#dark academia analysis

[rockrosethistle]

I think one of the slept on things that makes The Secret History feel like a real world is Donna Tartt's willingness to introduce a character that is just never brought up again (or brought up once or twice again.)

Because i'm real life, not every person you meet is going to have significance in your life. Not everyone is going to change that plot. Think about the teacher that takes over when Julian leaves. Or the farmer who claims to have seen Bunny. Or Richard's one night stand. Even the man stalking Henry and Bunny in Italy doesn't show up later.

And not only does this fill the gaps in the world, it absolutely helps build suspense. You never know if a character might have significance later, because there's simply no pattern to follow. It keeps you guessing.

Did I mention I started rereading The Secret History

[henrywinterswife]

practically every character in The Secret History played a role of someone that they were not.

richard and bunny played themselves as rich, when in fact they were poor.

charles and camilla played themselves as pure, when in fact they were weaved with immorality.

francis played himself as cool, when in fact he was an anxious mess.

henry played himself as intellectual, when in fact he was blinded by his own stupidity, wealth, and ego.

julian played himself as a father figure, aiding to the care and minds of the Greek students, when in fact he was conniving and egocentric, swept away by his own gain, unlike a true father.

mrs corcoran played herself as a victim and sorrowful mother of a lost child, when in fact she only cared about her own appearance in front of the camera.

hell, even dr roland played himself as a psychologically-forward man, deep in intellect, when in fact he was nearing dementia and a complete gobble of a man.

i mean, gosh, this theme plays out so grandly. putting up a front and hiding your real self. whether for gain or by self consciousness.

[fillo-sofia]

One of my favourite things about The Secret History is how one of the most famous quotes is “beauty is terror” and the whole aesthetic of the fandom embodies that exact sentiment, most times unknowingly. The piles of teacups with old dregs around the living room, the whisky stains, the cigarette butts, the description Henry’s apartment when Richard goes to get his book or the twins’ apartment when they have their first dinner. It’s terrible, the whole thing is a mess, and we all found such beauty in it, it’s amazing.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Identifying Character Descriptions

Source

[shakespearesdaughters]

You don’t know how much I would kill for a version of this book from Camilla’s perspective. I have so many questions. Who was she really? What role did she have to play in all the events that unfolded?

I can’t help but think it must have been more sinister than the other characters due to Richard completely omitting anything about her character and personality to such a degree. He romanticized her more then Henry and Julian to such an extent she’s an enigma.

Her story about what happened to the farmer is completely different from Henry’s. She was the only one covered in blood. The group is very protective of her as evidenced by the scene when she injured her foot. She’s the only one in the group who remained cool and unfazed after murdering Bunny. She is seemingly unaffected by the breakdown of the group. She’s aware of the nature of Francis and Charles relationship and does nothing to help him. When Charles begins to spiral further in his addiction she leaves him behind and goes to Henry for protection.

Did she murder the farmer? What did she really think about Richard? Or Henry? How much did she know? How much did she manipulate? So many possibilities.

[academic-vampire]

Sometimes I think I think too much

[praisethelorde]

Quite literally the opposite of Donna Tartt's "Death is the mother of beauty[...]Beauty is terror. Whatever we call beautiful, we quiver before it."

[belovedapollo]

I started reading Can the Monster Speak ? by Paul B. Preciado and it’s hitting home a little bit too hard 📚 reblog is ok, don’t repost/use

[girlintodust]

The secret history by Donna Tartt

TSH Spoilers

This scene is my roman empire. I've thought about this a lot, what did Henry said to Camilla. For me, the very nature of their relationship was revealed in this moment. Henry Winter -the guy who lived for the control, who relished on being the center of everything- having the power to determine the whole outcome of their situation in his hands, surrounded by the terrified looks of everyone, decides to say one last thing, and he does so only to her. It could've just been a goodbye, it would've been a way to show her he genuinely cared for her and knew that his actions would actually affect her (Camilla was never seen as a person by the rest of the guys from the Greek class, rather an object, a fantasy), yet it feels so intimate and urgent it's uncharacteristic of him. I think there was something he wanted to say before he died, but it was something he would've never said out loud for just anybody to hear. He trusted Camilla to be the one to say it to. And he confirms this by telling her he loves her seconds later. I imagine him whispering "To live. To live forever."

I'm physically unwell.

[jackdaniel69nice]

Ok but I want to talk about Tokoyami’s speech because it flew over some people’s heads.

The point tokoyami is trying to make is that “darkness” is different for everyone (“it comes in many shades”). For him it is safety, security, connection, and love. Because darkness to him has always been associated with dark shadow and dark shadow makes him feel that way.

While all for one (and most people) think of darkness as fear, confusion, destruction, and chaos. He uses darkness to for its worst, he is the boogie man and monster under your bed.

But for tokoyami the darkness reminds him he will never truly be alone and offers comfort. When tokoyami has flashbacks to him and dark shadow as children and to his classmates he is thinking about the people he loves and wants to protect. He is showing that darkness is very powerful but he wants to use that power to save.

When they said they had “devoured his darkness” it meant they had erased the negativity tied to the dark (“that muddied darkness you brought about”). They changed the meaning of darkness to be something that protects. THIS why they want to be a hero. When people think of darkness they will think of tsukuyomi and how they will keep you safe.

Even his new move is called light of baldur. It is a reference to his “light” destroying AFOs darkness. Maybe dark shadow having golden eyes ties into that. Because even though they are made of darkness there is still a part of them that glows brightly.

[rockrosethistle]

just thinking about the reason Donna Tartt's writing is so sickening in that scene where Camilla comes to Richard all bruised and he thinks about... yeah, that scene. You know the one.

When Camilla goes to Henry, his first thought is "The girl I like is being hurt, I have to protect her." In contrast, Richard's thought process is "The girl I like is being hurt, I guess that's on the table." He sees Charles's abuse as an okay signal, and views Camilla less as a human because of it.

Its the whiplash that gets you. When the supposed innocent bystander starts talking like that, this visceral, gut-wrenching disgust takes over as you realize that is the thought process of the man whose head you are occupying.

[henrywinterswife]

thinking about how henry is so superstitious that he put out a saucer of milk on his porch at night to ward away evil spirits. bro must’ve not realized that he is the evil spirit 😭

[welivetodream]

The reason Bunny gets a shit load of hate despite him being the only one who is NOT an accomplice to murder is because of one simple thing:

His personality.

That is the reason we can't feel bad for him. We as a society have considered Homophobia and sexism one of the worst things you can ever do. Which is true.

Murder is justified in certain situations, especially when it's in a fictional universe/story, not saying Bunny's death was justified, but we can excuse murder----even the law excuses murder at times. It's something grey and understandable in certain situations. We have liked; even loved characters who have killed others simply because it is in a fictional story.

The reason we draw the line at Bunny's behaviour is because, Homophobia, Racism, Sexism/Misogyny as well other forms of discrimination are NEVER excusable. When someone says a slur, you can't excuse that by comparing them in terms of morality with other characters. In modern society, we don't accept slurs and derogatory remarks.

Maybe in the 90's and 2000's when the book was new and fresh, people might not have cared about Bunny's behaviour much, maybe they even sympathize with him and loved him, because it was a DIFFERENT TIME back then. We cannot tolerate things like that anymore and it makes people harder to sympathize with Bunny.

Other than all that, Bunny is annoying a lot of the time. He is not the loveable goof he thinks he is. He scams his friends. He is cocky and arrogant. He is dumb and condescending. He says the worst things at wrong times. He puts people down. He pokes fun at others weaknesses. And the more you see of him the worse he gets. Even to the point you wish he dies.......

And he does. It's in his death that Bunny is more humanized, as most people are, in death.

And it is SOOO frustrating because he is the sanest person in the entire class. The most normal and least indoctrinated in those beliefs.

Bunny Corcoran is a character I wanted to like. But he kept getting on my nerves and I found others more interesting than him. And after reading the book several times I can appreciate him more. Although I don't agree with so many theories about him being a "good" person.

Bunny doesn't need to be good. He doesn't need anyone defending him. He doesn't need excuses for his personality. He is annoying, sometimes endearing; he makes your blood boil and he's still gone too soon. His death is a tragedy. He wanted to live. Forever.

Bunny is Bunny

You love, you hate him, or you don't care about him

His existence is necessary for the story and it's time we don't fight about if he was an angel or the devil

He was a person. A deeply flawed, complex person. And we should appreciate him just for that.

~🕯️🕊️🐇

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Literary Character

In a literary work, characters are the persons who are given certain moral, intellectual, and emotional qualities by the author.

Two Major Types of Characters

Static. The static character is one who is "flat" and two-dimensional. Such a character is usually recognized by one or two simple traits. The hallmark of a static character is that he or she will not change in spite of experience or conflict. This type of character remains unchanged by events and experiences. An example of a static character is Mistress Quickly in Henry IV.

Dynamic. The dynamic character is one who is "round" and three-dimensional. His or her personality, motives, and attitudes are complex. Such a character cannot be summed up by one or two traits. The hallmark of a dynamic character is change. This type of character will be changed and influenced by events and experiences. An example of a dynamic character is Pip in Great Expectations.

Criteria for Analyzing Character

The reader can use the criteria below in order to analyze, interpret, and draw conclusions about a character.

Appearance. Appearance generally falls into two categories: external and physical. External appearance consists of extrinsic qualities, such as clothing, jewelry, tattoos, or hairstyle. Through these external factors, you may determine a character’s taste, social status, occupation, or personality. Physical appearance, on the other hand, consists of intrinsic qualities, such as height, weight, facial expression, or tone of voice. These physical factors can suggest different personality traits. For example, a muscular physique might suggest strength; a skinny physique might suggest weakness. Be careful, however, not to judge a character on appearance alone. Appearance and reality are not always the same.

Behavior and Actions. In literature, all behavior and actions help define character. Nothing a character does is arbitrary or incidental. Small nuances of behavior need to be interpreted, as well as major decisive actions. Therefore, when trying to define what a character is like, consider what that character does. Do his or her actions reveal courage, ignorance, cunning, or generosity? For your analysis to be complete, consider involuntary behavior, such as nervous twitching, fast talking, or profuse sweating.

Biography. Often in short stories or novels, biographical information about a character will be revealed: place of birth, era of childhood, type of education, early careers, successes, failures, even the identity and occupation of the character’s parents. Such information can be used to sharpen the picture of a character, or to give added credibility to traits and values that have been identified.

Dialogue. Closely scrutinize what characters say and how they say it, for dialogue is significant. A character’s speech reveals traits and values in 2 principal ways:

Direct Expression. The correlation is patently clear between what the character says and who the character is. Nothing is hidden; nothing is subtly suggested. Direct expression requires little or no interpretation by the reader. What the character says provides immediate insight. For example, in Paradise Lost, the fallen angel Moloch states how he would like to deal with the angels left in heaven, “My sentence is for open war.” Moloch’s hostile nature is revealed directly.

Indirect Expression. The correlation is implied between what the character says and who the character is. The meaning of words may be hidden or suggested. Thus, the reader must determine the unstated meaning of a character’s words. For example, at a ball in Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy is asked if he’ll join in the dancing. He replies, “All savages dance.” At its face value, the statement could be a harmless observation about dancing. Instead, it reveals Mr. Darcy as a haughty man whose sense of superiority makes him disdainful of his company.

Emotions. When interpreting a character, you will be trying to get below the surface of that character to see deeper meanings. To do so, take into account a character’s temperament. Temperament may manifest itself in some general traits, such as whether a character is introverted or extroverted, optimistic or pessimistic, sensitive or indifferent. Or, temperament may reveal itself in specific emotional states, such as anger, melancholy, anxiety, compassion, or happiness.

Thoughts. If an author uses “direct expression” to reveal a character's thoughts and values, you need only to note what these thoughts and values are, explaining why they are significant. However, a character’s thoughts are rarely revealed directly. Therefore, you will need to interpret, infer, and draw conclusions about a character's thoughts. To do so, gather evidence from the above criteria. These criteria can all come together to form a composite sketch of a character, revealing his or her true opinions and beliefs.

What other characters say and think. The statements and thoughts of one character regarding another can be a valid source of information. However, this information can be double-edged. While you may learn about a character based on the statements and thoughts of another, you will have to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of those statements and thoughts. A reliable character will usually be perceptive and a good judge of character; an unreliable character will be flawed in some way that inhibits his or her judgment.

How To Write about Character

When writing about character, you may use the following 3-step process. Keep in mind that this is a general approach.

Establish major character traits. Pin down the character’s traits. Because the main characters in a work will have depth and complexity, you should be able to distinguish at least three prominent traits. These traits may be closely related, but they must be distinctly different.

Support major character traits with examples. The traits you establish in step 1 will be based on general impressions. In step 2, however, you must support these traits with concrete examples. For example, if you assert that “vindictiveness” is a trait, you must substantiate vindictiveness with examples from the literary work.

Explain how and why your examples substantiate a particular trait. Step 3 is the most important (and most difficult) stage of your paper. You must go beyond merely linking examples with traits; you must elaborate your views of a character’s traits with explanation. Your explanation must tell how and why your examples reveal a particular trait, whether the trait is moral, intellectual, or emotional.

Note: Other non-human entities can perform in the role of “characters.” For example, animals, nature (rivers, mountains, oceans, etc.), and man-made creations (cities, machines, houses, etc.) can function as characters.

If these writing notes help with your poem/story, do tag me. Or send me a link. I'd love to read them!

More: On Character Development

[shashapato]

Willtresor Analysis

The shippers will be fed with these posts I have queued up. 😔🫶✨

Warning: This post will discuss the toxic nature of the ship, mostly based on my own experiences with people like Monty. The purpose of this post is not to glorify unhealthy relationships but to *understand* the ship better.

Also I am NOT a mental health specialist, just someone very interested in psychology. Apologies if the terms are not accurate.

-Analysis of Montresor’s Behaviour-

• Montresor is a lovebomber, like many manipulators and ab*sive partners are. I suspect the reason Will is so heads-over-heels in love is because in the maze, Montresor had been the first person, probably in a long while, to ever treat Will like he is *special*. He uses the first time they meet to give Will the impression he is a ‘good guy’.

Proof:

*Once Lenore asks him to name one nice thing Monty’s done for him and he couldn’t think of anything, Will reminds himself of when they first met because that’s probably the time Monty was nicest to him. So, yeah, he’s in deep denial.*

*And note the fact that Monty is reaching out for Will’s hand. That’ll be relevant for our next point.*

• Monty seems to use the push-pull method. Similar to when he manipulated Ada, he takes advantage of when Will is at his lowest to become this ‘God’, this ‘saviour’. Then, he takes it away completely (aka he treats Will like shit) and leaves Will desperate for more affection.

Proof:

*After the manor arc, Montresor lets Will take a nap on his arm despite throwing a fit about Will touching him a few episodes earlier thus, the perfect example of the push-pull method. After denying Will what he wants, he gives it, to remind Will who is in charge*

*Back to the hands part, I believe Monty has made physical contact their ‘currency’, which he will withdraw and give whenever it is convenient to keep Will in line.*

Adding onto that, second proof:

*Will’s love language is definitely touch. LOOK AT THAT HUG. Montresor knows this and this is why touch is their ‘currency’.*

• Though, I do suspect Montresor is actually touch averse from his trauma, so if the push-pull theory is incorrect, (and it could be because he doesn’t do it to Ada) it’ll mean he really just doesn’t know how to love. This gives Willtresor a chance to *blossom.*

*Yes, I will add it in every Willtresor post. See that Montresor is the one initiating contact? MHMHM.*

• Lastly, I wanna end this section off by saying BOTH of Montresor’s romantic relationships that are shown in the series are with women who he sees as ‘lesser’, much like how he sees Will. Therefore, I think Monty and Ada’s relationship is the same as or used to be what Willtresor has.

-Analysis of Will’s Behaviour-

• Will’s problem is possibly that he loves Montresor only for that one thing he did in the maze. He is in denial and keeps hanging onto the hope that his ab*ser might turn out to be that ‘good guy’ after all. Much like most Willtresor fans are hoping.

• If it’s not obvious enough, neither of them were truly ‘loved’ in their life and IT SHOWS!!! But both of them have very different ways to cope with this. While Montresor wants to have power over others and use their ‘devotion’ to fill the void, Will lands on the other side of the spectrum, trying to please everyone in an attempt to feel like *someone* cares for him even if they don’t.

Proof:

*Literally the entire series, so I don’t know what to put.*

• Also, just wanted to mention how pure Will’s love for Monty is and how easy Montresor, or anyone really, can manipulate this.

Proof:

*Two instances of Will looking at Monty. First one being when they are walking with Annabel’s group; he has no reason to look at him but yet he did by instinct. Shows how he has it fully engraved in his mind that Monty is his one and only real friend. 😭 Sweet, sure, but also SCARY AS HECK.*

*Not entirely relevant, but to keep this post light-hearted: Monty also seems to look at Will instinctively too.*

Next proof:

*He respects Montresor’s boundaries oml. Will, while drunk and panicked, stopped himself before touching Monty because he’d said earlier not to. HE IS A SWEETHEART AHHHHH.*

And also, Will being such a lovesick idiot led to:

Yup. That concludes my speech on why Will’s puppy love for Monty is freaking terrifying.

-Overall-

• There is a chance this ship will bring forth the greatest redemption arc ever for Monty, but also a chance it’ll lead to either one or both of their downfalls.

More theories on this will be posted when I’m free. When it is posted, I will link it here.

(Please, please, please like this post. 😭 I love writing theories lol. If y’all like it too, I can keep going.)

[academic-vampire]

(Here is an essay I wrote about Edgar Allan Poe’s short story, “The Black Cat.” The essay delves into the seeming “mask of self delusion” that the narrator wears as he writes to exonerate himself of his crimes. To make it more interesting, I argue that the reader is obsolete to the story itself. The essay is really long, but I thought it was fun to write. Please let me know what you think of the topic—I am curious to hear others’ thoughts!)

The Mask of Self-Delusion

(Jack C. June, 2024)

Edgar Allan Poe’s narrator in his short story, “The Black Cat,” is delusional. No reader would bat an eye at this claim, as that is very plainly the case upon even an elementary reading of the work. And yet, the reader is not a crucial part of the reading process itself. On the contrary, Poe’s narrator does not require a reader at all. Instead, the narrator is writing solely for himself. The unreliable narrator in Poe’s short story attempts to exonerate himself—to exculpate himself—in a confessional manner. From the very first lines, the reader becomes aware that they are not expected to believe the narrator, and because of this, the reader is not necessary in the first place. Instead, it is the narrator writing his story for himself in an attempt to justify and rationalize his vile actions—trying to clear away his wicked sins by claiming possession and demonic intervention. The themes of acting on evil human impulse and attempting to vindicate oneself through delusion are highlighted in Poe’s short story—allowing the reader to see that the devil is not necessary to perform vicious deeds—humans alone are just as capable.

It is evident from the first sentence that the narrator is not writing for an audience but for himself. The sentence reads, “For the most wild, yet homely narrative which I am about to pen, I neither expect nor solicit belief” (1). The reader is informed a moment later that the narrator is writing from a prison cell, and will die tomorrow, but first he wants to, “…unburthen [his] soul” (1). The narrator does not think anyone will believe him, but that does not matter to him. The narrator aims to assuage himself of the events that took place to convince himself that his actions were not entirely his own. This delusion becomes evident by the language used further in the first paragraph. For example, the narrator writes, “Yet, mad am I not…”, referring to the murders as a, “…series of mere household events”, and even going as far as to proclaim the events as, “…nothing more than an ordinary succession of very natural causes and effects” (1). The language is obviously filled with delusion, but the primary factor to take into account is the attempt at rationalizing his demonic behavior. The language may even remind readers of a defense attorney trying to subdue a tragedy at hand. The key word Poe uses to show the narrator’s attempted justification of his crimes is to describe them as “natural.”

As previously mentioned, this story does not require a reader. Whether or not anyone reads or believes the narrator is not the narrator’s main concern. Instead, the narrator only tries to convince himself of his innocence through delusion and self-manipulation. Scholars Vicki Hester and Emily Segir make an important point when they write, “The story cannot save him from the noose. He has no progeny and mentions no living relatives who might care about his guilt or innocence, so the story serves little purpose for the writer, leaving readers to wonder who might be the intended audience and what might be the story’s point” (176). The narrator is writing for himself—heightening his delusion in an effort to conceal himself from his wicked human nature. Therefore, it is vital that Poe chose to write his story in the first person and not the third. Had Poe written the story in the third person, readers would have been able to quickly identify that the narrator is unreliable. Similarly, the structure of the short story would lose its significance of being told as a confession had it been written in the third person. Poe cleverly chose to write “The Black Cat” in the first person to add to the obviousness of the narrator’s delusion, the vanquishing of pathos any reader may have for the narrator, and the glimpse into the psychologically disturbed that would have been lost otherwise.

This particular reading of the narrator attempting to vindicate himself is not a new interpretation. Scholar James Gorgano concurs with the specific reading of attempted self-exculpation, writing, “The narrator cannot understand that his assault upon another person derives from his own moral sickness and unbalance” (181). By accusing demonic entities and the supernatural, the narrator can step away from the blame he so clearly deserves. Gargano continues, writing, “Consequently, if his self-analysis is accepted, his responsibility for his evil life vanishes” (181). The narrator attempts to detach himself from his crimes by writing his story in his prison cell.

Further in the story, the narrator refers to being overcome by a demonic nature. Yet, he does little to consider that his “demonic nature” is actually innately human. One central theme for Poe is human nature being wicked at its core. Poe does not maintain the naïve belief of humans as innately good, but quite the opposite. Here, the narrator tries to trick himself into believing just that—that he is innocent and was influenced by outside powers. When the narrator kills his cat, he writes, “The fury of a demon instantly possessed me” (2). The narrator removes himself from the equation by casting blame on an evil force notorious for such a wicked crime. Further in the story, as the reader kills his wife, one sentence reads, “Goaded, by the interference, into a rage more than demonical, I withdrew my arm from her grasp and buried the axe in her brain” (6). The narrator has surpassed a demon's rage and arrived at the malicious doorstep of the devil’s capacity for wrath. The narrator cannot fathom that his human nature is not innately good and kind but devilish.

Finally, The narrator loses his grip on his sanity throughout the progression of the story. A few key indicators of the narrator becoming delusional have to do significantly with his language choice. Hester and Segir point out that, after the narrator kills his wife, “He now speaks of his wife as ‘it,’ ‘the body,’ ‘the corpse.’ He does not call his wife’s dead body an accident but refers to the death as, ‘the hideous murder accomplished’” (189). And again, there is a significant moment when the narrator casts his own blame onto otherworldly forces when discussing perverseness. These sentences read, “Yet I am not more sure that my soul lives, than I am that perverseness is one of the primitive impulses of the human heart—one of the indivisible primary faculties, or sentiments, which give direction to the character of Man” (2). The narrator craves to be absolved so intensely that he has no problem blaming his murders on human nature and demons—anyone but himself. Hester and Segir cleverly elaborate that, “He also suggests that we, readers, would all do the same, given the same circumstances” (179). A moment after the narrator blames perverseness, he writes, “Who has not, a hundred times, found himself committing a vile or a silly action, for no other reason than because he knows he should not?” (2). He carries on, speaking of his soul attempting to vex itself, committing, “…wrong for wrong’s sake only” (3). The narrator will do anything but look himself in the eye and confess that he, and he alone, is an evil man. The narrator would prefer to believe that all humans have a devil inside of them that may possess them at any moment and force them to commit heinous acts. It is easier to claim that, ‘the devil made me do it,’ than it is to look at one’s own blood-covered hands and have an epiphany of one’s Mephistophelian nature.

In the last paragraph, the narrator ceaselessly denies responsibility for his guilt. He writes, “Upon its head, with red extended mouth and solitary eye of fire, sat the hideous beast whose craft had seduced me into murder, and whose informing voice had consigned me to the hangman. I had walled the monster up within the tomb!” (8). He claims that Pluto had seduced him to kill instead of admitting that he did it of his own accord. What’s more, is that the narrator claims Pluto consigned him to the hangman—his impending death scheduled for the following day. The last line carries significant weight as the narrator directs—towards the cat—the word that should be used to describe himself—monster. On a deeper metaphorical level, this line can be read as the last act of attempted self-exculpation. With one last line, the narrator seals the guilt of his crimes within the wall. Maybe he was not referring to the cat as the monster, but the guilt of his crimes. The narrator of Edgar Allan Poe’s short story, “The Black Cat,” was never possessed by the devil, although he would prefer to think so. The narrator feels that if he can confess and convince himself of his innocence, he becomes blameless. Often, the devil is considered to be the root of all evil, but people forget that the first murder was a human killing a human—Cain killing Abel.

Works Cited

Gargano, James W. “The Question of Poe’s Narrators.” College English, vol. 25, no. 3, 1963, pp. 177–81. JSTOR.

Hester, Vicki, and Emily Segir. “Edgar Allan Poe: ‘The Black Cat,’ and Current Forensic Psychology.” The Edgar Allan Poe Review, vol. 15, no. 2, 2014, pp. 175–93. JSTOR.

Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Black Cat.” English ###: PDF File. The Black Cat.pdf, June, 2024.