The narrator has left a lot to our imagination on the relationship of the characters. His insanity has made him a very paranoid man, he believes that everyone is trying to make a full of him, even thought he believed he carried out a perfect murder. He bragged about his preparation, and thought that the old suspected nothing of his plain of terror and mayhem. The narrator who is aware of what is it to be mad, but cannot bring himself to believe that he himself is insane. He believes that since he is able to recollect and present every detail of the events that took place proves that he is not insane. He believes that he is sane because of the manner in which he carried out the crime of murder. His reason for wanting the old man dead is without motive. “I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire” the narrator thinks that he has no clear motive and that he loves the old man. The truth in the matter is that he knows he cannot bring himself to admit to the point that only a mad man would kill someone just because of the way their eyes looked. ‘ It was not the old man who vexed me, but his evil eye.’ He tries to explain his reason without implicating himself. The narrator makes us aware of his illness by presenting us with the fact that his sense of hearing is acute. ” I heard all things in the heavens and in the earth.” Who in their right mind have the hearing capability to hear sounds in heaven or hell to further prove a point of insanity? One must also asked oneself, who in their right mind would go through such a process to kill some old man, just because of an old eye? By telling the story in such detail, the narrator proves himself mad. The title of the story in itself presents a puzzle with its title. Which heart was the author referring to? He first hears the old man’s heart in the room on the night of the murder. But the heart in question belongs to the narrator. Due to his heightened sense of hearing and the police refusal to leave his fear of being caught increases his heartbeat. As the sound grew louder and louder, he became uneven and suspected that the officer heard the sound and decided to neglect it, because they were making a mockery of his horror. To him anything was better than going through with the agony and pain of the pounding hear beat. So in the end his conscience led him to admit to his crime.
Americans want jobs, and this president now is forward on rebuilding the nation’s long-neglected infrastructure, while emphasizing the importance of “Buying American” and restoring America’s historical role in manufacturing. We want lower taxes and an America where we pay only for the health coverage options we want. We do not want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control pills or Planned Parenthood’s abortions, although many of us are copacetic with their family planning and social counseling. We want trade agreements that protect American jobs and that recognize that international polluters like China and India and the misogynistic Arab oil sheikhdoms need to catch up with our clean-environment practices before we continue marching like lemmings over industrial cliffs while the mass polluters scoop up our forfeited interests.
Complete and accurate descriptions of actual events are usually stated in the past tense and tend to have a predictable balance of prologue, critical event and aftermath. Truthful statements generally contain numerous self-referencing pronouns and include at least a few seemingly inconsequential details. Truthful statements rarely contain oaths, equivocation or euphemisms. Investigators should apply extra scrutiny to written or oral statements that deviate from these norms. Suspects and witnesses often reveal more than they intend through their choices of words.
Paul M. Clikeman , ., CFE, is an associate professor in the Robins School of Business at the University of Richmond.
Antics with Semantics