“The Cask of the Amontillado,” is a short story presenting a death revenge castigated by Montresor the narrator to his unsuspecting friend Fortunato. Montresor fails to specify the reason that forces him to murder his friend in cold blood. He only affirms to the audience that Fortunato had irreparably affronted him. The narrator is successful in killing Fortunato; however, in the end it is obvious that the whole narration is recollection of his murder about fifty years ago. In the second story the “Night Drive,” by Rubem Fonseca an anonymous narrator presents the story in first person acclaiming his murder of an innocent woman during a night drive. The narrator hits the innocent woman with his car and speeds off after affirming the woman is dead. A clear comparison and contrast will be presented in the paper between the murders evident in the two stories. The comparison will be based on the victims and the perpetrators of the killings.
First it is obvious that the two victims of murders in the two stories are innocent. In the first story of “The Cask of the Amontillado,” the narrator, Montresor does not affirm the reason behind his decision to kill Fortunato. He only asserts that Fortunato had disrespected him. This is evident in the story when Montresor states, “The thousand wounds of Fortunato I had borne as best as I could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed to revenge” (Poe 17). This simply highlights the vagueness of Montresor on the prerequisite to kill Fortunato. He undoubtedly does not have a concrete reason to emphasize to the audience that compelled him to kill Fortunato. James, (67), concludes that the lack of a concrete reason leaves the reader with reservations on the need to kill Fortunato. The doubts of the reader are confirmed when Montresor is burying Fortunato. He does not disclose the reason why he kills him. This leaves the reader to conclude that the Fortunato was an innocent man murdered by Montresor. Likewise, in the short story, “Night Drive,” the narrator hits and kills a blameless woman on a road. After killing the woman he speeds off. It is understandable that the woman killed by the narrator is innocent when the narrator states, “A woman or a man? It made little difference” (Fonseca 7). This simply highlights that it was a routine for the narrator to kill a person irrespective of their sex in any lonely deserted streets. The narrator further avers, “Then I saw a woman” (Fonseca 7). The assertions confirm how random the narrator used to kill people. In the text he even confirms that he did not prefer to kill women because they were easy to kill. This solely reveals how he killed innocent people because they fitted his requirements and characteristics.
Second, it is obvious that the perpetrators of the killings in the two stories are surrounded by different environment and reasons for killing. In “The Cask of Amontillado,” it is apparent that the killing was fashioned in an ancient environment. This is evident from the gothic depictions accentuated in the story and the presence of wine cellars to symbolize the sense of elite class. This is contrary to the short story the “Night Drive.” The story is created in the modern times where the sense of elite is depicted by material possessions such as cars for each family member. Subsequently, in “The Cask of Amontillado,” it is ostensible that Montresor merely suggest that Fortunate disrespected him to be a reason worth killing him. This is contrary to the reason in the “Night Drive.” The narrator in the story fails to present a reason why he kills people. He only affirms that killing people made him feel proud and better. This seems in the story when he acknowledges, “With pride I ran the hand lightly over the unmarked bumper and fender.” This is the reaction of the narrator after hitting an innocent women and killing her (Fonseca 7). Nevertheless a similarity is evident between the two perpetrators in terms of places where they carry out their deeds. The two narrators carry out their cruel ordeal in isolated places. This obviously highlights that the activity was illegal. Montresor kills Fortunato in an isolated wine cellar whereas the indefinite narrator kills the woman in an isolated and deserted road at night.
Subsequently, it is obvious that the two culprits are mentally unsound. This is merely because after killing innocent victims the two return to their normal daily routine without fear or guilty. In “The Cask of Amontillado,” It is evident that the narrator speaks about his murder fifty years after the occurrence. This only means the narrator was living comfortably for fifty years without a guilty conscience. Similarly, in “Night Drive,” it is a formality for the narrator to kill innocent persons. He is not remorseful or guilty about the occurrence. Landers, (43), acknowledges that contrary, to the reader expectation, the narrator is rejuvenated after the cruel murder and looks forward for the next day to continue the sequence of killings.
In conclusion, it is intelligible from the two stories that innocent victims are subjected to cruel murders. The deaths of the victims are unnoticed and unsolved as the culprits walk away scot free without punishment. The two stories depict the dark side of the society where individual with affluence definitely commit injustices and murders without being noticed. This gives the affluent people the choice to whether report themselves of their deeds for example Montresor or remain silent for example the narrator in the story “Night Drive.”
Works Cited
Fonseca, Rubem. The Taker and Other Stories. Open Letter Books, 2008. Print.
James, Linda. How to Write and Sell Great Short Stories. John Hunt Publishing, 2011. Print.
Landers, Clifford. Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Multilingual Matters, 2001. Print.
Poe, A, Edgar. The Cask of Amontillado. The Creative Company, 2008. Print.
