"The Cask of Amontillado" is by far one of my most favorite short stories — ever. In college we spent an entire forty minutes talking about the last few lines of the shorty story and several other class periods analyzing the story in general. When I discovered that I'd be teaching it this year I was so excited and basically counting down the days until our Short Story Unit.
Well, the time came and went and basically this is how it went.
Set during the Carnival before Lent (think Mardi Gras), "Cask" centers around two different characters: Montressor and Fortunato. Montressor, our narrator, has been wronged or insulted by Fortunato for many reasons that readers never find out. Montressor baits a drunken Fortunato, dressed in a jester's motley, by asking for his opinion on a particular sherry, or amontillado. Fortunato follows Montressor through the wine cellars of the palazzo where they wander in the catacombs (burial vaults underground).
When Montressor and Fortunato reach the end of the catacombs, Montressor tells Fortunato that the Amontillado is within the narrow space (think fire place). Fortunato enters the space and due to his intoxication does not resist as Monstressor chains him to the wall. Montressor, brick by brick, closes the niche with Fortunato inside — basically burrying him alive. With just a brick or two left to put in place, Fortunato laughs and tries to pretend that this is all a joke and that his wife will be missing him. Montressor mocks him by replying "Yes, for the love of God." Montressor listens for a reply and throws his burning torch through the gap in the niche but only hears the jester's bells ringing.
We spent most of the first day of class talking about Poe and the setting of "Cask." I described the catacombs, burial vaults, and the palazzo. We discussed what happens to decomposing bodies and all the "muck" that these two men would have had to walk through in order to get to the amontillado at the end. We discussed why they would keep their wine underground with their dead. We spent much of our time looking at pictures and discussing the setting in order for the students to realize that it's not just the theme and plot of this story that is dark — but the story in its entirety.
After reading the novel we discussed whether Fortunato deserved the punishment but we agreed that, because we don't know what he did exactly, that Montressor was probably crazy and over-reacted. This part of the class discussion was pretty generic — it wasn't until we discussed the ending that my students really started to get interested.
As I told my students:
The jingling of the bells. According to scholars, one of two things could have happened here.
Option A: Fortunato suffered a heart attack, stroke, or some other deadly reaction to being buried alive and died as Montressor placed the last brick. Thus when Montressor dropped the burning torch in the niche he may have hit the jester's hat causing the jingling of the bells. Fortunato's death made it impossible for him to beg for his life, attempt to bribe or (subsequently) threaten Montressor, or even cry out or scream. If one was being buried alive, wouldn't they have tried all of these things? Would they have given up so quickly after only one attempt?
Option B (my favorite): Fortunato was very much alive when Montressor threw the burning torch in the niche — the jingle of the bells was simply him moving out of the way of the fire, squeezing against the wall perhaps. His lack of effort (bribing, threatening, screaming, crying, etc) was due to the realization that if he were to do that he'd be giving Montressor exactly what he wanted. By refusing to react or acknowledge Monstressor, Fortunato was fundamentally robbing Montressor of his satisfaction of revenge. Fortunato simply decided to withhold from Montressor what Montressor really wanted — to hear Fortunato beg for his life, to hear Fortunato cry out.
Are you thinking yet? My students sure were.
What kind of will power would you have to succumb to the realization that you were going to probably starve to death or suffocate alone in the depths of your enemies catacombs and to die quietly? Wouldn't anyone cry, beg, threaten for their lives? Did he simply pass out (he was intoxicated after all)? What was the jingling of the bells!?!?! I could see my students' thinking the possibilities through until finally, in one class, a student raised their hand and said "Miss Remmers, so what happened? What's the right answer?"
"Well that's the point isn't it. I don't know," I said. "The only person who does know is Edgar Allan Poe."
"So there's no right answer?" The student asked.
"No! That's the great thing about literature folks. As long as you can back your answer up, you can't really be wrong (again, as long as you can back it up)."
"The Cask of Amontillado" was really my students' first experience with ambiguity. There isn't always an answer to literature. Somethings are left for the reader to decipher and analyze. Some of my more "type A" students were extremely perturbed by this and "needed" an answer. But for my more creative thinkers and, dare I say, rebellious students, this ambiguity gave them the freedom they were seeking in English class. The freedom to have an opinion, back it up, and not be counted "wrong."
Yes, I had fun teaching this short story but more importantly, as a result of "Cask," my student's realized that not everything is black and white and sometimes there just isn't going to be a "right answer."
Read "The Cask of Amontillado" online.
To the FTC, with love: Class Read
