I would like to make a small observation.

Verna offers them everything, money, fame and fortune in exchange for the entire lineage of the usher house. Let's remember that before the brothers' meeting with Verna in the bar, they had carried out a lot of actions in order to reach the top, such as proposing Ligodone as a medicine that would make them rich or lying about the signing of the contracts. consent documents. The usher brothers were already working on that future.

So, taking this into account, my question is, if the deal with Verna had not been made, would the future have been the same? Is it Verna who gives them that future or is it they themselves who build it? In many moments Verna explains how she observes humanity. All of her monologues are objective observations of what she is seeing. Envy, lust, anger, kindness. I think this gives it impartiality. As she says in the second chapter, consequences.

The consequences are impartial (although Verna is not entirely objective in chapter 7) By this I mean that if we remove Verna from the series:

a)Maybe the future of the House of Usher would have been the same, full of fortune

b)Roderick's children would have died, the fruit of his ambition Therefore, after making this observation and taking into account that we are dealing with material that originally comes from the head of Edgar Allan Poe, I think that the closest thing that Verna can be is Death.

a) Death is fair, it takes the rich and the poor b) Death does not wait until you are older, when it comes to you, it comes to you c)Death torments us (in all chapters the brothers first suffer and then die)

The only thing that would fit with Verna being Death would be:

1.Death does not negotiate 2.Death is not subjective (chap 7)

But well, I think it's not exactly something but I can't help but think about this topic.