Monday, October 18, 2010
Week of 10-18 Cask of Amontillado
Directions, please create 2 level 2 questions and 1 level 3 question pertaining to your current reading of Stone Diaries. The expectation remains the same for responses, you will go in at least 3 times throughout the week to inform and refine your responses. Use lots of details!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Amelia, Carter, Lauren, Roy
ReplyDeleteLevel 2 question: Who are the protagonists/antagonists in the story?
Level 3 question: Is revenge always the best solution when you are wronged?
1) I believe that the protagonist in the story is Fortunado. This is because he is the one that ultimately has his emotions repressed. He is also the one that meets his demise. The villain/antagonist is the narrator, Montresor. He brings out the repressed emotions of the unfortunate, and ironic, Fortunado.
ReplyDelete2) I do not think that revenge is the best solution to a problem unless the person is deserving of it. If someone hurt you on accident I don't think they should be punished but if it was with intent upon you on which they did it, then they should have a taste of their own fate and also be punished.
CARTER
ReplyDelete1) The protagonist in the story is Fortunado. The protagonist in Gothic Literature has his or her emotions repressed. Fortunado is repressing his failure, the fact that "in painting and gemmary Fortunado, like his countrymen, was a quack". This emotion is shown in the antagonist Fortunado, who uses the Amontillado as bait to get Fortunado to enter the cellars and be tied to the stone, walled in.
2) In the mind of the wronged, then yes, one wants revenge. However, in the level mind, revenge may not always be the best solution. They would say that an act of revenge would, in turn, bring revenge upon oneself. Confucius said that "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves", and it is very true.
Roy
ReplyDeleteThe first post is Roy's.
I would like to add:
1) I believe that the repressed emotions in the story are Fortunado's self-loathing in the form of his failures or shortcomings as a critic of the finer things in life from wines to gems to culture itself. Here is some evidence, "He had a weak point-this Fortunato-although in other regards he was a man to be respected and even feared. He prided himself on his connoisseur-ship in wine. Few Italians have the true virtuoso spirit. FOr the most part their enthusiasm is adopted to suit the time and opportunity, to practice imposture upon the British and Austrian Millionaires. In painting and gemmary, Fortunato, like his countrymen, was a quack, but in the matter of old wines he was sincere..."
2) I would like to further add to my comment that revenge has a time and a place but only in certain circumstances. It all depends on the setting and exactly what is being portrayed in the scenario. Everything will play its natural course.
1. i think that Fortunado is the protagonist, which is different than the other stories because in the other stories the narrater is usually the protagonist. i think he is the protagonist because in the end he is the one defeated and the story shows his repressed emotions as well. i think arguably there are a couple possible antagonists. i think the antagonist can be either the mason, Montresor, or the wine, Amontillado. i think the mason can be the villain because he is he one who buries him in the catacomb thing. the wine can also be the villain because it is what draws him in and makes him go in to the catacomb thing where he is buried and because he is drunk he is also easier to bury.
ReplyDelete2. i do not think revenge is always the best solution when wronged. i dont think it is ever the absolute best solution, but in some circumstances it is just the natural inclination. to have the best result after being wronged, you must think about all of your choices of what to do next and then choose, with a stable mind that is not overemotional.
Lauren Steiner
CARTER
ReplyDelete1) My view on the protagonist stays firmly upon the not-so-Forunato(TM JW). However, my viewpoint of the antagonist has changed to the Amontillado. It brings out the falsity of his "connoisseurship in wine" and the fact that he is just a drunk. He says that "Luchesi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry", even though Amontillado IS Sherry, and he drank a bottle of De Grave as fast as he could, not knowing its expense.
2) Revenge is also not the best option when trying to out-do a fraud, as Montresor is. In trying to out do someone who is a quack, nothing more then a shell of a man, you stoop to their level.
Roy
ReplyDelete1) I also believe that the title plays a signifigant role in determining the villain in the story. In every story, the title has been the antagonist or some type of vilain. This is also true in the story we are reading now, the Cask of Amontillado. The wine itself could also be considered a villain in its own right!
2) I also believe in the fact that if one is level-minded then one shouldn't seek revenge. Also, I think that some type of punishment is necessary for a crime or a wrong deed but I wouldn't go so far as to say that outright revenge is necessary.
1. after yesterdays discussion, i can now finalize my answer for the antagonist; the Amontillado is the antagonist. the protagonist is still Fortunato, and the narrator is just telling the story. the wine is the antagonist because it brings Fortunato to his demise in the end and symbolizes his repressed emotions. the wine is his bait and the one thing he is good at.
ReplyDelete2. in the case of our story, The Cask of Amontillado, it seems as though revenge was successful for Montresor. i do not think it was the best solution but i do not know enough information to know if there was any other solution. it was successful in the fact that Montresor easily was able to avenge Fortunato for whatever he wronged him for, without anything unfortunate happening to Montresor in the process. Because it was successful for Montresor, maybe revenge could be successful in real life for anyone, that is if you are not looking for a better way.
Lauren Steiner
CARTER
ReplyDelete1) The antagonist, the Amontillado, also is the downfall of Fortunado, as his lust for it eventually leads him into alcohol, becoming too drunk to realize that he is chained to a wall and being closed in. Once he becomes sober, he realizes the folly of his action all too late.
2) Even though revenge is often a bad option, the person having the revenge dealt to them is often to blame. The misdeeds of one person shall be avenged by another, such as in "The Boondock Saints", where the main characters, Connor and Murphy MacManus, go on a quest to rid Boston of evil for the death of their friends.
Amelia
ReplyDelete1) I think the protagonist is Fortunado. He ultimately meets his demise, and has to face his repressed emotions of being a fraud and an alcoholic. “He had been drinking much”, and “The man wore motley” (Poe 192). Fortunado is a fool, pretending to be a wine expert. He gulps down De Grave, and says that “Luchesi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry”, even though Amontillado is a Sherry. (Poe 192) The fact that the Amontillado brings him down makes the Amontillado the antagonist. The Amontillado represents the repressed emotions of being a fraud, an alcoholic and a liar. The Amontillado lures him to his death.
2) I think it is human nature to desire revenge, but it always ends badly. “What goes around comes around” is the best way to describe it. Even if you have been wronged and desire revenge, in the past or the future, you have wronged or will wrong someone and they want revenge as well. Going to drastic measures for revenge is pointless when most fights are directly caused by miscommunication or a difference in beliefs. If you take revenge, then someone else will take revenge on you, so causing unnecessary strife and pain is senseless.
Yes, Montersor obviously thought he needed to take revenge, but even he started feeling guilty. He truly thought that he had reason to kill him, but that guilt will be with him for the rest of his life. It seems Fortunado has insulted him, but Fortunado is nothing but a fraud and a drunk. How bad could his insult be? It seems that Montersor cared too much about what a drunk said.
Amelia
ReplyDelete1)I'd like to add some more about the Amontillado. While it represents Fortunado being a fraud, it also represents him being an alcoholic. He is not a wine expert because he is knowledgeable, but because he is drunk all the time.
2)I thought I could maybe add a real life example for the revenge question.
When I was driving, a total jerk was speeding and riding two inches off my bumper. He flipped me off, so I slammed on the breaks. While it was quite fun, but I chanced him running into me and someone getting hurt. Yes, revenge was funny. But there could have been too high of a price.