1 plus 1 equals 2 thats all i know :)
The engine of the story is the narrator's insistence, not on his innocence (which would be normal) but on his sanity. But this reveals a self-destructive drive, since it is pretending to demonstrate sanity through guilt in crime. His denial of madness is based, above all, on the systematic nature of his homicidal behavior, on his precision and on the rational explanation of an irrational behavior. This rationality, however, is undermined by its lack of motivation - "There was no reason. There was no passion. »-. However, the murderer claims that the idea was hovering day and night in his head. Thus, the final scene is nothing more than the result of the character's guilt. Like many other characters in traditional macabre literature, passions dictate their nature. And despite all his efforts, evidently, the pretense of having heard the heart beat at a distance, despite his acute sensitivity, is the evidence of madness and insanity. Readers of the time surely felt very interested in the subject of the allegation of transient madness that recreates the story.
King’s right is correct because all the others refer to multiple people like an audience, women’s, and who’s (which can be referred to as anyone). The king is the only single person.
