In your article you mainly wanted to answer two questions; 1) What could have been Montresor's motive for killing Fortunato? And 2) Why did he wait fifty years to tell the story? When I finished DiSanza's article, none of these questions were actually answered. I guess it's because no one but Poe himself could really tell us readers why. Bales, Kent and Gargano were DiSanza's most used sources and even those authors could not answer his main questions, on which he based his article. I found that while reading “On Memory, Forgetting, and Complicity in “The Cask of Amontillado”” by Raymond DiSanza, Edgar Allan Poe's short story causes the reader to ask many questions. Where these questions interconnect more frequently than you think. DiSanza makes you realize that Poe never mentions Montresor's motivations because he knew exactly how the readers would react. A great tactic that Poe uses brilliantly, purposely leaving out information to create suspense and mystery; making the reader think. Poe wanted us to overanalyze and try to understand the many possibilities behind these questions, he wanted us to think in ways we never would. You can avoid giving examples of what these insults were that Fortunato made to Montresor. Poe's problem in writing this story is to keep the reader somewhat sympathetic to a man who managed to bury another man.