However the motive in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ is clear, but it is never revealed. What I mean by this is Patrick Maloney came home from work, the same as he did everyday. But this time he sits Mary Maloney, his pregnant wife, down and tells her something that she’s not going to like, “Listen, I’ve got something to tell you…This is going to be a bit of a shock to you, I’m afraid…” After this series of quotes Dahl decides not to let the readers in on what Patrick told Mary and the story moves on 4 or 5 minutes and to the “aftermath” of what Patrick told Mary. The crime that Mary Maloney commits is unexpected, and definitely not planned on her behalf. She is acting in the spur of the moment; she was probably overcome with emotions and couldn’t think clearly, you could say that she was on “auto-pilot.” A similarity between ‘The Speckled Band’ and ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ is that both the motives are clear to the readers of each story. But there are more differences between the two writing used in the stories written by Roald Dahl and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle respectively.
Another point that comes into my mind is the similarities, or the lack of them, between the killers. In ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ the killer, Mary Maloney, is described as, “gentle and warm.” She was a typical housewife. Additionally Mrs Maloney comes across as a sweet and innocuous woman. At the beginning of the story no one would be expecting Mary to be the murderer. It’s only when she actually raises the lamb to strike Patrick that you get any real evidence that she is the killer in the story. Mary is also very much in love with her victim, this can be proven by the following two quotes, “she loved to luxuriate in the presence of this man.” And, “She loved the intent, far look in his eyes when they rested on her.” Once again I will mention that this attack was not planned, and I think it would be fair to say that she was temporarily insane at the time of killing her husband.
However the killer in ‘The Speckled Band’ is quite the opposite. I would say that the main difference is the fact that Dr Grimesby Roylott, the killer in ‘The Speckled Band’, planned out the way he would kill his intended victims. Another point I would like to make about Dr Roylott is he is described as looking, in my opinion, like a regular killer of the period would look like, well built, strong, dressed in black. “…our door had been suddenly dashed open, and that a huge man framed himself in the aperture. His costume was a peculiar mixture of the professional and of 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.” In addition to this point I believe that the Dr comes across as a rude and arrogant man. “See that you keep yourself out of my grip, he snarled, and hurling the twisted poker into the fireplace, he strode out of the room”
In my opinion I feel that both killers had good reasons to act in the ways they did, however this does not mean that they should have killed their respective victims.
The reason why Dr Roylott killed in ‘The Speckled Band’ was, in short for the money, or to be specific the money he would lose if his step-daughters were to marry. This is because of a will the late Mrs Stoner wrote. I believe Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the writer of ‘The Speckled Band’, made the relationship between Roylott and his two step-daughters a little rough to say the least, so it would make Dr Roylott look worse than he already did to the reader, and also as a clue to the reader, and Holmes, that he was indeed the killer of Julia Stoner.
The motive for Mrs Mary Maloney to kill Patrick in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ is simple, yet complex. If I was comparing it to something I would compare Mary’s reasons for killing Patrick to a watch. In ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ Dahl decides not to tell the readers what Patrick said to Mary to cause her to snap. He has a very good reason for doing this; it leaves what he said up to the reader’s imagination, enabling the people who read the story to think what he said to Mary and they can think anything they want because no where in the story is their a hint to suggest that, for example, he was having an affair. This all makes Patrick look worse to the reader, and feel sympathetic towards Mary, and the reader thinks, well I certainly did anyway, that Patrick got his comeuppance.
The crimes themselves were as different as possible. In my opinion literally everything about them, and the things involved with them were poles apart. From the detectives involved, right down to the way the killers try and get away with their crimes. Both stories have very good alibis, but the difference between the two, permitting, Mary Maloney to get away with her murder, is the detectives involved. In ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ the detectives are very unprofessional. Even drinking alcohol on the job at one point, “…‘You mean this whisky?’ … ‘Yes, please. But just a small one. It might make me feel better.’ …’Why don’t you have one yourself?’ … ‘Well it’s not strictly allowed, but I might take just a drop to keep me going.’ … ‘One by one the others came in and were persuaded to take a little nip of whisky.’” This, in my opinion, shows that Mary Maloney has recovered from her insanity, realised what she’s done, and now for the her unborn child’s sake, trying to get away with it. It also shows that she was a very clever woman, and more to her than is revealed. Another point that I would like to make, which I find quite amusing, is that Mary Maloney manages to persuade the detectives to eat the lamb that she used to kill Patrick with. No detective, policeman, or private eye, well professional ones anyway, would eat anything inside the house; it would all be collected for evidence. I consider this to be Roald Dahl’s ultimate dig at the police authorities. The final line in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ contains a huge amount of irony, and is Dahl’s final attempt at making fools of the detectives. “‘Personally, I think its right here on the premises.’
‘Probably right under our very noses. What do you think, Jack?” Jack, of course was the lead detective. I believe that with this one line Dahl succeeds in making fools of the whole police force.
‘The Speckled Band’ is very different. There are only 2 detectives, private detectives at that, hired specially for the occasion. Holmes and Watson were very professional, and took everything into consideration, and left no stone unturned in their quest to find the killer. The atmosphere in this story compared with that of ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ is like chalk and cheese. The ambience in ‘The Speckled Band’ is tense, and on the wire, with an air of determination, and humour in places, “‘You are Holmes the meddler.’
‘My friend smiled.’
‘Holmes the busybody.’
‘Holmes the Scotland Yard jack-in-office’”
I feel that with the reader not finding out the killer until the end of the story, the role of Holmes is basically just to give clues to the reader, and point them in the right direction of themselves finding out who the murderer is.
I would say that the main difference between the two stories is, one is serious, and abides by “the rules” of traditional murder mysteries, and the other is just comical, making fun of the police force. This one difference pushes the stories poles apart from each other, and yet, they both make for an interesting read.
By Andrew Reynolds