In his article he 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? As I finished DiSanza's article, none of these questions had been answered. I suppose it's because no one other than Poe himself could really tell us readers why. Bales, Kent and Gargano were DiSanza's most used sources and even these authors could not answer his main questions, on which he based his article. I discovered that by reading “On Memory, Oblivion and Complicity in “The Cask of Amontillado”” by Raymond DiSanza, Edgar Allan Poe's short story leads the reader to ask many questions. In which, these questions interconnect more frequently than you might think. DiSanza makes you realize that Poe never mentions Montresor's motivations because he knew exactly how readers would react. An excellent tactic that Poe uses brilliantly, deliberately leaving out information in order to create suspense and mystery; which leads the reader to wonder. Poe wanted us to overanalyze and try to understand the many possibilities behind these questions, he wanted us to think in ways we wouldn't have. He is able to avoid giving examples of those injuries that Fortunato inflicted on Montresor. Poe's problem in writing this story is keeping the reader somewhat sympathetic towards a man who was able to bury another man.