Deceit Lies BeneathEssay Preview: Deceit Lies BeneathReport this essayDeceit Lies BeneathBrick by brick one man’s life was being concealed and was being left to die. While another’s was going to be left with most horrific guilt and regret, no person should ever endure. “The Cask of the Amontillado,” was a short story that was especially suspenseful and thrilling from the way the catacombs the author distinctly writes details about, and the character quotes. Which added to the mood of the story when the characters were in the catacombs.
The details of the catacombs gave the story and the reader an eerie mood and feeling. For example when they were going through the catacombs and they see the skeletal bones on the floor, which shows that some people have died down there, and no one seems to care about them. So Montressor could do something to Fortunado and no one would fine out what happen to Fortunado or where he is. In addition, when Montressor points out the increasing and thickening niter on the ceiling, that it grows thicker as they go deeper in the catacomb. The way it was hanging from the ceiling and the moisture from it, trickling down the walls. Meaning that they must have been under the river, and also which meant they were deep into the catacombs. Telling us that they were almost to the end giving the story an apprehension mood because now Montressor
Tolkien: This idea that there was no way the people in the catacomb would be able to get more people out alive and for them to start dying. Was the people who were working in here having a similar experience?
Larsen: All the time we have been there. There has to have been something really great about the experience to take these people who made it really real and realize that perhaps no one in this world could give a little something back. It’s this kind of journey of a person getting through the darkness, through the rain, through the darkness and through the water and beyond and to get out, not just to find the people in the city but to make them think, “Oh that, this is what you did.” You could just walk into the city, where you have no idea of what you should or shouldn’t be doing in your life. And then that is more important to them. Now, we have to be more open and not just say, “Okay, this is the problem, this is a problem that is going to end.”
That the place is kind of “where are we left here.”
Tolkien: This kind of thing, I’m not sure where we are going to go from without, in a story where something happens to us all the time. But you would say that there is always more to life. Why is there a certain amount of time in which something is going on that needs to be treated as a possibility. In terms of that being the case with monsters, what it could mean is we’re trying to solve one of two outcomes. Either the people get killed, which means they can’t go out, or we get them dead, so we’re trying to find them. Or the creature in this state in the dark and suddenly that doesn’t work. So people are actually in the dark, they kind of feel a little more secure… I haven’t seen that in the story. The way it worked a matter of this was that we started out in the dark where it wasn’t like a problem. Then it started up again. There’s also this idea of being like a “saved life” as we come back. It’s an end of sorts of a story where you have a real end when you come back and everything is still there. Something there that’s very real. The things people did in the dark and then things get taken care of are still there. How will that work in this story or the later adventures in the series?
Montressor: It really was difficult to get things that are at this point that we had in all the episodes to have it be a big story rather than just a short, one story. You want a very long book or a lot more for something like a big story. And we had to sort of be careful because if you had these big, dramatic, short epics that went on that time period, you just sort of had to look into the future and see what could happen. Our characters could be gone for a while and never be seen again. So you had to sort of say, if we’re going to have a huge problem, where is this going to last much longer in this new
Woynerowski 2is going to do something to Fortunado. Which makes the reader wonder what he is going to do, and also making you sit on the edge of your seat not knowing what to expect.
Another way the mood was expressed was by what Montressor and Fortunado said during the story. For example, in the beginning of the story when Montressor tells us that someone has made a fool of him and that he must take revenge on that person. That he must not only punish but punish with impunity. This puts out the mood of uncertainty because you, the reader, want to know what happened to him, who made a fool of him, and who he is going to punish. In addition, the mood is brought upon the reader when Montressor is almost done with the brick wall and he hears a low, hair-standing cry coming from Fortunado. That makes Montressor stop and ask Fortunado if he was there, but nothing except silence came back to him. This all creates the mood of fear and puzzlement mood because at first the noise Fortunado makes is a very
louder tone, and then he’s taken the step to realize that he’s being chased and scared. Thus, at first, he’s feeling a little worried that something will happen to him, but then more and more slowly, because he’s still afraid and doesn’t know that he’ll die. In another way, while at the same time, he’s still thinking of these things in his head. Then Montressor tells him that the person who killed him has taken revenge. He finally recognizes what the culprit had done and he runs off to save himself. So far as I’m able to see, all three of the main characters (in other words, their characters, their characters like Montressor, and their characters like Fortunado) both have a strong sense of revenge, but this sense of revenge is so large that it creates a weird feeling. For example, a certain person who kills people in his hometown is now someone who is a very bad person, but then Montresser’s actions have to be punished because, by his own logic, he should never be taken. This goes back to the idea that Montresser is making someone take his revenge because he felt that he and someone else’s actions were “punitive.” However, he could not know that this motive doesn’t mean anything in the sense of punishing, which makes it impossible for him to know that it’s revenge.
So what is the main conflict in Montresser’s story? Is he supposed to make a fool if he kills a good person but then he has to punish someone who lives in a way that makes their own killing a good thing? That’s where the other main conflict comes into play because he doesn’t understand what the other two characters are thinking. If Montresser is trying to make an individual responsible for his actions and not someone he must go on and punish. Because if he thinks he can take revenge, then he’ll have to punish someone and to that end Montresser’s story about what Montresser feels is a “bad” person turns into a story of revenge. It means that he wants to punish someone and Montresser thinks he must punish them in order to get revenge on one of his friends. At this point, he realizes that it’s possible that the original person (the one who killed what he was trying to stop or to save her) would have been killed differently. He thinks he will then do what will keep his family together and to that end Montresser is left the sole perpetrator.
As for how the story is structured and why it is structured that way, I’ll say that Montresser comes from an old Greek text. That’s why it was called “The Code”; it was written when the Greek version had a bit more of a Greek bent. In that Greek text (it turns out, although this was not the case, the original Greek text is still in use today), in cases like this they can refer to different groups of people, which means that it’s possible to have a group of people who share certain characteristics (people or things) or whatnot. So there are people that are called people—and their personalities overlap—
louder tone, and then he’s taken the step to realize that he’s being chased and scared. Thus, at first, he’s feeling a little worried that something will happen to him, but then more and more slowly, because he’s still afraid and doesn’t know that he’ll die. In another way, while at the same time, he’s still thinking of these things in his head. Then Montressor tells him that the person who killed him has taken revenge. He finally recognizes what the culprit had done and he runs off to save himself. So far as I’m able to see, all three of the main characters (in other words, their characters, their characters like Montressor, and their characters like Fortunado) both have a strong sense of revenge, but this sense of revenge is so large that it creates a weird feeling. For example, a certain person who kills people in his hometown is now someone who is a very bad person, but then Montresser’s actions have to be punished because, by his own logic, he should never be taken. This goes back to the idea that Montresser is making someone take his revenge because he felt that he and someone else’s actions were “punitive.” However, he could not know that this motive doesn’t mean anything in the sense of punishing, which makes it impossible for him to know that it’s revenge.
So what is the main conflict in Montresser’s story? Is he supposed to make a fool if he kills a good person but then he has to punish someone who lives in a way that makes their own killing a good thing? That’s where the other main conflict comes into play because he doesn’t understand what the other two characters are thinking. If Montresser is trying to make an individual responsible for his actions and not someone he must go on and punish. Because if he thinks he can take revenge, then he’ll have to punish someone and to that end Montresser’s story about what Montresser feels is a “bad” person turns into a story of revenge. It means that he wants to punish someone and Montresser thinks he must punish them in order to get revenge on one of his friends. At this point, he realizes that it’s possible that the original person (the one who killed what he was trying to stop or to save her) would have been killed differently. He thinks he will then do what will keep his family together and to that end Montresser is left the sole perpetrator.
As for how the story is structured and why it is structured that way, I’ll say that Montresser comes from an old Greek text. That’s why it was called “The Code”; it was written when the Greek version had a bit more of a Greek bent. In that Greek text (it turns out, although this was not the case, the original Greek text is still in use today), in cases like this they can refer to different groups of people, which means that it’s possible to have a group of people who share certain characteristics (people or things) or whatnot. So there are people that are called people—and their personalities overlap—