Blog 6

Question #1
There were many parts in “The Tell-Tale Heart” that lends itself well to the concept of repression. In the opening lines, the narrator is talking about how he is not crazy, when clearly he is. He believes that whatever is going on with him is making him better, more aware, and that this is a good thing.
In the lecture on psychoanalytic criticism, it talks about “the ego being split between urges and repression so that one part of the mind indulges while the other retains a strict sense of rectitude.” This is where I see the clearest signs of repression in the story. First when the narrator is talking about the week before the attack, and his being really nice to the old man while he is at the same time planning his attack. I also saw repression in the way he drew things out, every night exhibiting control with his entering of the room at night, inch by inch, in total darkness, spending hours in this process. He could have just gone in and killed the man at any other time; it was clearly just the two of them in the house. He was repressing that urge to kill him every night, while at the same time cultivating it.
He also used rationalization in his reason for wanting the man dead, granted they were the rationalizations of a mad man, because no reasonable person could convince themselves that a hawk eye warrants murder.

Question #4
In Richard Benton’s critique on “The Cask of Amontillado” he uses historical research and analysis to help give more meaning to the story. He pinpoints when in history this story would have likely taken place, based on the bones in the catacombs, the sword that Montresor carried, and his style of dress. Benton explains that this murder may have taken place the way it did because Montresor had no other way to respond against whatever insult he believed Fortunato committed against him. “The honor of an aristocrat could not be satisfied in the performance of a duel, however, unless the impugner was a social equal.” Fortunato was a man of power, “since Fortunato has power, Montresor resorts to murder.”
Benton then goes on to talk about the method of the murder, the word play used between the two men as duel in itself. Then he offers a variety of explanations of who Montresor might be recounting the story to, believing “the listener seems to be a woman, for clever women are good listeners to men’s words.”
The information in this critique definitely follows with my opinion of what was happening in the story, and the historical context helped with putting things in perspective. When I read the story, I kept thinking that Fortunato had to know something was coming, but his pride would not have let him back down. When Benton talks about the “duel of words”, that sat very well with my interpretation. It was as if the same pride that was driving Montresor to commit the murder, also kept Fortunato from fleeing it.
I don’t know if I agree with Benton that the story was being told to a woman, I can see the possibility. I always (having read this years ago, as well) saw the listener as a being a son or grandson. He told the story with pride, as though he was passing down a piece of family history, as his contribution in upholding the family name.