The way the characters are described is very different. ‘His costume was a peculiar mixture of the professional and the agricultural, having a black top-hat, a long frock-coat, and a pair of high gaiters, with a hunting-crop swinging in his hand. So tall was he that his hat actually brushed the crossbar of the doorway, and his breadth seemed to span it across from side to side.’ As you can see, this is a much more detailed description than any in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’. Conan-Doyle carries on telling us about how Dr. Roylott became violent, ‘…instead of making friends and exchanging visits with our neighbours, he shut himself up in his house, and seldom came out save to indulge in ferocious quarrels with whoever might cross his path.’ From this quote, we can tell that Dr. Roylott is a violent man. This statement is backed up later on in the story, ‘…seized the poker, and bent it into a curve…’ As you can see, he is a very violent man who uses his strength to make people afraid of him. With this description you get the idea that Roylott is a secluded man. As said earlier on, Mary Maloney is not your typical murderer. However, Dr. Roylott can be considered as a typical murderer, large, violent and able to do such a thing.
The other character described greatly is Helen Stoner. ‘She was indeed in a pitiful state of agitation. Her face all drawn and grey, with restless frightened eyes like those of a hunted animal. Her features and figure were those of a woman of thirty but her hair was shot with premature grey and expression was weary and hagged.’ Helen is the sister of Julia Stoner. Throughout the story, Helen is Holmes guide and tells him various things that he needs to know about the Stoke and her sister’s death. This means that she plays an important role.
Though both of these stories are murder mysteries, the way that they are structured is very different. In ‘Lam to the Slaughter’ the way the story unravels is in a ‘whodunit’ sense. What this means that that we know, who did it. The interest is kept by other means. The way Roald Dahl keeps readers interested in this story is by leading through with the inspectors trying to find out who killed Patrick Maloney. This is written in the following way, ‘…a very big spanner?’ This indicates that the police are looking for the completely wrong thing. As we know from reading the story, Patrick Maloney was killed by a leg of lamb, ‘…frozen leg of lamb…’
At the end of this story there is a twist. After the murder, Mary put the lamb into the oven. Near the end, Mary offers the lamb to the inspectors. When they eat it, all evidence has gone. This is an example of dramatic irony. ‘Personally I think its right here on the premises.’ ‘Probably right under our noses.’ This is humorous as we know what has really happened, but the inspectors do not.
The structure of ‘The Speckled Band’ is very much different. It is not written in a ‘whodunit’ way, but rather a more murder mystery. It starts off by telling us some things about what happened at the murder scene. ‘…her hands groping for help, her whole figure swaying to and fro like that of a drunkard…a fresh convulsion seized her and choked her words.’ This is the main setting of how Julia Stoner died. However, we do not know how it actually happened. This mystery of not knowing how she died is the main factor that makes us want to read on. As you read deeper and further into the story, you begin to get ideas of what might have happened. This is intriguing as you want to keep on reading so that you can find out what actually did happen. This is one of the largest differences between the two stories. Holmes works out what the murderer may have been.
This is completely different to the police in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ who are unperceptive and do not work out what has really happened. In ‘The Speckled Band’ Holmes has a sort of ‘omniscient’ way of knowing what has happened. This is also very interesting as you begin to wonder what he will think of next. This makes the story more complex than in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ as you know what happened.
The language used is also very much different. In ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ colloquial English is used. This is slang or a more modern way of talking. In ‘The Speckled Band’ the language used is very much archaic, ‘…for working as he did rather for the love of his art than for the acquirement of wealth, he refused to associate himself with any investigation which did not tend towards the unusual, and even the fantastic.’ This use of archaic words and phrases can be difficult for modern readers to understand, as it is often more complicated than in modern tense. The sentence length in ‘The Speckled Band’ is long and drawn out. The first sentence is very long and it presents much factually and situational information which is intended to ‘whet’ the readers appetite and encourage them to read further. ‘Of all these varied cases, however, I cannot recall any which presented more singular features than…’ This is a very long sentence which makes readers wonder as to what the writer might be referring to. This will then encourage you to read on.
Although ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ does not use archaic language, it does however use colloquial speech. ‘…well I might take just a drop to keep me going.’ This is a noticeable change to the language in ‘The Speckled Band’ but is much easier to understand and relate to.
The similarities in these two stories are far and few. The only obvious similarity is that they both include murders. Now whilst some people may say that this is a stupid statement, it is true. Often the most simplistic of things can be the right answer.
