How we cite our quotes: Citations follow this format: (Paragraph)
Quote #1
"Eight-and-twenty years," said I, "I have lived, and never a ghost have I seen as yet." (3)
The narrator makes clear early on that he’s skeptical of ghosts. This immediately makes the reader wonder whether his opinion will change before the night is over, setting off the story’s supernatural thread. The narrator’s mention of his age also makes it easy to peg him as an inexperienced whippersnapper who doesn’t believe in ghosts. Which is what the old woman does. So this comment also triggers the old vs. young contrast of the story.
Quote #2
Well," I said, "if I see anything to-night, I shall be so much the wiser. For I come to the business with an open mind." (5)
The narrator claims that he’s "open-minded" on the subject of ghosts. But this isn’t true, as we see from his reaction to the older people. Maybe he’s just saying it to appease his audience.
Quote #3
They seemed to belong to another age, an older age, an age when things spiritual were different from this of ours, less certain; an age when omens and witches were credible, and ghosts beyond denying. Their very existence was spectral; the cut of their clothing, fashions born in dead brains. (28)
Here is where we see the judgmental side of the narrator. He thinks that any belief in the "supernatural" is an obsolete superstition from a past age. The old people belong to that age. He doesn’t. In his opinion, they have "dead brains." In other words, no rational or sensible person would believe in ghosts or goblins.
Quote #4
That had been the end of his vigil, of his gallant attempt to conquer the ghostly tradition of the place, and never, I thought, had apoplexy better served the ends of superstition. (31)
It’s clear that the young duke who died had been involved in a project similar to the narrator’s: proving the red room isn’t haunted, by making it through the night. The narrator admires the duke's project (he thinks it was a "valiant" attempt). This gives us insight into the narrator’s own motivation. It’s also worth noting that the narrator explains the young duke’s death in a way that excludes any role of the supernatural. The narrator claims the duke had "apoplexy" and fell down the stairs. We get the sense he resents the fact that the duke’s death has been ascribed to the ghost, and used to support the very superstition against which the duke fought. What’s apoplexy, by the way? Well, it can be a lot of things: a stroke, a hemorrhage, or just a fit of some kind. Maybe, in this case, it's a fit caused by fear.
Quote #5
My mind, however, was perfectly clear. I postulated quite unreservedly that nothing supernatural could happen, and to pass the time I began to string some rhymes together, Ingoldsby fashion, of the original legend of the place. A few I spoke aloud, but the echoes were not pleasant. For the same reason I also abandoned, after a time, a conversation with myself upon the impossibility of ghosts and haunting. (34)
Even as he’ starting to suffer "considerable nervous tension," the narrator is still sticking confidently to his rejection of anything supernatural. That’s his reason talking, and it’s just as sure of itself as ever. It doesn’t seem to be having much of an effect on his fear, though.
Quote #6
The one in the alcove flared in a draught, and the fire-flickering kept the shadows and penumbra perpetually shifting and stirring. (35)
This is important bit of information: it tells us there’s a draft (the British spelling is "draught") in the room. Moreover, this draft seems to be most pronounced in the alcove. Could that be what causes the alcove candle, and possibly the others, to go out? At this point, the narrator’s quite happy to explain the candles’ behavior with the draught.
Quote #7
The flame vanished, as if the wicks had been suddenly nipped between a finger and a thumb, leaving the wick neither glowing nor smoking, but black. (39)
The narrator states outright that it looks as if someone put the candle out, because the way the it goes out doesn’t look like wind. Are his eyes testifying to something supernatural at this point? On the one hand, he only says it’s "as if" the wicks had been nipped out by a hand. On the other, he uses stronger language beforehand ("there was no mistake about it"). What does he actually think has caused the candle to go out at this point? What do you think about it?
Quote #8
But then in a volley there vanished four lights at once in different corners of the room, and I struck another match in quivering haste, and stood hesitating whither to take it. (42)
By this time, the situation definitely looks fishy. How would four candles in different corners of the room go out at once? That would be a pretty odd thing for wind to do, since it usually comes from one direction. And it wouldn’t make sense to say the narrator’s motion put them out either, since they’re so far apart. Is there really a ghost here?
Quote #9
As I stood undecided, an invisible hand seemed to sweep out the two candles on the table. (43)
Again the narrator uses the language of some "invisible hand" seeming to put out the candles. He thinks that what he's seeing, (i.e., the candles going out), is best explained with reference to something invisible. It almost seems as if the most rational thing to believe in this circumstance is that there is a ghost. Or rather, it would be, if you believed ghosts existed.
Quote #10
"Yes," said I; "the room is haunted." (51)
When the narrator says this, it sounds as if he’s recanted on his skepticism, and now believes in ghosts after all. Of course, shortly afterwards he changes the meaning of what he says by specifying that the room is haunted by fear, and not by a ghost. That seems to answer the question of whether there’s anything supernatural in the story (especially since the man with the shades agrees with him). But how does the narrator really know that? He still hasn’t explained how the rather improbable thing with the candles happened.