Both Lamb to the slaughter and the Speckled Band share some characteristics of murder mysteries, what are the similarities between the two stories?
Both Lamb to the slaughter and the Speckled Band share some characteristics of murder mysteries, what are the similarities between the two stories?
Comparing Roald Dahl's 'Lamb to the Slaughter' 1954 and
'The Speckled Band' by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 1892.
Both 'Lamb to the Slaughter' and 'The Speckled Band' are detective murder mysteries. They share some similarities but have many differences. In my essay I will discuss these and the effects they have on the story.
'Lamb to the Slaughter' was written in 1954 by Roald Dahl. It is much more modern than Conan Doyle's 'The Speckled Band' of 1892.
In 'Lamb to the Slaughter' the main point to the story is to find out whether Mrs Maloney will get away with committing a murder. Dahl also tries to illustrate that appearances can be deceptive. However, in 'The Speckled Band' the reader continues to read the story to find out who the murderer was and whether Holmes will discover how the crime was committed. The stories are both murder mysteries yet their shapes are almost opposite.
The setting of 'The Speckled Band' is a typical old mansion. 'The manor house is very old'. This lends an atmosphere of foreboding and suspense to the story. This is because it is natural to find dark and sinister places scary. Conan Doyle uses descriptions such as 'A picture of ruin', 'Ill trimmed lawn', 'The building was of grey lichen-blotched stone', to show this age. The setting is important in that the atmosphere and the suspense which keeps the reader interested are dependant upon this.
In Victorian times, this type of setting would be more suited to the audience than that of a warm and cosy house. Conan Doyle was not challenging stereotypes, instead using them to his own advantage.
However, in 'Lamb to the Slaughter' the scene of the crime is the complete opposite. 'The room was warm and clean'. This causes the reader to feel relaxed without any suspicion that events such as a murder would occur. Roald Dahl uses this homely image 'the curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight' to contrast sharply with the murder - shocking the reader - and to support the impression given by Mary Maloney's character, so forcing the reader to challenge their preconceptions.
Whereas great attention to the setting is given in 'The Speckled Band' it is no longer needed after the initial description in 'Lamb to the Slaughter' as suspense is built in different ways. This is a large difference between the two.
The main character in 'Lamb to the Slaughter' is Mary Maloney. Dahl spends a long time at the beginning of the story creating an impression of her as a loving wife and house-proud women. 'Mary Maloney was waiting for her husband to come home', 'She took his coat and hung it in the closet', 'Fresh ice-cubes in the Thermos bucket'. There is also a personal description of the woman that paints a portrait of her as placid and innocent.
This includes statements such as 'a slow, smiling air', 'drop of her head . . . Was curiously tranquil', and 'this was her sixth month with child'.
Mrs Maloney is also desperate for her husband to return home. 'Please herself . . . That each minute gone by made it nearer the time when he would come.' I think that Dahl causes the reader to hold this impression so that Mary Maloney appears the complete antithesis of a murderess. By doing this Dahl ensures that there is more shock involved when she actually kills her husband. Another effect of making the reader like the woman is that the audience wants her to get away with the crime and so continues to read the story to find out whether she does or not.
Mrs Maloney does not appear to be a murderess, more likely a victim. The fact that she was pregnant makes her seem incapable of such an atrocity, an example of Dahl showing that appearances can be deceptive.
However, in 'The Speckled Band' Doyle creates the character of a terrifying murderer.
Dr Roylott does have a few seconds when the reader is impressed by him: 'Professional skill and force of character '. This is the only positive statement about the character as after this, Conan Doyle details Dr Roylott's past:
'Fit of anger . . . Beat his native butler to death.' Dr Roylott is also very unpleasant and a violent man who indulges in 'ferocious quarrels' with a 'violence of temper approaching mania'. The reader then feels that Dr Roylott is a horrible man. He is 'immense in strength' and 'the terror of the village'.
By creating this impression in the reader's mind Conan Doyle has ensured a hatred of the character. This also means that the reader thinks Dr Roylott will be the murderer as he is the stereotype of a Victorian villain, but the reader may also doubt this opinion because to modern readers it seems so obvious that is has to be a red-herring.
The physical description of the Doctor comes when he is introduced to Sherlock Holmes. It is a very dramatic entrance making the reader both alarmed and scared of the man. Tension is built up through the use of phrases and descriptions such as 'a huge man framed himself in the aperture', 'hunting crop swinging from his arm', 'his face is seared with a thousand wrinkles, burned yellow with the sun' and 'marked with every evil passion'. This image of an evil man is supported with 'deep-set, bile-shot eyes, and the high thin fleshless nose'. This description forces the reader to hate the man and hope he is the murderer.
The description is completely different from Mary Maloney - introduced as a caring, loving wife who is carrying her husband's child - yet is also a murderer. I think these differences are due to both the time in which the stories were written and the reason why. The different cultural values meant different ideas appealed to the separate audiences, plus Roald Dahl's aim of challenging stereotypes is only possible in this way. Because the story is quite modern this is acceptable, but would not have had the desired effect had Conan Doyle written it for a Victorian audience.
...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The description is completely different from Mary Maloney - introduced as a caring, loving wife who is carrying her husband's child - yet is also a murderer. I think these differences are due to both the time in which the stories were written and the reason why. The different cultural values meant different ideas appealed to the separate audiences, plus Roald Dahl's aim of challenging stereotypes is only possible in this way. Because the story is quite modern this is acceptable, but would not have had the desired effect had Conan Doyle written it for a Victorian audience.
Conan Doyle's presentation of Dr Roylott as 'a nasty piece of work' was suitable at the time because the audience wanted this type of character is stories and it gave them a greater sense of entertainment. Challenging stereotypes was not a genre in demand.
Also, the character adds interest to the story and creates a challenge for Holmes. This is not needed in 'Lamb to the Slaughter'. If it had been included then the story would not have the intended message.
The victims of the murderers are also quite different. In 'Lamb to the Slaughter' Patrick Maloney is introduced as a man on edge. The reader is shown that there is a normal routine that he doesn't follow on that particular evening. 'She knew he didn't want to speak much', 'Ten minutes to five she began to listen' and 'punctually as always'. Then the unidentified man 'did an unusual thing. He lifted his glass and drained it in one'. This seems so different from the general routine that the reader is worried.
The man then gets another drink which has 'little oily swirls in the liquid because it was so strong'. This is the action of an agitated, uneasy person.
I actually thought Mary's husband was the murderer because she seemed so incapable and he was clearly tense or worried about something. Patrick Maloney was also very unpleasant to his wife which could have resulted in the murder, for example: ' "Darling . . .Would you like me to get you some cheese?" ', ' "No" ' and also ' "forget it" '.
Mr Maloney says ' "Just for minute, sit down" ', resulting in Mrs Maloney beginning 'to get frightened'. The victim is usually the scared one with a dominant murderer, as Mr Maloney clearly is in the relationship. This is an example of Dahl showing how appearances can be deceptive. The husband is not portrayed as 'a typical victim'.
When the murder takes place he has just told his wife he is leaving her. There is no build up to his demise and his last words are ' "I'm going out" '. At no point has he seemed a likely victim because he is shown as being in complete control and the dominant partner.
Conan Doyle presents his victims in a much more traditional manner. They are both female and portrayed as damsels in distress. The lady (Helen Stoner) has arrived out of 'pure terror'. She is a potential victim, but Holmes manages to prevent this.
Miss Stoner is perceived by the reader as being terrified. 'Restless, frightened eyes', 'Her face all drawn and grey', 'She is desperate for help', ' "I have no-one to turn to" '. This is the way in which Victorians would have thought of females and victims, and is still stereotypical today.
Julia Stoner did fall victim to the murderer and is described as having been ' "but thirty at the time of her death , and yet her hair had already begun to whiten" '. She had also been scared before her death due to unexplained circumstances in the night ' "about three in the morning, heard a low, clear whistle" '. Helen believes her sister ' "died of pure fear and nervous shock" '.
This is a traditional characteristic of a victim, especially in the era during which Conan Doyle was writing. I found the victims of the two books completely different. At no point did I suspect Helen of being the murderer, as I did Mr Maloney in 'Lamb to the Slaughter'.
The title of 'Lamb to the Slaughter' is also linked to the murder and the victims. It is both a pun and a warning. Lamb means both the piece of meat used for slaughter and an innocent victim. The animal lamb was killed but also corresponds with the victim led naively to his demise. Depending on the reader's viewpoint this could mean Mr or Mrs Maloney, or even both. However, 'The Speckled Bard' is simply the crux of the mystery, holding no double significance. This is another large difference.
The detectives in the stores are also very differently portrayed by the writers. In 'Lamb to the Slaughter' Dahl creates very simple and gullible characters. Mary Maloney held inside knowledge 'as the wife of a detective' and so knew the punishment she would incur. This would explain why her first course of action was to create an alibi to bemuse the detectives. 'She certainly wasn't prepared to take a chance'.
Throughout the story suspense is created because the reader is wondering whether she will manage to dupe the detectives. From their very first entry Dahl has hinted at their blind naivety. Mr Maloney is 'with child' and the wife of one of their friends, so they treat her kindly. The detectives barely suspect her 'they always treated her kindly' but still check her alibi. ' "Which grocer?" ' ' "impossible that she . . ." '.
The stupidity of the detectives is how Dahl gives an air of black humour. Mary Maloney destroys the incriminating evidence by convincing the detectives to eat it.
However, the men are shown to have some sense of pragmatism ' "get the weapon, and you've got the man" ', yet are still out-manoeuvred by the murderess. As their frustration increases they become 'weary, a trifle exasperated' enough to accept drinks of whisky. ' "I might take just a drop to keep me going" '. This relaxes them so that they have less concentration or hope of solving the mystery.
Jack Noonan is the first detective Mrs Maloney manages to fool. She fixed him 'with her large, dark, tearful eyes' before convincing him and his compatriots to eat the leg of lamb. 'They were clearly hungry . . . Persuaded to help themselves'. Had Conan Doyle been writing a story including Sherlock Holmes the mystery would have already been solved, but Dahl's detectives are stupid enough to consume the evidence.
The penultimate line of the story sums up the men's ignorance. ' "Probably right under our very noses" ', as they eat it! I think that Dahl wrote this to give humour and to show how people aren't always as they should be.
Mary Maloney has succeeded in committing murder because the police have eaten the weapon. The detectives are bumbling and in no way 'typical'. A normal fictional detective solves the crime and catches the criminal. To the contrary Dahl presents the detectives as being incompetent and incapable of catching a murderess as they are deceived by appearances.
'The Speckled Band' by complete contrast contains a man who is hailed 'the world's greatest fictional detective' - Sherlock Holmes. Holmes is almost super-human in his deduction, which is shown to the reader from the start. Holmes' first deduction is how the lady arrived: ' "left arm of your jacket is spattered with mud . . . dog cart throws up mud in that way" '.
Occurrences like this continue throughout the story, buried deep under other circumstances causing the reader to marvel at the prowess of the man. My favourite example, probably because the observations and reasons never occurred to me, was the realisation that there must be a ventilator joining the two rooms. ' "Her sister could smell Dr Roylott's cigar . . . There must be a communication . . . Only a small one. . . I deduced a ventilator" '. This illustrates the chain of thought of a character with fantastic mental logic skills.
Conan Doyle's stories with Holmes were extremely popular when they were first published, so a vast majority of the target audience knew that Holmes would solve the mystery. ' "I felt I was probably on the right track" '. Therefore the interest lies in how he would do this in turn leading to the unbelievable deductions and events contained within the story.
I would say that Holmes is also not a 'typical' detective as he is almost too clever. An ordinary detective would solve the mystery using obvious clues, not relying on super-human brain power. Due to this the detectives in the two stories can be different or abnormally similar.
They are a similarity because I wouldn't class either as being 'normal' or 'typical' but I would also class the detectives as different because they are complete contrasts of each other. AT one end of the spectrum are Dahl's naïve and easily duped duffers stretching to Conan Doyle's superhuman creation at the other. Whilst I agree that they are similar in their abnormality I would mainly class the detectives as a difference between the stories.
I do feel that there is a similarity regarding the state of mind of the murderers. In Mrs Maloney's case this does depend upon the reader's own personal views. She can be perceived as insane or cold and calculating or emotionally out of control. Similarly, Dr Roylott is extremely cold and calculating whilst probably out of control.
Taking Mrs Maloney's state of mind I can interpret her character in two distinctly different ways. The first is that her husband's revelation has caused her to take leave of her senses, become too emotional and therefore be insane. 'Knelt down beside him and began to weep her heart out' - here she is overcome by emotion and remorse despite having killed her husband herself. Also, 'her first instinct was to reject it all'. 'She might find none of it had ever happened'. In order to believe this kind of 'seige mentality' she must be fairly insane.
Even before this I was made uneasy by the character due to her obsessive nature regarding Mr Maloney. 'She loved to luxuriate in the presence of this man'. To be this obsessed by a man, a woman is not normally in her right mind. Perhaps this is a reason why she killed him. Dahl could be showing the idea of believing if she can't have him then nobody can. This is left deliberately ambiguous so that the reader must make their own decisions.
When discussing state of mind I also found the line 'in the next room Mary Maloney began to giggle', ambiguous. Possibly the character is giggling because she is unhinged or she is laughing at the detectives' stupidity. If this is the case then she is of sound mind.
The concept of the placid woman really being immensley cold and calculating is yet another example of appearances being deceptive. It can be illustrated with the quotes ' "Alright" she told herself, "so I've killed him" '. 'How clear her mind became', 'She rehearsed it several times', 'And if . . . she happened to find anything unusual or tragic . . . naturally it would be a shock'. The last quote in particular is sarcastic and when coupled with the other quotes I feel Mary is mainly a cold and calculating character as she feels practically no remorse, is very cynical and sarcastic whilst planning everything for self-preservation with the aim of avoiding the death penalty.
This self-obsession is also true of Dr Roylott, whose motive was money not apparent jealousy. ' "If both girls had married this beauty would have had a mere pittance" ', ' "He has the very strongest of motives" '.
In Victorian times women about to be married came with a dowry. The concept of money for marriage is almost unheard of in modern society, but at the time could have made Roylott quite poor. The arrangement occurred because it was believed the daughter was being lifted from the father's care and entrusted to the husband. This is an example of social and historical context within the pre-twentieth century story.
Dr Roylott meticulously planned the murder with full possession of his senses. Every detail was thought out in order to achieve his ambition and to escape without discovery or punishment. This is how I believe Dahl wrote Mrs Maloney's actions so in my opinion a similarity between the stories is the state of mind of the murderers.
The other striking thing about the murders is how unusual they are and who committed each one. Firstly, a leg of lamb and untraceable venom from a snake are both unusual - a similarity - but also the murderers. I would match Dr Roylott the violent man 'Seized the poker and bent it in a curve', with the physically demanding murder. Similarly, I would normally expect a scorned woman to plan a murder with poison, not a pregnant woman to club her husband. The way in which the murders defied my expectations is a similarity.
Language styles have changed over the eras, which is evident when reading the stories. Conan Doyle was writing in the Victorian era when only the middle class and above would have been literate. Due to this specific audience the language used is complex and varied. There are words used that have now fallen out of common usage - also dating the story - for example 'dog cart', 'pittance' and 'aperture'.
Styles of writing have also changed. The sentences in 'The Speckled Band' are very long - sometimes three or four lines. This is very uncommon in more modern pieces of writing. Phrases such as 'said he' are now 'he said'.
Conan Doyle also describes places more vividly, perhaps more so than Dahl. This is due partly to writing style and also the need for Holmes to have detail to see through. The other reason is that 'The Speckled Band' is very concerned with atmosphere created by description. 'I could not hear a sound, not even the drawing of a breath', 'We waited in absolute darkness', 'Waiting silently for whatever might befall'.
In contrast, 'Lamb to the Slaughter' is mainly concerned with character actions meaning that having created the setting of the 'clean and tidy' house Dahl no longer needs to write vivid descriptions. An added advantage the a lack of description creates clinical shock and drama. 'Simply walked up behind him and without any pause she swung the big frozen leg of lamb high'. The lack of build-up to the murder helps to strengthen the shock in the reader's mind.
The language Dahl uses is relatively simple with less variation. It is also more modern though I do not feel that this detracts from the story in any way. It is obvious from reading the stories that they were written in two very different eras by two very different authors. I also think that the diffeent eras and so different expectations of the audiences played an important role in deciding the endings.
Roald Dahl has a humorous and unexpected ending which I found especially amusing because of the understatements. 'One of them belched', ' "Probably right under our very noses" ', 'Mary Maloney began to giggle'.
I had half expected this ending, but only because it is so far distanced from most true happenings. Having read the ending I felt sure I had read it somewhere before. This could be due to other authors finding the ending so amusing they write one similar themselves.
I found this ending to 'Lamb to the Slaughter' very effective. It is liked by the reader because Mary Maloney has escaped with a murder the reader was able to empathise with. I know I wanted Mary to escape punishment as I felt sorry for her. This is interesting as in a normal situation where a writer has not blurred my view I would find her actions to be awful.
In contrast to this, the ending to 'The Speckled Band' was a revelation coupled with poetic justice in that Dr Roylott died. I had not managed to solve the mystery and was amazed at the intricacies Conan Doyle had managed to include. I had expected Dr Roylott to play a role in the murder because of his descriptions and the aura that Conan Doyle had managed to build up around him. ' "He has no friends at all" '. I already knew there was not going to be a twist at the end like in 'Lamb to the Slaughter' because that is not how Conan Doyle wrote. I think it was having this knowledge that led me to suspect Roylott.
I also found Conan Doyle's ending interesting but not ground-breaking like Dahl's. I was intrigued by the details, but after the vivid description of Roylott's last scream the remainder was an anti-climax. 'The most horrible cry to which I have ever listened', 'It swelled up louder and louder a hoarse yell of pain and fear and anger'. The conclusion following this was so mundane I felt it detracted from the climax 'Such are the true facts of the death of Dr Grimesby Roylott'.
'Lamb to the Slaughter's humorous ending appealed to me, whereas the anticlimax of 'The Speckled Band' was less effective. I think it probably wasn't necessary but Conan Doyle obviously felt that it was.
At the time of writing 'The Speckled Band' the ending was what the audience liked. The story was serialised in papers so the events made good cliff-hangers. Had Dahl's story been published like this it would probably not have been so well received.
Similarly, the way in which attitudes have changed means that nowadays 'Lamb to the Slaughter' is a more effective ending, in that it fits with the mind frame of modern society. Conan Doyle's detailed ending is completely different and less suitable for this fast-moving society. The detail would not appeal to as many readers as the more sparse 'Lamb to the Slaughter'.
Despite these criticisms I was interested in both of the stories as both Dahl and Conan Doyle wrote in styles that made me wish to continue reading, but for different reasons.
In 'The Speckled Band' I was intrigued by the details like 'a small lash . . . Curled upon itself', 'a small saucer of milk' and others, and how they would all fit into the solution. The element of suspense also helped to make me want to read on. This was aided by the character of Dr Watson. When Holmes speaks to him he leaves out key details which crates suspense. 'There is a distinct element of danger', 'I may have deduced a little more'. Watson is almost like the reader - left in the dark but desperate to reach a solution.
The reason I wanted to continue to read 'Lamb to the Slaughter' was different. I was interested in whether Mary Maloney would be found innocent. The suspense causing this desire was found in places like ' "Which grocer?" ', 'Other detective who immediately went out into the street'.. The reader is curious about whether the detectives will solve the riddles. In contrast, there is no doubt that Conan Doyle will write an ending where Holmes solves the mystery with Watson in awe.
I found 'Lamb to the Slaughter' more successful as a story due to its humour and 'snappiness' coupled with the way Dahl created suspense. 'The Speckled Band' was more successful as a murder mystery because there were more problems for the reader to solve. I do not think that 'Lamb to the Slaughter' is a mystery.
In conclusion I feel I have found that there were a few basic similarities between the stories, but more differences. I found 'Lamb to the Slaughter' more interesting as it did not ramble like 'The Speckled Band'.
The differences I have compared with one story, the antithesis of the other, are due mainly to the fact that the stories were written nearly one hundred years apart by different authors with styles, concepts and expectations having changed over time.