A Textbook of Irony in Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” (LIT 2100 Response Paper)

            Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” is a tale of revenge, yet portrayed in the midst of irony.  This is evident right from the beginning of the story as Montressor, the main character and narrator, states his intentions towards his acquaintance, Fortunado, to the reader.  The reader does not know what Fortunado’s crime is against Montressor, yet Montressor deems it necessary to kill Fortunado for the insult against him, whatever it may be.  Despite the fact that the reader knows little about Montressor at the beginning of the story, the reader is forced to listen to the story from his point of view (Moore).  The story reeks with the feeling of entrapment in a dark setting, but I will show how both men have become victim to the entrapment that was meant for one man through the use of dramatic, verbal, and situational irony.

            Aside from the carnival, the setting is predominantly taking place in the catacombs.  These very catacombs were used as a storage area for the Amontillado, the renowned wine for which Fortunado could not turn down a chance to taste.  Montressor uses this Amontillado to lure Fortunado away from the company of the carnival.  Of course, he needed incentive to gain Fortunado’s interest, so he mentioned Luchesi, a rival wine connoisseur, in the midst of his conversation with Fortunado.  Montressor’s intentions toward Fortunado are the foundation of the dramatic irony that will ensue as the story unfolds since the reader already knows that Fortunado is marked for death.  Fortunado made several harsh statements regarding Luchesi like, “Luchesi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry.” (Poe, 15)  Montressor has knowledge of Fortunado’s distaste for Luchesi, but this vendetta is used to fuel Fortunado’s obsession over the Amontillado.  Montressor places the pieces strategically, and the fine placement was due to reverse psychology, or better known in the world of literature as verbal irony.

            Montressor not only knows Fortunado’s motivations, but also that of his servants.  He had given them explicit instructions to remain in the home for the night since he would not be coming home for the evening.  Montressor knew his servants well enough to realize that they would not remain in the house if their master was not around to watch over them, so the servants indulge in the carnival or other affairs they had for the night rather than remaining in the house.  Another example of verbal irony that is displayed is Montressor’s concern for Fortunado’s health.  A sign of foreshadowing is when Fortunado says that he will not die of a cough, yet Montressor responds with a mere, “True – true.” (Poe, 16).  Montressor even drank to Fortunado’s “long life” (Poe, 16) despite the fact that Montressor will be the one who is responsible for his life to cease.  He knows that Fortunado will not return home because he cannot resist the Amontillado.  As Montressor begins constructing the wall around Fortunado, we can see that not only is Fortunado intoxicated with the Medoc, but Montressor is intoxicated with his desire for revenge.  Before the last block of the wall is placed, the reader is pelted with irony.

            The situational irony can be seen in the fact that Fortunado, also known as the fortunate one, is enduring an unfortunate end.  Fortunado is chained to the wall, he’s one stone away from being buried alive, yet he is in denial and believes his situation to be a joke.  The mason, Fortunado, is walled in by one who Fortunado did not believe to be a mason.  Even though Fortunado is trapped in the room, Montressor is trapped in his demented mindset.  No one knows what Fortunado was guilty of, but that does not seem to bother him to the point where he would perceive Montressor as an enemy.  He was unable to relate to the basics of human society, but lived inside his own vengeful mind, an enclosed area in which space was sparse, much like that of Fortunado’s masonry coffin.  Montressor lived on, yet he was wrapped and trapped within himself (Moore).

            The story is dark, and Montressor is not a man to be trifled with, yet Fortunado’s crime must have been so obscure that he may have not realized committing it.  This unsaid crime could have been committed while Fortunado was inebriated.  No one knows for sure, and Poe does not reveal such information to the reader.  The reader believes the story to take place in the present, yet it is revealed to take place about fifty years in the past from when it was told.  The reader realizes this within the last paragraph which reads, “Against the new masonry I reerected the old rampart of bones.  For the half of a century no mortal has disturbed them.” (Poe, 19)  This time offset can also be considered as situational irony.  Irony comes to the reader in all directions in this story, so much that it could be considered a textbook of irony.

Works Cited

Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Cask of Amontillado” Literature: A Portable Anthology, Second Edition.

            Eds. Janet E. Garner, et al. Bedford: Boston, 2009. pg. 14-19.

Moore, Dolores. “Literary analysis: Claustrophobia in The Cask of Amontillado, by Edgar Allan

            Poe” Helium. 11

Shattered Dreams in Guy de Maupassant’s “The Diamond Necklace” (LIT 2100 Response Paper)

            Guy de Maupassant’s “The Diamond Necklace” is a story of deception, greed and martyrdom.  The main character, Matilda Loisel, is obviously unhappy with her station in life, so her husband gives up everything he has been saving for just to make her happy.  Her vanity shows that she firmly believes that her beauty was not being put to proper use.  She imagines that her looks and her charm belonged to high society instead of where she currently is on the social ladder.  Throughout the story, horrible things happen to those who covet what others have.  Although the necklace is not only beautiful but also a fraud, I will show how the necklace possesses the power of illusion, and how false assumptions about it shatter one’s dreams.

            Matilda’s dream was for the life of an aristocrat.  She is described as beautiful, yet took her looks for granted, disillusioned with the belief that everyone who is beautiful should be rich and upper class.  Her husband knew she longed for such things, so he went out his way to secure invitations for a party at the Minister of Public Instruction’s residence and even bought her a dress using the money he had been saving for a gun just to make her happy.  Unfortunately, her happiness had to come from someone she looked up to, Madame Forestier.  These scenes alone reveal and symbolize Matilda's apathy for the love and life her husband offers her, based on his lack of wealth (Drusset).  She showed appreciation to her friend, and all she did was lend her a necklace as opposed to buying her things like her husband has done for her.  It turns out that she loved the rich and looked down on what she considered to be poor; her husband.  She wanted to impart the illusion that she was rich, beautiful, and charming at the party.  Madame Forestier’s diamond necklace would suit her fine in accomplishing that feat, for it was also a fraud, just like Matilda.

            Losing the necklace brought about a realization to Matilda.  She wanted to be respected, and if she were to tell Madame Forestier that she lost her necklace, she would lose that respect.  She saw absolute value in the necklace since it was beautiful and presumably real, so she worked for over ten years to replace something she considered valuable with something just as authentic in her mind.  The box that the necklace came in even had the name of the jeweler who presumably sold it.  When they paid a visit to the jeweler, one hint to the fact that it was fake was disregarded when the jeweler said, “It is not I, Madame who sold this necklace; I only furnished the casket” (32).  She was not alone in this endeavor of compensation; her husband gave up his inheritance along with several years of his life and stood by her every step of the way.  In the end, Matilda was in denial when she encountered Madame Forestier after ten years.  She blamed Madame Forestier for how she and her husband have become impoverished by saying, “Yes, I have had some hard days since I saw you; and some miserable ones – and all because of you” (de Maupassant, 33).  However, it turns out that Madame Forestier did not respect Matilda enough to give her an authentic diamond necklace.

            Madame Forestier did not tell Matilda outright that the necklace was a fraud, since she probably wanted to convey the misconception that she was richer than Matilda gave her credit for.  The reader realizes this in the last quote of the story, “Oh!  My poor Matilda!  Mine were false.  They were not worth over five hundred francs!” (33)  Matilda thought if her friend was rich, then the necklace must be real, no questions asked.  She had the belief that if she questioned the quality of the necklace, she would insult her friend who has been nice enough to let her borrow it in the first place.  Matilda believed the jewels in the necklace were diamonds, therefore she perceived diamonds.  With these diamonds adorning her dress, she became infatuated with the illusion that she was rich; therefore others saw her as rich.  The necklace did not only look real, but it enhanced the perceptions of those around it like a mirage.  The years of disappointment would have been less severe if Matilda were more humble and willing to accept her fate, but her dignity was at stake if she were to reveal such a thing to a friend that she held in high regard.  Her dreams and ambition were shattered since they assumed the necklace was real, yet she still held onto those lingering memories of the party they attended before the necklace was lost.

            It would be no surprise that the reader would show contempt for someone as spiteful and condescending as Matilda.  She saw herself as a martyr, yet the true martyr all along was her husband.  He could have just left her with her debt, but he felt devoted to her because he loved her unconditionally (Drusset).  He helped her come up with reasons why they could not return the necklace, yet she never showed any appreciation for him throughout the story.  They were wealthy enough to have a maid, but they had to send her away since they could not maintain her services while making payments toward the replacement necklace.  In a way, the necklace put Matilda in her place, almost as if Karma was looking over her shoulder every step of the way.  Her dreams were shattered since her good looks diminished over time, and she was so far down the social ladder that her aspirations of aristocracy were beyond all hope.  After all, she was a pretender.  Matilda and the necklace share many common traits; they are beautiful, fake, and lost. 

Works Cited

Drusset, Alana. “Literary Analysis: The use of symbolism in “The Necklace,” by Guy de

Maupassant” Helium. 11 March 2008. web. 02 February 2012.

De Maupassant, Guy. “The Diamond Necklace” The Works of Guy de Maupassant. New York:

            Black’s Reader Service. pg. 28-33.

Fear of Change in Ernest Hemingway’s “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” (LIT 2100 Response Paper)

            Ernest Hemingway’s “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” is a tale of greed, lust, and self-realization.  The story is rife with foreshadowing starting with the title of the short story.  The reader can already venture a guess as to what happens at the end of the story, but what leads to the end of Francis Macomber is his own development from the man-boy he once was to the brave hunter he longed to become.  From the start of the story, the only thing Francis has going for him is his wealth and the amount of trophies he’s collected over the years, which is why he’s on a safari to begin with.  An ironic quality of the story is that his wife, Margot, was also considered a trophy, but I will reveal how both of the Macombers are afraid of change and how change lead to their undoing.

            Francis Macomber is the first character that the reader notices change in.  Over the course of the story, he’s noted by his cowardice and maltreatment from Margot, yet he has the wealth and assets to support such a wife.  Despite how unhappy Macomber and Margot are with their marriage, they will not leave each other.  Their reasons for not breaking off the marriage were because Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to divorce her and Macomber had too much money for Margot ever to leave him (Hemingway, 18).  Macomber’s change occurred during the buffalo hunt.  Margot noticed this and even commented based on her observations saying, “You’ve gotten awfully brave, awfully suddenly” (26).  However, there was more to Margot than what we were to believe in the beginning.

            Margot is a typical trophy wife: young, beautiful, and quite the opportunist.  Her beauty was enticing enough to sell cosmetics that she didn’t even wear (6), so long as her face was associated with the name.  She had wealth and financial stability as long as she remained with Macomber.  Despite these perks, she had a weakness for the brave, strapping, and red-faced Robert Wilson.  This weakness evolved into a sexual tension and she ended up in his bed for two hours following the second lion hunt.  Based on the conversation between Margot and her husband, the reader can draw the conclusion that her infidelity was not new to him.  This is revealed in the quote, “You said if we made this trip that there would be none of that.  You promised” (19).  This is one of the many ways she has been in control of the marriage for eleven years.  But despite Margot being a trophy wife, among all the fish and game that he’s hunted over the years, Macomber himself would be the latest trophy among a trophy in his own collection.

            As Macomber found his happiness on the buffalo hunt, it was short-lived when Margot “accidentally” shot Francis in the head from the car.  Throughout the short story, Francis wanted to change to become the brave man he idolized in his heart, yet was afraid of both lion hunts in the pursuit of that change.  Unfortunately, that change resulted in his death.  Margot was happy with Francis right where he was before he made his transition.  As he continued to develop, she figured out that Francis had found the courage to leave her.  If he did so, then she would no longer have access to his wealth or have the ability to belittle him for the many years to come.  She was losing control as her husband developed and continued to transform.  She felt threatened and could not bear the thought of going on further with someone like the new Francis Macomber in control, so she shot him from the car.  A trophy claims a trophy, but the claim comes with a price.

            Margot was observant during the pursuit of the buffalo, so much to question the legality of chasing animals with motorized vehicles.  She gained the upper hand on Robert Wilson since he could have lost his license over an incident like that, but ended up losing the advantage once she shot her husband in the head.  There’s no question on what Robert Wilson’s testimony will be worth to her, along with the gunbearers’ silence.  Margot’s actions are debatable on whether or not it was an accident, but Wilson confirms the reader’s suspicions in the end (Ganter).  When Wilson says to Margot, “That was pretty thing for you to do, he would have left you too,” (Hemingway 28) this reveals that Wilson is paying as much attention to the situation between Macomber and Margot as he is to the hunt at hand.  Unbeknownst to Margot earlier on, her desire to keep things from changing could have possibly changed them for the worst in her case.  By having such a large number of witnesses, she might possibly spend the rest of her life indebted to these men.  In conclusion, no matter her course of action, she is still at a loss because of the change in Macomber.

Works Cited

Hemingway, Ernest. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” The Complete Short Stories

            of Ernest Hemingway: The Finca Vigia Edition. New York: Scribner, 1987. pg. 5-28.

Ganter, Ben. “Analysis of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” Wrytestuff. 05 July 2006.

                web. 25 January 2012.

The Bull’s True Colors in Flannery O’Connor’s “Greenleaf” (LIT 2100 Response Paper)

            Flannery O’Connor’s “Greenleaf” is a short story of struggle and redemption, primarily between Mrs. May and her farmhand, Mr. Greenleaf.  Throughout the plot, a bull is chewing up crops, her shrubbery, and has the possibility of ruining the breeding schedule for Mrs. May’s cows, yet it does not bother the dwelling of the Greenleafs.  The reader does not learn who the bull belongs to until the middle of the story, which is revealed to belong to Mr. Greenfleaf’s two sons, E.T. and O.T. Greenleaf.  The bull is a strong symbolic figure throughout the story, and none of the characters are eager to rid Mrs. May of the bull except Mrs. May herself, yet the tables turn on her in the end when the bull gores her through the heart.  Although she died because of the bull, I will show why the bull was necessary for the redemption of Mrs. May in the end and how it is a suitable figure to resemble Jesus Christ.

            It does not take long for the reader to gain clues to identify what kind of character Mrs. May is.  She is morally smug and sees herself as superior to the Greenleaf family through means of education, social status, and the fact that she owns the farm and gave Mr. Greenleaf his job fifteen years ago.  The bull is seen by the Greenleafs as a force of nature that is bigger and far more powerful than Mrs. May can comprehend, yet she wants to control it by the means of either containing it or having it shot to death, as long as it is no longer on her property.  Her crops and livestock are held in higher esteem than anything else, which depicts how shallow she is toward everyone she associates with on a daily basis.  As she tries to keep the bull off her property, it is symbolizing her efforts to keep Christ out of her life (Durso).  She believed that if she hired Mr. Greenleaf, then he would handle all the grunt work and do as she commands, despite his best wishes.  However, the bull is a messenger that would make her think otherwise.

The bull wore a wreath around his horns which resembled a menacing prickly crown (O’Connor, 312).  Based on scripture, Jesus of Nazareth had a crown of thorns around his head before he was crucified.  The author mentions that Mrs. May was a good Christian woman had a large respect for religion, but was not a believer herself (316).  This correlates with Mr. Greenleaf’s spouse, Mrs. Greenleaf, doing the spiritual healing out in the woods with the newspaper clippings of various offenses against humanity.  Her most foreboding quote was, “Oh Jesus, stab me in the heart!”(317)  Mrs. May looked down on Mrs. Greenleaf not only because she was flat on the dirt while doing these spiritual healings, but also because she did not do motherly things that were considered the normal housewife obligations to the family, such as washing her children’s clothes.  Mrs. Greenleaf’s quote is a foreshadowing device which is later resolved at the end of the story.

The significance of Mrs. Greenleaf’s prayers actually come true, yet the recipient is Mrs. May.  The day comes when she finally goes to Mr. Greenleaf’s dwelling on her property and tells him several times to get his gun because they were going to shoot the bull today.  She had been told before that the bull had a loathing for car horns and noisy vehicles, but the noises she made with her car horn to signal Mr. Greenleaf were the catalyst of what would be her death.  The bull, which represents Jesus, stabbed her in the heart.  As she experienced death, it was as if she realized her relationship with God through the means of grace, God’s unmerited favor.

The majority of Flannery O’Connor’s writings have a main character that does not have a proper relationship with God.  In this case, it was Mrs. May since she respected religion, yet was not a believer until the end.  Despite how much contempt she had toward the Greenleafs, she was still given grace in the end.  The visions Mrs. May had in the end were vivid, yet she could not hear what was happening from the moment she was gored by the bull.  She saw the tree line as a dark wound in a world that was nothing but sky accompanied by a light that was unbearable to the eyes (333), quite possibly the vision of heaven.  The bull was the messenger which conveyed several religious references, mostly relevant to Jesus Christ and a relationship to God.

Works Cited

Durso, Eric. “Literary analysis: Greenleaf, by Flannery O'Connor” Helium. 04 March 2008.

web. 19 January 2012.

O’Connor, Flannery. “Greenleaf” Flannery O’Connor The Complete Stories. Ed. Farrar, Straus,

            and Giroux. New York: pg. 311-334.