will be discussing this within the context of the other critical analyses? stichure: why does Montresor want to kill Fortunato soo_donewithu: because he feels he has been wronged in the past by those who are like Fortunato stichure: of course screenwriter... we always do stichure: done, where did you get that idea... screenwriter911: interesting. i'd like to see a marxist analysis. stichure: where does he alluded to that in the story stichure: well, screenwriter get your stuff together so you're ready when we come around to it pandapal90: Montresor leads Fortunato to the wine vaults for the purpose of killing him but he wants Fortunato to believe that he wants his expert opinion on identifying some wine stichure: this is a very important point and sometimes the point of contention... soo_donewithu: "The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge" stichure: does Fortunato believes that Montresor has amontillado? soo_donewithu: yes stichure: well, done... is this injuries by others like him or injuries by Fortunato specifically? pandapal90: yes stichure: show me that in the story stichure: look at the conversation when they first meet and Montresor explains what's going on soo_donewithu: it would be fortunato specifically stichure: exactly done... stichure: and does Montresor ask Fortunato to accompany him to his vaults? pandapal90: yes stichure: again, I need you to read carefully soo_donewithu: he baits him stichure: in what way done soo_donewithu: "My friend , no: I will not impose upon your good nature. I perceive you have an engagement. Luchesi" stichure: folks, the conversation that occurs when the two men first meet is very important because it sets up a lot of the especially formalist analysis for this story... the use of a irony and symbolism and the context in which the characters are going to either be satisfied are dissatisfied with what happens stichure: so done... now explain what that means... what is Montresor claiming he's going to do soo_donewithu: "My friend, no. It is not the engagement, but the sever cold with which I perceive you are afflicted. The vaults are insufferably damp. they are encrusted with nitre" screenwriter911: he asks fortunato to accompany him to a cask of wine to taste. he ostensibly wants his opinion of the wine. soo_donewithu: He is sending him away, knowing he cannot resist the amontillade stichure: screenwriter, show me where he asks Fortunato to accompany him stichure: done, you're getting me the second half of the conversation... show me the part where he first shows the fish that bait screenwriter911: lines 5 to 10. stichure: be specific soo_donewithu: "As you are engaged, I am on my way to Luchesi. If any one has a critical turn, it is he. He will tell me. stichure: and what is the effect of doing that, done pandapal90: Fortunato says, "Luchesi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry." stichure: that is what Fortunato says screenwriter911: he plays to fortunato's vanity with being a wine connoiswur. stichure: which tells us what about Fortunato stichure: that is true screenwriter... again does Montresor ever ask Fortunato directly to help him... to go with him... to taste to sherry soo_donewithu: Fortunato's thinks he knows everything stichure: yes soo_donewithu: no one knows as much as him stichure: and what if Montresor were to ask Fortunato directly to help him... screenwriter911: montresor doesn't actually ask. he uses psychology to get fortunato to go with him. stichure: will that's exactly my point screenwriter stichure: are these two men friends luvelyluxe: not really stichure: are they in the same specific social Circle soo_donewithu: he refers to him as a friend stichure: what tells you that lovely screenwriter911: fortunato thinks they are. soo_donewithu: yes they are in the same circle screenwriter911: montresor is his enemy. stichure: and he does not refer to him as a friend...he refers to them as "my friend" which is different luvelyluxe: friends do not have to bait friends to help them stichure: hehehehe stichure: athey don't? screenwriter911: an irony? screenwriter911: verbal irony? stichure: tons of them soo_donewithu: my friend, that does not make him a true friend, but someone he knows in the same circle of friends stichure: but we need to establish some basic elements first because that's what makes the irony clear stichure: very good done stichure: are these two men in exactly the same social Circle soo_donewithu: no screenwriter911: yes. pandapal90: i would say yes stichure: find a passage that tells you that stichure: and what we're talking about here is a subtlety that is very important luvelyluxe: m also tells f " your health is precious , you are respected rich admired beloved, you are happy as i once was" he is jealous they were the same but now m. is lower than him stichure: very good lovely stichure: are they in the same exact social Circle stichure: rich respected admired beloved as I ONCE was luvelyluxe: not any more but they were stichure: exactly stichure: is Montresor absolutely poor? stichure: or is it a matter of scale soo_donewithu: no screenwriter911: he is not of the same reputation but they are both of the same social circle. stichure: after all... what do we know about Montresor's situation... screenwriter911: some are more equal than others. stichure: than they're not the same screenwriter luvelyluxe: maybe Fortunato put him in that spot stichure: what would tell you that lovely luvelyluxe: why would he want to kill him stichure: well again... what would tell YOU that screenwriter911: they are both wine tasters with a large house and servants. stichure: find something in the story that gives you some clue as to the notion that perhaps Fortunato put him in that spot are some reason that he would want to kill him for stichure: they're both wine connoisseurs stichure: it's slightly different... they don't taste wine for living soo_donewithu: "You are rich, respected, admired, beloved you are happy as once i was stichure: the taste wine because they can screenwriter911: i was trying to save time. soo_donewithu: you are a man to be missed. for me it is no matter" stichure: screenwriter, you are talking about here, as I mentioned, is a subtlety that's important stichure: are these men both upperclass stichure: generally soo_donewithu: yes screenwriter911: so they are of the same rank socially. stichure: the fact that they both have servants... they both have land... Palazzo's etc. stichure: not necessarily screenwriter stichure: as you mentioned, some are more equal than others... there is social hierarchy among the elite stichure: what does Montresor tell us about his status in society? screenwriter911: within the class, some are more important than others? stichure: especially in relation to Fortunato stichure: of course soo_donewithu: he used to be respected, admired, beloved and rich and happy stichure: apprentices look down on the Dukes who look down on the landownerswho look down on the free men who look down on the serfs stichure: the rich respected and admired is the most important aspect stichure: does he have the same social status as Fortunato stichure: because this gets back to a basic question pandapal90: "The Montresors were a great and numerous family" stichure: if Montresor would have asked Fortunato directly for a favor, would Fortunato necessarily be inclined to agree to it stichure: with the emphasis on WERE screenwriter911: pehaps this is not formalist analysis but, can we trust montresor's words? perhaps he is being merely self-deprecating. screenwriter911: part of the ruse. stichure: this is formalist end absolutely we cannot trust Montresor... or any first-person narrative completely stichure: but you'll notice that Fortunato does not disagree stichure: you'll also notice that there are certain clues that the Montresor family has fallen on hard times stichure: the House of Montresor as it were screenwriter911: fortunato even forgot montresor's arms. stichure: the fact that he still has servants and a large landholding is a reflection of something that we will see when we get to historical context screenwriter911: house of montresor has fallen in importance. stichure: what does that tell you about their social class stichure: exactly screenwriter911: this certainly galls montresor. stichure: if Montresor was the king, do you think Fortunato would have forgotten Montresor's arms luvelyluxe: "a huge human foot d'or, in a field azure; the foot crushes a serpent rampant whose fangs are imbeded in the heel" fortunato tried to crush montresor but revenge is the fangs in fortunatos heel screenwriter911: wonder if fortunato had something to do with it. stichure: screenwriter, that's what lovely said screenwriter911: could it be the insult? stichure: and the question is, what tells you that Fortunato is being blamed for Montresor's downfall by Montresor stichure: unlikely... it's probably the straw stichure: we want a knows what else is on the camel's back stichure: look at what goes before the insult stichure: what do these people do for a living stichure: the elite stichure: landowners stichure: here's where were going to step a little bit into historical criticism stichure: because we need to put this within historical context stichure: when and where is this taking place screenwriter911: italy? during carnival? stichure: and what is carnival screenwriter911: the time just before lent when the flesh is allowed to sate itself before fasting. luvelyluxe: a celebration stichure: specifically, screenwriter yes... what years this screenwriter911: 1840's? pandapal90: a festival before Lent? stichure: yes panda Yes screenwriter stichure: what is the social makeup of 1800 Europe stichure: how easy is it to pass from one social class to another? stichure: ... screenwriter911: very aristocratic. luvelyluxe: fairly easy stichure: try again lovely screenwriter911: hard to slide without a lot of money or connections. screenwriter911: and poor people didn't come by either. luvelyluxe: oh i thought you meant going down the social ladder stichure: folks, one of the reasons why the United States was such a magnet during the 1800s for Europeans mostly was that the old Europe was still in effect... if you are born poor, you are considered poor for the rest of your life and even if you made money, your family name was an indicator as to the social class to which he belonged soo_donewithu: there was higher class and lower class stichure: picnic well, lovely, actually it is actually difficult to go down as well. stichure: yes done... that is true stichure: there were essentially two classes screenwriter911: nouveau riche! stichure: the haves and the knots stichure: nouveau reach was looked down upon... only in the United States were those people allowed to actually ascend to become accepted among the aristocrats screenwriter911: not old money. stichure: and people who had old money were often so entrenched in the society that was actually difficult for them to slide down... they were the ones that owned the land that was being worked by what was becoming a middle-class but mostly was a group of renters whose parents had been renters and whose children would always be renters stichure: so somebody who had land not only owned their own largest state but they also owned the land that others worked and pay the rent on which basically gave them income even though they did not work for a living stichure: and of course this was the same crew that, because they did not have to earn a daily wage, were allowed to go to college and travel the world and to become aristocratic and well learned in school to which made them more effective not only in their business dealings but also gave them the leisure to do such extravagant things such as reading stichure: keep in mind that this story was written for a very small segment of the population that could actually read. People that would gauge this story as to its validity would be people like Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne screenwriter911: sounds like the arguments in favor of slavery in the U. S. stichure: that means the story would have to have density and depth stichure: that's interesting that you would see that, screenwriter screenwriter911: many of the fire eaters put forth this kind of argument for slavery. stichure: any case, even if Montresor had fallen on hard times, the idea that he would become poverty-stricken is unlikely simply because his family would have had enough land and other assets that he could either sell or work with in order to maintain a minimal status. However, with in the higher social order, his fall from prominence would be noted and therefore he would no longer be receiving the same invitations nor the same respect that others had stichure: interesting stichure: this gets us back to the character... he still has servants and a large house but it is also clear that he is not in the same social circle as Fortunato and therefore while they both seem like a rich guys... and they are in some way... Fortunato is going to be any different realm and that is what makes Montresor upset. The types of injuries that would occur at this level would be the same types of things that would lead to duels...besting your opponent in business, but also adding some kind of insult and if the Montresor family were to have slid and prominence, they would become the butt of jokes at the better parties stichure: and what would be the obligation for somebody in Montresor's position screenwriter911: redress the insult. stichure: because he wants to? pandapal90: get even stichure: again panda merely because he wants to? soo_donewithu: level the playing field stichure: when we are dealing with literature as when we are dealing with drama, the author sets up what is called a conceit soo_donewithu: he feels he has to stichure: the conceit is essentially the underlying rules for the story... in this particular case what we have is a set social order soo_donewithu: why stichure: good question done... why does he feel he has to stichure: and the author is taking for granted that his readership understands the rules of that social order and would then inherently understand what would seem to be reasonable motivation for the primary character and secondary character soo_donewithu: because he has to avenge his family name? stichure: yes done... what else does he have left soo_donewithu: nothing, only his name stichure: people make a big deal today about someone being shot because they flashed the wrong gain signer said something about somebody's mother and they decry the fall of Western civilization but the reality is that people have been killing each other over such insults for hundreds and hundreds and thousands of years stichure: wrong gang signal or said something screenwriter911: interesting. stichure: apparently, Fortunato's "yo Mama so fat" jokes didn't sit well with the Montresor clan screenwriter911: say what????? pandapal90: sorry, i need to go. must attend a meeting. i'll be back next week. good night ... stichure: as part of that, we also have to establish as part of the first- person narrative... who is Fortunato talking two soo_donewithu: bye panda pandapal90 has left the conference. stichure: take care panda stichure: soo_donewithu: the reader soo_donewithu: himself stichure: you who know my soul so well screenwriter911: the american reader. stichure: I'm paraphrasing stichure: how long as it been since the murder soo_donewithu: someone else stichure: that is correct done... you getting closer\ soo_donewithu: half a century stichure: another question that might help... stichure: what is the predominant social influence on Italy stichure: so how old is this guy by then, done soo_donewithu: old screenwriter911: catholic church soo_donewithu: haha stichure: considering that he had to be leased an adult stichure: yes very old soo_donewithu: grand pa ish stichure: considering that back at that time the average lifespan for a male was 48 years old stichure: very old stichure: Catholic stichure: talking to someone who knows his soul stichure: or lease the nature of it stichure: what is the nature of this discussion that Fortunato is having... this one-sided discussion soo_donewithu: someone with the same name and values he was raised on? with stichure: not name... but certainly values soo_donewithu: priest.... last rites stichure: exactly soo_donewithu: because he is that old, he is confessing stichure: and what kinds of things do you tell a priest during last rites stichure: very good... you beat me to it soo_donewithu: everything, so you can get into heaven stichure: which tells us what about his own feelings about what has transpired... good or bad... justified or not screenwriter911: kind of like the movie Amadeus in which the main character is giving confession to a priest about why he murdered mozart. soo_donewithu: he has to make it right soo_donewithu: justified. stichure: well, the Catholic Church has specific rules about sin... stichure: exactly screenwriter stichure: specific rules about sin soo_donewithu: he is not confessing because he is guilt ridden, because he wants past st. peter stichure: you're correct done... stichure: that's interesting observation screenwriter911: it is mortal but it can be forgiven. stichure: yes screenwriter stichure: mortal sins are done deals unless forgien by a preist who believes the penitent is truly sorry soo_donewithu: it breaks the commandments stichure: well, so does lying stichure: but mortal sins are not the same as venial sins stichure: venial do not keep you out of heaven... stichure: that's why suicides cannot be buried in a Catholic cemetery stichure: and remember... this is 1850... way before Vatican II stichure: well the basic message is that they are not forgiven easily screenwriter911: i thought mortal sins had to be atoned for in purgatory? soo_donewithu: so why would he confess in his last rites? stichure: those are venil that were not forgiven by a priest.... mortal's not forgiven by a priest but you in hell stichure: that's a good question done soo_donewithu: if st. peter won't let him in anyway, then why is he telling stichure: look at at something that screenwriter was talking about earlier... the first-person narrative allows us to see the perpetrators thought process screenwriter911: suicide is unforgiveable because there is no chance to get forgiveness from the priest. stichure: that's true screenwriter screenwriter911: murder is forgiveabel then? stichure: generally not... unless of course you can put different label on it soo_donewithu: if he was guilty and not justified in his own mind he would have confessed a long time ago. soo_donewithu: UNLESS? stichure: when is a killing not murder screenwriter911: when it is justified? stichure: very good soo_donewithu: and a matter of family pride stichure: what is Montresor trying to get his listener to do stichure: yes done screenwriter911: agree with him soo_donewithu: understand why he HAD to do it stichure: yes stichure: the priest speaks for God between man and heaven stichure: the priest can intercede on the side of the penitent and make the case that what was Done had either justifiable or mitigating circumstances soo_donewithu: i see. stichure: screenwriter, you noted that it seems that the first-person narrative makes what he murderer did seem logical and reasonable and in fact that is what the author is doing... he's trying to point out that this speaker is trying to make his listener agree that what he did was both justifiable and somehow honorable screenwriter911: all action must seem reasonable even if we don't agree with it. screenwriter911: that is how the writer gives his antagonist depth. stichure: historical context is important here because it is the rules of the Catholic Church of the 1850sthat the writer is referring to... this is an American writer writing about what would be considered foreign land and at that time the Catholic Church would've been shrouded in a great deal of mystery....most Americans would be Protestant stichure: absolutely and in fact the author goes to great lengths to make sure that this speaker sounds as reasonable and as sane as possible stichure: on the surface of it, he is the revenge successful screenwriter911: like in telltale heart. stichure: like I said, this author used this approach several ways in many different works all to the same effect... to examine a new science that came about at that time called psychoanalysis upsrose has joined the conference. upsrose: hi everyone soo_donewithu: hi screenwriter911: hello stichure: rose... Poe.... stichure: let's start with psychoanalytical criticism on the character stichure: according to psychoanalytical criticism on the character, the author will on the surface have the character claim something to be the case and will reveal the true nature of that character's feelings later stichure: on the surface, you what does this character seemed to be saying about the success of his revenge stichure: successful or not stichure: justified or not\ screenwriter911: successful. screenwriter911: justified stichure: show me screenwriter911: "In pace requiescat! screenwriter911: he declares that fortunato is in a sealed sepulchre. screenwriter911: so the revenge is ostensibly successful. stichure: how does that relate to either being justified or successful stichure: well, you mean successful in the sense that he killed Fortunato screenwriter911: yes. stichure: what his revenge supposed to do for the avenger luvelyluxe: " i placed my hand upon the solid fabric of the catacombs and felt satisfied" upsrose: "It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong." stichure: good job lovely screenwriter911: but since he never really expresses any remorse or even admits that he could be wrong shows that he really doesn't consider it a sin to be forgiven? stichure: rose,hold onto that stichure: screenwriter... that is certainly in his favor... a sin has three elements stichure: the action is wrong stichure: you KNOW it's wrong stichure: and you do it anyway stichure: these are important... in other words, if you think something is wrong and you do it anyway but it's not a sin in actuality, than it is not sin stichure: if you do something wrong that is wrong but you don't know what's wrong, then that is not sin either stichure: if you know something's wrong and the thingies actually wrong but you do not follow through, that is not sin stichure: these are all actually important elements....but I digress screenwriter911: i read that some people think poe was making comment on the corrupt aristocracy of europe for american reader consumption. stichure: again,look at lovelies quotation... what is revenge supposed to do for the avenger screenwriter911: rather than attacking the Catholic church. soo_donewithu: supposed to feel sastified luvelyluxe: self gratification stichure: but that would be Marxist screenwriter and were not there yet screenwriter911: sorry. stichure: and I didn't realize anybody thought he was attacking the Catholic Church either stichure: done, lovely that is correct stichure: show me where he indicates that he is feeling satisfied upsrose: revenge feels good stichure: again, show me where he mentions something like that in story upsrose: i would be avenged stichure: that's one... but that shows intention, not completion stichure: but importantly, it shows that that's what he wanted stichure: as well as the first line stichure: I vowed revenge stichure: does the character make it clear that he intends to get revenge on Fortunato screenwriter911: yes upsrose: i continued to .. smile in his face soo_donewithu: yes upsrose: and he did not perceive that my smile now was at the thought of his immolation stichure: good rose... screenwriter911: my smile now was at the thought of his immolation. stichure: you I guess I would have you looked toward the end and see if there's an indication that the completion of his task has been satisfactory screenwriter911: so you mean when he declares "in pace requiescat?" screenwriter911: this is a declaration of victory? upsrose: that and the satisfaction of his revenge being complete stichure: it might screenwriter luvelyluxe: he sats his heart grew sick is he really satisfied in the end? luvelyluxe: says stichure: well that's where we get too psychoanalytical... find elements that tell us he was NOT successful in his revenge screenwriter911: sick due to the dampness of the cellar. stichure: first of all, look back at the list of requirements for a successful revenge upsrose: planning stichure: be specific rose... use his language stichure: and then tell me whether or not he was successful soo_donewithu: "the noise lasted for several minutes, during which, that i might hearken to it with the more satisfaction, i ceased my labors and sat down upon the bones" screenwriter911: perhaps the victory was not as cathartic as he had hoped. screenwriter911: he didn't feel the rush he had been hoping for. stichure: done... excellent screenwriter911: he was cheated from fortunato's cries for mercy. luvelyluxe: "I hastened to make an end to my labor" he wanted to get it over with. If he was satisfied wouldn't he of enjoyed every minute of it. he also calls it labor like it is a chore stichure: where did that happen, screenwriter stichure: very good lovely screenwriter911: in the catacombs stichure: screenwriter... I'm talking about where in the story... use the text because it makes it clear as to which it to get a passage you are referring screenwriter911: "But to these words i hearkened in vain for a reply. I grew impatient." stichure: much better screenwriter screenwriter911: thank you. stichure: find the list that he gives us at the beginning of this story screenwriter911: it must preclude the idea of risk. screenwriter911: punish with impunity. stichure: and tell me what criteria are for successful revenge worship upsrose: the person should remain clueless of the coming revenge stichure: up... try again stichure: use the exact words the author uses screenwriter911: redresser cannot be overtaken in the retribution. upsrose: neither by wod nor deed had i given fortunato cause to doubt my good will stichure: which means what stichure: screenwriter screenwriter911: the redresser cannot risk anything. stichure: rose, there is a different passage in which the narrator makes clear what must happen by the end of the revenge in order for to be successful stichure: screenwriter not exactly screenwriter911: true. stichure: it's not that they cannot risk...\ screenwriter911: but he said the idea of revenge must preclude the idea of risk. upsrose: it is eually unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong stichure: what it says retribution cannot overtake the redressor.... screenwriter911: so the redresser must not be in a position to lose anything. stichure: actually screenwriter, what he said is that he must get away with it... impunity merely means to not be punished... not to avoid risk stichure: use punished with impunity... he must punished and not be punished for it upsrose: meaning that the person you are seeking revenge on should know why what has happened to him has happened screenwriter911: but he says that in the line just above it. stichure: it doesn't say anything about not risking... murder is risky stichure: he has to rose... exactly stichure: did he ever tell Fortunato why he's ki\lling them stichure: screenwriter911: "but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved precluded the idea of risk. screenwriter911: " stichure: screenwriter all he sayingis that he is plan so well that there is no risk to him screenwriter911: or is he merely saying that his plan was foolproof. soo_donewithu: no stichure: exactly screenwriter911: i see. stichure: that's where we see roses earlier phrase where he says essentially that Fortunato has no idea what is going to happen stichure: but at some point, Fortunato must be told stichure: and is he ever told screenwriter911: not with words. soo_donewithu: no stichure: back to another point... retribution must not overtake the redress or means that the person who is committing the revenge must not lose control the situation stichure: does Montresor ever lose control during the revenge screenwriter911: yes. soo_donewithu: almost stichure: example place stichure: example please screenwriter911: "But to these words I hearkened in vain for a reply." screenwriter911: I grew impatient. stichure: keep going stichure: go back to the heart reference soo_donewithu: "I surpassed them (his screams) in volume and in strength" stichure: screenwriter do you actually feel that his heart is sick because of the catacombs... or that merely an excuse and how to we know either way screenwriter911: I thrust a torch through the remaining apeture and let it fall within. stichure: done... what is going on in that passage stichure: what does that mean screenwriter... make the point clear luvelyluxe: " the intoxication of fortunato had in a great measure worn off" he was becoming more aware of his surroundings stichure: yes lovely... and relevance of that point? upsrose: he says "a succession of loud and shrill screams bursting suddenly form the throat of the chained form seemed to thrust me violently back." upsrose: For a brief momemt i hesitated i trembeled. luvelyluxe: he was sort of losing control fortunato was becomming more aware and less defenseless stichure: very good rose stichure: interesting lovely... so you see the lack of intoxication as a threat to Montresor from Fortunato soo_donewithu: he doesn't ever actually loose control in that passage but he almost does stichure: pretty close, done stichure: how does that last brick feel to the narrator stichure: good or bad upsrose: good because his task is over stichure: show me that in the story rose upsrose: he doesnt have to hear the sounds anymore stichure: you have to be able to show me that in the story soo_donewithu: "my heart grew sick" upsrose: i hastened to make an end of my labor stichure: doesn't he given excuse, done stichure: rose... is that good or bad soo_donewithu: I forced the last stone into its position upsrose: i forced the last stone into its position luvelyluxe: " i forced the last stone into position" was it forced because it was physically difficult or mentally? stichure: done ... good or bad stichure: lovely... psychoanalytical criticism... you make the decision luvelyluxe: mentally stichure: overall, how does this person feel about this action... doesn't sit well with him and how do you know upsrose: he is hurrying to finish and feels good that he is done and cant change his mind stichure: \do as it sit well with him soo_donewithu: i think he feels he had to do it, yet he feels sad about it at the same time stichure: Rose, done, the support for both of your answers would be found in the story and the best answer would be the one that has the most support upsrose: i dont think he is happy as he believed he would be which is why it is good that the last stone is in place stichure: the first question one would ask is... if this were completely justifiable in the characters mind, why would he be discussing it at this point in his life stichure: rose, then let's rephrase your stance luvelyluxe: he started it so he had to finish it but at first he wanted to and at the end he felt he had gone to far to stop stichure: what you're saying is that this has not been a good experience and so he's happy it over with upsrose: yes soo_donewithu: for forgivness stichure: overall lovely a good experience or a bad ones\ stichure: rose a good experience or a bad ones stichure: done a good experience or a bad ones\ soo_donewithu: neither stichure: if he's asking for forgiveness, how can it be a good experience... a justifiable experience upsrose: good that it is over but overall bad revenge wise stichure: very clear rose luvelyluxe: bad stichure: screenwriter... Marxist soo_donewithu: He had to bring honor to his family, therefore he had to kill him upsrose: amontillado is mixed stichure: in the meantime folks, we really didn't discuss the formalist aspects... the obvious symbols but some of these would be related to cultural criticism as well soo_donewithu: however, he knows to get into heaven, he must ask for forgivness stichure: so it was more obligation... an unpleasant one done stichure: interesting soo_donewithu: yes stichure: explain your answer rose... mixed? stichure: from a cultural criticism perspective, what religious icons are referred to here... what religious imagery is the author use upsrose: he wanted revenge but felt that it would make him feel good stichure: does the author use stichure: and situational irony, Rose?\ upsrose: Yes i said for the love of god.. but to these words i hearkened in vain for a reply stichure: so therefore stichure: good or not good soo_donewithu: yes sit. irony. stichure: very good done stichure: what does the torch symbolize stichure: and there are a couple things that are valid upsrose: amontillado may not have the love of god soo_donewithu: the light at the end of the tunnel, stichure: amontillado is the wine rose... I believe you're talking about Montresor... the narrator upsrose: sorry soo_donewithu: for Montresor stichure: and in what condition is the light at the beginning of the story that... in what condition is the torch in terms of its flame upsrose: i read this in 101 the names always confused me stichure: I understand, rose soo_donewithu: the flame is dim stichure: at the beginning? soo_donewithu: "dull" at the end upsrose: the torch thrown in the tomb was to get a reaction from fortunato stichure: just like what soo_donewithu: his life stichure: but he still alive... which life soo_donewithu: his life was almost over, like the flame was almost out stichure: Montresor or Fortunato soo_donewithu: both stichure: Montresor lives for another 50 years stichure: remember this is a Catholic country upsrose: fortunato's life was over and montresor's life was over as he knew it stichure: what could the flame are present in the context of Montresor stichure: in what context rose stichure: what could the flame represent upsrose: he has to live with his revenge stichure: so did he get away with it... did he live without punishment stichure: or is living with punishment soo_donewithu: at the end of the story when he is having his last rites with the priest, that only happens when your flame is about to go out! soo_donewithu: right? stichure: from a religious perspective, what could the flame than represent if indeed this is cold-blooded murder soo_donewithu: hell stichure: yes, done, but at the time that the flame is lit its 50 years previous to the confession upsrose: hell stichure: apply to person... you're now in the right mind set however stichure: what part of the person will live in hell or heaven soo_donewithu: "dull" torch, endeavored to pry into the depths of the recess. its termination the feeble light did not enable us to see stichure: did not enable Montresor to see what stichure: according to most religions, what aspect of the human lives in the afterlife upsrose: your soul stichure: apply that to the torch stichure: at what point is the torch at its brightest... at what point is it at its lowest and at what point does it go out and what is that symbolize upsrose: it is brightest at the beginning and presumably goes out at the end upsrose: perhaps it symbolizes that revenge feels best and is brightest when it is being planned but the conclusion of your revenge leaves you empty soo_donewithu: the torch is the brightest at the beginning and gets dull when they are walking into the deep crypt, and goes out in the end, as did his life stichure: very good rose therefore the torch symbolizes what stichure: whose life done stichure: apply to one character upsrose: montresor's revenge stichure: whose life goes out at the end of the journey...not at the end of the story stichure: very good rose soo_donewithu: Fortunato upsrose: montresor's life is lost do to the loss of his soul upsrose: dead is dead the living have to live on with their choices stichure: exactly done stichure: rose... very good upsrose: thank you stichure: it is either Montresor soul, since he has an opportunity to turn back but the likelihood dims as they get closer and closer to the end of the trail upsrose: it is montresor's soul because he chooses to follow through with his revenge instead of turning around upsrose: no one would have known what montresor had planned or thought since he kept his plans of revenge secret he always had a chance to change his mind luvelyluxe: he ended up living a life of guilt which is not actually living stichure: one were talking about the lightas a symbol, it gets extinguished during the course of the journey down in the catacombs. stichure: as is pointed out, Montresor's soul dies during the course of the act because he kill somebody upsrose: the future of montresor's soul dies because he has lost God's love stichure: and therefore the light is either Montresor's soul or Fortunato's life stichure: because both are extinguished in the course of the story in both start out very brightly but as they get closer to the end of the journey, are less and less likely to survive stichure: we barely scratched the surface on this particular story stichure: I'm going to offer a make up test next week stichure: it will be on the 1 of three literature pieces from the book that you propose on a message board stichure: make sure it's something to you actually want to write about upsrose: we dont have to take the make up test do we stichure: we will talk more about this particular story and you are final paper next week stichure: no stichure: it is designed to help raise your great if you are unhappy with your first to test grades stichure: is designed to help you raise your grade if you're unhappy with your first two test grades stichure: sigh upsrose: when is the rewrite of paper two due stichure: now stichure: a week from last Monday when I put them in... which would've been 2 days ago upsrose: can i turn it in tomorrow afternoon stichure: yes stichure: but I won't accept anything after the week is over upsrose: thank you upsrose: you will have it by tomorrow afternoon stichure: great stichure: we will covered this story with other critical perspectives next week stichure: start on your final paper people stichure: now upsrose: i think i want to do shakespeare stichure: we will also begin discussing fallacies and argument stichure: pick something rose and make sure I've read it upsrose: i will by tomorrow stichure: and by the way... to clarify something... I have done a little research....mortal sin is forgivable if the priest agrees that the person is truly sorry for it and that there may have been mitigating circumstances... stichure: that means that the person speaking must convince the other person that they are truly sorry and one thing that we would look at in this particular case is whether or not the Speaker truly seems sorry for what he's done or if he is merely trying to get out of the likely consequences for his actions stichure: and whether or not that changes the story stichure: ultimately, does Montresor seem very sorry for what he's done stichure: or does he merely seem disappointed that things didn't work out the way he wanted them to stichure: think about that and will discuss it more next week upsrose: he seems disappointed that the revenge didnt feel as good as he thought it would feel stichure: but no remorse for killing Fortunato? upsrose: no just that it didnt feel great like he thought it would stichure: forgiven or not forgiven? upsrose: not forgiven stichure: bummer stichure: will talk more next week... gender criticism, as well as some specific religious and contextual criticisms and other contexts... stichure: have a good week folks luvelyluxe: goodnight luvelyluxe has left the conference. stichure: by lovely, by screenwriter, by done, by rose stichure: poof