Socratic Seminar Reflection
In your reflection, you should discuss the following categories:
1. Specific ideas you found particularly interesting and why. Give specific examples and explain your reasoning. Please include who said the idea (this shows me you were listening carefully).
2. Unanswered questions or ideas you are still grappling with regarding the topic. Explain why you still have these questions or intellectual tensions.
3. The class’s overall participation and assessment of your chosen person– strengths and areas of improvement. Please provide specific examples supporting your point.
4. A link to something involving "The Cask of Amontillado," Poe or anything relating to one of the themes or ideas brought up in the discussion. After the link, please explain what the link describes and why you chose it. Explain the links's connection to the seminar discussion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Jackvony
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
11 December 2016
Socratic Seminar
The socratic seminar on the Cask of Amontillado was much better than the seminar that went along with A Yellow Raft in Blue Water. I think this because I feel there was more class participation and also the conversations run more smoothly. Some Idea that I found interesting in my group was when there was undecided opinions on how question nine asks how Montresor's character is revealed. I said that this reveals he is a cautious person, on the other hand, Vy said that like he was kinda feeling guilt instead of being cautious. Another idea is how if it was worth Montresor getting revenge on Fortunato by killing him. We were saying how if it all Fortunato did is insult him, it's not worth killing him for revenge, but if he did something worse it would be worth it. The big question is, does Fortunato deserve what he got? I have this question because I feel it could be a good question for arguing over. One person I followed was Abi Royal, one major weakness was that she did not talk enough. However, when she did talk, she made really good points on the topic the rest of the group was talking about. She also made good eye contact while she talked and while other people were talking. I think that the class participation overall was better this time around than our other seminar, even with less time. I thought there were more people talking more times, and the conversation flowed better. It was not as awkward as last time. Although there was more participation, there are always a select few quiet people who talk once or twice or not at all. Overall, this socratic seminar was more successful in many ways than our last one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qme9E2Nqv2s I chose this link because I think that she explains the book well, along with themes and other things. It helped me understand the book a little bit more.
Isabella Corso
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
Socratic Seminar Reflection
In my opinion, our class did a fantastic job with these seminars. We were able to successfully dissect the text and further our understanding of it. There were many interesting comments made by all of us. Many of my peers brought up ideas that I would have never thought about. For example, Vy brought up that she found Montresor’s statement about his heart hurting as sarcastic, while I thought it was a sign of guilt. This made me think about the story in a different perspective. It showed me that Montresor may have been proud of his deed, even though I thought he was guilty. I also found it interesting when Gabby said that we could not really trust the narrator, because I disagree. I think that it would have been pointless for Poe to tell a fake story. However, her comment also changed my outlook on how different readers interpret a text. Katie brought up that maybe the reason Montresor is telling the story is because someone finally found the body of Fortunato. This made me realize that “The Cask of Amontillado” is very open ended, and keeps readers like me thinking about it for a long time after they finish reading. Because of the vague parts of the story, there are many questions I still have. What did Fortunato do to make Montresor want to get revenge? It is difficult to tell if the revenge was justifiable because we do not have the answer to this question. Also, who is Montresor speaking to when he is telling the story? This would give us insight into the other aspects of Montresor’s life. Though I can see that Poe did not include these elements to develop the theme, I wish he had given us more details to help us better understand the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnPN0IlwAb4
I chose this link to a video because it really breaks down the text and makes it extremely easy to understand. It includes a plot diagram and definitions of vocabulary. The simple illustrations also help me visualize the different scenes in the story.
Elizabeth Marses
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
Period 3
12 December 2016
“The Cask of Amontillado”
` While listening, and being apart of the socratic seminar there were a couple of interesting ideas that I particularly found interesting. I especially found Nicole’s comment interesting because she stated that Montresor and Fortunato had a strong relationship in the past, therefore it helped Montresor get revenge back on Fortunato. I completely agree with Nicole because Montresor knew exactly how to get on Fortunato's nerves. Although Nicole’s comment was true, it was difficult to see someone kill their friend. I also found Sebastiane's quote interesting because she stated that she did not think Fortunato died of a cough because the entire story revolved around Montresor getting revenge. I again agree with this statement due to the fact that Poe wrote this entire novel based on revenge. Overall there were many different interesting ideas stated throughout each seminar.
After concluding three different seminars there were some questions that I am still grappling with. Most importantly, “ I question Gabby’s point of view in stating that Fortunato and Montresor were never friends. “ Why would Montessor plot revenge against someone he never knew? This caused much controversy during the seminar because I believe that Montresor knew exactly what “buttons to push” in order to make Fortunato become an easy target to kill. I believe that Montresor and Fortunato were once friends and then suddenly became enemies, due to the fact that Montresor wanted revenge. I understand Gabby’s point because not to many people would kill her best friends, however Montresor and Fortunato had to have been friends due to the fact Montresor knew exactly how he was going to kill Fortunato. We constantly stated, during the discussion, that Montessor was a crazy person, therefore killing his best friend proved our statement.
Throughout the three seminars our participation was spectacular. Generally, whenever someone spoke everyone listened, and took careful notes. I noticed that when Nicole was talking people were taking notes, and focusing on what she was saying. Students then referenced backed to what Isabella said showing that they were paying close attention. This again happened when Sebastiane stated that Montessor used his and Fortunato’s past relationship to help him plot his revenge. On the other hand, when Nick was speaking people started laughing and engaging in side conversations. This happened a couple of times showing that overall listening was a strength it could also be an area of improvement. On the other hand, I observed Nicole Perreault. She was prepared because she referenced the text a couple of times and focused on each and every person’s points of views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utOm0Pw9pe4
I chose this video because it broke down the story to get a better handle as to what happened during the story. The first time I read this story I was confused, however after listening to this video it brought out the key points in the novel. It correctly summarized the story and made it simple to understand the story.
Isabella Lepre
ReplyDelete12 December ,2016
English 9 Honors
Mrs.Colando
In the seminar I found a lot of specific ideas and examples that stood out to me. In our conversation, we mainly focused on how there was a sense of jealousy on how montressur treated fortunato. In the circle we explained how that they must have had a friendship before and maybe something had happened. We thought this because montressur claimed to be getting bad names thrown at him from fortunate. But , you can not fully trust him because it is told in first person and the narrator did seem unreliable. We also explained about how montressur must have made a plan before this and set everything up.
The unanswered questions and ideas that I still have are how he got away with all of that. Even though it was perfectly planned on a night where everybody is careless, there must have been police or some sort around to keep watch. I wonder if anybody had superstition about the whole thing and really looked into the idea of Montressur being behind all of this. I also wonder if montressur speaks the truth about what he says fortunate has done. In a sense I feel as if fortunato lied and said this for another reason he did not want to be known. He might have been jealous of fortunato because of business or his likable personality which is something he did not have.
I did not speak in the circle, even though I had lots of words I wanted to say. But my circle did get across everything that should be said. I agree greatly on how montressur was a very unreliable person and I did not trust him one bit. The circle also said the same things I was feeling and I wish we could have elaborated more on that topic. To me Montessur was definitely close to him in some sort of way for him to hate him so dearly. I do not think that fortunato had anything to blame in this certain situation and I think Montressur did nothing wrong
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/montresor-feels-guilt-when-he-killed-fortunado-92273 this talks about how Montressur avtually feels guilt for what he did to Fortunato. I do not think about this as him being apart of his family motto being “no one attacks me with impunity”. I feel as if that is just a cover up about the person he is because he does feel guilt about what he did to Fortunato, because he would not be talking about it. I also think he lied and said it in a way of him being proud to his kid because he did not want his own kid to see him in a bad light. To me Montressur probably remembers that moment everyday and it will always affect him throughout his life.
Overall, the socratic seminars we did this quarter were better than the ones we did in the first quarter for A Yellow Raft in Blue Water. This was mainly due to the higher class participation overall. Everyone, even in the outer circle, had something to add to the conversation. Some ideas that were mentioned throughout the socratic seminars were very interesting. For example, Gabby Coia said that since Montresor is the narrator, you may not be able to believe everything that is said in the story due to Montresor’s untrustworthy personality. Personally, I had never thought of this, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought it was true. Some things told by Montresor in the story may not be true. One question that I think almost every reader will ponder on after the story is what exactly did Fortunato do to Montresor that made him go over the edge and have to punish with major impunity. Did Fortunato really do something so bad to him to make Montresor kill him? Or was Montresor just overreacting? Many interesting ideas were mentioned in all three socratic seminars, which caused for a great class discussion. Almost the entire class participated a lot, and we definitely improved our overall discussions from first quarter. For example, there were never any moments of silence in any of the discussions. All three groups kept the discussions moving, and all groups thoroughly discussed specific parts of the book. In the outer circle, I followed Sebastine Wall. Overall, she did a very good job. She spoke multiple times but did not dominate the conversation. She made eye contact with other people in her group as she talked, and never interrupted another speaker. She brought a very interesting point, saying that Fortunato made Montresor hit his breaking point, and he finally had had enough. Overall, this socratic seminar was a big improvement from the socratic seminar we did in the first quarter.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/Paris-Catacombs.jpg
The link above is a picture of the catacomb in Paris. This picture helps the reader picture the scene where Montresor takes Fortunato down into the catacombs. The scene in the catacombs helps Poe create a scary and dark mood.
Matthew Perrotta
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
A Socratic Review II
The second session of Socratic seminars yielded much discussion, intricate thought, and thorough analyzation of “The Cask of Amontillado”. While we were discussing, a few crucial points were brought up by peers. One such idea was discussed by Dan and expanded upon by others in his group. This ideas revolved around the possibility that Fortunato may have been drunk or in a state of ignorance when he “ventured upon insult”. If this were true, then Montresor’s revenge would be that much more unjustifiable. Montresor must know that his friend is a ‘connoisseur’ of wine and must often become drunk in his binges if he knew he could lure his friend into the catacombs with the beverage. Knowing this, he should be able to expect and take anything that Fortunato says while drunk, even if it is a personal insult. This ties in with another point brought up by Elizabeth, which was also expanded upon. She said that “...if Montresor knows so much about how Fortunato acts and what his weak spot is, then they must have some kind of closer relation than acquaintance’. It is illustrated that Montresor knows quite a bit about Fortunato, meaning they must have a friendship. Combining this with the fact that Fortunato could easily have been drunk pushes even more that Montresor’s revenge was unjustifiable and wrong.
I hearkened quite well to the discussions of each classmate during every seminar, but I did not hear one question that I had discussed in depth: Is revenge justifiable? In my opinion, yes. It is only human nature to seek to cause the same harm to one who has harmed you. However, when listening to the words and discussions of others, I noticed that they leaned toward the side of revenge being unjustifiable. Consideration must be taken for the circumstances of the story, as Montresor abuses this human drive in an extreme manor. In order to form an unbiased opinion, one must realize what Montresor did was uncalled for, and most situations of revenge are an eye for an eye. Overall, I would have liked to see this essential question explained and expanded a tad more.
Class participation during the seminars was close to perfect, in my opinion. No one disrupted the speakers’ group, nor did any speaker start a side conversation or interrupt another. During the seminars, I followed Dan and Elizabeth. Dan spoke much less than Elizabeth, but brought up a number of defining ideas and points for the rest of the group to take to. Both referred to the text seldom, and both asked two new questions for the groups to use. Elizabeth came very close to dominating the conversation quite a few times, and definitely spoke more than usual, which resulted in many interesting topics being revealed. In the end, I believe this session of seminars was much more in-depth and thought out than the previous.
http://www.biography.com/news/edgar-allan-poe-horror-stories-facts
This website, which reveals the inspiration behind a few of Edgar Allan Poe’s stories, is actually quite chilling. From tooth-smuggling graverobbers to a body hidden among culinary salts, Poe’s works of horror and suspense all had influence from somewhere, and in certain cases, that somewhere was quite gruesome. Even “The Cask of Amontillado is based off of a combination of events that Poe experienced, like tales of a skeleton found chained under a church and soldiers being walled up in an old fortress. History is the world’s greatest story, and Poe used this to his advantage in one of the most clever ways imaginable: by toying with the human mind, by playing with it, by pushing it to see how far it is willing to go.
Sebastiane Wall
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
Cask of Amontillado Socratic Seminar Reflection
Our class’s Cask of Amontillado Socratic Seminar was very interesting. I think it went better than our discussions about A Yellow Raft in Blue Water because most people seemed more comfortable. My classmates’ different interpretations of the story made me aware of other aspects of the book. One example of an opinion I found particularly fascinating were when Talia said, “Montresor used Fortunato’s long life to his advantage.” I agree with this and I think it is the many reason Fortunato was able to be killed. A few students also mentioned Poe’s use of foreshadowing, like when Montresor toasted to Fortunato’s ‘long life.’ This can be seen as ironic as well because Fortunato is killed by Montresor at the end of the story.
I still have some questions after finishing the Cask of Amontillado. I want to know exactly what killed Fortunato because Poe leaves it unclear to the reader. Another question I have is what people thought happened to Fortunato and if his family and friends ever found out who killed him.
One person I followed was Isabella Corso. She made some very interesting points and I liked how she included foreshadowing throughout her group’s discussion. I also followed Cameron Alves. He participated in a lot of the discussion and answered his classmates’ new questions frequently, as well as making good eye contact. I agreed with him when he said that he thought Fortunato did something to hurt Montresor’s business.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/dark-underworld-paris-catacombs-002834
This link is to a website that explains the catacombs in Paris. It helped me understand the setting of the story because it takes place in Montresor’s catacombs. This background information allowed me to develop my interpretation of the mood.
Gabrielle Coia
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
“The Cask of Amontillado” Socratic Seminar Reflection
Through his writing, Poe shows multiple examples of irony. I particularly found Massimo’s observation that Fortunato’s name is an example of verbal irony very interesting. Because “fortunato” means “fortunate’ in Italian, it is ironic that Fortunato was an unfortunate character because Montresor murders him. While Fortunato’s name is ironic, it also is an example of foreshadowing. Because verbal irony indicates the opposite of what is being said, Fortunato’s name also foreshadows his fate, which is very unfortunate. Poe’s ability to show literary elements simultaneously proves how great of a writer he truly was.
I am still having trouble interpreting Fortunato’s reaction of “Good!” when Montresor told him his family motto. Montresor states his motto, “Nemo me impune lacessit” which translates to “No one attacks me with impunity”. At first, I interpreted Fortunato’s reaction as a sign of relief. I understood that Montresor was trying to tell Fortunato that that he would not attack him with impunity to follow his family motto. I figured that Montresor said that to trick him into thinking he was safe. However, when Mrs. Colando suggested that his reaction of “Good!” just could have been a simple response, my perspective changed. Fortunato could have been drunk or not realized what the motto meant and his initial reaction could have just been to say “Good”. I am still grappling with understanding Fortunato’s reaction.
Overall, the class did a very good job in analyzing “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allen Poe. Almost everyone had something to say and brought new ideas to the forefront. I followed Sophia Saccoccio who did a great job suggesting points to change someone else’s perspective. For example, Sophia suggested that Montresor was either speaking to himself or God when telling the story. She backed up her claim by pointing out that the story is much too personal and intimate to tell to someone other than someone he completely trusts. She also did a great job of wrapping up the discussion and making eye contact with all of her group members. One thing that Sophia could improve on is talking a little more in the discussion. Overall, the class did an adequate job in analyzing the story and discussing everyone’s interpretations.
http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/1574.pdf
I chose this link because Potassium Nitrate (niter) was encrusted in the vaults that Montresor was planning to kill Fortunato in. As it says in the link, “Higher levels (of niter) can cause trouble breathing, collapse and even death” (Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet, New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services). The niter foreshadows Fortunato’s death. Also, Montresor warns Montresor should stay back because of the niter. This ties into the discussion of Montresor’s reverse psychology. Montresor knew that the niter would not kill Fortunato, but he would. When doing this, fortunato displays irony when he states “I shall not die of a cough” (Poe 7). In reality, Montresor knows that he will kill him instead, which is why he emphasizes the niter's presence.
Jordyn Payne
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 H
12 December 2016
“The Cask of Amontillado” Mini Socratic Seminar Reflection
Between the three groups that conversed, a plethora of thought-provoking theories and ideas were shared. A specific idea that I found interesting was shared by Dan. He believed that, at the end of the story, Montresor was disappointed as he hoped Fortunato would suffer longer. The only emotions that I thought Montresor may have felt at the end of the story was either pride or guilt, but not disappointment. I felt as though this was a very unique way of interpreting the ending of the story. Another interesting idea that was brought up was something that Massimo brought up. Though it was mentioned in class before, I still find it interesting how Fortunato’s name is irony within itself. It is a detail that can be easily overlooked, but when noticed, very powerful in terms of the story.
An unanswered question I have is, I believe, one that is asked by many readers of “The Cask of Amontillado”. What did Fortunato do that made Montresor want to seek revenge and kill him? If this question was answered, a huge part of Montresor’s character would be prominent. If the ‘damage’, so to speak, was minor, then it is clear that Montresor easily becomes angry and violent and takes things out of proportion. However, if it was something very serious, then the murder of Fortunato does not seem as brutal. Even then, the revenge would not be justifiable. I also would like to know if Fortunato was aware that he “insulted” Montresor. I was lead to this question because of his drunken state in the story as well as the mention of his connoisseurship in wine. It is very possible that he could have been drunk when insulting Montresor, and since Montresor did not threaten him, he would indefinitely be unaware.
Overall, the class participation in the seminars was amazing. There were only a couple of people that barely spoke, or not at all. I followed Hagop and Alison. Hagop spoke quite a bit within his group and provided several insightful ideas for his group to discuss. Though he had brilliant ideas, I wish that he referenced the text more. As for Alison, she contributed insightful ideas to her group, as well. She had stated that the scenery of the catacombs was essential in establishing a creepy, suspenseful mood. I wish she spoke a little more within the discussion.
http://archive.boston.com/travel/getaways/us/articles/2009/02/22/south_carolina_island_outpost_radiates_poe_aura/?page=2
I chose this link because it features a description of a part of Edgar Allan Poe’s life as well as highlighting a restaurant called Poe’s Tavern. I have seen this eatery on television before, and I believe that it is interesting in terms of Poe’s legacy. The article explains Poe’s residence on Sullivan’s Island. In terms of the restaurant, it has burgers named after his stories and the decor is centered around Poe himself. Though this is a loose connection to the story, I do believe that it is interesting that Poe’s legacy has lived on in such a manner.
(side note: Poe’s Tavern has a burger called the Amontillado, which contains guacamole, jalapeno jack cheese, pico de gallo and chipotle sour cream.)
Kathryn Terceiro
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
13 December 2016
Socratic Seminar
Overall, I believe that our class did a fantastic job with the socratic seminar. I believe that everyone had something very informative to say and that everyone made a contribution to the conversation. I found what Jamie said really interesting, specifically that revenge is justifiable as long as no physical harm is done. I found this interesting because I don’t agree with this statement, in some cases mental harm can be just as bad as physical harm. Extreme cases of mental harm can lead to depression which can lead to things much worse than physically harming someone. I also found it interesting when Jamie said that Montresor may have felt that he needed to kill Fortunato in order to uphold his family motto. I thought that was really interesting because I never thought about it in that sense. I never even thought of that and found it really cool to hear that idea.
Even after all of the seminars, I still have a few unanswered questions such as what really pushed Montresor so far as to commit such a heinous crime. Also, I find it hard to believe that Fortunato never noticed anything peculiar about the whole thing. I feel that if someone was taking me deep into catacombs when no one is around and especially being taken into a small room that I would feel that something was wrong. I also still believe that Montresor and Fortunato may have not been friends and maybe they were just business partners. I think this because the way Montresor manipulated Fortunato was like he was used to manipulating him in order to get what he wanted and not a way that a friend would act. I think that our class did very well overall, both of the people I observed spoke 7-8 times throughout the 15 minute period and I think that they had very interesting things to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUwW6yiRqGo
I included this link because I found what was said very interesting. I think that it could show why Montresor ended up telling his story. As proved by the studies shown in this video, many people feel worse after committing revenge because they dwell on what had happened. I feel that this video really encompasses how Montresor may have felt.
Alison D’Elena
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
After reading “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allan Poe, the class participated in thought provoking, in depth discussions about the story. Many interesting details were mentioned by students in the class. For example, I found it very interesting when Nicole suggested that Montresor’s plan to kill Fortunato in the catacombs might not have followed through if Montresor did not tell Fortunato he had amontillado. The fact that amontillado is so expensive and rare is what made Fortunato want to follow Montresor so desperately. If Montresor did not manipulate Fortunato with the thought of amontillado, Fortunato might have been more likely to not go along with Montresor. One question that was debated in the discussions was whether Montresor felt guilt or pride after killing Fortunato. In my opinion, I believe Montresor felt guilty. Someone who remembers a story like that so distinctly and so vividly must feel at least some guilt. Some people made the argument that he was fulfilling the family motto to make his family proud of him. To me, I do not think it is necessary to kill someone in order to make his family proud, but we do not know enough about Montresor’s character, morals, or background to know for sure. Poe provided very little details for the reader to know exactly if Montresor was proud or guilty, so readers will never completely know the answer to this question. Overall, everyone in the class participated in their discussions and discussed the story thoroughly. For one of the groups, I followed Jordyn. She spoke in the group about seven times during the fifteen minutes and made some very insightful comments. For example, she brought up the idea that the reader would know a lot more about Montresor's character if the author revealed what Fortunato did to make Montresor want to seek revenge on him.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qme9E2Nqv2s
I chose this video because it thoroughly summarizes and describes the story of “The Cask of Amontillado” in great detail. This video helps to understand all parts of the story much better than before.
Sophia Saccoccio
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 H
12 December 2016
Many components of the “Cask of Amontillado” socratic seminar were interesting. From observing and partaking in the discussions, my perspective on the story changed and my mind was open to new theories. Vy made a good point by mentioning, “Montresor was being sarcastic when he said ‘My heart grew sick; it was the dampness of the catacombs that made it so.’” When I first read that sentence in the story, I did not acknowledge that part. I thought that his “heart grew sick” because he regretted killing Fortunato. Vy’s perspective on the story was a lot different than mine and hearing it brought to my attention the many mysteries that Poe left unsaid. Also, Elizabeth said, “Montresor uses reverse psychology with Fortunato.” This is interesting because Montresor does many ironic things. He asks Fortunato if he is alright and suggests that they head back because his cough is bad. In reality, Montresor is about to kill him.
A question that I am still grappling with is: What was the “insult” that Fortunato did to Montresor? If this question were answerable, the story could make a lot more sense. If the insult was something very bad, then Montresor’s actions could be more understandable. If the insult was something foolish, then Montresor’s actions could be seen as unnecessary. I was wondering, what would happen if Fortunato actually went back because of his cough? Throughout the story, Fortunato battles an incessant cough and Montresor suggests that they leave the catacombs. If Fortunato were to agree, then the story would change tremendously. It is a possibility that Montresor had a backup plan. It is also a possibility that Montresor would not be able to get his revenge.
Overall, the socratic seminars were a success. A majority of the members spoke frequently in the discussion. Whilst discussing, eye contact was made quite often. When Isabella spoke, the other members looked at her, and she looked at them. The text was referred to a few times, but direct quotes could have been used more. Elizabeth referred to a quote in the text that said, “For a brief moment I hesitated” (Poe 9). People also responded and added on to what others said. Katie discussed how it could be possible that someone found Fortunato’s remains and myself and others in the group gave their inputs. Few interruptions happened per group, but they were unintentional. Nobody engaged in side conversations or over-dominated the conversations. I observed Vy and Elizabeth. Vy spoke many times within the discussion and made eye contact every time. For example, she said, “Montresor was reassured the walls were stable and Fortunato would not escape.” She referred to the text once, responded to others and also added onto ideas. Elizabeth also made frequent eye contact and spoke often in her group. She referred to the text a few times. For example, she said, “On page 9 it says, ‘For a brief moment I hesitated.’” Elizabeth also responded to other and added on to their ideas. Elizabeth asked, “How does the theme develop through sensory imagery?” and “What emotions was Montresor feeling throughout the story?” These skillful questions lead into deep discussion and kept the group on topic.
The included link furthered my understanding of the story and provided interesting theories. It discusses possible mental illnesses that explain Montresor’s actions. It makes me wonder how deep the meaning behind this story really is. It seems Poe had greater intentions than to tell a revenge story with a freaky twist. The writer tries to find reason as to why Montresor killed Fortunato. They believe he could be orphaned or privileged and never taught right from wrong. In the socratic seminars, many possibilities behind the story were mentioned. This link just takes our observations and theories to the next level involving psychoanalytic criticism, reasoning behind why people behave how they do.
http://stephanietrinidad.blogspot.com/2013/12/montresors-downfall.html
Caroline Carbone
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
Socratic Seminar Reflection
The Socratic Seminar on “The Cask of Amontillado” went very well and included an immense amount of class participation. Throughout all three socratic seminars new ideas and opinions made me reassess my assumptions and thoughts. One idea that I found particularly interesting throughout my group’s discussion was that many people within my group believed that Montresor was shocked after killing Fortunato. I never looked at that situation in that way; I just thought that Montresor was nervous or scared that he did the wrong thing and might actually get caught. Sebastine and Jordyn both brought up this topic and agreed he was shocked. Also, my group mentioned that Montresor might have been upset that Fortunato did not really suffer as he died; he just simply died. Dan especially touched upon this topic and I agree that after the fact Montresor might have actually been upset. Another idea that really made me reassess my thinking was when Sebastine brought up that it might not be one insult that made Montresor want to get revenge but multiple that built up, and Montresor just couldn’t take it anymore. I only looked at it as it was one insult that aggravated Montresor. But I realized Sebastine’s idea could also be a possibility.
One question that I think everyone has for the author, Poe, is what did Fortunato do to upset or push Montresor over the edge causing him kill Fortunato and get revenge? This is a key factor throughout the story. Although not knowing what the insult was or the insults that lead up to this point creates the suspense throughout the story. Although, if we knew this information the story would not be as dramatic or suspenseful.
Overall the class had a great amount of participation compared to the “Yellow Raft In Blue Water” Socratic seminar. This time around almost everyone included their ideas and added to the conversation. For one of the Socratic Seminars I followed Nicole. She added insightful comments and ideas to the discussion. One thing I found interesting was when she mentioned that Montresor used friendship and trust to draw Fortunato into the catacombs. I agree with this statement and in the group discussion it started a deeper conversation about Montresor’s plan and how he thoroughly thought it through. She could have referred to the text to support her comments more though. I also followed Gabby and she shared intelligent comments to the discussion. One thing I felt was very important was when she mentioned about Montresor being the narrator. Although she helped move along the conversation she could have referred to the text more for support.
https://www.poemuseum.org/who-was-edgar-allan-poe
I chose this link because it explains all the things Poe did to help the craft of writing grow throughout his years of writing. I also found it interesting he was the first person to try to make a living out of being a professional writer. Also, according to this website, there is a Poe museum in Virginia which I find extremely interesting.
Talia Thibodeau
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
While listening to the socratic seminars for “The Cask of Amontillado,” I found there to be many points that were brought up that I found interesting. One point that I did not think of before is when Gabby brought up the point about how Montresor is not trustworthy, therefore, we can not trust him as a narrator because he could have been lying about it. Also, I found it interesting when Nicole started to talk about the fact that if Fortunato did not think that there was Amontillado, then he would not have gone as deep as he went into the catacombs. I also thought that what was said in the outside circle was interesting, when it was brought up that Fortunato and Montresor had to be business partners or friends, and then Fortunato did something to make Montresor sad, which is why he said how he was happy but now sad when he toasted to Fortunato’s long life.
I still wonder about what would have happened to Fortunato if he was not so drunk at the carnival and was not so easy to prey on and be killed by Montresor. Because if he was not so drunk, I believe that he would have noticed that something about going deeper and deeper into the catacomb was not right. I also wonder who Montresor was talking to about the crime he committed after half a century before and why he was telling the person or thing. There were different thoughts that the class had like he was on his deathbed, telling his grandson as a way to uphold the family motto, or he was just talking to God. Although, I still do not know what explanation I believe it is.
I believe that the participation of the class was surprising. I did not know what to expect, because in past seminars some people tend to be more quiet. I think that everybody was interested in the topic and all had a different opinion about the story, which is why everyone was so involved. One person that I followed was Gabby Coia and I observed that she talked multiple times in the 15 minute time frame. I also thought that she brought up some great points like saying how she thought that Montresor was not trustworthy because of all of the lying that he did, and how it might be the same thing if it was told from Fortunato's perspective because we would not know who to believe.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/p/poes-short-stories/summary-and-analysis/the-cask-of-amontillado
I chose this link because it gave me more insight to the story and it went into more detail about it. It also gave me more to think about, for example it talked about why Montresor was talking about this half a century later, and this was still on of my questions that I had not answered and I was still thinking about why Poe included it into the story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDan Marella
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9
12 December 2016
Take Time to Reflect on Socratic Seminar
One idea that I thought was interesting in the discussion was when Gabby Coia, brought up the topic of Montresor being a reliable narrator or not. I think that Montresor may be lying and exaggerating about his story just a bit. Unless he is very proud or very guilty, there is no way that he could remember every little detail of his revenge fifty years in the future. Another idea that was brought up was the one thousand injury idea. Sebastine Wall had brought this topic up and I thought it was quite interesting because maybe Fortunato did many things to Montresor instead of one insult. After taking all the insults, Montresor had enough and then killed Fortunato because of the many things Fortunato had done to him. It is interesting to think about since I originally thought Fortunato only did one bad thing to Montresor.
One idea I am still struggling to understand is what Montresor said nearing the end of the story about his heart hurting. I am not sure if he is feeling guilt or he was just being sarcastic as Vy had said. I personally believe that he is not guilty at all and meant to say this in a sarcastic way. Yet the answer is still questionable. Another idea that came to mind was why Montresor had taken his rapier out as Fortunato was dying. Did he do it just for protection or because he felt that his plan would fail? I doubt he thought his plan would fail, but this action still has me confused.
Overall I felt that the class had a good discussion in each of the seminar groups. I had followed Ryan Silva and Gabby Coia. They both spoke little in the conversation, but I must say that they both brought up some interesting points in the conversation, especially when Gabby brought up the reliability of the narrator. They both referred to the text about once and each brought up one new topic to discuss about. Their performance and the rest of the class in these seminars show how deep our class can delve into a conversation about a story. I believe this seminar went much better than the very first seminar we did,
The link attached at the bottom is very resourceful. It provides a roundabout summary of the short story and a plot description. Also, it displays the characters in the story, points of view, style, and the themes. This link is very helpful for people who are new to reading “The Cask of Amontillado.”
http://www.poedecoder.com/essays/cask/
Jaime Forte
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
13 December 2016
In The Cask of Amontillado by Edgar Allen Poe there are some important details stood out to me as extremely detailed. Isabella Corso said that Fortunato aided himself in his own death because of his pride. If Fortunato was truly concerned with his health the story would have been completely different, Montresor’s whole plan revolved around the possibility that Fortunato might be too proud to leave the catacombs. Jordyn Payne said that we might have sympathized with Montresor more if we had known what Fortunato said. As the reader, we are supposed to feel sorry for Fortunato because he did not know what he did wrong and he was being murdered.
One unanswered question I have is what did Fortunato say to make Montresor so angry? Montresor uses the word, “insult” which means that Fortunato merely said a rude thing to Montresor. Montresor is either acting out because he is insane and is overreacting or the word “insult” means something drastically different today than it did in the time of Edgar Allen Poe. Another question I have is who is Montresor talking to in the beginning? The story is told from Montresor’s point of view 50 years in the future. It sounds like he is repenting maybe to God or a close friend or a relative. However, know one can be sure who he is talking to.
One of the people I followed was Isabella Corso. I felt that she had great strengths like asking new questions and speaking a lot in her Socratic Seminar. She responded to many other people’s ideas. However, she needed to refer to the text more as that was an important aspect during our assignment. Isabella never interrupted another speaker, engaged in side conversation, or dominated the conversation to the point where no one else could speak. As a whole, I think the whole class did well with speaking and asking new questions. Something I never thought of was when Vy Ho thought that Montresor was being sarcastic when he said his heart hurt from the niter.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/poes-the-cask-of-amontillado-summary-and-analysis.html I chose this link because it helped me understand some of the more complicated portions of the story. It breaks down the plot and defines some vocabulary words like “catacombs” and “trowel”,
Kaitlyn Fitzgerald
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
ELA Per 3
12 December 2016
Socratic Seminar Reflection
One idea that was particularly interesting would be when Nicole talked about Montresor and Fortunato having a strong friendship which helped lead Fortunato into the Amontillado. This is important because if they were not friends in the past Fortunato may not have followed Montresor into the catacombs. Another interesting idea that was brought up was when Sebastiane talked about Fortunato not dying from a cough. She spoke about how the whole story revolved around revenge so dying of a cough would not have been ideal. Another thing that stood out in the seminar was when Cam talked about how Montresor planned every detail out of this murder. For example placing the trowel and the first tier of the wall he was building.
One unanswered question I have would be, why did Montresor build a wall? I have this question because Fortunato had already been chained up to the wall and would eventually die. He could have built this wall possibly to cover up for what he had done to Fortunato. Another question is about Gabby’s opinion that the two were not very good friends before. In my opinion the two had been friends in the past and something occurred between the two of them which caused Montresor to seek revenge.
I thought that our class participation was very good. Mostly everybody had spoke in their groups. But, for instance I noticed that Izzy Lepre had not spoke at all in my group. I observed Nicole Perreault and Sebastiane Wall. They spoke frequently and referred to the text at some points. Nicole brought up new and engaging questions while Sebastiane had spoke often and responded to some classmates questions. Overall I think that our class participated well and brought up very good points and topics to discuss.
https://www.google.com/search?q=carnival+in+italy&safe=strict&rlz=1CAACAT_enUS715US715&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=655&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH0JH10O_QAhWHbxQKHdD6AEoQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1#imgrc=wpcfowE64Hg9dM%3A
This image gave me a clear description of what Carnival was like in Italy when this story took place. I now understand the concept of the masks and colors and what the setting might have looked like during the time of this story. This link connects with the seminar because all of the groups talked about the setting to be a major factor in the plot of the story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCameron Alves
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
13 December 2016
Mini Socratic Seminar Reflection
All in all, the Cask of Amontillado mini Socratic Seminar was a success from my point of view. Some specific examples of this were how deceptive and decisive some of the answers people were giving. For example, I found it interesting when Hagop Ayanyan brought up the topic that the story would have a different outcome if Fortunato was not drunk. I found this particularly interesting because it is very true. Another example of an interesting point that was brought up in the discussion was by Nick Izzi. He pointed out the fact that the use of injuries in the beginning of the story when Montresor was explaining what Fortunato did to him, could mean physical as well as emotional. This made the class, and me, wonder what form of an injury Poe was trying to get across to the reader.
One of the major unanswered questions that I still have lingering in my head is, “What did Fortunato do to Montresor to make him want this bad of revenge?” What I took from this was maybe Fortunato disrespected Montresor, or hurt a business that Montresor may have owned. I feel that both of them are wealthy men and are hard working business owning men. Another question that I have is “How did Montresor lure Fortunato from Carnival so easily, without anyone seeing?” Considering what the story makes Fortunato out to be, I feel as though that he would have many other people surrounding him. I understand that Carnival is a massive party of chaos, but I just feel as though that Montresor baiting Fortunato away with the Amontillado was just too easy to be true.
Overall, the classes participation was very good considering the seminar was on a short notice. In my group, some people spoke very little to none at all. The people that I observed were Nick Izzi and Hagop Ayanyan. Hagop’s participation was fantastic and he had great points in his discussion. Although Nick’s participation was a little less, the few points he made were very impactful.
This link explains the character of Fortunato and it also explains some of the questions i brought up earlier in the reflection. There is a brief paragraph about the exact question that I expressed interest in the beginning of the reflection. It starts out by saying Montresor never explains to us how Fortunato hurt him.
http://www.shmoop.com/cask-of-amontillado/fortunato.html
Abigail Royal
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
Socratic Seminar Reflection
What I found interesting throughout the Socratic seminar is how the ending of the short story was left open for interpretation. Whether the short story was told to a relative or God, or that the catacombs peace was disturbed and someone found Fortunato’s body. Isabella said Poe wanted the short story to be left for the readers to interpret what had happen after the half of a century. Also it was left open for the readers to speculate put thought into what happened. Isabella thought the story was Montresor's’ confession. I found this interesting because it made me think, could it be? I did not think of the story that way.
An additional question I would add to Isabella’s thoughts is why would Poe write the Cask of Amontillado as Montresor's confession. Why I would ask this? Because I did not think of the story as a confession I thought it as Montresor's telling his story to a close friend or family member to get his guilt off his chest. Now I see how the story could be portrayed as Montresor’s confession, but why would Poe want to write the short story as a confession?
The class’s overall participation was good. As a class, we covered a lot of questions and brought up some interesting ideas. I followed Isabella and she brought up some interesting thoughts like how the story was told as a confession and how Poe wanted the ending to be left open to interpretation. Isabella’s weakness was not asking follow up questions and she not referring to the text as much as she could. Overall she did a good job by speaking and making eye contact with other speakers.
The link I chose was http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com/blog/article-the-mysterious-revenge-in-the-cask-of-amontillado/ This link is an article that describes how Poe uses “Environment and psyche symbolically in a horrible story full of suspense and irony.” This article also gives information and what they think everything means throughout the story. An interesting phrase I found in the article was “The descent into the dark labyrinth underground is a descent into the hell of the soul, where all the horror of psychic delirium and death emerges.”. This means that going underground to Montresor ‘s catacombs was a symbol of going to hell. I never thought of the catacombs in that way. I chose this article because I found a lot of interesting points such as “The torch the characters hold in “The Cask of Amontillado” not only enlightens that dark place, but also expresses and reveals the dramatic events through its reddish light.”, I had not thought of this after reading The Cask of Amontillado. How this article relates to the socratic seminar is during the socratic seminar we talked about the friendship of Montresor and Fortunato. The article states “The narrator knows his victim’s personality very well and takes advantage of it to carry out his diabolic plan of revenge.” This adds to what I said in the socratic seminar how Montresor and Fortunato were close friends but became distance and Fortunato thought they were still close friends. Also during the socratic seminar we had said how Montresor used their friendship to his advantage.
Ryan Silva
ReplyDeleteMrs.Colando
ELA 9 Honors
12 December 2016
Socratic Seminar
In class we had read “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allan Poe and we had done a socratic seminar with it. They were very detailed discussions for the short amount of time that we had. One of the important ideas that stuck out to me was that Montresor didn’t feel bad about killing Fortunato. In the end he said, “my heart grew sick,” and I had initially took this literally. It wasn’t until Vy spoke about it that I had changed my mind. She had mentioned that it may have been an ironic statement. That he didn’t really feel sick or bad, more that he was satisfied. Something that Vy hadn’t mentioned to support that was how excited he sounded at the very last line. He had said “rest in peace!” and the exclamation leads the reader to assume joy. This is as opposed to without an exclamation where it may be sad, or boring. Something I noticed the class struggled with including myself is one of the essential questions: Is getting revenge justifiable? The answer to this question varies from the interpretation of the question to the person answering the question. I believe that justifiable means someone has a reason, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be the right reason. Through this interpretation revenge is justifiable, but not right. Overall the class had done very well, and I gained a lot of insight into Poe’s writing, and this story specifically as well. There were some great leaders in the groups such as Isabella Corso, Cameron Alves, Hagop Ayanyan, Katie Terciero, and others. These are just a few people who had talked and lead people on the right track for discussion. (https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/the_tell-tale_heart_0.pdf) This link is to Poe’s story “The Telltale Heart” which also conveys a dark theme including a death. Both Montresor and the narrator had planned to kill a man and both did it in gruesome ways. Although both portray a dark death, the difference with “The Telltale Heart” is that the narrator goes mad. He feels guilt for the killing, unlike Montresor. It was discussed that Montresor didn’t feel guilty as it was in his family to punish those who wrong them. “To punish with impunity” as Montresor says. This is how it relates to the seminar, as it shows how different Montresor is from a regular person. All he was concerned about was keeping his pride, which was a strong cultural aspect of his family. Overall the socratic seminars had gone extremely well, and I had learned a lot from this experience.
Makayla Vieira
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
I think that the socrative seminars for this quarter, “The Cask of Amontillado” were better than our first quarter ones because we were more experienced with it. Everyone was more prepared because they knew what to expect. The conversations had less awkward silences and moved along smoothly. Something interesting I observed from someone I followed, Abi Royal said “Fortunato and Montresor were once friends but became distance over time. Fortunato still thought they were good friends.” I agree with this because it seems as if Fortunado trusted Montresor as he followed him into the catacombs. I also agree with the idea someone came up with that they may have once been business partners. Abi spoke a few times in the discussion but made her points clear. To improve I would ask more follow up questions and try to lead more in the discussion.
A question I still have about the story is something discussed In my group about whether Montresor felt guilty for killing Fortunado but I do not agree with this. I said that if he planned out his revenge for so long he would not feel guilty he would feel proud after killing him. I do not think Montresor was afraid to kill him in the moment but was more afraid that Fortunado would get away. That is why he pulled out his sword. In terms of revenge I do not think Montresor was as satisfied as he hoped to be later on in life.
https://poeinterest.wordpress.com/edgar-allan-poes-writing-style/ On this website it talks about Edgar Allan Poe’s unique way of writing expecially in this story. I think it is helpful in teaching about Poe’s “gothic tales” and dark stories. It also tells the reader a little about Poes background and tells about “The Cask of Amontillado”.
Hagop Ayanyan
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
Per. 3
English 9 Honors
13 December 2016
The Cask of Conversation
One idea that I particularly found interesting was the over exaggerated irony throughout the story. Within my group, I brought up how some of the irony could have been a method of foreshadowing, and I found it interesting how Poe used this to his advantage in his writing. It was a different approach to foreshadowing an event, but an effective approach at that. An example is simply Fortunato’s name, as he ended up dead rather than fortunate, contrary to his name. While listening to another group’s socratic seminar, Gabby brought up how Montresor could not be a trustworthy narrator, and that got me thinking. The events may have been twisted, and I realized that we could not assume whether or not Montresor was trustworthy as we did not have both sides to the story. That left me with an unanswered question: how do I decide whether or not Montresor is to be trusted or not? Poe leaves us with just the right information to keep us thinking, and I believe that half of the story is in your head and what you make of the story. It remains unanswered if Poe did this intentionally, but even if it was intentional my group and I discussed whether or not Montresor was a trustworthy narrator. It was one of the main topics of conversation in our discussion, I still have this question because I feel like Montresor may have made out Fortunato differently. Montresor may have just been jealous or killed him for another reason, because killing someone over an insult seems far-fetched to me. The class’s overall participation was decent. Some people did not know what they were talking about, some could not follow along with the conversation, and some did not speak at all. Although, for the most part, many people kept the conversation flowing and there were not many awkward silences. I followed Gabby, and she did very well in speaking and bringing up new points, like the point that Montresor could possibly not be trustworthy. http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2015/09/6-foolproof-ways-to-tell-if-someone-is-worth-your-trust/ This article is about how to tell if someone is trustworthy. This applies to the story in the sense that we do not know if Montresor if a trustworthy narrator or not, so it is up to us (the readers) to determine that for ourselves.
Jaci Scully
ReplyDeleteMrs.Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December, 2016
While reading The Cask of Amontillado it was somewhat difficult to understand. Although while discussing the short story in the class, the story begun to make more sense and became clearer. In the first socratic seminar I listened to Sebastian made really good points about the story and the story’s characters. Such as when she stated how other factors led up to the murder. Before hearing this statement I believed that one major thing led up to Fortunato’s murder, but when Sebastian mentioned the idea of other things leading up to the murder I viewed the story a little differently. This was interesting to me since I never viewed it the same way Sebastian did. In the second socratic seminar I followed Isabella Corsa. Isabella stated how Fortunato was clueless and wouldn’t even realize if he did insult someone. This was interesting since it defined the type of character Fortunato was. This showed that Fortunato was a clueless type of character and originally I viewed him as a smarter type of person.
A question that I had after reading The Cask of Amontillado hearing the socratic seminar was, did Montresor tell anyone about the murder prior to the time he is telling in the story? This question is in my mind since if he did tell anyone I would wonder if his story changed with every person that he told. As a reader I am not sure if Montresor is telling the truth, and there is no evidence to back up his story. If he were to tell more than one person, if the story was modified or exactly the same the reader would be able to better judge Montresor's story.
Overall the class did well at participating during the socratic seminar. Sebastian specifically engaged a lot about Montresor's reasoning behind the murder and about his actions. I don’t believe her specifically could've had any improvements, she did a really well job. Isabella Corso as well did a good job in her socratic seminar. Isabella touched a lot upon Fortunato and his character which was really informative and helpful as an audience member. She too did not need any improvements. Overall as a class the only improvement I would make would be to make the groups smaller to allow more talking for each individual students. The bigger the group, the less a student has the opportunity to share his/her ideas.
In the link provided this gives an overall summary of The Cask of Amontillado which was a good wrap up in my opinion to give one last look at the story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utOm0Pw9pe4
Massimo Feroce
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
Socratic Seminar Reflection
Overall, I think that the class did a wonderful job when it came to dissecting the important information within the story. I felt like this time around it was more natural and ran more smoothly unlike the seminars discussing A Yellow Raft in Blue Water. Everyone had important comments on what they found interesting during the story. One comment that I found very interesting was when Gabby discussed that the narrator is not trustworthy. I did not think of this point before she mentioned this, but the more I thought about it the more I thought that it was true. Montessori is the one telling the story 50 years after. Montresor could have forgot some details and added some other ones in to make him seem “cool” to the one he is telling. This would make sense because Montresor never talked about what Fortunati did to him ti make him seek revenge. Montresor only wanted to focus on his part. He could have altered the real story. Another comment that I found interesting was when Vy brought up the point about when Montresor said his heart was hurting was sarcastic. I had never thought of this, I had always thought of that symbolizing the fact that Montresor was guilty for what he had done. She was saying that Montresor did this in a joking way of what he had done, while I thought he was talking in a more serious manner. Vy brought a new outlook on the situation that I had never seen before. Although I listened and participated in three seminars, I still have some unanswered questions. One question is why did Montresor ever want to get revenge in the first place? Montresor brings up that Fortunato has insulted him but did not exactly state what he did. Another question I have is, why was Montresor bringing up the story 50 years after? Maybe something happened to the body, or he is just telling his grandson, but we won't know for sure. I followed Cam and I thought he did a very nice job during the seminar. He brought up some great points and referenced the text a couple of times. One great point he brought up was that Montresor had to have gone into the catacombs before and sat everything up. This was clearly planned out very carefully, and Montresor intended to kill Fortunato just how it had went down.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.biography.com/.amp/news/edgar-allan-poe-horror-stories-facts?client=safari
This quote shows Poe’s inspiration for writing the story. The article states that Fortunato was portraying one of Poe’s enemies, Thomas Dunn English. The idea of the body in the walk came from a magazine article about a skeleton found in a church wall.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVy Ho
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
12 December 2016
Cask Of Amontillado Socratic Seminar Reflections
Our class’ socratic seminar on A Cask of Amontillado was impressive to say the least. Everyone had interesting things to contribute to the conversation. One thing that stood out to me was when Cam said that everything leading up to the moment of Fortunato’s death was a red flag and that he would not have followed Montresor if he wasn’t drunk. I had a different outlook on the story and felt that the times were different and that Montresor had definitely hid his intentions well. When saying his family motto, I never took that as a red flag because as Cam had said later on, we only took the motto in that way because we had background information that foreshadows what was going to happen. Also, leading Fortunato down deep into the catacombs is not out of the ordinary because it’s common sense to keep your very rare and expensive wine locked away, far from society. Montresor also checks on Fortunato frequently to assure him that he cares about his well-being. The only possible thing that Montresor did that could possibly cause suspicion is toasting to Fortunato’s long life. Also, I found that when Katie said that Montresor could possibly have been telling someone the story because the bones have been uncovered a very unique idea because I had never thought of it that way. I interpreted it as Montresor telling his son or grandson about this to encourage them to protect and act upon the family motto. I still have many questions about the story because there’s too many ways to interpret and go about the story. I just want to know what exactly Fortunato did but I suppose Poe did this so that people would learn about themselves and their limits and what would really drive them to kill someone. Still, it is hard to tell whether Montresor’s actions were justifiable because the reader doesn’t know what Fortunato did. In addition to that, I want to know the tone that I am supposed to read their voices in because that would help me out even more. If I had read Montresor’s lines in a nonchalant voice, then it would be a totally different story than how we heard it the first time. Even Fortunato’s voice because in the video they made him seem cocky but still very friendly to Montresor but what if Fortunato was interpreted in only a cocky way and is only showing off his knowledge of fine wine to Montresor to show him up because he feels as though Montresor is incapable? I have many questions but those stood out to me the most. Anyway, I think the class participated very well for the most part and we hit a lot of key points in the story and got to where we needed to be in the end. The class answered all of the questions very well, even when we lacked the information that we needed most to see if revenge is justifiable. Everyone spoke at least once in my group and the conversation flowed well but one improvement could be to stop lingering on one topic for so long so that we could fully answer both questions. This link gave me a good visual and it matched very well to what I saw in my head when I was reading the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoUPJId_AWk
ReplyDeleteIn this socratic seminar, the class discussed a very complex story that for some was hard to understand: The Cask of Amontillado by Edgar Allen Poe. By his use of peculiar language, the author, Poe creates a very eerie mood in this story as it is a story of revenge. As the narrative goes, Fortunato has hurt Montresor in some way and Montresor seeks revenge on Fortunato by luring him into the catacombs under the pretense of there being a very rare wine there (an Amontillado), chains him to the wall, and leaves him to die. One of the topics that were discussed was Poe’s use of many different kinds of irony. I found particularly interesting Nicole Perrault’s observation that not only does the irony in the story entertain the reader, but it also help move the narrative along. The three types of irony, dramatic, situational, and verbal, were all used within this story, especially situational.
Also, in the discussion revenge was brought up. Not surprisingly, as this is a major theme in the story. Cam Alves talked about Montresor killing Fortunato being an overreaction and that is one of the things I am struggling with in the story. Montresor reacted the way he did because it was beat into his head to punish those who have wronged you without impunity since day one but it still seems like Montresor in a crazy person.
Our class seemed very engaged in the discussion and had many interesting points to contribute. As an honors class we dissected the story very well, which I imagine is to be expected. The two people who I followed were Nicole Perrault and Cam Alves. Cam seemed to speak more than Nicole but Nicole had many good contributions on the different forms of irony in the story which was very important.