Short Video Representation |
Summary |
|
The story begins after the events that take place in it have already transpired, with the unnamed narrator's detailed account of these events to another unnamed and unknown person. The narrator immediately begins his account by defending his sanity rather than his innocence in the crime of an old man's brutal murder. He freely admits to the murder while trying to reaffirm his sanity by stating the "acuteness of his senses" and the deliberate "caution" and "sagacity" he felt while leading up to and committing the crime. He tells his story of the crime, detailing that he harbored no hate for the old man, in fact he felt only love for him, and it was because of the old man's eye that he committed the crime.
|
The narrator describes the old man as having the "eye of a vulture", an "Evil Eye" that chills his very blood when it looks upon him. It is for this reasoning that the narrator becomes fixed upon the idea of ridding himself of the eye and thus comes to the conclusion that he must take the old man's life to be free of it forever. And so for seven nights the narrator watches the old man while he sleeps, but every night the eye is closed. Finally, on the eighth night the old man is startled awake and the narrator fixes his light solely on the old man's eye. Seeing the eye drives the narrator furious and hearing the old man's rapidly increasing heartbeat makes him fearful that it will be heard by a neighbor, and so he decides he must, at that instant, kill the old man.
When the old man is dead, the narrator again tries to confirm his sanity with how he dealt with what came next. He recounts his cleverness at hiding the body by dismembering it and hiding the pieces under the floorboards in the old man's chamber. He also details the calm and clever manner with which he handles the three police officers that show up soon after. He leads the police through the house, showing them that everything is in order, and tells them that the old man is out of town and the shriek that was heard was his own, caused simply by a frightful dream. In his highest moment of triumph, he even sits the men down directly above where he has hidden the body of the old man. But the narrator soon becomes agitated by a ringing in his ears that grows increasingly louder, and soon comes to think that the ringing is not in his head but instead it is the beating of the old man's heart. He is vexed that the other men do not seem affected by the noise and comes to the conclusion that they must hear it but they are making a mockery of his horror by acting oblivious. It comes to the point where the narrator cannot take it anymore and he admits the crime and tells the police to tear up the floorboards.
When the old man is dead, the narrator again tries to confirm his sanity with how he dealt with what came next. He recounts his cleverness at hiding the body by dismembering it and hiding the pieces under the floorboards in the old man's chamber. He also details the calm and clever manner with which he handles the three police officers that show up soon after. He leads the police through the house, showing them that everything is in order, and tells them that the old man is out of town and the shriek that was heard was his own, caused simply by a frightful dream. In his highest moment of triumph, he even sits the men down directly above where he has hidden the body of the old man. But the narrator soon becomes agitated by a ringing in his ears that grows increasingly louder, and soon comes to think that the ringing is not in his head but instead it is the beating of the old man's heart. He is vexed that the other men do not seem affected by the noise and comes to the conclusion that they must hear it but they are making a mockery of his horror by acting oblivious. It comes to the point where the narrator cannot take it anymore and he admits the crime and tells the police to tear up the floorboards.
Questions to Consider
Is the narrator insane despite his continued efforts to prove himself sane?
Was his reasoning justifiable?
If he truly is insane, was his reasoning then justifiable?
What is the central theme of the story?
Was his reasoning justifiable?
If he truly is insane, was his reasoning then justifiable?
What is the central theme of the story?