, that he is mad! Without that initial statement, why would we think him mad? Then he says; "Now this is the point. You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing." How does he know that madmen know nothing? I wrote in my own journal once; "Insanity is not madness. Sanity is madness, if one can distinguish the difference between sanity and insanity, does that not then make you sane?" So then, if the narrator questions our thoughts on his sanity, he must then know the difference or that there is a difference between sanity and insanity, does that not then create some question as to his own sanity? I think from the very beginning he questioned his own sanity to himself thereby creating the question of insanity to the reader! Isn't that insane? (ha ha) But was he insane? Insane is defined in Webster's New Concise Dictionary as: "Not Sane; mentally deranged or unsound. Set apart for demented persons. Not Whole." OK, well we still cannot prove that he was or was not insane. Was he a psychopath? Some would say yes, most definitely. But what is a psychopath? Psychopaths have a character type that enables them to pursue pleasure with indifference to the suffering they cause others. Psychopaths are completely lacking such virtues as benevolence and compassion. In this story, the narrator says; "I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult." He loved the old man. He knew the word love, and love is a compassionate word. "He had never wronged me." That statement shows that he recognized the realm of right and wrong. "He had never given me insult." This statement refers to morals and ethics. Does he qualify as a psychopath? I would argue no.He was, however, very meticulously methodical. "Every night about midnight, I turned the latch of his door and opened it - - oh, so gently! I moved it slowly - very, very slowly, so that I might not disturb the old mans sleep. It took me an hour to place my whole head within the openin...
