Montressor writes that Fortunato "wore motley", that he "had on a tight-fitting parti-striped dress and his head was surmounted by the conical cap and bells". This description as a jester figure shows vividly Montressor's bitterness for Fortunato. Was it then this bitterness that truly caused the murder? Was the opening statement simply a rationalization?.
We also need to ask ourselves why Montressor is writing this down in the first place. Does he feel guilt over this despicable act committed "the half of a century" ago? It really depends on one's own personal assessment of his motivation for the murder. If one believes that Montressor really did commit this act to restore honor to his family name, then he probably isn't writing this down for reasons of guilt. In other words, he's not trying to get it off his chest. A point can be made for this argument by looking at the almost boastful way in which he describes the details of the murder. There is, however, another interpretation in which Montressor is actually writing this story because of a nagging sense of guilt that has plagued him for fifty years. He records that his "heart grew sick" when no sound returned after he called for Fortunato behind the wall. Was this sickness guilt, or was it something else? Perhaps he was disappointed that his torture of Fortunato wouldn't go on longer; again: ambiguity. .
One must also ask "Who is Montressor's target audience?" He writes "You, who so well know the nature of my soul- Does this mean his family? If he's not referring to his family then to whom is he addressing this article? This is one of the many ambiguities in this story that, ultimately, lead to introspection by the reader.
Finally, now that these questions have been answered (or, at least, have been attempted to be answered) the reader can begin to look at what this story can tell the individual about human nature.