A Completely Convicted Heart - A Literary Analysis of the Tell-Tale Heart

The Tell-Tale Heart was a short and voyeuristic (Blackman) story by Edgar Allan Poe in 1843. It tells the story of a man who, trying to convince himself that he was sane, murdered an older man who was likely his master. It has a thread of irony throughout, the first being when the central figure tries to convince himself of his sanity through his insane act. However, the second is the moral of the story. The leading figure believes that murdering someone will conclude the discussion on his irrationality; however, all it does is guilt him further down.

In this paper, I would like to dive deeper into the "moral of the story." What is the author most trying to emphasize? Is the discussion of sanity a central detail of the story? These questions are critical to the meaning of the text. The narrator begins his story by admitting that he is abnormal but futilely trying to deny that he is mad. By his standards, "mad men know nothing," and acuity of mind is a sign of normalcy. Regardless, he began to hate the older man at an unknown time. The reason, he notes, is because of what he calls the "evil" eye. For whatever reason, a diseased eye from the man begins to "haunt" him, and thus he begins to plan for the murder.

However, stepping out of the narrative, why did Poe use this first-person defense for the character against the charge of murder? While it appears that the narrator intends to defend himself against the charges of insanity, a more in-depth look may show that he is trying to defend the legitimacy of his murder. (Wall) Was this a continuation of the story? Imagine if the narrator was being tried in court and defended by a charge of insanity. Not only does this fit the context of the story, but it additionally fits with the introduction of legal insanity. When did that take place? Coincidentally or not, it is worth noting that it took place in 1843 (Lettieri).

Regardless of his mental state, his mental abilities were incredibly sharp as he planned the perfect murder. He was incredibly kind to the old man during the day, as "every morning, when the day broke, I went boldly into the chamber, and spoke courageously to him, calling him by name in a hearty tone, and inquiring how he had passed the night." Nevertheless, he was sneaking into the older man's room every night, listening to his master and waiting to terrify him when he witnessed the terrible eye. Interestingly, he was unwilling to kill him as he was asleep, as he said it was not the older man he wanted to kill, but the eye.

The startling part of the story is a paragraph in which the soon-to-be victim is awake, but the assassin is silent. Waiting for the target's suspicions to settle, the narrator was standing there, silent. Somehow understanding the old man's emotions but narcissistically uncaring of them, he sits and waits to become the "shadow of death" that surrounded the old man.

And then, foolishly, he opens a slight crevice of the lantern to view the eye. Wide awake, the eye stares at him, growing hatred.

To quote the book:

It was open — wide, wide open — and I grew furious as I gazed upon it. I saw it with perfect distinctness — all a dull blue, with a hideous veil over it that chilled the very marrow in my bones; but I could see nothing else of the old man's face or person: for I had directed the ray as if by instinct, precisely upon the damned spot.

Stepping back, why does the author bring the eye into the story? It appears that this is the rationalizing of a crazy man. Although the eye may be ugly, it appears that, in trying to convince others that he is not crazy, he instead provides a pathetic excuse in order to try to excuse his guilt. However, SuperSummary provides a fascinating perspective to the eye. Eyes are typically viewed as "windows into the heart, " but they also signify the ability to react with the outside world and be rational. What if the eye is a symbol of the confusion of the narrator?

Eventually, the narrator commits the act. In his insanity (and potentially his conscience), he worried that the older man's heart would grow so loud that the neighbors would hear it. In a series of increasingly foolish actions, he yelled, threw the old man down, and threw the bed on top of him, strangling him. He then dismembered the man and deposited him under the floor. As a side note, Poe was a very shaky character himself and loved to include violence in his stories. Avoid reading him for refreshment purposes! To return to our discussion, he hid the man and noted it was "4 o’clock." The narrator thought he had nothing to fear as he walked downstairs into three police officers. As it turned out, his own shriek had aroused a suspicion of "foul play."

He greeted the officers. Realizing that he had nothing to fear, he told them that "the shriek…was… [his] own in a dream. The old man, [he]... mentioned, was absent in the country." And he satisfied the police officers. Bringing chairs over to the spot where the man was laid, he talked and casually conversed with the men. But it was at this point that the story climaxed. The narrator's conscience ate at him, and it was only a matter of time before he became agitated. As the story reads,

It was a low, dull, quick sound — much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath — and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly — more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men — but the noise steadily increased. Oh God! what could I do? I foamed — I raved — I swore!

And eventually, he confessed. Out of worry that the policeman was toying with him, the pressure became too much, and he folded. Now, what are the morals of the story? The major theme is that a convicted conscience can have the same effects as insanity. Was the narrator crazy, full of his conviction, or both? Time seems to stop for the narrator in much of the story's second half (Owl Eyes) as it does when guilt overwhelms one. Or is it only used to increase the tension? (Course Hero)

The Tell-Tale Heart is a story signifying the tension of a stricken conscience. It appears that the insanity may have been to provide the story of a stricken conscience without rationalizations.

Now what can we, as Christians, take away from this story? I would argue three things. First, we can abide by our consciences. As 1st Timothy 1:19 [NASB] states, “we are to [be] keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” Secondly, we are to live peacefully, as Proverbs 3:29 [NASB] states, “Do not devise harm against your neighbor, while he lives securely beside you.” And I would argue that the third take away would be that we are to be free from fear of higher authorities, as long as we do good and not evil.

To summarize Romans 13:1-7 [NASB], we are to obey government leaders, as rebellion to them may consist of rebellion to God. For they are God’s instrument to reward good and punish evil. For they have been given the power to give out punishment for evil.