Have you ever had an impression of an individual to have it then proven wrong? In the short story, ‘The Tell-Tale Heart’, by Edgar Allan Poe, we respond to the narrative of the protagonist with a variety of emotions. As he begins his narrative, we feel alienated from him because we cannot identify with him or his concerns. As the story develops and we understand his predicament more we begin to sympathize with him because we realize he is ill. However, by the denoument we have a very mixed reaction to this disturbed individual.
During the exposition of the short story, we feel completely alienated form the narrator because we cannot identify at all with his disturbed narrative persona. Narrated in the first person, the narrative is clearly unreliable because the narrator has such a distorted sense of reality. The use of repetition in his speech, “nervous very, very dreadfully nervous” suggests that he is in a highly agitated state and that what he says may not be true. This is reinforced when he tells us that “I heard all things in the heaven…”. He is asking us to believe that his sense of hearing is so ‘acute’ that he can hear things that other mortals cannot which makes us instantly suspicious. Whilst we understand that this is a symptom of his madness, he in complete denial and actually argues that this is a sign of sanity. He challenges us with a rhetorical question, asking us, “How, then, am I mad?”. Poe uses dramatic irony here in that we understand what the narrator does not. His attempt to manipulate us into believing his account does nothing more than raise our suspicions of his motives. His madness is then developed throughout the short story, exemplified through his hearing of the beating heart and obsession with the eye.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
However, we begin to feel rather more sympathetic towards him as the story unfolds and we realize that he may well not be in control of his actions. Firstly, he does not sensationalize the murder: most emphasis is on the rising tension of the narrative as he impresses upon us, he obsession with the eye and his need to end its power over him. His treatment of the actual murder is concise and simply stated, “I dragged him to the floor, and pulled the heavy bed over him”. Given that the rest of the story is given over to his paranoia this account of the murder suggest that the old man’s death was a by-product of the narrator’s obsession.
The narrator is obsessed with the old man’s ‘vulture eye’. Vultures are creatures who prey on those who are nearing death which suggests that the narrator sees threat against himself in the old man. This is a manifestation of his delusion therefore we have to empathize with him, rather than castigate. He goes on to describe this eye as “pale, with a film over it” which suggests that the old man has distorted vision owing to a cataract. However, his continual return to the eye suggests that the eye is a symbol of his own distorted vision. Just as the old man cannot see what is around him clearly, the narrator cannot comprehend what is happening around him. This lack of clarity is a symptom of his mental condition therefore we do empathize.
Another reason why we sympathize with the narrator are his references to his own ill health. In the exposition he refers to his ‘disease’, and as the story progresses, he reveals “the ringing became more distinct” which would imply he is suffering from tinnitus, a condition which is likely to drive any sane man mad. He also discusses the terror of the old man on finding him in his room, stating “I knew it well”, which tells us that he himself has suffered with night terrors and paranoia. He is clearly a poor soul and this helps us to consider his situation with more patience.
Another indication that this is a man who is not himself is his inability to measure time. As he narrates the story in flashback, we become aware that the time frame that he presents is inaccurate. He tells us how “I placed my hand upon the heart and held it there many minute”, which is not what we would expect from a man who has a limited time to dismember and hide a body. He also emphasizes the time he stands at the old man’s door nightly which again seems unlikely, particularly when he states “for a whole hour he did not moves a muscle”. His time frame fails to convince us. He kills the man sometime after 12 midnight, murders the old man, dismembers the body and manages to hide the body prior to the arrival of the police at 4am.
However, although we have a sympathetic response, in part, towards the narrator, we are also conflicted because of the cunning he demonstrates. He makes us well aware of his outward kindness towards the old man, stating, “I was never kinder to the old man”. He even goes as far as declaring, “I loved the old man”, however, ironically, he is planning the death of this old man. He even talks of his ‘triumph’ which reminds us that he is monstrous in both deed and act. In addition to this, the murder is clearly premeditated. After dismembering the body, he laughs when reflecting on the mess, stating, “A tub had caught all – ha! ha!”. If this had been a crime of passion, he would not have had the appropriate equipment nearby. It is near the end of the story however we become truly conflicted. His guilt overwhelms him, causing him to hear things that are not real, “the noise increased steadily”. It is possible that his conscience will not allow him to move on from his hideous crime. The policemen in the room “chatted pleasantly, and smiled”, which tells us that the narrator is hallucinating. By the end of the story, he believes he hears the “beating of his hideous heart” and screams out his guilt. The heart, normally symbolic of the emotional center of an individual, is a symbol of his guilt which grows until he can no longer withstand it and he screams out, proclaiming his guilt to all who can hear. So, whilst he does demonstrate great cunning his desire to reveal all suggests he is not a natural murderer which causes us to look at him differently.
In conclusion, our reaction towards the narrator changes as he reveals more of his story. We move from feeling disgusted by his enjoyment of retelling his gruesome tale to sympathy as we begin to realize that he is unwell and probably not in full control of his urges. But by the end of the story, we feel conflicted because although he is defeated by his guilty conscience in the end, he demonstrates great cunning throughout which prevents his redemption in our eyes. If the story teaches us anything it is not to a judge a situation without careful consideration. It would have been very easy to dismiss this narrator as a criminal however through a more cautious examination we question his culpability. The story shows that events are often more complicated than we at first thought and that people are often even more complex.
Stuck on your essay?
