SQ

“So the Test Ban people couldn't do anything but shout about freedom and accuse Dr. Speakie and the Psychometric Bureau of trying to "turn the world into a huge insane asylum” (Le Guin 73).

I found Ursula K Le Guin’s “SQ” to be a comedic gem, whether its content is inspected literally or looked at through the lens of a critique on contemporary society (the latter being the route I am particularly fond of). In “SQ” a man by the name of Dr. Speakie develops a method of testing a person’s sanity. Should that person test under a 50, it means they are sane. However, should they test over a 50, it means they are insane, and should be institutionalized accordingly. Dr. Speakie and his statistically sane constituents also operate the asylums in which those who fail the test reside.  From the perspective of the reader, the test, perhaps counterintuitive to its purpose, does not seem to be an accurate way of determining the sanity of a person, because the majority of people who take the test fail. This would devalue any practical definition of the word “insane”. So many people fail that test that 60% of the remaining, sane population is used to operate the asylums to treat the 3.8 billion people institutionalized via the S.Q. As a result, the “universal application of the SQ test was eventually going to involve everybody either as Inmates or as Staff” (Le Guin 72).

At first, my contention with the story was the way in which they determined sanity. Although I know this is science fiction, I say this because there is no way of determining if a person is “insane”. Sanity is not even a psychological term, it is a legal term. By law, a person is insane only if they cannot distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. A person cannot be proven insane unless facing a charge in court of law, providing evidence to support such a claim. Similarly, the idea that “right” and “wrong” may change based on the opinion of the majority also helps to devalue the validity of the SQ, considering the majority test insane. However, I soon began to suspect that the legal definition of sanity may imply that our narrator, and in turn the SQ test, is unreliable. Such is evident when Mrs. Smith claims “The people who called him a power seeker were just the same people who used to say that Hitler was insane and Nixon was insane and all the world leaders were insane and the arms race was insane and our misuse of natural resources was insane and the whole world civilization was insane and suicidal” (Le Guin 69). No modern day sane person would believe that these things were not, to some degree, insane, at least in terms of right and wrong. In my eyes, her character was questionable from the beginning, as was the SQ test and Dr. Speaky.

The questionability of both her and Dr. Speakie’s characters serve a bigger purpose in my interpretation of the story. To that end, I believe “sanity” in terms of the story is to be taken with a grain of salt. I believe this measure of “sanity” is actually a comment on contemporary society and the dangers of conformity. In this case, “sane” would be representative of the word “normal”.  The skepticism the reader develops of Dr. Speakie and Mrs. Smith may function as the catalyst that helps pose the question “why would it be a good thing to be normal or 'sane', especially in the context of this story?” I believe the test more likely than not depicts a person’s deviation from normal behavior. Those who deviate too far are to be institutionalized. In an attempt to keep people from deviating too far, the rest of the population is forced to act as the “eternal vigilance” to help pay “the price of liberty” (Le Guin 73). In essence, if the world is divided into those who are insane and those who are not, (or those who are normal and those who are not) it would require that one look after the other to sustain their way of life. In an effort to create a world where no person should deviate too far from the spectrum of sane or “normal” in fear of criticism or ostracism, the world is turned “into a huge insane asylum”, assigning each individual the role of “Inmate” or “Staff”, thus devaluing Doctor Speakie’s innate belief that “Mental health is freedom” (Le Guin 73). 

An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

“As Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he had lost consciousness and was, as one, already dead” (Bierce 3).

Bierce’s “An occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” is a story that uses extensive and carefully articulated detail to skew the concept of both time and reality, for both its protagonist and the reader. The story takes place during the civil war. The protagonist, Petyon Farquhar, was a planter of a respected family in Alabama. As such, he is a fan of the confederacy and an avid supporter of the confederate army, acting as “the character of a civilian who was, at heart a soldier” This description suggests that Farquhar would perhaps like to be a soldier, and seems himself as such. (Bierce 2). It is because of this that Farquhar decides to attempt to burn down Owl Creek Bridge, which is controlled by the federate army. He received a tip from a confederate soldier, who was actually a union spy. To that end, it should come as no shock that he is thwarted, captured, and sentenced to hang, the place in which our story both begins and ends.  

My favorite thing about this story is the way in which it is written. Bierce uses carefully constructed detail in order articulate disconnect between fantasy and reality, as well as skew the concept of time. The first piece of evidence that suggests to us that Farquhar may be slipping from reality is the description of his watch, where it states “the intervals of silence grew progressively longer; the delays became maddening. With their greater infrequency the sounds increased in strength and sharpness. They hurt his ear like the trust of a knife; he feared he would shriek. What he heard was the ticking of his watch” (Bierce 2). In this moment, Farquhar’s perception of time and reality is skewed, as is our own. Everything that follows takes place in a slow, distorted state of time, which is, in reality, the few seconds it takes for Farquhar to fall to his death. An escape is then described in beautiful detail, all of which turns out to be a product of Farquhar’s imagination, occurring within seconds. The entire vision Farquhar has of escaping his fate at Owl Creek Bridge is another representation of a split between reality and fiction. It is possible that the escape is demonstrative of the kind of person or soldier Farquhar would like to be. This is also the reason he attempted to burn the bridge in the first place.

However, there are a number of things, disguised in the language of the text, that imply a connection between reality and fiction. These connections serve to make the disconnections identifiable. The first would be the sensory details of the story. For example, when Farquhar falls and breaks free of the rope in his vision, he describes, in extraordinary detail, the pain in his neck. He states “Keen, poignant agonies seemed to shoot from his neck downward through every fiber of his body and limbs” (Bierce 3). (The whole passage is too long to use). The pain in his neck is a manifestation in his delusion of what is happening to his body in reality, though it is cleverly disguised as a sensory detail of the writing. Another detail that implies both a connection AND disconnection between reality and fiction is when his hands are described. It states “He was not conscious of the effort, but a sharp pain in his wrist appraised him that he was trying to free his hands. He gave the struggle his attention, as an idler might observe the feat of a juggler, without interest in the outcome” (Bierce 3). This statement demonstrates the way in which Farquhar is, in reality, not actually making an effort to free his hands. It is a subconscious disconnect between his thoughts and movements that suggest a disconnect between fantasy and reality. All of these details function to make the quote of the story I found most interesting.. well.. all the more interesting. In the very first line of part three, prior to his vision of escape, I believe it references the union of both Farquhar’s fantasy and reality (key words: as one). It states “As Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he had lost consciousness and was, as one, already dead” (Bierce 3). 

Saint Marie

Being one of the longer and more complex stories we have examined thus far, it should come as no surprise that there are many possible interpretations of Edrich’s “Saint Marie” as well as many different elements of the story on which to focus. The topic on which I wish to focus primarily is the devil or “the dark one” and what he may symbolize in the context of the story.

 Throughout the story, both Marie and Sister Leopolda refer to their ability to detect “the dark one”. They both seem to notice the dark one in the same places doing the same things. For argument sake and purposes of the story, this would rule out the possibility of the dark representing a symptom of any psychological disorder. In turn, this would mean that (assuming he doesn’t exist as an entity), the dark one is used symbolically or as a literary device. My theory is that “the dark one” exists for two reasons. First, it creates a common thread or link between Marie and Sister Leopolda. Following this thread, we can examine the way the dark one might illustrate the things Marie and Leopolda have in common, and what this might represent in terms of good, evil, and saintliness.

 In both the case of Marie and of Leopolda, there are (for lack of a better word) evil or sinful characteristics that serve to motivate either of the two. I say evil because, when contrasted with their end game, which is to become saints, the characteristics that motivate them are more similar to those of foreign dictators than those of saints. This is very interesting in the context of the story, especially because they never actually touch the notion of what characteristics might constitute or coincide with those of a saint. Marie is motivated by what seems to be pure spite. Her ambition is driven by a burning desire to prove herself to the white catholics and to be worshipped. Such is evident when she claims “And they never thought they’d have a girl from this reservation they’d have to kneel to. But they’d have me. And I’d be carved out of pure gold” (Edrich 43). Though she is truly ambitious to become a saint, the things that motivate her are, from a saints perspective, selfish and riddled with sin. This is the common thread that ties her to Leopolda. What motivates Leopolda is less clear. At face value, it may seem like ridding the world of the dark one and doing god’s work (or perhaps a very twisted version of gods work) is her motivation. However, I have no doubt that some part of her is motivated by pure sadism, evident by her stabbing of a 14 year old girl after pouring a kettle of boiling water in her ear. Like spite, sadism is not a trait that best compliments a saint. Because they both see the dark one, this might represent the bond they share with respect to what motivates them. As a result, it seems they are undoubtedly drawn to one another, while simultaneously harboring hatred for one another. Marie claims "Sometimes I wanted her heart in love and admiration. Sometimes. And sometimes I wanted her heart to roast on a black stick" (Edrich 49).

 As for what this might mean in terms of the story as a whole, I have two theories. The first is that those who are motivated to do gods work by selfishness and sin will receive no pardon in terms of their fate. Another type of Karma, if you will. Evidence to support this claim is found when we look to our characters at the end of the story. Leopolda, after stabbing Marie, was forced to lie and assist Marie in transcending to Sainthood. In layman’s terms, she “lost” to Marie. Similarly, Marie has now risen to sainthood, but receives no gratification. She uses the same terms in both the beginning and end of the story, describing her lips and hair, to articulate that how what was once golden in her vision was now dust in her life. She took no pleasure in spiting sister Leopolda, evident by the section where she whispered “Receive the dispensation of my sacred blood” and then followed that statement with “But there was no heart in it”. She then proceeded to explain how she even pitied sister Leopolda, even though spiting people like her was one of, if not her primary motivating factor. Second, tangential, and perhaps less rational, is the theory that (and I’m not sure why I’m so stuck on this) no light can exist without the dark. That is to say, good and evil fuel one another in a never-ending cycle that blurs the lines between right and wrong. This begs the question, though Marie has technically achieved sainthood, how can she ever truly be considered a saint? (I.e Saint Marie). If she was to lead and instruct others on the road to saintliness, would she not taint them with her selfish desires, lies, and deceit? I digress. In the end, I believe "the dark one" embodied the common thread that was the motivation of both Marie and sister Leopolda. This, in turn, bound them together and determined their fate.

(I’m very unhappy with this blog post, which is usually an indicator that I cannot settle on one interpretation. To that end, I will leave it as it is for now, in fear of making it any longer.)

God of Love

The film featured in today’s blog post is “God of Love”. I Believe the best scene to analyze is the scene where Ray realizes that his best friend, Fozzie, is actually in love with Kelly, the girl Ray also loves. Though Kelly does love Fozzie, Fozzie makes it painfully clearly that he has no interest in her (or rather, he does, but he does not want to feel as though he has betrayed Ray). To me, this scene seems to tie together and summarize all of the notions provided in the beginning and end of the film. Ray states “You can’t control who you love, you can’t control who loves you. You can’t control when it happens, where it happens, or why it happens. You can’t control any of that stuff”, a realization he came to during this scene, when he decides to use his last “love dart” on Fozzie, so that he may fall in love with Kelly, instead of Kelly so that she may fall in love with him. This act of selflessness best exemplifies what I found to be a central theme of this film, and perhaps the concept of love in general, which is control. From the beginning of the flashback, Ray seems very keen on controlling who he loves and who loves him. This is evident by the opening prayer, which is as follows: “Dear god, whose name I do not know, I pray to you in a time of personal crisis. As you know I’ve been praying to you in the assistance of winning the affections of one Kelly Moran, which I’ve made consistently clear is the only thing I’ve ever prayed for.. at all. Thus I remain surprised and confused that last month, you saw fit to have Kelly fall in love with my best friend Fozzie”. The prayer is demonstrative of Ray’s unwillingness to accept the limit to the control he has over certain aspects of love and life. Similarly, the skepticism with which it is riddled is demonstrative of his unwillingness to surrender his control to a God, perhaps because he might not believe in one, or perhaps because he does not want to surrender his control to anyone. He expressed similar obsession with controlling aspects he believe will help him win the affection of Kelly, such as serving chicken pot pie instead of seafood, or seeing “Romeo and Juliet” instead of “Black Swan”. In the end, I think the darts served as the tool that allowed him to see that even with divine intervention, there are certain things, like love, that he cannot control. Once he comes to the realization that “love doesn’t make any sense” and surrenders his control by assisting his friends (among others) with falling in love, he becomes the God of Love. 

Happy Endings

The story I have chosen to write about in this blog post is Margaret Atwood’s “Happy endings”. Of the three short stories chosen for class today, this one undoubtedly my favorite. Though it is rather sad, it exemplifies many of the conundrums (or perhaps lack there-of) that I face during the occasional existential crisis. The quote that I feel best represents many key themes of the story / stories is “…and everything continues as in A” (Atwood 1). “A”, in the context of the story, is the scenario in which the two lovers, with interchangeable names irrelevant back stories live their lives in harmony until the day they finally die (the most important part of scenario A). As the scenarios progress, more characters are added and the circumstances change. Many of these characters, such as Mary in scenario B or John in scenario C, come to a rather tragic end, while their happy counterparts live comfortable lives with their happy counterparts “and everything continues as in A”. Throughout the scenarios, Atwood entertains different scenarios and circumstances, all the while implying that none of the details really matter, evident by quotes such as (addressed to the reader) “If you think this is all too bourgeois, make John a revolutionary and Mary a counterespionage agent and see how far that gets you” (Atwood 2). The language implies that the people and their circumstances are rather arbitrary. However, the former quote can be interpreted in a few ways. At first, I thought that scenario A implied that someone would always be happy and someone they know will always be miserable because of it. In that respect, it seemed plausible to assume that everything would always “continue as in A”. I thought it was interesting that when Atwood references scenario A, the names, words, and context of the actual scenario become interchangeable as well, evident by the line (in reference to scenario A “If you like, it can be "Madge," "cancer," "guilty and confused," and "bird watching"” (Atwood 2). This might defeat the purpose in everything “continuing as in A” if “A” were to take on the theory I have provided previously. I believe that everything “continuing as in A” means that all stories and the people in them will undoubtedly come to an all-encompassing, unimportant end. The only important notion of any ending would be that the story did, in fact, end. The quote that I feel best represents this notion and is appropriate to put at the conclusion of this analysis is when Atwood states “You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, either deliberately fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die.” (Atwood 2). Once again existential in nature, the quote seems to suggest that the whether an ending is happy or sad, it does not matter, because it is simply an ending, just as death is an ending that seemingly negates the purpose (or brings to light the purposelessness) of life. This makes “the stretch in between” (the beginning and ending, that is) rather interesting, because it too becomes meaningless, making it “the hardest to do anything with” (Atwood 3).

Alexie

The short story I will be assessing for today’s blog post is Sherman Alexie’s “This is What It Means to Say Phoenix Arizona”. Many themes stood out to me while reading this short story. However, the one I feel is most appropriate to address and to center the discussion around is the way Victor and Thomas act as foils for one another, which serves to help interpret the dynamic between dreams and reality. Dreams, whether they be actual dreams or hopes and aspirations, are mentioned many times throughout the story. One of the most applicable examples is when the narrator flashes back to the time Thomas Builds-The-Fire jumps off the roof. When he fell and broke his arm as a result, all of the other kids made fun of him, including Victor. The quote I will be using is "’He broke his wing, he broke his wing, he broke his wing’ all the Indian boys chanted as they ran off, flapping their wings, wishing they could fly, too. They hated Thomas for his courage, his brief moment as a bird. Everybody has dreams about flying. Thomas flew. One of his dreams came true for just a second, just enough to make it real” (Alexie 6). I find this quote to be an accurate depiction of not only Thomas’ character, but the contrast between Victor and Thomas as well. Indeed, the two seem to serve as literary foils for one another. This scene seemed rather metaphorical. I think Victor and Thomas need each other, as a dreamer needs a realist, and as dreams need reality. Thomas is an avid “story-teller”. Throughout his entire life, he has continuously told stories, “long after people had stopped listening”. This is rather exemplary of the idea that Thomas’ is a dreamer. It also implies that he tells these stories for himself. He claims his stories are all he has. Victor, on the other hand, is not a dreamer. He is a very rational person, evident by his response to Thomas’ intended use of his father’s ashes. He states he was going to do the same thing as Thomas, but he “thought it'd be like cleaning the attic or something. Like letting things go after they've stopped having any use.”(Alexie 8). Similarly, when Victor feels guilty about the “realization” that he couldn’t be Thomas’ friend, it states “The only real thing he shared with anybody was a bottle and broken dreams. He owed Thomas something, anything” (Alexie 7). I believe that’s why Victor’s father asked Thomas to look out for Victor, and that’s where “Take care of each other” comes from. Thomas needed reality in his life in the moment he jumped off of the roof, just as we all need to abide by the reality that is our own. To that end, Victor needs dreams and hope in his life now, especially after the passing of his father. Evidence of this contrast in the text that does not relate to dialogue includes quotes such as “Victor and Thomas made it back to the reservation just as the sun was rising. It was the beginning of a new day on earth, but the same old shit on the reservation” (Alexie 7). The way Thomas seemed to know everything Victor was thinking before he spoke also served as evidence that Victor needed Thomas, needed dreams in his life, just as we all do. This contrast serves to provide insight on the appropriate balance between dreams and reality. Though one might not exist without the other, dreams are what make reality worthwhile.

(P.S, I’m not sure why I’m stuck on analyzing contrasts, as I did in last week’s blog post. They just seem to be pop out).

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

The short story I have chosen for today’s blog post is “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K Le Guin. I should probably start by saying that this is my favorite story we (as a class) have read thus far. There were two quotes that struck me the most (indeed, there were many). The first was on page 76, where the narrator claims “The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encourages by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid” (Le Guin). This quote is a crucial component of my analysis, which is as follows. I believe that Omelas, or “the joyous city” is the philosophical concept of happiness. To that end, I believe that the way she actively involved the reader by asking them what would constitute their vision of Omelas was a cleverly disguised way of asking what would make them happy. It seemed to me as though she was asking what else would be conducive to the happiness of the city of Omelas, as well as to their personal happiness. This could be considered happiness in general. At the same time, I believe she was implying that the happiness of the people of Omelas (which would also be happiness in general) was not random. These people are not happy because they are “less complex” ( Le Guin 76). Their happiness is calculated, deliberate. It exists for a reason. It is not “stupid” or lesser, nor is it unearned in the eyes of the happy. It exists because, by knowing sadness, they have made the necessary sacrifices that build a foundation for their happiness.

After the attempt to best articulate the people of Omelas to the reader, the narrator asks “What else? What else belongs in the joyous city?” (Le Guin 78). The description of the city is concluded by asking the reader if they believed in the joyous city yet, if everything that should be in a utopia, as the reader sees fit, is present, and in essence, she is asking the reader if these things alone would make them happy. She then follows that question with the description of the child. I believe this child to be the embodiment of the necessary suffering that acts as a crucial component in the philosophical construct of happiness. Every action has an opposite reaction; no dark can exist without the light. I believe that the narrator was implying that the child, that sadness and suffering, did in fact belong there. How could the people of Omelas know happiness if they were to never encounter suffering? Everything described, especially the child, works in a delicate balance to ensure that the people of Omelas stay happy (or so that happiness in general can exist). They just made an attempt at minimizing the amount of sadness required. However, there are those who walk away from Omelas. I believe them to be unsung heroes. They can never be happy knowing that such sadness exists, and in the context of the story, they refuse to be part of an organization that requires that such sadness exist deliberately. They condemn themselves to walk amongst the dark so that others can walk in the light, rejecting happiness if it means they must inflict (or maybe even because they must know) sadness.  

Sweat

This post is about Zora Neale Hurston’s “Sweat”. From what I gathered, this story seems to rely heavily on karma, a philosophical / Buddhist concept to which I’m not so sure I subscribe. Our protagonist, Delia, is a black woman who lives and works in Florida. She lives with her husband, Sykes, and she works for white people, as she washes their clothes. Her husband, Sykes, is an abusive husband. This fact is introduced in the beginning when he scares her with the whip, followed by the continuous references to her beatings. The quote I am choosing to analyze, or rather, a quote that stuck out to me was from the second page, when some of the other characters are talking about Delia and how terrible Sykes is. Before they agree that they would all like to kill Sykes, Clarke states “Taint no law on earth dat kin make a man be decent if it aint in 'im”. I found this quote rather interesting, not because of the philosophical debate it might inspire about the nature of people, but because of the foreshadowing it posed and the way it was conducive to the karmic element of the story. The statement implies (as does the rest of that conversation) that because a man like Sykes could never change, something needed to be done about him. Whether it was a punishment issued by the characters who wished him harm or not, this quote implied (to me) that Sykes would get what was coming to him, which he did. The snake was also a major component of the story for me. Throughout the story, Delia expressed her fear of snakes, a phobia on which Sykes capitalized by procuring a rattlesnake. Snakes, from a more metaphysical outlook, symbolize eternity, evident by the symbol of a snake curled into a circle eating its own tail. One could interpret this many ways. In the context of this story, I would say it’s not too far of a stretch to suggest that the snake implies that things have come full circle. When Sykes returns to the house towards the end of the story, he is bitten by the snake that he put in the house to torment Delia. From a philosophical perspective, it is interesting that the thing Delia feared so much ended up freeing her. In that sense, the story has come full circle. To that end, Sykes also received what was due to him. Delia let him die as she waited under the chinaberry tree, which may have symbolized the peace she felt accompanying Sykes’ death, another implication that the story has come full circle. 

A Clean, Well-Lighted Place

A quote that struck me and captured my interest, more abruptly than the former mentioned in “Tell Tale Heart” was from Ernest Hemingway’s “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place”. In this short story, Hemingway describes an old, deaf man who drinks at a café all through the night. Similarly, he presents two waiters, one young and the other middle aged. The young waiter complains frequently about the old man, who had tried to commit suicide pervious to that night. He complains because he wants to go home to his wife and go to sleep. However, the old man often stays to drink until 3 in the morning. The middle aged waiter defends the old man, saying that there should be no hurry, and that the old man should be able to stay and drink as he pleases, simply because this is a clean, well-lighted place. After “the nada y nada y pues nada” monologue, the story took more of an existential tone. After re-reading it, there was a quote that stuck out to me. The dialogue is as follows:

“What is an hour?”

“More to me than him.”

“An hour is the same.”

This is, to me, perhaps the most existential quote of the story. It may even give the story its purpose, in my opinion. I think that the “clean, well-lighted place” is somewhat of a sanctuary for those who wish to do nothing. That is to say, those who adopt a glass-half-empty perspective of existentialism simply wish to kill their time and do nothing, because it doesn't matter what they do with their time. That’s why when the young waiter expresses his desire to go home, the old waiter expresses that whether he is with his wife or at the café, same as the old man he is waiting on, “an hour is the same”. One might even go as far as to call the café a kind purgatory. However, only those who adopt that point of view could understand the kind of solace the café might bring to those with existential angst. A quote that further adds to my speculation on this matter is “Each night I am reluctant to close up because there may be some one who needs the café”. This implyies that the café provides something of value, presumably to people like the old man, or the middle aged waiter, both of whom express an existential point of view. 

Tell Tale Heart

The short story I am choosing to write about for today’s class (or blog assignment) is Edgar Allan Poe’s “Tell Tale Heart”. I know the assignment is to choose one particular quote from the story and analyze it, but I find that, with this particular story, it would be more effective to analyze a series of quotes, as to derive an overall tone for the writing. This would help to illustrate my opinion of the story, the quotes, and the author. In this story, Poe describes a series of events, using a first person narrative, pertaining to the murder of an old man. The character he creates is quite funny (to me), which is presumably intentional. I say that because it matches the use of dark humor and irony that I have come to expect of Poe. Throughout the story, he (the character) addresses the reader directly, only to ask things like “How, then, am I mad?” and to assure us that he is sane, despite the fact that he is plotting and executing the murder of an old man because he did not like his eye. The character will then go on to do things like rationalize and demonstrate to us, the readers, reasons that would surely disprove the notion (that no one other than himself has posed, mind you)  that he is insane. He will say things like “Now this is the point. You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing. But you should have seen me. You should have seen how wisely I proceeded—with what caution—with what foresight—with what dissimulation I went to work!” Surely, someone who possesses such wisdom, caution, and foresight must be sane. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of a “mad man” is that they would never suspect themselves mad (at least from a legal standpoint).  Anyway, to me, this exemplifies the tone in much of Poes work, which is abundant in both black humor and sarcasm. For example, one of my favorite quotes from “A Premature Burial” is where he states “the most ghastly extremes of agony are endured always by man the unit, and never by man the mass. For this, let us thank merciful god!” Though they are presented in different contexts, I find the quotes rather similar in tone. They both seem accompanied by a general feeling of hopelessness or futility, which is recognized and laughed at. I digress. In the end, the sanity he believes he possesses was lost when he hears the continuous beating of a heart long after the old man had died. Granted, that part wasn't as funny to me as the former mentioned, but it may have been to Poe. He seemed like a pretty dark guy.