The Cask of Amontillado is a short story by Edgar Allan Poe in which the story of a premeditated murder is told by the narrator and main character, Montresor.  In this short story, there are many different concepts that have an influence on the story and the reader.  For example, irony, horror and ignorance are all concepts that have a large effect on the story.  However, the two that have the greatest repercussions overall on the story are the concepts of revenge and deception.  These things have an impact on today’s society as well as in the story, and in this paper, I will show how research on these concepts makes The Cask of Amontillado seen in a different way.  For example, when researching about revenge it has to do a lot with whether the harshness of revenge lines up with the harshness of the crime, which can make Montresor be shown in a very different light.  

The way Poe implements the concept of revenge is essential to the makeup of the theme and story as a whole.  The whole story is a tale of revenge really, as the narrator, Montresor, tells us of his revenge on Fortunado.  In the beginning of the story, Montresor tells us that Fortunado has made a fool of him when he says, “then I learned that he had laughed at my proud name, Montresor, the name of an old and honored family. I promised myself that I would make him pay for this — that I would have revenge”, but the extent of the insulting and revenge is unclear (Poe 68).  The rest of the story goes on with Montresor carrying out his plan for revenge on Fortunado, which eventually ends in a gruesome death as Montresor buries Fortunado alive.  If this shows anything besides the insanity of Montresor, it shows the power of revenge.  Fortunado probably did something small and unintentional to embarrass Montresor, and he was killed because of it.  These kinds of things happen in real life as well as short stories; people think about revenge so much they literally become obsessed with it until they enact their revenge on someone, whether they deserve it or not.  In this paper, the concept of revenge will be discussed further through studies and analysis on why people seek revenge.

In the article “The Bittersweet Taste of Revenge,” by Fade R. Eadeh the question is asked whether revenge makes people feel good or bad.  Revenge is often described as sweet, but in this article, the argument is made that revenge also makes people feel more bitter than before (Eadeh, et al).  The authors say that “any act of revenge is seen as reflecting justifiable ‘payback’ for a previous transgression” (Eadeh et al).  Basically, this is saying that most acts of revenge are justifiable and should warrant some type of satisfaction.  This would correspond to The Cask of Amontillado because it seemed as if Montresor was initially satisfied with his murder of Fortunado because he says “I would make him pay, yes; but I would act with only the greatest care.  I must not suffer as a result of taking my revenge” (Poe 68).  He executed his plan for revenge exactly the way he wanted to, so he got his wish that Fortunado would die for insulting him. However, they also say that revenge should only be pleasing if the extent of the revenge lines up with the extent of the crime (Eadeh et al).  This might not be the case in the sense of this short story, because all Fortunado did was embarrass Montresor, and he was killed for it.  This definitely does not line up with the crime, and one would most likely view Montresor as completely insane for taking such a small matter so seriously and ending Fortunado’s life over it.  In regards to whether revenge makes people feel bad or not, the article takes a very interesting stance.  It states that “even though participants expected revenge to make them feel better, it made them feel worse” (Eadeh, et al).  This could possibly make people feel worse because getting revenge on someone can make one think about the people who they have hurt. This is a little different than the case in The Cask of Amontillado, but the concept still applies.  Montresor was not family per say with Fortunado, but it was clear that they were friends through the dialogue exchanged between them throughout the story, particularly when Montresor says “I gave Fortunado no cause to doubt me.  I continued to smile in his face” (Poe 68). In the end of The Cask of Amontillado Montresor says that “For half a century now has no human hand touched them” (Poe 72).  Before, one might think he was proud and satisfied that no one had found the body of Fortunado buried in his wine cellar, but after reading this, there could be a hint of regret in his tone as he says “My heart grew sick” and “May he rest in Peace!” (Poe 72). This could show that Montresor could regret the killing of his friend over a trivial issue.

In the next article, “Revenge is Seductive, If Not Sweet”, the topic of whether retaliation is viewed as morally acceptable in society is discussed (Frey, et al).  They say that “retaliation appears to be a ubiquitous feature of human society and may be used to justify bullying” (Frey, et al).  So, retaliation is part of human nature and most of the time is it very difficult to resist it.  This article also goes into the discussion of bullying and whether retaliation is acceptable when it comes to bullying.  According to the article, retaliation is expected even if it is or is not morally acceptable (Frey et al).  Also, a study showed that when people had friends around them when the bullying occurred, the chance of retaliation was much lower.  In the case of Montresor, I definitely do not think his form of revenge on Fortunado was either expected or morally acceptable.  However, one could make the case that Montresor was indeed bullied by Fortunado.  We don’t know the extend or the context of the situation, but it is clear Montresor was humiliated by Fortunado when Montresor says “But then I learned that he had laughed at my proud name, Montresor, the name of an old and proud family” and Montresor wanted his revenge (Poe 68).  Even if this was the case and you can say revenge would be acceptable, it is not morally acceptable for Fortunado to have been killed over this, but you can make the case revenge would be acceptable if it had been carried out in a less severe way based on this article. If Montresor had friends around, his retaliation on Fortunado could have been much less significant than it ended up being.  At this time and the way society is, I feel like revenge is really part of human nature.  You see people constantly trying to get revenge on their friends, family, and enemies, usually over small things and occasionally over larger things. Although this connects to The Cask of Amontillado, society was much different then.  Montresor does get revenge on his friends, but it is because of an insult over his family name, which is much more of an old-fashioned thing than something to get offended over today. It is clear that revenge is a concept that comes into play often in society.  Whether revenge or retaliation makes you feel good or bad, or whether it is morally acceptable or not depends on the situation.  If it is a common case of retaliation in a small instance, I feel it would be morally acceptable as opposed to murder like in The Cask of Amontillado.  This really shows us the inhumanity of Montresor and the lengths he was going to in order to get revenge on one of his friends.  As one can see, revenge is very important to the story, but other concepts like deception have a large impact in The Cask of Amontillado that shed a new light on the story.

Deception is defined as a deliberate act intended to mislead others while targets are not aware or do not expect such acts might be taking place, which is exactly what Montresor does to Fortunado (Merriam-Webster).  The deception used by Montresor against Fortunado in carrying out his revenge is critical to the story and helps us to understand both the characters of Montresor and Fortunado.  Montresor knows that Fortunado is a well-known wine connoisseur and that he has a very proud character, so he tells Fortunado that he has come across a barrel of Amontillado, a very fine sherry.  He lets Fortunado know about this at the carnival when everyone is partying and having a good time, so people will not notice straight away that Montresor and Fortunado are gone.  When Montresor first informs Fortunado about the wine saying, “I have been tasting my new wine.  I have bought a full cask of…Amontillado”, Fortunado is hesitant because he does not want to leave the carnival (Poe 69).  However, Montresor shows his cunningness again and uses Fortunado’s pride against him.  He nonchalantly tells Fortunado he will get another one of their friends to go with him when he says “I was just going to talk to Luchresi.  If anyone understands wine its Luchresi”, knowing Fortunado will not stand for this and demand to go with him (Poe 69).  By doing this, Montresor’s plan to deceive Fortunado by using his pride and ignorance against him has succeeded.  In short stories as well as real-life deception is so common.  Whether we use it on a small scale to deceive our siblings or friends into doing something for us, or whether it is used on a larger scale in public or government relations, deceiving and keeping secrets is a very popular concept.  Also, people are becoming more introverted because of society.  Whether it is because of social media or because it is easier for people to find out information about you, people are becoming more private in a setting in which you are interacting with other people.  People feel as if they have to protect themselves and deceive others so that they can maintain their privacy.  People are defensive and unwilling to share about themselves (including myself) and feel as if they need to deceive people and not let them know their real personality until they trust another person.  This is a product of our society and the deception shown by people that others view as role models.  In The Cask of Amontillado, Montresor has to keep his privacy toward Fortunado on what is about to happen so that Fortunado does not catch on.  Montresor executes his plan very well and no one finds out about his secret.  Another aspect of the deception Montresor is capable of showing is what happened in between Montresor’s killing of Fortunado and Montresor telling us this story, which he says is fifty years later.  Surely he was questioned by his friends and probably the law enforcement, as Montresor and Fortunado were friends and Montresor was likely the last person Fortunado was seen with.  This also reestablishes Montresor’s capability of deception and his mental strength, that he went so long without telling anyone he murdered Fortunado and also that he was never caught doing it.  If this story was set in modern times, there is no doubt that it would have been much harder for Fortunado to pull off his grand plan of revenge.

Today, one of the main places deception is used in is social media.  In the article “Online Deception in Social Media” authors Michail Tsikerdekis and Sherali Zeadally discuss how deception is used in social media, techniques, and how it affects those who are being deceived. They state that social media makes deception tactics much easier for those who want to deceive others, and this can result in life threatening or personal life destroying consequences for those who are deceived (Tsikerdekis 72).  People can hide behind their computer screens to deceive others without them knowing who they are communicating with, using their ignorance against them.  Cyberbullying and lying online has become a real problem in the world currently that people must recognize and come up with some way to fix it.  Peoples’ lives can be ruined because of an online cyberbully, or they can be led into very dangerous situations by people lying online saying they are someone that they aren’t.  This relates to The Cask of Amontillado in the sense that Montresor used Fortunado’s ignorance against him, and Fortunado did not know he was speaking with the very person who would soon murder him.  In this article, they also discuss many different types of deception, but content deception is the most relevant to the story.  The authors describe content deception as “Manipulating content, as in falsifying information, is presumably the most common way to deceive others” (Tsikerdekis).  This is precisely what Montresor did to Fortunado, and it brings out the ignorance of Fortunado more.  The fact that Fortunado didn’t even question the fact that Montresor had come across a fine, Spanish wine shows Fortunado’s stupidity and how easy it was for Montresor to deceive him.  After reading this article, you really get a better understanding for how easy it is to deceive people over social media.  Obviously, there was no social media during the time of the short story, but the techniques discussed for deception were the same and it sheds light on how easy it was for Montresor to deceive Fortunado to enact his plan for revenge.  This article helped me understand the story in a new way just because of how it addressed the different techniques in deceiving people over social media, and even though this story does not involve social media obviously, you can still connect it and use it in a different context.  Another aspect of The Cask of Amontillado is the irony used in Montresor’s deception.

In the next article, “Comparing and Combining Covert and Overt Untruthfulness”, the difference between irony and deception is discussed.  While irony is usually indirect and subtly added by authors, the irony in The Cask of Amontillado is thrown at us in many different instances.  The difference between irony and deception is usually that deception is the grander scheme of things where irony is present. This is very relevant to The Cask of Amontillado because a lot of irony is present as well as deception.  For example, the costumes of Montresor and Fortunado are very ironic, as Montresor as dressed up as Death and Fortunado is dressed as a jester.  This article states that “deception may be based on irony or metaphor, which either promote deceptive implicatures or are deployed covertly” (Dynel).  Basically, the relationship between irony and deception in literature is very close knit.  This is very interesting because this applies directly to the short story.  An example of irony is Montresor’s family coat of arms, a snake is biting the heel of a human foot that is crushing the snake, which is what Montresor is doing.  Fortunado (the human) crushed Montresor by making a fool of him, but Montresor bit him in the heel to get his revenge and kill him.  Another example is Fortunado dressed as a jester or fool (He had on a tight fitting party dress, and his head was surmounted by the conical cap and bells (Poe 69), and the deception used by Montresor makes him appear foolish and ignorant. These examples are almost perfect evidence for the claim made by the article that relationship between irony and deception in literature is closely knit. This is a very interesting concept that never really crossed my mind, but is present in much of this story.

The concept of deception in present-day real life as well as literature has a correlation to Poe’s concept of deception in The Cask of Amontillado.  It is shown that Montresor used the common form of deception and irony to trick Fortunado into his own death. Overall, these two concepts affect the story greatly through its plot as well as the symbolism.  By connecting outside research on these concepts or topics, it helps you get a whole new view on the story, and definitely see things that you didn’t see before and even things maybe the author didn’t intend for the reader to see.  When doing things like this, the reader really does have the power to interpret stories in their own way.
