Secondly Dahl describes Mary as a pregnant woman with soft, loveable features and a skin that has “a wonderful translucent quality”. This makes the reader now care for Mary and makes her a perfect victim being weak and a woman. It appears that Mary waits patiently every day for her husband to arrive from work and is overjoyed at his arrival.
When the clock said ten minutes to five she began
to listen, and a few moments later, punctually as
always, she heard the tyres on the gravel outside,
and the car door slamming, the footsteps passing
the window, the key turning in the lock. She laid
aside her sewing, stood up, and went forward to
kiss him as he came in.
The reader anticipates that Mary and Patrick get on very well and that Mary has a very caring nature as she is waiting anxiously and immediately shows her love by kissing him as he comes in. Dahl also shows Mary’s love for Patrick to a greater detail as she loves to be near him and she appears to idolise him.
She loved to luxuriate in the presence of this man,
And to feel-almost as a sunbather feels the sun-
That warm male glow that came out of him to her
When they were together.
Mary also seems to admire his character and is deeply in love with him as she is attentive to Patrick’s every need and this makes the reader fell that Patrick is very lucky to have such a devoted wife. Mrs Maloney doesn’t seem to work and spends “long hours alone in the house” looking after it, and her husband, which was a woman’s duty during the 1950’s. This was typical as women were seen as second from men, this is also seen but to a greater extent in The Speckled Band which was written in the Victorian times when women hardly had any independence. This is seen through Helen as she left home at six in the morning obviously without the permission of her stepfather and she suggests that she is frightened of him as she talks about his vicious character. Helen also says that she would not like Holmes to go to the house in his presence suggesting her fear of him finding out she has been to see Holmes. “No, I must go. My heart is lightened already since I have confided my trouble to you.”
He is seen as a perfect villain being a man and a police officer. The third person narration is kept however Dahl looks at the scene through Mary’s eyes giving her point of view.
But each time he lifted the drink to his lips, she
heard the ice cubes clinking against the side
of the glass.
Even Patrick is seen through Mary’s eyes, which enables the reader to understand exactly how she felt and thought at the time, “She noticed there was a little muscle moving near the corner of his left eye.” Mary keeps asking Patrick if he wants anything and asks to get him another drink but he appears to be frustrated and gets angry. The reader is unsure whether he is always like this or if it just today. Mary does not ask what the problem is which suggests that he might always be like this, making the reader sympathise more for Mary. He appears distracted in his approach to her and this is also seen through his language, which is very short and snappy, “I don’t want it” he said. Dahl retains what Patrick tells Mary but it is obvious that he is leaving her, which makes the reader very angry towards Patrick especially because she is pregnant. Mary appears to ignore him although she has heard exactly what he has said. She goes to collect some food from the basement and picks up the first thing that comes to her hand, which happens to be a leg of lamb. Out of the spur of the moment, she swings the frozen leg of lamb around Patrick’s head and kills him.
Dahl, wrote lamb to the Slaughter for a more modern reader who wanted the murder mystery genre to have a little variety. This is exactly what Dahl did to attract his readers into the story, which was not really expected. The typical aspects of having a male villain and a female victim were switched around, to enhance the interest of the reader and to experiment with the typical style of the murder mystery genre. The time in which the story was written reflects the possible reasons for Dahl’s choices as compared to The Speckled Band the setting is not what you would expect for a murder mystery, as it is not set in a mysterious mansion with suspicious characters. Women were beginning to have a bigger say in society and the reader was shown the story from a different perspective however still demonstrating a woman without very much independence from her husband and with a traditional housewife role of looking after the home which was common in the 1950’s.
Sherlock Holmes lives with Dr Watson in Baker Street, London, the heart of the city. This implies his upper class lifestyle. Holmes investigates the murder of Julia Stoner by thoroughly asking Helen a range of questions and asking her to “pray be precise as to details”. The story is told through the eyes of Dr Watson, and he talks about Sherlock Holmes and his professional methods.
I had no keener pleasure than in following Holmes in his
Professional investigations, and in admiring the rapid deductions
As swift as intuitions, and yet always founded on a logical basis,
With which he unravelled the problems, which were submitted to him.
Dr Watson suggests that Holmes is an experienced detective who is very professional in his manner. The writer shows the reader Holmes’ skills by the way he works out the transport used by Helen as well as the fact that she sat in the left hand side of the dog-cart through the clues that are present in her appearance. Holmes made deductions from what he could observe on Helens jacket, which show that not only is he listening to her but also studying her appearance to find out additional information. Helen is startled by Holmes’ precision. This enables the reader to understand that Holmes is a professional detective in their first impression. He fits the stereotype being a man who has a certain element of excellence in him.
The second that Helen leaves Holmes begins thinking of the possible reasons for Julia’s unexpected death and the mysterious whistling sound that both Julia and Helen had heard in the middle of the night. Holmes asks for Dr Watson’s opinion on the case “And what do you think of it all, Watson?” He appears to mull over the possible solutions to the mystery even before going to visit the Stoke Moran house which shows that he is preparing himself for the ‘afternoon’. Holmes is very calm when Dr Roylott goes to meet him and does not reveal anything Helen had told him. Holmes understands Dr Roylott’s violent character and from what Helen has told him he sets off to make some investigations into his financial position.
It is evident therefore, that if both girls had married,
this beauty would have had a mere pittance, while
even one of them would cripple him to a serious extent
Holmes understands the case to a greater depth now and he sets off for Stoke Moran with a brief picture in his mind already from his preliminary work. The reader sees an element of danger and suspense, as well as tension is built when Holmes asks Watson to take a revolver with him, he is clearly worried. “ I should be obliged if you would slip your revolver into your pocket”. He also prepares himself if they may need to stay the night there by taking a toothbrush with him. This shows the reader his ability to think ahead and predict the outcome of his travel. He says it’s “too serious for dawdling” making the reader understand how important and dangerous the case is.
Holmes later studies the Stoke Moran house in which Helen lives and is very observant and says very little but does a lot of listening and thinking. He takes everything as a possibility and it is this that assures the audience of security and a belief that he will get to the bottom of the murder. The language he uses is definite and to the point, ”one moment” said Holmes, “Could you swear to it”? Anything that he is unsure about he immediately asks to be told again and in depth. Dr Watson also says that “he investigated the case with great care” allowing the reader to understand each action. A bell-rope hanging beside the bed interests Holmes and the windows and walls are carefully examined. Helen also says that she can smell the smoke from Dr Roylott’s room, which strikes Holmes, as he knows that there must be some sort of passage connecting the rooms. His deductions lead him to find out that it must be the ventilator. Holmes has understood something, and he makes a plan for that night.
Jack Noonan on the other hand has less incentive and is rather casual in his approach as he arrives, “The murderer may have taken it with him, but on the other hand he may’ve thrown it away”, suggesting he is unsure and not taking into consideration other possibilities of a weapon. He reacts immediately to the “small patch of congealed blood” found on Patrick’s head but doesn’t appear to be very focused and rather easily distracted from his investigations by offers from Mary.
He does not appear to ask many questions and doesn’t investigate all the possibilities to Patrick’s death. Jack Noonan and the other detectives with him do not appear very professional or experienced at their job because they know how Patrick died but do not sincerely work to find the “heavy blunt metal”. Jack Noonan and the other detectives accept a drink while they are working and never pay any attention to the house or the surroundings. Mary suggests certain things by implying the murderer is a man making Jack Noonan change the focus of the investigation. She also says that a man must have killed Patrick therefore not letting him think of her as a suspect at all.
‘Well,’ she said. ‘Here you all are, and good friends
of dear Patrick’s too, and helping to catch the man
who killed him’.
She uses manipulative language to direct the detectives in the way she wishes. Mary then tries to get rid of the weapon, which was, she used to kill Patrick with my “begging” the detectives to eat the lamb. Jack Noonan doesn’t think carefully why she may be forcing him and the other detectives to eat the lamb in this manner but instead accepts to eat the lamb. Mary’s natural behaviour manipulates the police and this means they do not correctly investigate the crime scene and herself as a suspect in a professional manner. However it can be argued that it is not really Jack Noonan’s fault completely because he knows Mary well as a friend and wouldn’t take her as a suspect. Whereas on the other hand Sherlock Holmes Is focused and determined, examining and asking questions all the time. This is the reason why he is successful and Jack Noonan is not. Jack Noonan and his team are not carefully examining things but are instead very quick and not thorough, a major reason for their downfall.
Sherlock Holmes fits the stereotype best because he investigates the murder very thoroughly, concentrating only on his job. This allows him to pick up the key clues and hence he is more successful in solving the mystery. The Victorian audience preferred a murder mystery to end with a solution, which was thought to be more typical when the detective always wins over the villain. A detective needs a great deal of confidence, self-belief, and determination and I personally can see this in Sherlock Holmes but definitely not in Jack Noonan. Other Sherlock Holmes adventures demonstrate this too.
Dahl builds the vivid image of a cosy, home where there is nothing out of the ordinary. Mary is seen as waiting for her husband with “the thought that every minute gone by made it nearer the time when he would come”(showing a clear love for him). She has “a certain smiling air about her”, possibly suggesting that she is in high spirits, or is cheerful. The reader sees Mary as a calm loving character. Mary is seen as a typical victim, being a woman and an expectant mother yet she turns out to be a murderer. The reader is assured that Patrick, Mary’s husband could not possibly be the victim as he is a police officer-sergeant and obviously a man; however they are fooled as he turns out to be the victim.
Tension is built up and then increased as Patrick arrives home, very tired and it is clear that there is something playing on his mind. It appears that something has happened and that he is uncomfortable in speaking to her. The reader is displeased because, Mary was eagerly waiting for her husband’s arrival and he doesn’t show any love for her and seems to be treating her like dirt. He appears irritated and gives short answers to the questions Mrs Maloney asks, “tired darling?” “Yes” he said, “I’m tired”. He drained his drink “in one swallow”, possibly because of something that he has done, implying that he may be trying to boost himself with some ‘Dutch courage”. The reader can see that he is irritated because he gives short monosyllabic answers and this is a technique the writer uses to builds up tension and suspense. Mary pursues her claim by constantly asking him for something which shows he is not interested and is building up anger inside him. Patrick asks Mary to sit beside him and tells her something, which she ignores and doesn’t react to in any way.
He had finished the second drink and was staring
Into the glass, frowning. ’Listen,’ he said, ‘I’ve got
Something to tell you.’ ‘What is it, darling? What’s
the matter?’ (Lamb to the Slaughter 140-Line 4-7)
Dahl does not reveal what Patrick tells Mary, but it is left for the reader to guess, after looking at her reaction. Mary does not really pay attention to what Patrick says, “her first instinct was not to believe any of it, to reject it all”. Simple third person narration is used by Dahl when describing Mary’s reaction to Patrick’s shocking news but it enables the reader to understand her feelings, and thoughts at the time.
And he told her. It didn’t take long, four or five minutes at
most, and she sat very still through it all, watching him
with a kind of dazed horror as he went further and further
away from her with each word.
This makes the reader feel even more sympathetic towards Mary after all that she had done for him he had betrayed her. The reader is shown Mary’s feelings in the most clear way as the language is slow and to the point. Mary appears to ignore everything as if she hasn’t heard a word of what he has said and continues to act as normal.
Everything was automatic now-down the steps to
the cellar, the light switch, the deep freeze, the
hand inside the cabinet taking hold of the first
object it met
The list of actions and the word ”automatic” makes the reader feel that Mary is not in her own control and therefore they feel sorry for her. The author also uses free indirect speech at this point, “All right then, they would have lamb for supper” which allows the reader to make up their own minds about Mary’s feelings. Mary’s reaction is then shown in a similar way as she murders her husband with a leg of frozen Lamb out of the spur of the moment, something that wasn’t premeditated. It shows how she didn’t know what she was doing, and as if she was taken over by something else which lead her to kill Patrick. However no sympathy is felt for Patrick because the scene is through Mary’s perspective and the reader feels that he deserved it for the way he had treated her. The narration is controlled very well as the reader doesn’t really notice that Dahl has used first person narration “I’ve killed him.”
Mary is then seen to think about her baby and the reader is sympathetic toward her as they feel that she was really a caring lady and wouldn’t wish to do anything to harm her husband. It was out of anger and therefore the reader is not as blaming as they would be of Dr Roylott. She thinks about what might happen to the baby if she were to go to prison and asks herself a range of questions.
On the other hand, what about the child? What were the
laws about murderers with unborn children?
Did they kill them both-mother and child? Or did they wait
until the tenth month? What did they do?
This builds up suspense because the reader is not sure about what Mary is going to do and is even more effective because we can hear the questions that she asks herself. She thinks about her child and this makes the reader feel understanding towards her. Mary first talks to herself in front of the mirror, preparing and practising what she will say at the grocers. She creates an alibi by going to the grocer’s and she tries and acts very normally. The tension is built as Mary puts on an act, pretending she is unaware of what has happened and calls the police. She talks very normally and shows her anguish. She thinks about the consequences of her actions. When the police arrive, Mary falls into Jack Noonan’s arms and this makes him feel sorry for her. Mary is very manipulative and she suggests things to the police, which change the direction of their investigation.
In contrast Dr Roylott has a violent nature as when his home in Calcutta was burgled he beat his butler to death. This creates the image of a vicious dangerous man who when angry can do anything. Whereas Mary is not physically violent. The first description of Dr Roylott’s character gives the reader a perfect villain however the red-herring of the gypsies in the grounds mean that the reader is not sure of the reason for Julia’s unexpected death. Dr Roylott has also been in prison, narrowly escaping the death sentence, which means that he is a typical villain. Dr Roylott got into “brawls” with the local people on a regular basis, which meant that he became very unpopular, and there was no real security in the house as Helen explained to Holmes, “he is so cunning that I never know when I am safe from him.”
He also got into court on a number of occasions and he let gypsies stay in the grounds of the house as well as exotic animals such as a cheetah and baboon who he let wander freely about. “He had no friends at all, save the wandering gypsies.” His nature was of a perfect villain being a man with a mysterious character and a certain criminal record. His appearance was also rather mysterious, “he was a hug man...face…marked with every evil passion”, he has “bile-shot eyes”. “He hurled the local blacksmith” and he resembled “a fierce old bird of prey” all make the man appear a sinister, menacing figure. The language is also very powerful and words such as hurled, snarled, hoarse roar, bile-shot, evil passion, and prey all add to create the fierce character of Dr Roylott. The reader is pretty confident that Dr Roylott with a motive for murder is the one who killed Julia but the fact that there is no way anybody could have got into her room is what confuses the reader as well as the gypsies in the grounds.
The settings are different in the two stories and this adds to the tension and suspense. The Stoke Moran house is described by an effective simile, “Two curving wings, like the claws of a crab” which makes the house appear a little more typical for the murder. The house appears forbidding and a dangerous place. This was a common setting in the late 19th century with a dark, dangerous setting. This setting has been used in The hound of the Baskervilles as well as Agatha Christie’s detective fiction and is therefore common as well as typical.
The setting of Lamb to the Slaughter is a more cosy, homely and less of a typical setting for a murder. The reader does not expect the murder to take place in that home. The houses during the Victorian times are identical to the one described in Stoke Moran. The mansion is not very properly looked after, “high roof-tree of a very old mansion” and there are other pieces of evidence that suggest the house is very old and not well looked after, hence an ideal setting for a murder mystery. The house is surrounded by parks and cannot be really seen, as it is desolate. The middle class American home in Lamb to the Slaughter is more of a peaceful place as described in the beginning of the story without anything mysterious or out of place.
Both stories are successful in creating suspense and there are various techniques that are used by the two writers to capture the attention of the reader. In The Speckled Band, from the very beginning, Sir Conan Doyle illustrate Helen’s account with descriptive language and Holmes’ reaction is that he is worried; this has the effect of making the reader concerned as well. Holmes says, “there is a distinct element of danger” and he also asks Watson to take a gun with him. The reader trusts Holmes and when he suggests there is danger the reader feels the same and therefore suspense is built. The first person narration also has a similar effect because the events are recounted, as they are experienced. Holmes holds back evidence, making the reader desperate to find out his conclusion.
Doyle uses the effect of the passing of time to enhance the suspense. The pace slows down during the vigil and there are long, stretched sentences.
I could not hear a sound, not even the drawing
of a breath, and yet I knew my companion sat open eyed,
within a few feet of me, in the same state of nervous tension
In which I was myself
This implies that Holmes and Watson are both very nervous making the reader feel the same. The sound of the parish clock is the trick used by Doyle to show the passing of time, which adds to the suspense because the quarters are meant to seem very long. The connectives used also have an immediate effect as the reader is drawn into the story “suddenly”. Doyle also uses action adverbs, “Holmes…sprang…lashed furiously”, and this changes the pace suddenly from slow, as they wait, to fast as Holmes attacks the snake. Holmes is quick and the reader begins to think what happened, did I miss it? Direct speech is used to break the silence as Holmes speaks to Watson in an aggressive tone. The language is very short and sharp, “you see it, Watson? He yelled. “You see it?” This builds up suspense by the characters specking very rapidly with each other with a sense of urgency. The reader does not know what “it” is, but he obviously does. Doyle retains the information keeping the reader in suspense. The climax is built up to horror when Dr Roylott dies and the scream is heard. “Most horrible cry”, “hoarse yell of pain and fear” and a “dreadful shriek” give a chilling effect to the reader of Dr Roylott. However Dr Watson’s view may be biased as he describes the body as a “singular sight”, “chin cocked upwards”. Holmes is aware of the solution and the reader must wait for an explanation.
Dahl builds up suspense and tension in Lamb to the Slaughter, because after the murder the reader wants to find out what will happen to Mary and her baby and whether she will be caught. Mary speaks to Jack as a friend in a very polite way and puts on an act to show she is really upset ‘will you do that, Jack. Thank you so much.’ “When the sergeant returned the second time, she looked at him with her large, dark, tearful eyes.” Although we know the murderer, the suspense remains because the reader wants to know what will happen to Mary. Mary becomes agitated as the police search the house and therefore she tries to take the police away from the evidence, lead them in the way she wants. Mary is seen as clever and the reader does not really look at her as a murderer because they feel it was Patrick’s fault and that she is concerned about her child. However at the end of the story this may change because Mary giggles and this makes the reader rather uneasy as if Mary had wanted to kill Patrick on purpose. They now may look at her in a different way. Dahl seems to now look at the story from another perspective detaching himself from Mary by using her full name.
The Speckled Band’ is set in Victorian times. We know this because it uses old -fashioned language, and there are certain pieces of evidence as women wore long dresses and gloves. Words such as “meddler” and “Scotland Yard jack-in-office” show old-fashioned text. We also know this because dog-carts were around in this time. “There is no dog cart which throws up mud in that way”. You can tell that ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ is set in the 1950’s because the language used is modern. In the story there is also a car “tyres on the gravel outside”, and a thermos bucket “Fresh ice in the Thermos Bucket.” They both show that the story is more modern.
In conclusion I feel that both stories capture the attention of the reader and are very good in creating suspense and tension. I personally feel that The Speckled Band is a more typical story because it has the traditional male detective, male villain, and a female victim. This means it is more of a realistic idea. I feel that The Speckled Band is a more typical murder mystery with a mysterious old mansion as the setting and the villain is caught, however a certain element of variety in Lamb to the Slaughter also attracts readers. The Speckled Band really held my attention especially through the narrator Dr Watson because the story is seen at a greater and depth. Holmes reveals at the end that he was indirectly responsible for Dr Roylott’s death although he cannot bring himself to regret it. A good murder mystery must have a very accurate structure and I feel a more typical one works more effectively.
By Anish Acharya 10BN