Comparing The Crucible And The Cask Of Amontillado

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. It damages everyone involved. Revenge, the retaliation for injuries or wrongs, has been used as an excuse for committing a crime but having reason to commit a crime does not justify it. The stories The Cask of Amontillado by Edgar Allen Poe and The Crucible by Arthur Miller are good examples of unjustifiable revenge. The Cask of Amontillado features a jealous man who gets revenge with murder, while The Crucible is about a girl who lies about people in her town, getting them killed, in order to get revenge on a man who refused to continue an affair with her. Crime, an illegal activity, is illegal for a reason and likely harms other people. Revenge is not valid excuse for committing a crime because gaining revenge would lead to others getting revenge on that, making it an ongoing cycle. The best revenge is forgiveness and proper justice, not getting even.
Revengeful crime only leads to a repercussion of more crime. If revenge is used to justify a wrong doing, then who is to say where the line is drawn? If one person’s wrongdoings are justified
The main character in The Cask of Amontillado, Montresor, explains his jealousy of Fortunado. To get revenge, he leads the other man to a slow death and seems to feel he is justified in this. Fortunato did have reason to be jealous, as he mentions, "You are rich, respected, admired, beloved; you are happy as once I was” (Poe 7) but he should have humbled himself and forgiven him. For if he had done this, he would have found greater inner peace and saved a life. Forgiving your enemy helps grow your maturity and would have more of a positive effect on both parties. Revenge would only harm the ones involved and make no one want to change. Forgiving does not condone the actions, it is a decision to let go of the negative emotions and move forward. Therefore forgiveness, the most beneficial decision, is guaranteed to stop the