Eyes
"He had the eye of a vulture --a pale blue eye, with a film over it."
The vulture eye is consistently brought up by the narrator as the evil that he felt he must destroy and it is the central point on which he fixates his obsession and hatred. He gives no real reason as to why he thought it evil, but only says that "Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold". So then we are forced to ask the same questions that B.D. Tucker asks in his paper on the tale. Why was it that the eye became the sole fixation of the narrator? And what was Poe's reasoning for using this precise object as the focal point of the narrator's rage?
Tucker argues, rightfully so, that "an author as acute as Poe would not choose a completely arbitrary point on which the madman's rage would be focused". He recounts that eyes held a certain powerful, recurring force for Poe, as they are included in many of his pieces including the poem "Sonnet-To Science" and the short story "The Black Cat". But what is the power that this eye holds over the narrator?
It could be one of two things, the first thing being the idea of the "Evil-Eye" as the narrator refers to it. The "Evil-Eye" is a "widespread superstition according to which people can cause harm by a mere envious glance at coveted objects or their owners" (Gershman). In the narrator's insanity, we are then able to see the possible legitimacy of this fear and why the narrator would then feel the need to destroy it. But from the story, we see no details of a powerful destructive force like this. The narrator even says, "He had never wronged me". This gives reason to believe that it was not this superstition that the narrator feared, and as Tucker puts it, "It seems to be hatred rather than fear that he feels".
This brings us to the second and more noted possibility, the connection between the "Evil Eye" with the evil "I" of the narrator. Both Tucker and Robinson discuss this idea of the equating of "Eye" and "I" in their papers. As discussed in other segments of this website, we have seen the narrator's dual sided view of himself with the insane, dark side he tries to escape and which brings about his self-loathing, and the other side he tries to view himself as, in which he is "good" and rational. It is then the idea of this theory that the narrator views the old man's eye as an all-seeing eye, the watchful Eye of Providence, or the piercing eye of God which is ever-watchful and offers no escape (Tucker). The eye then becomes a threat to the narrator as it can see his true self, which he desperately tries to hide from. The narrator wishes to be the seer, not the seen, and goes to great lengths to conceal himself from the eye of the old man, while shining his own single ray of light from the lantern, as a symbolic eye, on that of the old man's (Tucker). We can now begin to see the connections forming between these two characters, especially in this statement, where these two symbolic eyes emerge. This is not just random and it is discussed in more depth in the analysis, but for this theory of the "Eye" and "I" this connection plays a significant role. As Robinson explains, "since [the narrator] sees himself in his companion the result is self-knowledge. Vision becomes insight, the "Evil Eye" an "I," and the murdered man a victim sacrificed to a self-constituted deity".
Tucker argues, rightfully so, that "an author as acute as Poe would not choose a completely arbitrary point on which the madman's rage would be focused". He recounts that eyes held a certain powerful, recurring force for Poe, as they are included in many of his pieces including the poem "Sonnet-To Science" and the short story "The Black Cat". But what is the power that this eye holds over the narrator?
It could be one of two things, the first thing being the idea of the "Evil-Eye" as the narrator refers to it. The "Evil-Eye" is a "widespread superstition according to which people can cause harm by a mere envious glance at coveted objects or their owners" (Gershman). In the narrator's insanity, we are then able to see the possible legitimacy of this fear and why the narrator would then feel the need to destroy it. But from the story, we see no details of a powerful destructive force like this. The narrator even says, "He had never wronged me". This gives reason to believe that it was not this superstition that the narrator feared, and as Tucker puts it, "It seems to be hatred rather than fear that he feels".
This brings us to the second and more noted possibility, the connection between the "Evil Eye" with the evil "I" of the narrator. Both Tucker and Robinson discuss this idea of the equating of "Eye" and "I" in their papers. As discussed in other segments of this website, we have seen the narrator's dual sided view of himself with the insane, dark side he tries to escape and which brings about his self-loathing, and the other side he tries to view himself as, in which he is "good" and rational. It is then the idea of this theory that the narrator views the old man's eye as an all-seeing eye, the watchful Eye of Providence, or the piercing eye of God which is ever-watchful and offers no escape (Tucker). The eye then becomes a threat to the narrator as it can see his true self, which he desperately tries to hide from. The narrator wishes to be the seer, not the seen, and goes to great lengths to conceal himself from the eye of the old man, while shining his own single ray of light from the lantern, as a symbolic eye, on that of the old man's (Tucker). We can now begin to see the connections forming between these two characters, especially in this statement, where these two symbolic eyes emerge. This is not just random and it is discussed in more depth in the analysis, but for this theory of the "Eye" and "I" this connection plays a significant role. As Robinson explains, "since [the narrator] sees himself in his companion the result is self-knowledge. Vision becomes insight, the "Evil Eye" an "I," and the murdered man a victim sacrificed to a self-constituted deity".